Phil Rhodes

I've not had any problems. Naturally, I'll defer to Tim, but sometimes when this sort of thing happens, it can be a website reacting to a perceived security threat of some sort. Are you travelling around a lot, using a VPN, or logging in from a lot of different devices, or some combination thereof? P

If anyone from Invision is reading this, I have two comments: - it now takes two taps to get to new messages on the mobile version. OK, you can just go straight to the /discover/unread/ URL if it's in the list, but that's less ideal. - it's too eager to drop things out of the new-messages list. Pull up the new messages, read a thread for a bit, hit the back button, and it's not in the list anymore. OK, fine, it's theoretically not an unread topic anymore, but I'm sure it didn't used to do that. Other than that I've no special objection and I do understand the concerns Tim will have about keep things reasonably up to date. I agree that things get overcomplicated but that's a decision for the Invision people not for Tim.

I don't think so. Those are all pretty saturated colours. Give or take colour temperature correction stuff, it's sometimes necessary to do things that simulate, say, a sunset, or a deliberately poor-quality industrial light. Then there's issues of matching other stuff. So, er, no. Your only salvation might be the fact that full colour mixing is becoming increasingly normal. Rosco have apparently seen the writing on the wall, which is presumably why they bought DMG. P

In an ideal world that wouldn't happen, but it's an interesting question. It's not all that straightforward to go from a gel colour to a CIE diagram on which it'd be possible to figure out whether any particular colours are out of a target gamut or how they'd clip. Different cameras would clip them differently. I would suspect that the indigo and violet, and possibly the green and cyan, would tax 709, but that's based on their appearance on my computer monitor which has the same primaries as 709, so they'll all intrinsically look like they'd fit inside 709. P

I'd avoid XLR entirely. There are a huge number of applications for almost every XLR pin count and, therefore, almost any type of XLR risks a foulup leading to damaged gear. Three pin is audio, including mic and line level signal, high power for loudspeakers, 24V power, some LED head cables, and is even used for pyrotechnics (alarmingly.) Four pin is at least two kinds of DC power. Five pin is widely used for DMX lighting control and stereo balanced audio on some ENG cameras, for instance. For low voltage lighting, you can get plastic circular connectors. If you're on the cheap, do a search on somewhere like aliexpress for "plastic circular connector," or, if you have money, buy them from any of the normal electronics suppliers. They're rare enough that most people will be suitably careful even if you do somehow end up with a compatibility clash on a particular job. The nicest solution is Lemos, if you happen to want to spend one human soul on them. The chinese import sites have knockoff lemos for much more realistic prices. They can be a bit of a pain to assemble if you get the very small ones, especially if you haven't done a lot of it before. P

Very nice - but the question is can you have someone walk all the way through that scene and follow them around, and have them nicely exposed throughout? The whole point of the Wendy Light (which as far as I'm aware is the most powerful thing that could be described as "a light") was to have an extremely powerful light at a very long distance to keep overall exposure in the tail of the inverse square law, and therefore reasonably consistent over large areas. I think the inexperienced people we've been discussing, in their pursuit of something "cinematic," constantly overlook blocking and framing, and I suspect they may do that because you can have someone nicely lit, or you can have someone walk across the room, but both at once requires significant gear.

I think that's sort of the point - most of the people who've never done this will be trying to mock that up in someone's bedroom. Either way it would require quite a lot of quite big gear.

You're absolutely right, of course. I think it's worth getting into why this happens. Personally, what I find impressive is not the ability to light a single of someone sitting at a table having a conversation. Anyone can do that. What's tricky is consistency, holding that look over a huge area as a number of people move around. This was discussed not so long ago on this forum where Bridge of Spies was cited. You can light one of the guys sitting at that table with a Litepanel and a redhead and a bit of black tat. Getting that to look right over the twenty foot distance from the leftmost guy at the table all the way to Tom Hanks is where it gets difficult, or, if not difficult, at least demanding of gear and time and people, and probably of a set that has a flyaway wall. Setting things up so that Tom can walk in from the door and approach that desk in a single take and having it all look nice is very difficult. Most people don't twig that until they've actually tried to light a scene that big and realised you can't do it with battery-powered lights. As a result it's about skill, but also about gear and time and people and opportunity. Most people would quickly realise that if they'd seen it done, which most of them haven't. It's the Dunning-Kruger effect, and I think what we're complaining about here is that people don't realise they are suffering from it. It's one of those things that really doesn't look tricky until you try to do it. I've had a lot of conversations with people who laugh at the idea of multi-kilowatt HMIs because they have very sensitive DSLRs and battery-powered LEDs. I think there's a middle ground here. Could that shot have been done, to a cinematically viewable standard, on a Sony A7s DSLR, and would that have required a lot less power and expensive gear? Er, probably, yes. But most of the people who talk about doing that have never tried to do so, and don't understand why their foot-square LED won't work there. P

I sit partway between these points of view. On one hand, the techniques of people whose work we like are of course useful. On the other hand, these are just people, and to some extent their popularity can be put down to a learned response: we like what they do because we have been told that what they do is desirable, not because of any particular absolute characteristic of it. In any case, I'm very suspicious of the idea that a set of colours somehow encapsulated some sort of genius. Humans are terribly bad at remembering exactly what colour something was. A study was published recently in which people were shown a coloured patch on a computer screen; the swatch was then removed, and after a delay the system showed a selection of several new patches of similar but not identical colours, including one which matched the first. The challenge was to identify which of the new patches precisely matched the old one. How long was it before most people became completely unable to do this reliably? Four seconds. So, you could take Storaro Orange and replace it with something similar, and four seconds later, almost nobody, including Vittorio, would probably have any idea. Going by my monitor, I suspect you could swap "Storaro Blue" and "Storaro Azure" without anyone noticing. P

I keep trying to persuade myself not to do it. P

If you just need something to last you the shoot, and if you have a few weeks to order them, there are a lot of low-cost options on places like aliexpress. Bear in mind that many flashlights will be LED and will look cold and cyan on screen. Often this is OK, but it naturally depends what you want. P

I looked at making a little fog machine using e-cigarette technology and that's clearly what's been done here. My concerns would be two: First, how have they done the fluid reservoir? Usually, that sort of thing relies on a wick effect with cotton wool drawing fluid from a small tank in which it is immersed. If it's run (sucked on) for too long, the wick can dry out and take a while to resaturate with fluid. Some other approach would seem better but it's hard to figure out how to install, say, a pump without risking flooding the thing and making a mess. Second, how long can it continuously run for? The electronics and heating elements used in e-cigarettes are not generally continuously rated and long term use would quickly discharge the battery. In short I think it's fine for small local effects as demonstrated and I think this sort of thing must already have been used for small movie props that need to smoke without being connected to anything. For fogging a space with some degree of portability, you want something like a Le Maitre Mini Mist. They run from aerosol cans of fluid and can operate for a few minutes after being disconnected from the mains. Unfortunately they're not $102. I'd like to see someone make one that uses a can of butane (as for blow torches) and the aerosol cans of fluid, so it can be completely off-mains. That's one DIY project I'm not going near, though. I have only a limited appetite for huge flames and the risk of explosions. P

Very pretty. Anamorphic is always popular!

This is an interesting one. It's long been talked about as "blue light hazard" and would also apply to discharge lamps including fluorescent and HMI. Before we get into this, though, it's worth pointing out that many articles which discuss this, including the one you linked, tend to conflate actual retina damage (phototoxicity) with disturbed circadian cycles and headaches potentially caused by flicker, which are presumably not medically related issues. If you look into the background of this the damage is usually only done with fairly unrealistic levels of exposure. A normal human aversion response will save most people in most circumstances. This may mean that the film industry needs to take at least some care, because we quite frequently ask actors not to look like they're squinting into the light. It's probably not a good idea to do that, but then it was never a good idea to do that, even with older style lighting. Personally I think the evidence doesn't really suggest that the additional exposure of film and TV work is likely to cause problems assuming reasonable precautions are taken. Don't make people stare into uncomfortably bright lights, especially those with a high shortwave output. I suspect HMI is worse than LED, as most LEDs don't have output below about 450nm whereas HMIs go all the way down to the near UV.

The thing is, I don't find that Trek shot in the slightest bit believable. Partly because of the red sky, of course, and partly because that skirt is supposed to be part of a paramilitary uniform, but it just looks like a studio shot. It's been done better, I'm sure, but is that really your example?