Jump to content

Guillaume Cottin

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Guillaume Cottin

  1. Oh, he must be talking about the Rosco acrylic panels. Expensive! However, you don't necessarily need acrylic panels to do that. The concept stays the same: heavy ND. I did it twice, once as a gaffer and once as a DP on a short. I messed it up as a DP because I used ND and CTB filters, so now I can tell you the trick is to just use straight NDs and not color gels because underexposing saturates the colors, and the outside is already blue enough. Also, the gels need to somehow be mattified, otherwise they reflect all the lighting indoors like a mirror. Thats probably the superiority of the acrylic panel (or any scrim material). On the other shoot as a gaffer we used ND9, but a heavier ND like 1.2 or more would have been better. The DP then put a bunch of 4K HMIs outside shooting through the ND for moonlight.
  2. With the car window screen, I’d be wary of color problems. I would splurge on real ND gel, you can put it on the windows using Windex then remove bubbles with a squeegee. It will hold for a few hours. And it’s reusable!
  3. Honestly, I wouldn't touch that Amazon light with a 12ft pipe! For the same budget, same form factor, double the power, I would get this instead: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1342001-REG/godox_sl150w_5600k_150w_led.html That light will take any Bowens mount softbox.
  4. Generally it is not desired for the ambient light outside to participate to the exposure too much because of continuity. That's why a classic way to do it would be indeed a combination of ND or nets on the windows and raising interior exposure by carrying the window light, either by bouncing an HMI into the ceiling near the windows, or using Kinos or now LEDs (SL1s are great for that use), or Joker soft tubes. However it's a challenge to keep things subtle and not ruin the beauty of light coming from the exterior and side, as said earlier. It's important to keep any light sources inside very controlled and have an eye on the sky to match your ambient level. Hopefully it will just have to be for the wide and medium shots and you can do whatever to match what you had in the master in the close-ups and coverage, where you can bounce lights directly into windows that are not in shot. But I find a modern approach would lean towards keeping the sources that are supposed to be outside, outside, as much as possible. That's also made possible by the wide dynamic range of the cameras. First, if the budget and location allow, you can put what is visible outside in the shade using a flyswatter or another rig. Then I agree that the best way is to bounce large HMIs (as big as possible, in fact) into a white fabric above the windows, at the lowest correct angle for camera. I've seen that technique used by a few people now, so I think it's trending! It doesn't raise the light level inside as efficiently as setting an HMI inside, but the quality is better because it is shaped by the actual windows, and the falloff is also more realistic if people move closer to the windows.
  5. Hard to find for obvious safety reasons but: https://www.etsy.com/ca/listing/550502536/e26e27-medium-edison-screw-to-e39e40
  6. Heres my assessment Kinoflo Diva 21 will have more throw and output but will look harder. They're different tools and if had both you'd use them both. Litemats do not have any pre-built effects or DMX or color, that's why as a first light purchase I'd suggest the Kinoflo by a narrow margin. If you go for a Litemat however, unless you have a good discount, try avoiding the S2 because you'll be disappointed by its output in any situation other than interior nights. Do get the dop choice snapgrid with it, because the plastic grid on Litemats is heavy and not the best optically.
  7. There is a bi-color 85w version of the bulb you are referencing. Maybe that's enough. Brute force but "passable" CRI: 100W: https://ledmyplace.ca/products/led-corn-bulb-100w?variant=36001232011 300W: https://www.ebay.ca/i/254384949174
  8. Luke, You’re pretty much describing my own struggles especially the “opening and closing a lot of apps” part. Great item on paper, but sometimes unreliable. Mine works most of the time now, to be fair, and when it does the signal is good, but would I trust it in a demanding situation? I don’t know. The moonlite won’t output wired DMX and CRMX at the same time. In my opinion that’s a big limitation. No progress on my side, like I said, it kinda works but it is clunky. Hoping for software updates!
  9. Sure. The moonlite almost always successfully connects to the CRMX app but not always to Luminair. I was told I have to disconnect from CRMX app in order to connect to Luminair. While annoying in itself (when you have to pair more lights in the middle of a shoot) this solution helped, but I still have issues connecting to Luminair. Sometimes the Moonlite doesn’t show up in the Bluetooth list in Luminair. Sometimes it shows up but does not output DMX. Also it shows up a signal strength of roughly 60% even when I am close to the unit. One time, my Moonlite got bricked (static red LED, unit won’t turn off) and the support told me to remove the battery... I am wondering basically if I have a defective unit or if that’s the same with all Moonlites.
  10. Hello, have any of you used the Moonlite by Lumenradio. It seems very glitchy (won’t connect, etc...). Was wondering if you someone had the same experience. g.
  11. Also worth mentioning Chris Fraser http://www.chrisfraserstudio.com/
  12. That is correct! We had a 800w redhead on a boom bounced on the ground. It was on a magic gadgets flicker box. The practical lights are real flames indeed, but they weren’t giving enough exposure. The light at the end of the tunnel is an HMI, probably a 1200 PAR, the stand is hidden behind a 6x6 or 8x8 silk or something. Half the bean on the silk and the other half hitting the tunnel. That tunnel was so long, and the shadows from this HMI were so long as well, that moving the light at the other end of the tunnel even very slightly would produce a really disorienting effect I’m proud to say, everything was fake. The lamps art department found were so dim that the light wouldn’t actually light much at all. The effect on the hands and faces and wall is all the redhead. Mei Lewis is the closest!
  13. Nothing will melt, but the optical quality is inferior on the zoom lenses. You will get more chromatic aberration and a little less output. If the beam is supposed to be visible on camera (for example to simulate a sun beam) not just used as a bounce for example, it is better choose the fixed lenses. By default, I would choose the fixed lenses.
  14. And to state the obvious, you can rent a Magic Gadgets flicker dimmer. The effect might be less realistic albeit more controllable.
  15. Hi everyone, How about we play a little game? You post a screenshot of one of your shots, and everyone must guess what was the lighting setup. Whoever has the closest guess wins one point. Let's see if this little game takes off! Let me start with something easy. Cheers!
  16. Hi all, I was wondering if other companies offered products similar or competing with the Light Ranger 2. I can't find any online. Thanks
  17. Since I do not know what the film or the scene is about, my advice can only be a bit generic. I think your approach of having a low base exposure + highlights and modelling works. A super soft top light can read as ambient darkness. It is a pretty standard approach. Let me bounce some ideas at you. Maybe the characters have flashlights, cell phones or other sources of light? Then maybe you don't need a base exposure at all. Are there any luminescent algae or mushrooms on the walls of the cave? Maybe you can simply bounce your own lights onto the cave's surfaces so that your light takes some of the rock color? Maybe you actually can let things fall into complete blackness for extreme claustrophobia?
  18. CRI uses a limited number of color patches to give a rating. The newer TLCI measurement is more precise. Take a look at this article. In general, good LED lights are now "good enough" and the usability, features, efficiency more than make up for the few imperfections in color rendition. If a light has a CRI above, say, 95, that's fine by me unless it is some kind of critical application. However, anything under that and I would not use it as a key light but only as an accent or background light. Yes, absolutely! There will always be a need for big, powerful lights... regardless of the technology! One reason is lighting large areas, at night for example. Other times you need a high T-stop for depth, or high frame rates, or you need to compete against the sun. Another reason is that you need to work at a certain light level. Imagine that you are lighting a sound stage, so there is no light, and your brightest light is a 50w LED. You then use it to simulate sunlight... but now this 50w light has got to be the absolute brightest light in the scene. This means that everything else has to be much darker, because you need the contrast? In this theoretical scenario, can you imagine how dark the studio will be? A computer screen at normal brightness would light up the room! That is why you always need big powerful lights. LED does not alleviate that need, it just makes it more power-efficient to get a lot of firepower. All of them... Lower heat, higher efficiency... And with the fixtures that have the ability to dim down without color shift, you can dial any color temperature or white balance by the press of a button. It is just the beginning, as I think we will see some wild features in the coming years! Portable video walls? Moving lights? The cinema industry can take a lot of inspiration from stage lighting technology. As long as the CRI (or TLCI...) is good. Tungsten tech now has less uses and is becoming a low-budget short or specialty item even though some DPs still like to use Maxi Brutes or light arrays of tungsten lights. Personally I have rarely used tungsten lights over the past few years, except on sound stage where you need many units and it is still more cost-effective. On all other shoots, in my experience, tungsten lights have been almost completely phased out. They totally remain (and should remain forever) an available option. The one advantage of tungsten is that the color spectrum is excellent, and the same regardless what is the brand of the bulb or if it's a cheap bulb. The fixtures are much cheaper, too, and they do not become obsolete. I have heard of a new tungsten technology by the MIT that would be more power-efficient than LED, but that was a while ago.
  19. ⬆️ this And a bit of haze. The location makes the shot. If you look closely at the reflection on the floor, there is a reflection spot that is brighter than the sky. An 18K straight through the windows aimed slightly frame left would be the usual suspect.
  20. OK, I was really expecting someone to bring up that sort of thing when I added the Alexa chart. I was tempted to write " I am not trying to compare Alexa vs Blackmagic blablabla", but I thought it was so obvious that it would be an insult to the reader's intelligence, so I wrote instead " Adding some info" and "to have a reference point…" which, I thought, already conveyed the idea that I am not directly comparing the two. But it wasn't obvious enough so let me make it very clear. The subject is how to manage the limited highlight latitude of the BMPCC. The Alexa is the gold standard in highlight latitude. That's why taking that camera as a reference makes sense, but of course whatever tweaking or workflow we are able to invent with the Blackmagic won't match it anyway. Also, the Alexa handles the ISO changes quite similarly to the BMPCC yet with better allocation yet only 5 or 6 stops of overexposure latitude at some settings. That is why it is interesting to see both charts. As for iPhones: isn't there a Godwin law for cinematography that says "As an online discussion on cameras grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving iPhones approaches 1"?
  21. Adding some info. To have a reference, here is the same diagram for an Alexa. (source: Arri). The Alexa has 1.5 stops more DR than the BMPCC4K and its range is better balanced. I would be interested in seeing an over/under key light test at 1000 ISO and exposed for 2000 EI (either with a light meter or by using a custom viewing LUT). If the noise is OK and the image doesn't fall apart, then on paper it should give a nice balance to the BMPCC4K, at +6.3 stops over and -6.8 under.
  22. Hello everyone. Reading the manual of the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K (what a long name…) I stumbled upon this very interesting graphic: As we can see, the curve resets at 1250 ISO to adapt to the new sensor amplification. We can also see that the dynamic range is inferior at the 3200 ISO setting and beyond which is not surprising. What I want to talk about here is the significant unbalance between highlight and shadow latitude especially at lower sensitivities. Shooting at 100 ISO for example, feels like a terrible idea with only 2 stops of DR in the highlights, and a ridiculous 11.1 stops under middle grey. I haven't seen or read anyone talk about it online yet. Maybe people just always ETTR and may therefore never notice this as they never refer use middle grey as a reference. Rating the camera at 1000+ ISO (400 ISO native), gives the more balanced DR at the expense of noise. I have noticed some harsh video-like looking clipping in the otherwise great looking demo footage of the camera. Rebalancing the dynamic range by rating it at a higher ISO might help with those highlights. But then Blackmagic specifically advises not to shoot at 1000 ISO and instead switch to 1250 ISO "for cleaner results". So far this is all on paper because I don't have the camera and the footage Blackmagic provides is not sufficient to completely evaluate this topic. So I am wondering if any of the early birds and owners out there already tried "pushing" the sensor, and if the tradeoff of noise vs highlight DR is acceptable when doing so.
  23. I am surprised that no one mentioned yet the quite popular Astera AX-1 pixel tubes. They're essentially RGB LED tubes. They are rentable and it seems like they can be a great tool for this job.
  24. That's probably because many people, including me, will use the word "translite" as a generic term to describe a backdrop. I've never heard "digital vinyl", I'd call the type I was describing a "day to night translite".
  • Create New...