Andy Jarosz

Hey Dan, Roe Black Pearl 2 panels are the standard for production.

The rod to lens center height is standardized, but there are sometimes exceptions. It's always best to double check.

It's definitely in the form factor of traditional diffusion, but there's definitely something else going on. It's clearly not a louver or eggcrate, so it really has to be something akin to a holographic lens. I have a sheet of this at my shop, I might have a microscope somewhere I could take a look at it under! There are a lot of LEDs with individual lenses over the diodes, any fixture that uses 5mm-style for example has a lens built into the LED itself. Another example would be an Astra. But you're right, they do leave multiple shadows.

Have yi have you seen Rosco Opti-Sculpt? It's brand new and is, I believe, a holographic lens sheet. A little expensive compared to normal gels, but it's pretty cool stuff: https://us.rosco.com/en/product/opti-sculpt

Ah you're right--I mistyped, meant shorter of course. I'll edit my post so as not to cause future confusion. Scoptopic vs photopic, that's kind of what I meant to say--if we light scenes in darker conditions (and most people also view content in darker conditions) than we'll perceive a bluer light better than warmer light (it's not peak sensitivity, but it's closer than red.) I actually think this illustrates what James is saying here. When I think of, say, Barry Lyndon, I don't think of that movie as being lit by hard sources--in my mind it feels very "soft." But obviously when you actually look at stills the candlelight scenes are actually quite hard. That said, I think it's a human perception flaw and likely shouldn't be something that is relied upon.

I weirdly understand what you're saying here. However, I would be very hesitant before bringing this up in a professional context, if for no other reason than it will cause confusion. The reason is not because the light is actually softer, it's because the longer wavelengths are more visible to the eye and so it's just easier to see the harshness of the bluer lights. Additionally, bluer lights activate our photopic vision which makes that harshness even crisper.

The manuals of cameras always list the acceptable voltages. From the DSMC2 manual: The 6-Pin 1B DC-IN connector accepts DC input power from 11.5VDC to 17VDC Ursa Mini Pro: 12 V to 20 V

My little open source light pulls up to 6 amps and runs at 10Khz, absolutely nothing even close to audible whine. Remember that a lot of these driver modules and ICs have to be vetted in and of themselves, for example attached is the testing for the driver I chose. I haven't actually read any of these certs, I have no idea what they mean, but it's a far cry from "not being able to get through compliance testing." It's absolutely possible, and most of the fixtures you use on set on a daily basis have done it. Skypanels, LED Lekos, etc. are all PWM. Fan noise will most certainly be louder and broader spectrum than any whine. Using a filter is a fine solution and actually can work well, but it limits the max brightness of course. Another thing to consider is remote phosphor fixtures like the Cineos can use the phosphor itself to add some "photonic inertia" that smooths out the flicker. I've even seen this with regular diffusion at high frequencies. And yeah, RGB mixing is definitely on my radar--but I'm wanting to wait until I have regular access to a colorimeter, as the fun part for me is figuring out the right mixing algorithm to look correct to the human eye.

Forward: I've built dozens of LED effects for movies and shows around the world, and recently released my own open source LED hardlight project--which, OP, if you're not stuck with the LiteMat form factor, I highly recommend you check out:https://github.com/MadlyFX/OpenLUX-LED-Video-Light Your skepticism of PWM dimming is obviously well founded, as we've all been bitten by the negative effects it can have. However, the reality is that after about 15-20khz, PWM dimming is, for every "normal" circumstance, flicker free. Obviously everything has a gotcha, and if you're shooting high speed, or stupid high shutter speeds of course you'll see flicker. But if you're doing that, you are likely already looking into High Speed lights (and LEDs likely won't be bright enough.) The issue with constant current dimming is that it affects the color and temperature accuracy of the LED. If you look at a white LED datasheet, they almost always have a graph showing an correlation of color shift vs Current. They are designed to driven at one voltage and one current for optimal performance, and deviating from that does, nearly always, have negative consequences. You're trading flicker for accuracy, essentially. Lastly, since CC dimming circuitry needs to be able to "take the full brunt" of the current the LED is pulling, it may need it's own additional cooling and does take up more physical space. All these reasons are why even the big players often choose high frequency PWM dimming versus constant current dimming, it's essentially a choice of "make it 100% good in 5% of circumstances, or 90% good in 95% of circumstances. (Also you mention dimming LEDs with a DC converter board, which you can do, but just to clarify for OP, you want one that allows you to control the current, not just the voltage. Unlike Tungsten, LEDs are constant current devices, the voltage fluctuates to maintain the rated amperage.) Also found this really great article: https://www.powerelectronics.com/markets/lighting/article/21861301/how-to-add-analog-dimming-to-virtually-any-led-driver

I'd be worried that going with a cheaper solution will just get you low CRI, crappy quality LEDs. Might be fine for your application, I've gotten away with some quite bad diodes in the past, but the reality is good LEDs are expensive.

Lots of people do this with the Litegear strips attached to coroplast, it's a nice film-ready DIY ecosystem.

You're right in that this industry allows a lot of experimentation and that there's often no "right" answer, but that flexibility only bends so far before it breaks. At some point you're just convincing yourself that an image is better because "art" when you're actually hamstringing yourself into a corner with a limited toolset. The fact you mention you prefer one image "straight out of camera" shows you're not thinking about this systematically, because the reality is unless you're shooting live feeds there is essentially zero reason you should ever have to rely on an image straight out of camera. If you disagree...remember what I said about hamstringing yourself?

Look, you're comparing to a DSLR, which is fair, but also remember that you can get a Pocket 4K for less that shoots RAW--that's better than 4:2:2, that's even better than 4:4:4, it's RAW. AND you can bill clients for True 4K. There's also more to life than sharpness. You'll likely go through this whole rigamarole to get 4K our of the F3, but you will most certainly find that if you had just gone with an A7III you'd have cleaner images overall. Remember, grain gets upscaled too. The reason you're getting backlash is just that you're just trying to do a weird, unnecessary thing. If all you want to do is see how it looks, call up a rental house when Corona is over and go spend a day testing everything.

Just wanted to chime in and say this is what I'm seeing several people do currently, and it's working out quite well. Not just DPs, but directors, prop masters, etc. Work on TV shows full time as loaders or assistants, and in the process of doing so make friends who can help on side projects on hiatus and weekends, and money to fund personal projects. Eventually you get enough of that to build up a reel, which can be shown to the contacts you've made on your day jobs, and then you can skip the remaining 10 years of indentured servitude ? It's tough because you're stacking extra work on top of days that are already 12-14 hours long, so you'll find out very shortly just how passionate you are.

Here are a couple other things to consider. First, art, like any creation endeavor, is 99% prep and 1% execution. Sure, an experienced artist can sit down and beautifully render a scene in minutes. But an experienced artist isn't working for $65/page. An inexperienced artist, who doesn't know what they don't know, easily bites off more than they can chew--leading them to be flaky, or to really practice/think about what they're going to do, leading to them taking longer. It's easier to ghost someone than it it to admit they were wrong and apologizing for wasting their time. And here's the thing: experience isn't a definable term. I have a friend who is an incredible illustrator, I've known him most of my life, he has a website, a portfolio, the whole thing. But he's still not a professional illustrator--it's still something he does as a side gig. He doesn't spend every hour in that flow state that allows full time artists to crank out amazing work on a whim. Lastly, I agree that if they don't like the price, they shouldn't agree to the job. However, even if they do, think about the psychology of it. If you are walking down the street and see $25 (or $65) you're like hell yeah, I want that. But, you go to pick it up an a genie emerges that says you need to do 5 hours of work for it--you still want that money, there's just not a lot of motivation to earn it. That's what's going on. By accepting that job, that's the equivalent of deciding to pick up the money, it's an impulse. Then reality sets in, and it turns out not to be such a good idea after all.

Kippertie Longtake mags are the only officially approved ones: http://longta.ke/

Have you tried prosupport@sony.com?

Well, does it look underexposed? it's a 10 year old device, is he possibly just holding this camera to an unreasonable standard?

Can you post a frame grab? Is it just underexposing like you can with a modern camera, expecting to get a clean image?

Why not rent one and test it to find out? Yes, they will set off fire alarms. Always check with your location about turning them off. They won't trip sprinklers, but they will set off alarms and smoke detectors no problem. EDIT: Wanted to clarify a bit about water based hazers vs. foggers since they could be construed as the same thing, the main difference is how the fluid is introduced. A fogger will pump fluid into a hot heat exchanger, the heat will rapidly boil the water in the fluid. The expanding gas creates pressure that forces the fluid out, vaporizing it. When in the air, the glycols in the fluid have a different refractive index than the air, bending the light that hits it and making it visible. That's why higher quality fog fluids have more "stuff" in them, they'll use multiple glycols with different refractive indicies, making the fog thicker. A water based hazer relies on this same principle, but it also introduces an inline air pump in the fluid line as well as some kind of external fan. The inline air pump creates that pressure without relying on the vaporization of the fluid. This means less heat is transferred away from the heat exchanger and means the hazer can run for longer periods of time, usually indefinitely, without needing to stop and reheat. However, it means the vapor that comes out doesn't have as much "gusto" and can't travel very far without help. Thats' where the fan comes in, pushing the haze away from the machine, distributing it, and spreading it out.

I would imagine you're correct ? I did a shoot for ABC earlier this year and they were *very* picky, banning even certain types of water based fluids. I don't think Radiance 7 fluid would fly with them, for example. For me, if I'm investing in a hazer/fogger, it's important it meets as many of these criteria as possible so I can rent it and make my money back--but OP may not have any concern like this.

You're correct here, but it should be noted the allowed concentration of oil haze is less than water based. However--and this has been my personal experience over the last several years--studios set their own restrictions beyond what SAG does, and these almost always include the banning of oil haze. Fox and Disney do ban mineral oil haze specifically. I'm almost always asked specifically to make sure fog/haze will be water based. This obviously really only matters for union shoots, if you're just making movies with friends, use any means you want ? Here's a copy of the info from a Fox call sheet: Also of note here is polypropylene glycol is always banned as well, so be careful before using any of those new tiny foggers that are actually converted vapes. Nobody uses crackers anymore, but an oil based hazer like a DF50 isn't a cracker--it's essentially a very, very fine spray nozzle that atomizes the oil.

It's not so much that's less smooth or even, it's just more visible in thicker concentrations. An oil based hazer will create practically invisible haze that catches light beams. A water based one will create a, well, hazy atmosphere. Water based haze can stick around a long time, but I've actually found the number one thing that affects it's longevity (aside from air conditioning) is people. If you have a party scene with 50 people all dancing, their heavy breathing will inhale that haze out of the air.

An Antari Z-350 would be my pick, a great machine, super portable, highly adjustable, and built to last. And not too expensive. Most people would prefer the look of an oil based hazer, but if you ever plan to use this around SAG actors, it will have to be water based. Oil based hazers are also very expensive. The trick is whatever level you set on the hazer will determine the thickness of the haze. Seems obvious, but it means a thinner haze will take longer to fill a room. Just something to keep in mind. I like the fluid from Froggys Fog as an aftermarket option, and they have their own machines that are quite good as well.

I think the key is, no matter what you do, to make sure everyone in the chain that deals with the image knows what you're doing. You will get cleaner images and thicker negatives if you shoot as you mentioned in your original post, by exposing to a certain IRE and bringing it down in post. By doing that, you're "spreading" that data over more of the available dynamic range. You'll of course lose some when you go to grade the image, but it'll give you more flexibility as you do--you'll find you can push the image more. However, as others mentioned, if a client is going to see the raw footage, or you need to delivery ASAP without grading, than of course expose for the look.