Alexandre de Tolan

Daylight beam. It will be bought within a budget plan to be externally financed for our next project, so I find it hard to acquired it used in these circumstances.

I'm in the market for a lighting instrument punchier enough to put light trough windows (appearing daylight) on a budget. Yes, I know. Price and light flux are two competing factors. We are going to use a Sony FS5 so we have the tremendous advantage of a 3200 native iso. My first thought was a Joger Bug 800 but I was immediately put off by it's price. Our budget can only stretch to 2500 USD. Besides that, HMI lamps and ballast problems can definitely hassle us if something goes wrong. I then turned out to recent LED fixtures. First I was turned over by BBS Force V but since it's an engine only we had to buy a lens system that throw us of our budget once again. It was perfect though, since I'm looking for an instrument with well defined shadows that can be diffused as I want or need to. Nonetheless, I'm not able to find a fixture with those qualities on this price range (I'll be very appreciated if you remember one), and that lead me to Litepanels Hilio D12. It's kind of a mini maxi-brute configuration into a LED fixture with a 575w kind a like HMI throw (or so they say). I've travelled to the nearest dealer to see it working and I can say that it really has the punch, but it's a kind of soft light (which is no surprise being a large source), that casts multiple shadows when it's not diffused. When you diffuse it, you will end loosing it's inicial punch, which this light is all about, so I'm very confused on what instrument to acquire. Renting is a non option. This fixture will be part of a long run project and will be much cheaper buying than renting. Besides that, it will be an instrument that will serve many purposes on the long run so it will be an asset for our small production company. Any ideias on this topic will be very appreciated. Thanks.

In Ansel Adams words, 18% is mid grey on a "geometric scale of black to white", We know that he was primarily concerned with printing and that Grey cards are all about proper exposure. Seeing things that way we come to find a slight deviation from mid grey on a Zone System depending the purpous of what we are really doing, printing or exposing, since reflectance (print evaluation), and luminance (exposure evaluation using a incident meter) differs by about half a stop. This was noted by Ansel Adams himself and was written in his former manuals as a "K factor". Something that unfortunately editors cut of from future printings. What surprises me (and that's the all point of this post), is to see an imprint of a Grey card between Zone VII and VIII in the image above posted by Bill DiPietra. Of course it all makes sense. If it is of a higher reflectance than caucasian skin we have to open up to properly expose caucasians as we all know (in a reflected metering). Or even seeing that it is 82% RGB, which lets off the remaining 18% reflectance that are associated with meter calibration (that we know now to be off regarding ANSI standards). But my question remains: If all this is correct, how come have Adams referred to 18% being mid grey on a "geometric scale of black to white", hence 50% RGB?

To add another "eye effect" question, does anyone knows how the opening sequence eye was achieved?

Probably you're right and I'm too hung up on the term. Initially I was doubting the Kicker behind her right shoulder since it won't add up to the brighter left shoulder chair backlight in comparison, but as David Mullen said, her right side could be flagged and Thomas Del Ruth forgot to mention that. You said in a previous post that "Operators are not always the most reliable source of information about lighting setups, as their attention is usually directed at framing and composition". I can't talk for others but let me say that as an operator I'm always observing DPs that I work with. Besides that, almost all of their work are done prior to mine so it's not that difficult to pay attention to him and the gaffer, and to be a good operator I have to, so I can understand what he's going to ask me once the light is done.

Quoting Jordan's Operator, Thomas Del Ruth ASC, "The Eye Light was a Mole Inkey placed 90 Degrees to the right of camera projected through a 50% partial Mirror on lens Axis"

It's not in the article itself. Is in the discussion bellow. You can scroll down but I'm going to paste it here: "I was Jordan's Operator and 1st Assistant for years until I mover to DP in 79....Jordy used only One light to do everything except the Red Eye FX....The Backlight came from a Mole Richardson Arc burning yellow Cole mounted on a Pony Stand for a 3200 K Color Temp to match the Kodak 5254 Color Balance. You will notice a slight nose shadow on the Right side of Sean's face that came from the stray light coming form the backlight, that was bouncing off a 4X8 Bead Board at the left side of camera.....The shadow side was filled with bounce light coming from the Arc as well, this time it was striking a 4x4 Bead Board that was scrimed down using 4X4 Matthews Doubles to suggest a hint of tone....The Eye Light was a Mole Inkey placed 90 Degrees to the right of camera projected through a 50% partial Mirror on lens Axis....." Thomas Del Ruth ASC And all my doubts about that Kicker starts with Del Ruth statement that the ARC is in fact a Backlight (not a Kicker), bounced left and right. And putting the eye FX apart, that that Arc was the only light used.

Sorry but didn't understood what you meant by "the key is the bounce return". Cronenweth's operator said that the Arc was a backlight and the chair where Sean Young is seated is clearly showing an even illumination from the back (side to side). If the Arc were a Kicker placed on Young's right side the chair backlight would be uneven, showing a more prominent light outline on that side of the chair and probably no outline whatsoever on the other side.

Yes. That's where my question relies. If Cronenweth's operator states that - apart from the Inky - he only used one Arc behind Sean Young, how the hell she appears with that hard edge Kicker? If it was bounced it would never looked like that. A bounce from bead board would create a softer light in comparison.

Reading this article: http://nofilmschool.com/2013/07/a-lesson-in-lighting-through-blade-runner I've came across with Cronenweth's operator stating that Sean Young was lighted with only 2 instruments. A Mole Inkey for the eyes and a Mole Arc Backlight which was bounced by 2 Bead Boards (left and right). To achieve the desired contrast the right one was scrimed down. What I continue not understanding is how Sean Young has that hard hedged light on her right check. It's purely impossible to achieve that with Bead Board bounced light and the chair shows up an even backlight across her both shoulders so I assume the Arc to be really a Back, not a Kicker. I'm not a native English speaker so I couldn't understand what he meant by "stray". Quoting: "the stray light coming form the backlight". Even so, he relates that "stray" to her nose shadow which is very soft. So where's that hard edge light comes from? Any insights appreciated.

Please do!

+1

On top of what's been said I can add that last year I've operated in a project where 2 Joker Bugs 800 have blown out running from a generator cabled by an expert Gaffer. Luckily there was some Indian Fresnel Knock Offs around that the DOP and his Gaffer used to light the scene saving some serious money and a big hassle to that production.

Guy, if you read the OP's posts the goal was to use one single light. Sorry but I still stand correct since the remaining of my answer (which you didn't quote), relates exactly to what you're saying above. Sorry if I just didn't wrote it on one sentence but for me the paragraph you quoted doesn't make sense without the other I'm not an English native speaker so I just suppose I didn't expressed me sufficiently well but what you're saying is exactly what I was trying to say and if you read my previous post again you will verify just that.

You are probably talking about fall off. If I understood your question right you want to have the same f-stop number (you mention f/4), from one point (1 in your diagram), to another (10). Well, the only way to do this with only one fixture is to have a large one (Arrimax M40 for instance), the further away from your action that still gives you your intended f-stop number to your ISO setting. That way the inverse square law will make its magic and fall off will be much less from point 1 to 10 than using a smaller fixture closer to your subject. Of course that you will experience fall off anyway so you have to control it. The easier way is to strategically place the right amount of nets (single or double), to control that fall off within certain limits of your action. Use your incident light meter to obtain the right amount of light you have to flag (net), closer to your fixture. Hope this helps

From the same seller? I've read somewhere else that he's selling the best clones out there but spending 4K on one is a blast movement as Mark suggested. I do feel tempted to take the plunge though but if anyone out there already had some experience with these clones and could share the experience it would be a great.

What do you guys think of this? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/PRO-as-M18-style-HMI-Par-Light-1800W-1200W-Ballast-flicker-free-90-250V-/221416065866?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item338d6d0b4a

That will be saying that pasta is more important than the sauce when you make pizza! Exposure is where all begins (technically anyway), since before that you have to account for the look you're after. At this stage you plan a lot of things including your contrast ratios but without proper exposure you have all things wrong down the way. I think LaVoie addressed the OP's question spot on. Most of the times the DOP has to make his/her decisions before principal photography and for that a light meter is unavoidable and an essential tool. Besides that, and as Adrain pointed out, it's the best tool you have to verify contrast ratios and of course… Exposure.

Personally I would go with the Pocket than BMCC. Freya posted some of the reasons that I agree with. Besides a down sampled 2K DCP from 2.5K RAW I wouldn't know why people would choose BMCC over BMPCC. For the price difference you can get the dedicated BMPCC Metabones for free and end with a very similar FOV, plus 1/3 f-stop more and sorry if I disagree with the OP but for me compressed RAW is a plus compared to the uncompressed one. Don't forget that we're talking about visually lossless compressed RAW here. Besides all that BMPCC records to SD cards whereas BMCC records to SSDs only. Anyway… I don't know what type of work the OP does but I've done my part at TV commercials on the BMCC and more than 90% of them were shot at 1080P ProRes. Some of these commercials end up being projected on the big screen at film theatres before the movie begins and I can say they hold pretty pretty well. Nonetheless… I guess size does really matter for some people!

We have used it with CP.2 Nikon mount lenses. The guys who rented the lenses swapped their PL mount to Nikon for us. I personally have a set of ZF/ZF.2 with Nikon mounts and I think it's a better one than EF just because they are easier to adapt to anything else.

I remember reading something about Caldwell Optics releasing their own MTF charts when MB hit the market. IIRC it showed up a slightly resolution increase at the image centre and a slightly decrease at borders. Both of which would be practically imperceptible on a screen projected 2K DCP image. Regardless of resolution however, I think that getting a wider FOV and faster apertures without messing with your lens character is a great achievement and I put that on top of increased resolution any day.

I've shot a commercial while ago using a BMCC with a dedicated Speedbooster and Zeiss CP.2 lenses. The crew did extensive tests before shooting with MB Speedbooster (with and without it with CP.2s), and I can tell you that it does not alter the inherit characteristics of those lenses so I assume it will not alter others.

Never shot with an F3 but for what I know it has a PL mount so any Nikon/EF adapter to Sony F3 will work. A quick search revealed these among others: http://divisioncamera.com/p/15033004/nikon-mount-adapter-for-sony-f3-rental.html http://www.abelcine.com/store/Optitek-Prolock-Sony-F-to-Nikon-F-G-Mount-Adapter-for-Sony-F3-F5-and-F55/ http://www.ebay.com/itm/Kipon-adapter-for-Nikon-F-Mount-lens-to-SONY-FZ-mount-PMW-F3-F5-F55-video-camera-/111014650513 Kipon is a cheap Chinese brand but I seriously doubt that the Optitek adapter will suffer from lost infinity focus.

For what it seems Cion; BMPC and URSA share the same CMOS sensor. Both AJA and BM declare the same resolution and dynamic range for their cameras. It will be cool to see who's going to extract the best from the sensors they are using after calibration. On a side and personal note, I really have to say that for what I can see I suspect AJA ergonomics to be better than it's URSA rival. And this is me, a BM owner. On the other hand, having the chance to swap sensors down the road is a BIG/Major plus. This is probably what RED should have made years ago as a way to prove their motto "Obsolescence Obsolete". About Cion PL. There's plenty of Nikon/EF adapters out there. Some very good.

Proxies is definitely the way to go for RAW files, even if they are compressed like the ones from the BM Pocket camera. Apply a workable LUT if you want to edit with a relatively finished or contrasty look (but you can also bypass this stage if you don't mind editing with such a flat and sometimes color casted footage. Sync your sound within your NLE of choice. Make your edit and roundtrip to Resolve. It will recognise your syncing sound and will export it to your finished project from the original RAW files. If you are delivering your project to a colourist you should be fine exporting a XML file from your NLE.