Alexandre de Tolan

Here's the details: 1. INT. NIGHT. - Hotel room where all the action happens. (90 minute film inside a small division remembers me TAPE from Linklater for instance). 2. It's a 5 star Hotel so we do have to let things as we found them (so no drills and bolts). 3. It's a Crime genre film. Been talking with the Director and suggested him some films from John Alton and a Caravaggio punctuated lighting style which he agreed. 4. This is an auto financed film with a veeeery low budget. The highest expense will be the hotel room. We are going to have it for 12 days straight at 1/3 the usual cost referring the hotel in final credits as a sponsor. Actors (2), are going to participate with an almost insignificant fee. Crew is made of Director, Sound director, Make-Up and Wardrobe artist and me as DP. 5. The initial idea was to replicate a NY city night outdoors (from the window), which I presume will be impossible after seeing the set today. Here's the challenge: Light the room and Bathroom in a way that all the wide shots can be taken with minimal lighting adjustments preferably with no stands on sight for great actor mobility. Augment/shape/punctuate the general light with some floor lights in tighter shots. My first thought about a NY skyscraper look when I didn't had the smallest idea where the Director planned to shot was to fly an outdoor board with a NYC image at night but this will be impossible. We are 20 floors above ground and have no means to fly a billboard whatsoever. We also don't have the money to spend on post FX so greening the windows is out of question. About lighting. I'm thinking on buying some Alzo Drum Overheads and planting 2 of them on the ceiling to elevate base lighting and achieve a decent f-stop at 800ISO (shooting with BMCC ProRes). I've to look how I can achieve this without messing with the ceiling (Manfrotto Aupoles?). The room's wallpaper is yellowish so very near usual caucasian skin tones. That's my main concern right now because I want to create some separation from the walls and I fore-come some difficulties here. If I decide to go for the diffused top light I'll probably flag the sides trying to get some light out of the walls only punctuating them with the table lamps. The Director wants a "blood" light feel. Warm in the sense that it's Red. Not warm/cozy but savage bloodish instead. I've thought to wrap some orange fabric inside the lamp shades and switch the lamps for halogens. I don't know what to do with Color Temperature from the top light if I decide to go for it though but I'm not liking the fact that all's red and there's no separation at all from the various light sources. If we had the opportunity to place an outside light I'll probably gel it blue creating some contrast with the interior light but now I just don't know... I'm attaching a still from the room. All suggestions will be very appreciated. Thanks in advance.

A smaller room works in your favour. If the room is not that big you can try hanging your Kinos for Fill. 4x4 weights about 11 pounds each so if you are on a budget I recommend wall-spreaders. If you don't want to hang the heavier Kinos you can probably get away with hanging your lighter redheads from Autopoles (like Manfrottos). You have to diffuse and CTB them though. A picture would certainly help. Try to post one of the EXT surroundings as well.

I see that you are in London. Since I'm also in EU I can tell you that normally we use the expression "cool" to identify a blue color cast (I do think that Americans do use the same expression). In that regard your intentions are somewhat contradictory. Do you want a slightly blue tint from the light coming in from the windows or you want it white (neutral)? If you have an HMI in your arsenal that's your best bet to augment natural daylight. Why can't you use it upstairs? There's no need to hang it over there but you can bounce it from the floor to a mirror strategically placed (perhaps in the front building?) I would then use the Kinos as a Fill, probably hanged over poles on your set (don't know what's the area but there's always a way to hang some lights). That's if you want total mobility and have the chance to make wider shots without worrying with tripods on the ground. If you can manage a way to hang your Kinos to some poles you can also hang one of your redheads with some black foil to augment the table lamp if you need to.

You also mention lighting the entire movie with kinos because it's a "daylight movie". They can be handy (even if I'm old schooled and prefer Fresnels mostly), but remember that if you need to augment the natural daylight (or simulate it for that matter), on that scene you are going to need a big source, ideally far away from the windows. Kinos aren't really suited up for that.

Yes. But it all depends on what you're looking for. If the scene asks for a slightly cool EXT and you have a sunny day outside you can simply choose a bellow 5500K color temperature on your camera if it lets you (around 4000K), to let daylight turn a little blue. The INT bulb has to be halogen/Tungsten around 3400K that you can turn more orange (increasing the desired separation), by adding the right CTOs or CTSs (1/8 - 1/4 - 1/2 - Full). You can also play with the shade fabric (diffusion and color), to obtain the desired effect. Remember that cloudy days have a higher K CT so dial the K on your camera accordingly. If your camera has pre-determined K settings (5500K and 3400K), you have to WB to some sort of yellowish/orange surface or: 1. Balance to 5500K and let daylight be white (if sunny), or lightly blue (if cloudy). 2. Balance to 3400K, let daylight be really blue and add CTO/CTS for INT bulb 3. Balance to 5500K if it's sunny, let the INT bulb be really orange or control that cast with CTBs (1/8 or 1/4). If you want the EXT slightly blue gel the windows with CTBs at taste.

I'm with you on that one. Lanparte FF has very good damping and zero play. AB stops are a nice addition and the quick release system is very very handy for an indie filmmaker who most of the times uses photo lenses with non matching focus barrel distances between the set.

Most FF have 0.8 pitched gears but there are other variations as well. Regarding price, of course most of the time you get what you've paid for. Nonetheless I think that new manufacturers brought great products at a reasonable price/performance ratio recently. What you are after in a FF is how good are the tolerances and mechanics of it mostly. That will imply the amount of lag you'll be getting when your AC pulls focus on it. Besides that some offer the ability to do single and double (AB), stop marks, removable marking discs and reversed gear for non cine-standard rotation lenses like Nikons and Zeiss ZFs. I have bought a Lanpart FF. Their top of the line one with damped mesh and reversed gear. This one also has a quick release rod clamp that allows you to pull it off or clamp it in without removing any other bits already on your rods. With the reversing gear it will cost you roughly 500 UK Pounds and I can say that I'm very happy with it.

Thanks for your input. Regarding the camera. It's for a Blackmagic cinema camera.

I realize that it isn't common to protect rented lenses. Only to care for them obviously. But when you have your own set naked front elements become a problem when you look at them every time you use those lenses. Or at least for me... I've recently sold all but a couple of Nikkors I had and bought a set of 5 Zeiss ZF.2s which I want them to last. I'm considering attaching Hoyas HD flats or UVs. Nonetheless I'm concerned with "side effects" from those filters on final IQ. I guess I can always remove them when shooting since I'll be doing that with MB almost of the time.

Wow!… 84 views and 0 comments. Is it really that straightforward that don't even deserves a thought on this one?

I'm starting this thread to ask what you all think about neutral/protector or UV filters constantly on on your lenses. Even if using Tiffen, B+W, Hoya, Lee or any other top brand filter do you think that final IQ will be affected in some way?

Most have been said before but I will chime in since I have a set nearly identical to the one you want to buy and don't quite agree (respectfully), with some of the information posted above. For the record, my set is comprised by: 3.5/18 2/25 2/35 1.4/50 1.4/85. Curiously I also kept a 105 Micro Nikkor and a 1.2/50 Nikkor as well when selling my Nikon glass to buy Zeiss (more on this later on). Regarding ZF.2s compared with CP.2s. I've compared both extensively. Most have been said but I have to disagree with Billy on two aspects: 1st - When he says that the lenses "only get good in (…) at 4 to 5.6". I realize that he's giving his own opinion and therefore mine is that most of these lenses are truly useful from 2.8 on (obvious exception to 18mm which comparatively is also very good as soon as f/4. Bear in mind that most 2/50 owners swear by them at f/2 and I've already read some articles stating that this lens is better at f/2 than the 1.4/50 at the same aperture. From 2.8 they are merely identical. 2nd - When he says that "Trying to do a focus pull on the ZF.2 is nearly impossible as there is hardly any throw…". Of course ZF.2s throw are much more limited than their CP.2s counterparts but they have one of the most longer throws for a photography lens type. Compared to it Nikon are a joke! The thing is that in some lenses most of the throw is done at near focus (this is very obvious on the 50mm lens for instance), but you can extend their throw with a simple Gini lens stud type gear. It not only makes your lenses all the same diameter for your follow focus as they are large enough to allow you to change lenses without moving your follow focus. I also care to disagree with Aapo. These lenses breathe! As CP.2s do! If you ask me that is the real downside of CP.2s for their price tag. De-clicking is a simple job. I've done mine. Just bought Zeiss grease from their authorised dealer here and even for a novice is a 30 minute job/lens. Mattebox fitting can easily be solved with standard sized rings. I have bought Shoot35 rings for their Mattebox. They are great and also let you keep the original lens cap. Main differences between the two series IMHO are: 1st - Markings. 2nd - Markings position (cinema standard = lateral instead of upper marks). Having f-stops marked on the upper lens is really annoying. 3rd - Form factor. Your clients will see the difference even if they don't know nothing about lenses but that relates to your type of work. I have to agree with Billy when he says they CP.2s don't worth the money. I also don't think they do. ZF.2s on the other hand are a bargain is you ask me. Forget about cheaper options like Rokinons because when you compare both at the cinema screen (I have), they are miles apart. No matter what MTF charts tells you. That brings me to the one question for answer. Your Nikon glass. If you want to match Zeiss to your Micro Nikkor I'll tell you that you might but… If you really are an observer and a relatively good cinematographer you will notice it. They don't compare also. They are different kind of optics and you will see it on color rendition and bokeh mostly but sharpness will be different also. Your clients won't probably notice but if you are like me… Your Nikon glass will begin to collect dust on your shelves.

Makes sense. Thanks David.

I believe that that would only cast the shadows to the sides instead of casting them down. Right?

First of all, this is my first post and I don't want to go by without congratulate all participants on this forum for their contribution to this highly educational source of information. I've been a reader for quite a while now and finally toke the step forward to register and participate. To the point. My first question: Indoor top ambient light, usually diffused through muslim is a common technique to raise light levels. Even more adequate if we have to justify an overhead light source (something like a chandelier over a dinning table for instance). Nonetheless one thing keeps striking me I've studied some scenes where top light is clearly used on those situations and none of them shows evident chandelier shadows on the table top or on the actors, which I find odd since it were plain natural for the top light above the chandeliers to project some shadows bellow, even with diffused light (or so I think). Can someone share some thoughts on this?