AJ Young

I recently shot with Dracast lights. They ran on Anton Bauer Dionics; would last at best two hours? (I really didn't keep track) The lights themselves gave out a great output. I can't vouch for their CRI, but it looked proper in camera. (I set my camera and lights to 5600K). These lights, however, are a soft source. They don't have much in the ways of barndoors, so you're only option (if you have it) is a softbox on the head. Even then, you still don't have much control on the direction of the light. Furthermore, the lights have a terribly designed yoke. It felt like plastic, the yoke attachment was teethed like a pan handle connection (terrible design for a light), and the baby spud mount only covers have a spud. For simple, broad, and soft light they did the trick. I personally wouldn't use them again, however.

Marcelo, You'll be able to find numerous resources on the internet for lighting techniques (3 point lighting, quality of light, exposure, etc). There may be some infographics available that you can find through http://images.google.com, but I don't know any off the top of my head. Unfortunately, learning how to light well takes time and isn't something easily learned from a simple infographic. There are tons of great texts to read on lighting. This book, by Blain Brown, is becoming a classic at US film schools. My suggestion is to always approach a lighting set up thinking, "What do I want my lighting to mean?" In other words, you'll have to research and find reasons for how you want your image to look. I recommend looking at how other cooking shows look. Does it look/feel like a happy location? Is it natural or stage like? Does it resemble a cinematic film or more like a morning talk show? Figure out what kind of cooking show your producers are wanting. You essentially have to find the why before the how. Knowing why you're making these decisions will easily guide you on how to execute them. Once you know why you want your show to look like certain cooking shows, you then research how those cooking shows look. Ask questions like: Is it low contrast? Hard or soft light? Evenly lit across the entire scene? Naturally lit or theatrical? Finally, don't get caught up in gear talk. The audience and camera don't care what lights you used, but how you used them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the film Ida was shot with basically a three light kit and it looks brilliant. It's all about planning, research, and making decisions on why you want your image to look a certain way before you figure out how to do it.

Jake, From what you've described, the Black Magic wouldn't be a good choice. Shooting RAW won't work because you'll still have to transcode the footage. When it comes to which codec to record in, imagine film stocks. Shooting RAW or ProRes (with a cLog, sLog, or LogC look applied) is like shooting negative film. Negative film stock stores much more dynamic range than positive film stock. However, shooting positive film stock (or transferring your negative stock to positive) contains much less dynamic range. H.264 with no Log look applied is like shooting positive stock. XVAC falls somewhere inbetween negative and positive stocks. With the film analogy in mind, the TV station will want a positive film stock of your final edit (naturally). TV doesn't broadcast in cinema color spaces (they never have). Sure an Alexa/FS7/Ursa can record in 14+ stops of dynamic range, but TV stations and viewers TVs display images in, at best, 10 stops of dynamic range. Additionally, you record in lossless codecs like ProRes so you can color grade the footage later. DP's would shot negative film stocks and then take the time to squeeze the dynamic range of the negative into the small range of the positive. It may sound simple, but is actually time consuming and takes years of experience to do a decent job. In your case, you can't color grade a 30 minute show in time before your deadline. Furthermore, shooting doc style footage with RAW or ProRes eats up harddrive space fast. You're best bet is a camera that records into a codec that saves space but also gives you a fighting chance for last minute color correction (like a shot that is just too dark). XVAC is a relatively new codec and is very well designed. Yes, it has compression and artifacting, but you never color grade XVAC; you transcode it to ProRes. In your case, you would only transcode the XVAC files that need desperate color grading/correction. I can't recommend the Ursa, particularly because it's meant for cinema work. I do recommend the Canon C100/300 or the FS7. Those cameras are better suited for what you described and will make your life easier in post for the show(s) you're shooting. A plus side to the FS7 is the short focal flange distance; you can mount virtually any lens to it. And it can still be used for cinema work with you get into the narrative world. There are tons of options and opinions. You have to look at your entire workflow, time constraints, and budget to evaluate which camera will work for you.

What will most of your shooting gigs be? Will it be for TV news? If so, a cinema camera (FS7 or Blackmagic) isn't the right choice. For example, if you're shooting mostly Electronic News Gathering, a broadcast camera or C100/300 would be a better choice. Transcoding 1080p video takes little time in comparison to transcoding 4k footage (RAW or not). Even then, C300 footage can be worked with directly in most editing programs. I recommend looking at where your end codec, resolution, and exhibition will be. From there, you'll be able to find the right camera for you.

Hi Jake, I recommend getting in touch with your local camera rental house. Check to see if they lease cameras from owner/operators. Basically, (budgets aside) you buy an Alexa package and the rental company stores it at their location. The rental company can then rent that camera out; you get like 70% of the rental and they get 30%. (Those numbers are just hypothetical. It may work out to 50-50 or even better for the rental house. It all depends on what you negotiate.) Doing this method allows you to make money back on your camera when you're not using it. You'll have to make sure a contract is drafted, of course. As a shooter, I can't recommend the Blackmagic cameras. Personally, I've only had bad experiences with them, such as the fixed pattern noise on the BMPC 4k. If you're going to be shooting and editing your own projects, then I recommend the FS7. It's one of the most popular budget cameras right now and packs more bang-for-buck than any Blackmagic camera. Additionally, it comes with the short focal flange distance which lets you mount virtually any lens to it (including the metabones speed booster). Check out the specs online and I'm sure you'll be sold. One of the reasons I mentioned contacting your local rental house is because they'll give great advice on which camera to get as well, and which camera will rent more. There's a trend happening now (which I don't agree with) where producers are looking for DP's with a specific camera. The C100 is a great camera, and hell the 5D still does wonders, but the producers are looking for owner/operators with the Alexa, RED, or the hot new camera. RED is just too post-production heavy for the low budget world and the Alexa is just too expensive for one person to own. Your only option is to own the hot new camera. Unfortunately, there's a hot new camera virtually every six months. Financially speaking, it's hard to keep up with buying a new camera system every six months. The FS7 will last you for years, the C100 is still amazing (even though most are considering it "obsolete" now), and your AF100 is still a fantastic camera. However, producers don't think like DP's; they don't know cameras as well as you do and will research online for the "best" camera. Hence why they always ask for RED, Alexa, or the hot new one. Eventually, you'll get to the point where producers will ask you what camera to use; but until then, this is the game we have to play. I see that you're based in Iowa? I don't know the market there, but I would wager that an FS7 would go a long way at the rental house there. Hopefully this helps!

What's the scene about? What feeling are you hoping to get across? Right now it feels like a cold night. If this is the first time we're seeing this set, the audience may be interested in what's tacked up on the wall behind the child. You could reduce your contrast ratio to show more information on the wall, but that could also digress from the feeling of a cold night. It really depends on the two questions above. Nonetheless, it actually looks good!