Jump to content

Jan Sandvik

Basic Member
  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Other
  • Location
    Finland

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://vimeo.com/user76613338

Recent Profile Visitors

1059 profile views
  1. This is a strange discussion... What if... What if you like the way film looks, but also like the workflow of digital, the low cost of digital and like to have your cameras rolling a lot? You can take one step towards a film look from digital, but you cannot do the other way around. You cannot magically make your film appear in your NLE the same evening. I think everyone should do as they like. If you have the money and possibilities to shoot film, that's great. But some of us either has to shoot digital or like the possibilities and workflow of digital – but still aren't happy with a clean digital look. Don't they have the "right" to do anything they like with their footage? This is artistry, choose the brushes you like, it's the end result that counts.
  2. I'm thinking about going as far as to make different versions for different outlets with different bit rates / compressions. One thing to consider if you are adding grain is to be easy on the gain in the darker parts of the image, that's where the most damage is done. The result may not be the most realistic, but it wins over dark big chunks of macroblocking.
  3. I think flexible led panels are great in small spaces. They can be taped to the walls or ceiling and many of them (most?) are splash water proof so they would be great for a shower scene (the power units aren't splash proof, just the panel itself!). You may need to use some diffusion on them to make reflections not look like "dots".
  4. Just my five cents... here is a similar experiment I did https://vimeo.com/user76613338 What I learned: - The reflection from the book (a blank white sheet of paper over the pages) is what sells this effect. - The softbox from the right makes it look over-lit. I would now leave it out or at least dim it down a stop. - The lamp shade is (too?) thick, and no hot spot is created. A slight hot spot would probably look better. So picking the right lamp shade would be very important. - There could potentially be a gag light behind the lamp shade, alternatively there could be a big hole cut out in the rear of the lamp shade (not visible to camera)
  5. I think 219 Lee Fluorescent Green on a daylight source would get you in the ballpark http://www.leefilters.com/lighting/colour-details.html#219 Here is a very old test of mine, I tested shooting photos with a Canon DSLR using different color gels, with a daylight WB and daylight light source (studio flash) Fluorescent green is in the bottom row, middle https://i.ibb.co/YPbvnBb/varikalvot.jpg
  6. (Sorry, I posted this in the wrong area, is there a way to delete it?)
  7. I think it's the small imperfection in the shape of the dish that will make seams and other small imperfections disappear. I also find solar cookers interesting as a starting point, something like this: (looks relatively easy to put on a light stand) https://www.sunshineonmyshoulder.com/sun-chef-review/ Here is a big one, about 6 x 6 feet (wonder if the seams will show up in the light?) https://www.amazon.com/Rectangle-Concentrating-Temperature-Environmental-Protection/dp/B081P35BJR/ref=sr_1_1
  8. The commercial solutions seem to be either expensive/heavy and smaller in size. I have experience in using parabolic silver umbrellas in photography, they produce a beautiful light. But they aren't as effective since their shape isn't close to perfect, and the catchlights and reflections look ugly.
  9. I thought this DIY Perks build was very interesting. It's a parabolic satellite dish covered with a mirror surface. It's used with a COB led to create some parallel rays of light. To my eye it looks very much like sunlight. There are also some interesting theory in the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bqBsHSwPgw To skip to the part where you can see how the light looks, skip to 8:50 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bqBsHSwPgw&t=8m50s I thought this was very interesting, used satellite dishes are practically free and the thing could be lit with just any COB led. Does a commercial solution already exist? Thoughts?
  10. Thanks Satsuki and David, really good suggestions. I think I'll test some gel (like 1/4 CTB) and make it dirty (I don't have clear gel!) and see how it looks. How would a glass gobo with really scratched surface look when projected from a Leko?
  11. I was searching for some "emulation" in case I don't have a window at all, and I would not like to use big and heavy real glass windows. Maybe a thin plexiglass with frosting spray could work.
  12. Thanks for the suggestions... I was looking for something more portable and easy to store solution. If I used plexiglass instead of real glass it could work. My initial thoughts was to experiment with some semi-transparent plastics and maybe tear some holes and see how it looks like. Some sheer curtains could also work, but they often look too even or they have some repeating pattern.
  13. How would you emulate the light coming through an old dirty window? Do you have a standard solution? (I'm not talking about the window frame but the texture) Preferably something that would not burn in front of a tungsten light, but a "led version" would be interesting too.
  14. I wish I hadn't thrown my old rear projection television away. It would have been interesting to do some experiments with the fresnel(?) screen material in the front of the television. I'm not sure how it worked, but it did "aim" the projected image forward since it definitely had a limited viewing angle especially height-wise. Has anyone run any tests how those screens work with light?
  15. Thanks, David – your explanation makes sense. I need to experiment with a 82B filter I have buried somewhere, and compensate by opening the aperture a half stop instead. But there are special situations that still baffle me: I'm shooting with a Blackmagic Pocket cinema camera 4K which has a dual native ISO feature. I have a gut feeling shooting 1250 ISO (low end of the high ISO range) with a blue filter could result in cleaner images than shooting at 800 ISO (high end of the low ISO range) without a filter. But this is a special case and would need some testing, it also alters how tonal values are distributed.
×
×
  • Create New...