Eric Soto

Yes there are litemats available but as I've mentioned I am looking for RGB control. Also I don't think I mentioned being unable to rig to the ceiling, I just need the ease of being able to experiment with different color combinations. The director wants to option to choose on the day of the shoot so I don't really know what other option I have aside from renting RGB lights like a SkyPanel or a Select30, or to just buy a bunch of different colored gels for the Arri 1k and 650w lights I already have on hand. Thanks for the offer to rent though.

Well, not that I'm going to rig the SkyPanel, seeing the overwhelming suggestion not to do it (rightly so) because of a lack of a crew, and its weight, I was assuming I wouldn't use DMX.

Agreed. I'm just trying to figure the most effective way to get a sort of, softer than harder, flood of light to the subject, while they are surrounded in darkness. The director knows for certain that he wants a warm and red look, but he wants the option of possibly trying other color combos, so that's why I needed an LED with RGB control. I have access to Arri tungsten lights but I would have to buy gels and in my mind it's better to have as many options as possible, opposed to whatever gels we end up buying, especially if the budget allows for good quality lighting. My only options from the rental house for full RGB are the Skypanels and Select30.

unfortunately, no Litemats available.

The speelrail is going to be 12 feet. I want the light to be softer than harder. When you are mentioning a ceiling bounce, how would you set that up? The height of the space I'm shooting in is 13ft. The look I am going for is having this character surrounded by light from above and for it to be creating almost a spotlight like look from above and surrounded in darkness, in wider shots. Also I'm not going to transition from warm to red in real time, so I don't need to be using a dmx.

The thing is halfway through the video the light changes from a warm look to completely red. I found out that I will have an Arri 650 and a 1k, so I could put a red gel on them and rig on them up but I don't want that strong of a light, and I don't know how to rig diffusion on a goalpost. I could also rent either the S30, which would be lighter in weight or I could rent the Select30. But I have a natural reaction to want to rent a Skypanel over the Select30 if I have the budget to do so.

* I found another rental house that is a bit further away from me but that I would be willing to drive to get the gear. I realize that there are videos online on how to do this goalpost set up but I just wanted to confirm with anyone who has experience. They have Mini Mombo Combo stands, with and without wheels, so I just wanted to know if the safer bet would be to go with the stand without wheels. This place also has speed rails and pretty much any clamp I would need. Thanks.

Hey everyone, so I am shooting a music video in a few weeks and I am going to be setting up lights for the most part as the budget does not allow for me to have grips on set. I am going to have access to a skypanel s60-c and I would like to have top lighting, in a goal post setup. I do not have much experience with this kind of setup and I want to make sure I do this properly and more importantly safely. I have 13ft of height to work with, and I am going to have a performer acting as a statue on a platform that's about 2 feet in height and the person on the platform is at most 6ft. I am looking to create a top down lighting set up, the light being directly above the statue, or at least having it above the statue, in a beauty light setup, for more medium close ups. I won't be able to rig any lights on the ceiling.So any suggestions for how to set this up would be appreciated. I've been given a budget to rent stands and here are the options from the local rental house Double Wind Up Stand T12 Crankovator Stand Triple Riser 2k Stand 2k Roller Stand Thank You.

Excellent, thank you David, I will look into those.

Hey everyone, just wanted to get experience anyone has with the pearlescent and glimmer glass filters. I'm looking for a softening filter, that reduces contrast, without the glow, pro mist look. Thanks, Eric

Yea, thats what I was thinking as well. Thank you for the reply

Hey everyone, I am looking to upgrade from my 5dmrk3. I am currently indecisive on whether I should go with the A73 or the new GH5s. The reasons I want to go with the a73 is that I won't have to change any of my lenses, aside from an adapter that I would have to get. This at the same time presents a possible problem in that, I will be using this camera on a gimbal from time to time, and I've read that most adapters don't support auto focus. The reason for going with the GH5s is the 10 bit 4:2:2 capture. My problem is that I don't know if the benefits of the GH5s are worth the trouble of selling my lenses and switching to M4/3 lenses. Although I notice the benefits of 10 bit,and I would prefer it ,being in the lower budget projects, and being on a budget, I'm not sure my clients will notice theses differences. Any experience you guys may have with these cameras would be great to hear about, as this is a big purchase for me, I want to make sure its the right camera that will last a while. Thank You Eric S.

24-70 2.8, set at 24mm.

When I say the TV is the only light source of that side of the room, I mean its the only "practical" light that will be in the scene on that side of the room. As to whether I want the TV to actually expose the subject that will be sitting on the couch, in the shot provided above, that would depend on what is on the TV correct? If the TV is showing a movie that has a snowy daytime exterior, it would provide a lot more light than the TV showing a dark cave scene, or something like that.

I am going to be shooting a music video this weekend and I am stuck on how to effectively shoot this scene. I am going to be doing a slow pull in during this shot. In the image above is how this shot will be framed. The TV in the corner will be on and it will be night. What I am asking is how I should go about this. I am not sure if I should have the TV on and expose around it, or if I should green screen the TV. If I did how would you guys go about to replicate the TV light, since this will be night and that the TV light will be the only source of light from that side of the room. My second question is there will be another shot in the video where the camera is focused on the subject on the couch and TV is off camera. What would be the best way to get the flicker effect from a television. Thanks everyone.

Right, yes I worded that wrong. But thank you.

So when digital cinema camera sensors are referred to as super35, is that the equivalent to Academy 4 perf film ?

So full frame refers to two different sizes, one when talking about DSLRs and the other when talking about Cinema cameras ? Also, with my example of the Monstro sensor, it has a size of 40.96x21.6, and its considered full frame, but you're saying that full frame refers to 36x24. So is full frame not fixed to a specific size ?

Hey everyone. So I am getting a bit confused about certain terminology when it comes to film size and sensor sizes, so I was hoping for some clarification. After looking online through other forums people seem to use terms interchangeably so it can be a bit confusing, so I will lay out what I know so far ( hopefully) and questions that arrive from that. So when it comes to film, cinema film, not still photography, the standard is 35mm film. For Super35 film it uses the same film stock as standard 35mm film except it uses more negative area than the 35mm film because it uses the area that would be used for optical sound on standard 35mm film. Now when it comes to digital sensors, I've seen the terms full frame and Super35 being used in a different way. When it comes to sensors , for instance comparing the RED Monstro which is advertised as a full frame sensor, to the RED Helium, advertised as a Super35 sensor, there is a difference in sensor size, with the full frame being bigger. So my question is why are these terms used differently when talking about sensors. Because if Super35 film is the same size as standard 35mm film , why is Super35 considerably smaller than full frame in digital sensors? Unless I am wrong in assuming that Full Frame = Standard 35mm film. Thanks.

Interesting ok, well thank you for the responses.

And to Landon, thank you, I will let you know if I want to buy those from you.

The thing is I film a lot of bands during live performances, so I tend to on average have to be at about 3200. 6400 in the worse case scenario. But on average when doing music videos I don't go over 1600. I do like the multi aspect ratio of the sensor on the GH5s though, as well as the HD at 120 and 240 fps.

Well the thing is I feel if I am upgrading, considering how things are moving forward, wouldn't having 4K as minimum be a must ? I wouldn't say I NEED it. But I do feel it would be better to have , especially if it is being offered in cameras in my price range. Opposed to cameras like the C100 which have been suggested as an option within my budget.

Hey everyone, so I am currently using a 5dMrk3 and am looking to upgrade. I mainly work in low budget music videos, weddings and filming live bands. Would it be a overkill to switch to the GH5s? From the specs I've seen this camera is looking very good for video. I feel this camera will be good for present use and possibly higher end use in the future. I would like to hear people's thoughts on this camera in general and if there are other cameras I should look into in the same price range instead of the GH5s. Thanks.

Great David thank you again. I understand you've responded to a few of my recent posts about anamorphic lenses and aspect ratios in general. So I appreciate the thorough responses you give. I think the main problem that I had wrapping my head around this ( mainly fully understand aspect ratio ) was that I was coming at this from a point a view that I think many DSLR videographers tend to have when they are starting. I see a lot of youtube videos shot on DSLR's that for the most part are made with the knowledge that it will not be displayed on wide screen monitors nor on a scope theatre screen, yet these letterboxes are added because its gives videos a cinematic look , because they are used to watching films with wide aspect ratios on 16x9 monitors, tvs, tablets and phones nowadays. I know that I have had conversations with fellow video makers and even when simply adding letterboxing on the top and bottom to achieve a 2.35 aspect ratio on a 16x9 display, the average viewer of films, music videos, will automatically feel the sense that it is cinematic and will want to see that letterboxing as if it were part of the actual frames in the video, if that makes sense. Whereas the ideal situation is that you never see any letterboxing at all. And I think you could argue that the average viewer, especially in younger generations such as myself, would on some subconscious level, prefer to have the letterboxing, even over having a wide screen monitors that would eliminate the letterboxing, since like I've said, films are generally being watched on 16x9 monitors. But I might be totally wrong on that. Thanks everyone.