Sam Bignell

Could not agree more, it's a much-needed update however I'm not giving points to sony because it's one that should have been in the camera from the start, Shutter's angle would be truly great but I'm certainly not going to hold my breath for it.

I would be really interested to know the results because I don't quite see how a high-end FX9 in Cine-EI mode actually differs from an FX3 not in Cine-EI mode, if you treated both cameras exposure in post would there be any real difference? In my head, the Camera with analogue gain sounds like a win in both because it can theoretically push further into higher ISO's while technically maximizing Dynamic range as your stops don't shift around middle grey, only noise will affect your stops in the shadows. To my preference, I prefer the Cine-EI modes but an analogue gain sounds like a win in both but there must be more to this.

This is my knowledge on it also but... Here's a big questions. How does this differ then to just taking one of them cameras, putting it at 800 ISO and then treating that as your single and only base ISO (All cameras still have a base) then push and pull via luts and in post treating like Cine EI? The result is the same as an official Cine EI mode surely? Only you can still physically add ISO gain.

The FX9 you can run a "Slog3 Lut" which will physically show you the exposure changes of your ISO and you can record that into the footage meaning it will actually burn in the ISO changes all while still being your plain flat Slog3 profile. I was curious if both cameras acted very similarly to the way they work around their base ISO but seem they do which is just nice to know knowledge-wise!

Thanks so much for your response. So Cine EI though works the same as an Alexa in LogC? FX9 you can shoot slog3 with an slog3 LUT, expose at a EI of 1600 and gain a stop extra in the highlights at the cost of noise and a stop less in shadows because you are essentially under exposing the footage and in that case correcting in camera rather than in post, same for the Alexa? Just wanted to clarify that is the same for both cameras.

Hey There! To keep this super simple I've been shooting so much Sony (FS7, FX9) for so long that I've kinda gotten entirely confused about how other cameras expose and if it's an identical premise or entirely different. When shooting Sony in Cine EI mode you have a Base ISO and you decide to let in more or less light to get your desired EI (Under or over) and you decide how to push and pull it in post or in-camera and I heavily assume Alexa, is the exact same premise. But how do these methods change when playing with an A7SII for example that doesn't have dedicated Cine EI mode even Canon? I know that no matter your ISO your DR/Stop allocation will not change unless you physically under-expose or over-expose, Is the Cameras like an A7SII Base ISO or more like a technically "Best" ISO but you can pick any want to use as your base, just you, of course, Introduce noise. Thanks -Samuel

Aputure and Godox for a while now have been producing incredible numbers in there light output specs sheets with their new hyper reflector dish design. Godox way before amaran was boasting a whopping 61,000 Lux w/ the dish compared to the 300D at 45,000 Lux W/ Dish (1m) Aputure has caught onto this and the Amaran range 200D is now also producing 65,000 Lux W/Dish. But it's become more common knowldge that these light are actually coming with an extreme hotspot inflating the numbers making them unsuitable unless shot through diffusion either directly (straight on the light) or at a distance with a large frame, they also have different spot degrees / focusing of light. The best way to measure these light is obiously RAW output no dish which shows the Godox VL 150 only produces 6400 Lux compared to the 300D whopping 11,000 Lux My big question though is 95% of the time I use a bownes mount lights it's used to shoot into big diffusion frames w/ the dish does this increased hotspot actually do anything to my output once it hits that diffussion or is it just causing an uneven spread over my fabrics? Thanks -Samuel

Mega tip, I'll give this a try at home at somepoint 3M VHB sounds absolutely great thanks!

You know what... I didn't even think of cable ties sometimes I overthink and forgot the simple things.

Hey All! Currently I rig most my RGB Tubes with Mayers 'K-Clamps' & Cardillinis, Scissor Clips on office buildings Ceelings and lastly Magnet Kits like the Androoki Kits. I keep coming across surfaces where the only option would be tape, My gaffer tape is never strong enough, Heavy duty velcro is sticky enough but it's velcro. I need sticky pads that is realiable enough to not risk falling on a prepped surface that consistantly can hold it's self stuck, even if at the cost of paint removal. What tapes/or sticky pads have you used to help with securing Tubes to surfaces where traditional grip gear cant help. Thanks -Samuel

Hey Everyone In my line of work I'm really interested in spending as much time with client and lighting as possible and as little on camera as possible. I switched most mysetup to hardcases this year for obvious reasons. My camera system can be built in a basic setup in under a minuite and a half and for larger setups it would take normally 3-6 mins to build but I can leave it moslty prebuild in a iM2620 minus lens and handle, so I already have time saving killer setup but I am stilll super intersted in Tenba's bags as one of them could keep my whole system handle included, completely built (minus lens) but at the sacrice of once again the camera not being in a real hardcase and not being stackable. I'd like to get one as maybe a camera coffin and because they strap to hardcase handles it's sort of free realestate for one man bands but What are your thoughts on keeping cameras in Tenba, Petrol, Satchtler, Portabrace style bags for transport? Are they worth the loss of protection? I understand insurance + hardcases is a good combonation, Insurance + Rigid Softbags not good.

Hey Everyone I may have posted this in ther wrong section apologies if I have The Lowdown The otherday I was doing some photography and noticed my lightmeter which is usually used exclusively for Film and video was overexposing my photos by about half a stop on middle grey but only in all modes but Cine or Video mode using Incident reading I check all settings, Filter compensation, The profiles compensation, I reset the lightmeter, I changed profiles I did everything to make sure I han't left something off or on but couln't find a solution I only have an incident attachment and happens whether the white globe is extruded or not, I tried different F-stops and settings same pretty consistant results More Details In T mode (Same thing happends in all modes apart from Cine or Video modes) I measured the bounced light at 55fc - F2.0/2 (Used as F2), 1/125, 250ISO on a 18% Datacloler 24 grey chart Results from the spot on the camera was +0.7 EV /65% IRE on scopes and results where not what I would have wanted or expected from my Lightmeter In Cinemode I measured the bounced light at 55fc - F2.8/6 (Used as F3.5), 1/50, 250ISO on a 18% Datacloler 24 grey chart Results from the spot on the camera was +0.0 EV /54% IRE and results where what I would have wanted or expected from my Lightmeter Am I just missing something? I don't need to spot reading my Grey card to get the correct reading right? an Incident will always read the light falling onto the dome at 50% IRE/18% and will result in a perfectly balanced grey card? I don't understand why in T Mode My grey card would be overexposed (Just brighter) Cinemode gives results that I expect to be correct Cheers -Samuel

Thanks for this Honestly such a great shout reguarding rental houses!!

Hey All This is a pretty simple 101 question (Fake Example) I have a 800w Light beside me, When I point it at the ceeling in flood I get 34fc in bounce output, When I put it in full spot I should still get Roughly 34fc? given the spot is in generally the same place above where I'm measuring give or take some FC variables and such but it's the same amount of light output it's now just spotted into one area rarther than the whole ceeling? Is that technically how it's suppose to be? So a 800w light in full flood could output 48fc at the center of it's beam at a very large Beam Diameter of 17ft but in full spot 888fc in the center at a beam diameter of 2ft It's the same output of light I.E 800w at Full flood & Full Spot it's just in flood it's a much larger surface area it's covering, Spotting the light just pushes all the light into a tighter spot given the reflector is consistant etc etc Because I have a old Light beside me an 800w Openface ARRLITE, and it always outputs half a stop more light into my room when in Full Spot than full flood point at the ceeling, No matter it's angle or position at the ceeling it always outputs more light into the room, It's simply brighter in spot then in flood even when bouncing, but this is technically wrong right or not a disiarable effect or discrepency? Something is odd about the reflector just not a great design etc etc? Just curious! Thanks -Samuel

This is a great point and did cross my mind reguarding measuring at 3ft an unsafe distance I'm going to give it another clean sometime soon and will test at a greater distance, The reflectors are dent free and are actually pretty clean looking however I have two of these 800w heads ones an original ARRI arnold & richter really old the others a standard ARRI both have seen a lot of use and the arnold and ritcher I guess is not quite as shiny looking in terms as the dish and does measure les light in the SPOT I tried a brand new bulb however not an Osram OEM 800w and there was no difference I will post back later when I get results!