Sam Bignell

54 minutes ago, Robin R Probyn said:

A big plus for the new Cine EI in the fx3 V2 , is you can use LUT,s  , before you couldn't , only Gamma assist in the EVF , you can also out put the LUT over HDMI. And the base ISO has gone to 800 (like the fx6/9) from 640 (in the cine EI modes anyway) .. you can still shoot slog3 in the PP mode and add actual gain as before , or just over expose it , but Cine EI is just a much better way of setting an exposure off set (over or under ) .. and I agree with the previous poster , its to bring the fx3 better inline to working with the fx6/9 as they very often are used as a B / gimbal camera . I use mine with an fx9 like this, and very happy for the introduction of Cine EI, V2 also gives you a much clearer EVF in movie mode , which might actually be the biggest advantage .. now all we need is variable shutter ..!

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.

9 hours ago, Dan Finlayson said:

I'm sorry, I miss-read originally and was thinking A7SIII not A7SII.  Nicolas is correct, especially with the mark II.

I think it's hazier with the mark III and more so with the FX3.  They still have analogue gain of course.  But in my experience so far, it's way better to let the camera handle gain and specifically noise reduction when you're more than 2 stops from either base exposure.  You may maintain more stops at 800 but if you amplify the noise so much in post that the bottom stops aren't useful, it's a wash...  if that make's sense.

I've been swamped but I'm hoping to shoot a test this week to demonstrate what I'm describing...  or prove myself wrong!  We'll see

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.

17 hours ago, Nicolas POISSON said:

My understanding is that the A7 series has "analogue ISO", using an amplifier between the sensor and the DAC, like most DSLR. Then the philosophy of changing the ISO to modify the stops allocation above/below middle gray - keeping the same overall DR - does not apply. With analogue ISO, you basically loose one stop of overall DR each time you raise the ISO one stop. You cannot raise the ISO to protect the highlights either. The culprit is not the sensor, but the DAC.

Some DSLR allow to trade one or two stops of analogue amplification for the equivalent digital amplification. On that very limited range, they do work like a "regular" cinema camera. I do not know for the A7S2.

There are advantages to the analogue ISO (otherwise nobody would use it): better low light performance and no risk of banding due to the quantization step being too rough.

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.

5 hours ago, Dan Finlayson said:

My understanding of Cine EI mode is that changing the ISO in camera changes the brightness of the EVF/monitor outputs and adds a metadata tag for post.  But the actual ISO change is effectively being done on your computer.

So the concepts are very similar - with the Alexa you are baking your choice in on set (with prores) and with the Sony system you are still free to deviate from your on set choice later.  I believe this is the case with both raw and non-raw options on the sony cameras.  So a slight difference there - which could hurt the Sony cameras performance in the non-raw version of this.

I'm anticipating better results with my FX3 when I bake the ISO choice in on set versus shooting at 800 exactly all the time but we will see.

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!

17 hours ago, Dan Finlayson said:

FX3 has that Cine EI mode now!  Maybe worth switching if you really like that way of handing exposure.

The way the Alexa handles ISO (when using the prores log workflow):  you are adjusting the post AD conversion processing of the image.  When you raise the ISO, you are lifting darker values up to middle gray.  When you decrease ISO, you're dropping brighter values down to appear as middle gray.  But your highlight and shadow clipping isn't changing because the sensor has innate light gathering properties.

The way I like to think about the Alexa is I'm using ISO to choose how many stops above middle gray I have and how many stops below.  If you stick at the base of 800, you have roughly 7 up and 7 down.  If you increase one stop to 1600, you have 8 up and 6 down.  I like to increase my ISO - I like the added texture in the image and I like the camera to behave a bit more like film which has more latitude in the highlights than shadows.

If you really get into it, this is a bit of a simplification with the Alexa - there are two gains applied in parallel and recombined in the same frame.  So I'm sure there's a little bit more going on under the hood when you increase ISO.

 

I haven't tested my FX3 out since upgrading the firmware but I'm a bit skeptical about the Cine EI mode on that camera.  The 10 bit recording plus built in noise reduction could be a bottleneck with the DR.  I have a feeling that at the higher ISOs (per base ISO) perform better when you let the camera do the processing.  I'll have to shoot some side by sides to confirm though.

I suspect the main reason they have added the option for Cine EI mode is to make multi-camera workflows simpler where you're mixing FX3s, FX6s, and FX9s

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

2 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

One minor trick with this sort of thing, if you don't want to pull the paint off, is to use a heat gun. Naturally, be gentle, as otherwise you'll risk taking off the paint as well, but it's a good trick with all kinds of sticky things that you'd like not to be attached any more. 

Mega tip, I'll give this a try at home at somepoint

4 hours ago, Harrison Hohnholt said:

3M's VHB is pretty nice.

https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/c/tapes/b/vhb/

I have used the 4910 about 1/2" wide for LED tape and it holds great. There are foam versions as well that might be better for the tubes. It is pressure sensitive so pressing it nice and hard onto the surface before mounting the fixture is key.

If you go this route it is probably a good thing you are alright with paint removal once its stuck it is stuck.

The other option that came to mind was suction mounts.

 

3M VHB sounds absolutely great thanks!

On 10/5/2021 at 7:40 PM, Ed Conley said:

https://www.cabletiesandmore.com/cable-tie-mounts-nylon?gclid=CjwKCAjw7--KBhAMEiwAxfpkWDtmNQ-A8IkEnIHVYdBUmoGIIj1uNrw7Dfjch-YBw5vGRZrhg-aFgBoCSbkQAvD_BwE

 

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

On 6/7/2020 at 6:38 PM, Stephen Sanchez said:

Yes. I assume you're talking about nets (I know scrims as metal wire inserts).

Interesting... Matthews used to have the option to re-cover frames. But it seems to be missing from history. Maybe due to COVID. They do have a fabric section I assume to re-wrap your frames yourself, although I've never done this; I've only ever sent them in for re-cover service. https://www.msegrip.com/collections/fabrics

For UK, I suggest to call local rental houses for contacts, as they probably have to re-cover frames now and then. And call grip or rag manufacturing companies in your country.

For example, grip companies in america are Modern Grip Equipment and Advantage Grip, both in addition to Matthews I've used for re-covers in the years.

Hope this helps!

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

On 6/8/2020 at 3:04 PM, Andrei Pacuraru said:

On one hand that's a fairly old light the output of which can be affected by a large set of variables, on the other hand I've noticed that the Photometrics app becomes increasingly "optimistic" about output when you go below the recommended safety distance (which for a lot of lamps seems to be overly cautious) and can be somewhat unreliable for the discontinued products.

My recommendation would be to give the lamp and reflector thorough clean and check for any dents in the reflector. Replace the bulb with a new OEM bulb. If you bought the lamp used you have no real way of knowing the age of the bulb or if it is one of the plethora of knockoffs now available.

In general I've found that in real life tests on new lamps, they tend to measure slightly brighter than lab measurements due to the ambient bounce inherent in not testing is pitch black rooms.

Lastly, I find that testing only at 3' can give somewhat unreliable results as due to the inverse square law the smallest inconsistency in the distance, angle and alignment between the light aperture and the measuring device can give significantly different results. As such, I would recommend doing your tests at the intervals the manufacturers mention in their literature and see if/ where it gets close. I tend to measure in SI at 1m, 2m, 3m and 6m for small units and 6m, 12m, 20m and 50m for big ones.

Try comparing your 800 with the current 750 plus, their flood and spot characteristics are different but at a beam of 60° 13' away the old 800 should be no more than a third of a stop dimmer.

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!

1 hour ago, Brian Doran said:

That head hasn't been manufactured in 10 years or so, if memory serves. How does the reflector look? A bit of burnt-in dust and dirt over the years can easily decrease intensity by 20%. Though that wouldn't account for the increase you measure in spot. Perhaps the reflector has become misshapen.

Urhmm I guess must be the case, The reflector is definietly not warped or dented but maybe the dish has just lost it's reflectiveness however it looks pretty darn clean and reflective and as I just cleaned it it looks.. well clean but it must have just "faded" slightly

Hey Everyone

I must just be doing something wrong or my lightmeter is wrong but I was testing my 800w open face lights today between a few brands I have and noticed that my own Arrilite 800w Open faces put out considerably less light than what Arri's photometrics says they should?

Arrilite 800w at 3ft away pointing directly at the lightmeter dome Recessed inside not out, settings (25fps, 800iso, 180d) 240v
Full Flood I got a 340fc , Arri's photometrics say it should be roughly 537fc
Full Spot  I got a 2200fc, Arri's photometrics say it should be roughly 9871fc

Is there something I'm doing wrong? I checked the bulb, Cleaned the dome results are the same

I understand photometric arnt 1:1 but mine seem so far off

Thanks

-Samuel

3 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

Donate them to the V&A ...   ? 

Haha!

To be honest I spent nothing on all of my tungsten units, despite them being clearly outdated and hot and inefficient I still love them they still work on every job I go on Even as the main light source... Im that guy who puts up a 2K open face as a main source ?

It doesn't really even have anything to do with CRI either I've always felt happier with more tungsten units at an almost no price than only one or two really good LED units

Love to get a 120D but I'm going to stick with my tungsten units ??

18 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

Throw them all away and use bi color LED,s..  its 2020.. 

I like my red heads I refuse

Hey Everyone

Scrims especially singles and doubles always seem like such fragile materials and extra care is always good for them, thankfully I've not damaged any as of yet but if your textiles gets damaged, other than attempting to sew new ones together yourself what other options are out there?

Are there any local UK companies that will happily rebuild textiles onto the frames you already own at a better cost than buying one all over again?

I haven't heard of any would love to know!

Thanks

-Samuel

23 hours ago, AJ Young said:

I mean, milk crates are pretty standard. Maybe ask your local grocery store? Sometimes they're just throwing them away. ?

They usually have weird incerts between the crates, Not quite the same thing but thanks sir!

On 5/14/2020 at 6:56 PM, JD Hartman said:

Make them from wood.  Like the Apple Boxes.  Finger jointed corners are easy to mass produce with a simple jig.

Thought of this, I did make some apple boxes just a few weeks ago, But they are very heavy

On 5/11/2020 at 9:41 AM, Phil Rhodes said:

Maybe get some stacking storage crates. They're reasonably expensive, but you can get transparent ones so as to be able to see what's inside, and if you buy a couple now they'll remain compatible as and when you become a huge grip company and need hundreds. The euro-sizes stack tidily, with even some stacking compatibility between different sizes as they're made in a variety of standard dimensions so that two smaller ones will often stack on a larger one, or two flatter ones will make up the same height as a taller one. Various carts and mobile racks are available for them.

Click images for info.

Other options:

Grey.

Transparent.

 

I ended up getting 4 from Backstage carts they will keep me going for now but these look awesome to be honest! Stacking smaller ones on larger ones sounds useful already have ideas for that!

Thank you Phil!

Thanks so much for this, Them Frames looks great! As you said shame I can't seem to find them!

I guess glass dichroic filter (CTB) are the best option but expensive ofcourse.

It's really interesting you mention how Rosco is thinner than LEE because I've heard it the other way around but noted!

Was hoping there was going to be a clever rule of thump like anything 2k and ip tugnsten you need High Temp

But still Thanks for this!

Hey Everyone

Not an expert with Gels alwasy used them on Barn Doors but recently tried to put inbetween a 800w Tunsgten Open face, That is 201 CTB LEE and Rosco E+ no Surprise it warped and buckled until it pretty much melted 30 seconds in

I heard you can put gels Inbetween barndoors on fresnels 5k and down but that must be HMI's only, I guess one can not simply put gels in front of Open Faced Tungsten units no matter the gel used

I looked up SuperGel but was surprised?? In it's specifications it says it has a lower Melting Point than Rosco E+ despite SuperGel being the High Temp option.

So my Questions are

1. Would a Heatshield fix this or do they only help with making gels last longer not stop physicaly melting
2. Super Gel from Rosco would that help?
3. Is there a rule of thumb for this kinda stuff? How close is too close how hot is too hot?

Thanks in advance everyone!

-Samuel