Jump to content

Stephen Sanchez

Sustaining Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Stephen Sanchez

  1. I've not worked with it. The differences are in the reflectors and the glass. So the intensities and texture of the light will be different, but not necessarily drastic. 800w is still 800w.
  2. I think it's a process of learning. Everyone has their first shoot, their first big setup. But more kids are learning on youtube, as Jay said, and not on a standard set. You don't learn work practices, crew delegation, and communication from the internet. You usually pick up theory and definitions. In order to help the DP. I think the Gaffer and Key grip as a team need to essentially educate the new shooter, throughout the production. This has to come from a place of goodwill and guidance, not out of frustration or belittlement. When new situations occur, it's an education time. Correct teamworking habits need to be formed, and this falls on the Gaffer and Key Grip. The two must actively seek the DP's plan from the start. This likely might be "I don't know yet," which is a great opportunity to offer suggestions and alternatives, ask about coverage and learn the restrictions, then again advise from there. Ask and advise, ask and advise. @Satsuki Murashige hit the nail on the head! Agreed.
  3. I have some suggestions. A lot of this falls under personal preference. Setup #1. This picture looks like a photo shoot. Many photographers tend to have a high key light to push shadows down. This looks like a big softbox up high. Two Kinos on key side through 6x6 half grid will work. This makes for a quite even soft square blob. 1/4 grid can be used if you want less wrap but I would break it with an opal to bleed the bulbs into a singular shape (for eye reflection and specular kicks). One Kino for back edge, either overhead on hair/shoulders or in kicker position, whichever your fancy. I'd employ a large fill, two 8x8 ultrabounces dead-hung will do, but I've gotten away with 4x8 cards clamped together or raised 4x8 cards with muslin extending them to the floor. Of course, white cards for under chin if desired. Two kinos for BG on floor shooting up. Setup #2. This shot may have been done with natural skylight for her face, but they added a light for her hair behind her seat. I believe you can see the reflection. Black around camera's window and the neighboring window to the right will do. The car's rear window depends on the car and if it looks good to you. It's an easy fix either way. Polarizer for hard sun kicks and reflections. You can also cut some reflections by black-taping areas of the dash that arent visible to camera. I honestly think a kino outside will do nothing. Offhand, I believe I've measured a Kino from 4 feet away at f8, and skylight at f36. So I think a Kino fixture will cut more skylight than it replaces. Inside, behind her seat a Kino might play, especially if the rear passenger window is tinted like in the picture. I've used a Litepanels Astra behind the seat like that before. Setup #3. You're talking about building a vanity like this? That is a great idea. Vanities are cool because you can unscrew bulbs to give shape to your subject on the fly (of course you have to frame out the dark bulbs). Beauty loves soft shadows, so be ready with some 2x3 cards to fly in for unexpected darker shadows. Setup #4. I'd use two kinos overhead to represent the room lights, and space them away from talent. Perhaps with 250 clipped on each to enlargen the sources. Remember, you're lighting the room too and it exists beyond the frame. I'd suggest using at least a 4x4 diffusion frame for key. My go-to would be 250. Or go 6x6 half grid again if you can't get more gear. Fill with white or negative. I hope this helps.
  4. You could add some kind of backlight. It depends on how you like it. A row of softlights will be a very commercial wrap, placed behind the archway, probably via goalpost. Of course a push from window-side would be more natural, probably done on a stand or arm. A double-net outside is great because it only has to reduce the camera's background, leaving the window light to act on the scene naturally. But it does soften the image. So conversely, the ND on frames is a cleaner solution, but It'll reduce the skylight that would naturally act on the scene.
  5. Oh, I think it looks great too. I also think Chernobyl was very well done. I can see how they both fit under this topic though.
  6. I noticed a dark/practicals only look in Man in the High Castle. That, in addition to the Panchro Mitchell filter over the lens, made a very low-contrast visual, which I felt was too much. I still liked the show.
  7. A mirror lens creates a donut shaped bokeh. They use a catadioptric optical system (like a telescope), and make telephoto lenses compact and affordable. I don't know of any mirror lens in macro or under 300mm though.
  8. It's a lamé material; Metal fibers interwoven with fabric. I think it's the same used in those 5-in-1 pop out reflectors. I've noticed two styles: the typical semi-shiny type, and the dull-shiny type (which may just be degradation from age). You can see the difference in the two styles (pictured on 4x4 frames). I've only worked with the duller type. The shinier the material, the more directional it is.
  9. Keep in mind the look on the actors you want in your decision. For instance if it's a tender moment or romantic, perhaps the dark rings under the eyes from midday sun are undesirable, so perhaps an overhead of half-soft frost or 1/4 grid is good for medium/closeups. Or if it's a harsh scene then perhaps nothing will work. Or perhaps you like the harsh toppy light of the sun but don't want it so intense on the actors, then a single/double net would work. In any case, surely you'll want some kind of side push. Yeah, ultrabounce for sure. As for the wides. Perhaps plan for those shots during the earliest/latest times of the day where the sun serves most as a backlight. During mid-day, despite being behind your actors, it's still be very toppy. For backlight of large areas (especially for wide shots), I'm a fan of the silver lame. It's a soft reflector rag. And can push a large area from a single source. My preference would be a 12x12 far enough away that it affects not just the talent and car, but some of the location elements as well. A Polarizer would help tame some of the hard sun kicks off the car, but not direct reflections. But it'll also affect the actor's faces as well. Might work out well for the wides though.
  10. This is what DSLR movie shooters have been requesting for the past 10 years. Way to go Canon!
  11. Well that makes more sense. I thought the arrows were direction. I'll note that your diagram is representative of a mirror, the way you have the beams leaving unaffected. The more matte the surface, the more each beam is reflected in all directions. So a super matte surface like rough concrete or ultrabounce become omnidirectional upon reflection. They glow in all directions. Keep in mind that bounce is dependent on the reflective quality of the material you are using. Paper for example used in a foamcore bounce card has a slight hard reflection to it, I believe due to the fibers although it could be how it was pressed. This is why if you play with the angle you can get "more punch", but you are actually catching the angle of reflection from the light source. The same is true for Griffolyn material which is white and slightly glossy. Some may say then that a Griff is brighter than ultrabounce, and that would be true only at that particular angle it reflects a light. Outside of that specific angle, it is darker.
  12. Please don't pick up Lowel lights. They're so cheaply constructed. The best of the bunch is probably the Rifa softbox and Tota because it's so compact. But the DP and omni lights... their barn doors are unusable and fragile. I broke doors on omni lights twice, by simply trying to take them off! Used tungsten on ebay is a perfect choice on a budget. Many people are replacing their tungstens with LED fixtures, so you'll find great quality tungsten fixtures for cheap. I recommend Ianiro Redhead lights (Ianiro, not chinese copies). It's an open-face and great for bouncing because of the superwide beam angle. They're cheaper than the Arri open face counterpart. I'd get a 650w and 1kw. Bounce them off white cloth on the wall and barn-door them to shape. A fresnel equivalent will be more expensive due to the added mechanics and lens, but they can throw longer distances.
  13. Additive, yes. Falloff is the inverse square law, and is a constant. By adding more light, you only make it brighter; it's falloff shape will remain the same, only brighter as it steps down. If you require less falloff, then you must move the source further away. Notice now that this source becomes dimmer by a great deal, thus you'll need more light to reach your desired exposure in the falloff bracket you want. Also, your math on the diagram is incorrect. The inverse square law is always in effect. Your original sources, the 75FC and 150FC, should drop in FC, not increase. You cannot create more light than you begin with. Also, the "double distance" marker is missing it's informing marker, an original point of measurement. It is double what distance from the source? You must meter at a measured distance first, then you will be able to identify the intensity at double that distance from the source.
  14. @Josh Gallegos, it sounds like you want to shaddow a professional DP. It's not always an option; it's dependent on the DP, working situation, and your ability to be there. The next best thing is to shaddow local DP/shooters on short films or low/no-budget movies. Your experience doesnt matter regarding shadowing. Ive had conversations with a fellow DP in Tampa regarding interns. And our conclusion was that it doesnt matter the student's knowlege or skill or experience, what we enjoy working with the most is a student with drive.
  15. @Josh Gallegos, if you're really into cinematography, then perhaps you are stretching yourself spaghetti-thin by taking on the roles of director, writer, casting, sound etc. You'll find the capacity to learn and experiment stifled when you're stressed about other immediate tasks (actor motives, wardrobe, mic wind noise, continuity). I learned this after my second short film, and quickly realized I had no interest in directing. So I went to facebook film groups and sought out short film productions so my work on set was only ever focused on cinematography. The more time you have to learn and experiment on set, the faster you'll grow as a shooter. And the more confident you'll be with your setups. But it takes setup after setup, dissecting your results, to learn the patterns in lighting, to judge how much movement is necessary for an emotional shot, why a tighter lens length might be more appropriate. Put yourself in situations to keep learning only your interests and nothing else, and you will find the most growth. I started at age 32 as well, funny enough. I lived in Tyler, Texas (100k population), and no one there was making movies. Facebook film groups were all in Dallas or Austin. I was semi-knowlegable with a camera, but not lighting. So I built a tungsten package (1k Redheads and Lekos) in some suitcases, with extension cables and color gels, and applied as a gaffer to all the shoots in Dallas. It's all experimenting; that's what shorts are for, and I used it as an opportunity to figure it out. Had I continued producing my own shorts, I would still be in Tyler. An important thing to remember: Keep working. Don't stop. Keep looking for work, free or paid. The point is to stay busy to learn. I hope this helps.
  16. @Satsuki Murashige I rarely use macro, actually. I find that getting close to a product is very effective at making it pop for the viewer, especially with dolly moves. So I'll live between 18, 25, 35 for product shots and 75/85, 100 for elements of the product. That's a full range lens set. The Lindsay diopters are look neat. And actually @M Joel W I frequently use my personal stills Sigma 18-35 for product shots, as it can get inches from the subject (useful for lipstick sizes). But that can't be done in FF mode on the FX9. I need a FF solution. Don't dismiss wider angles for macro/close photography. The Laowa 24mm probe in my opinion is a welcome addition to the macro world, not to mention it's a probe! Yes, this as pretty much been the two on my list for low CA Fullframe. I thought there were more options
  17. Manufacturers will create photometric charts for their fixtures detailing the output at various distances in f-candles or lux. That allows you to compare different tech fixtures (like Xenon, LED, and HMI) as just lights with an output value. Perhaps this will help you out. If you start messing with a light meter, it'll have f-candles/lux, and you'll grow used to how much light you'll need for a scenario. Lumens is more consumer commonplace, probably as a way to outmeasure the competing light bulb.
  18. Yeah, the Signature Primes are out of budget. I understand their engineering to have a remarkable CA workaround. They're probably the pinnacle of lensing for my work lol! I wish.
  19. I'm looking for full-frame PL prime sets that are very well tamed in the chromatic aberration department. I shoot products all the time and a variety of materials and want to move on from the Schneider Xenons (unfortunately they noticeably color-fringe). But the information seems sparse on this subject for PL cine lenses. I've heard the Sigma FF Art Primes are very good, so that's on the list. Your experiences and recommendations please, my friends. Secondarily, I've also gone so far as to look for apochromatic lenses (I'm really serious about these aberrations). But the options appear extremely limited. There is no way only three lens series exist. What am I missing? There must be more. SLR Magic APO HyperPrime Cine PL: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1278818-REG/slr_magic_slr_apo255085set_25mm_50mm.html Zeiss Otus EF (Not even for PL!): https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1248180-REG/zeiss_2182_366_otus_ze_bundle_with.html Leica APO-Summicron (Again, no PL version): https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/860529-REG/Leica_11141_APO_Summicron_M_50mm_f_2_0_ASPH.html
  20. I thought it was the mindset of the time to poke a light at everything because you could. I've never considered the capture limitations.
  21. My, how things have changed! Very interesting. I appreciate that he started with the set lighting first. I've been poked fun at for starting with that. Thanks for sharing Uli.
  22. @Haroon Saqib An added note. Moonlight also comes in through windows in the background as well :). Look at Stuart's first frame. The foreground window is lighting her side... but there is another window continuing this trend behind her, and illuminates more of the room. It also creates natural silhouettes as they move through frame. @Stuart Brereton those frames look great!
  23. I also agree that some movies seem too clean. The Stillsuits in Lynch's Dune were so dusty, I believed it. Aside from modern trends, I am excited! Here's a comparison of all three at the same time! Such fun to watch.
  • Create New...