Stephen Sanchez

Hmm. I wouldn't put a heavy camera package on a plastic release plate like that Manfrotto. Gitzo makes great quality stuff, although geared more toward photographers. Their head you linked doesn't have a quick release. You'll want some kind of quick release, as opposed to trying to line up and thread a heavy cam package onto the head. Also I don't think those manual-style heads have a counterbalance spring, so once you loosen the tilt, it's on you or the operator to keep the weight from flipping forward or back. Perhaps look at some ebay fluid heads made for video. You don't need a huge one. But verify its weight limit on the manufacturer's website before committing obviously.

I asked Cartoni for an explosion diagram for one of their unsupported heads thinking I would do the same thing. Nope. They are so complicated. Unfortunately, heads are specialty gear with specialty parts for specialty technicians. And servicing them costs. I've not ever found a 3rd party repair house for fluid heads. But who knows. If you find one, Tom, please do post their info. I've wanted to repair a head with a similar hitch in it's step. Vitec may have a list of authorized service shops for Vinten equipment, if you can't find "Ratdog's Video Repair Hole" somwhere .

Haha. We could start a wireless vs manual Follow Focus debate. Shooters, pick your sides!

Yeah, I had to find another head. Ebay is a friend.

I realized I totally mispoke previously. On your question. Halfing of light is logarithmic, and thats what you meant. And to have dimmers that do the same, yes, I think that would be great. I think some exist, but I'm unsure of their technical accuracy. What I meant was the same, to have accurate halfing of light in a dimmer (even marked) as opposed to something formulated for a consumer's comfort.

I'm sure you've already seen this paper from eldoled. What we perceive isn't always accurate to actual intensity. Sound may work the same way. Guitar volume pots can be linear or logarithmic as well. I had a log one installed when mine was rebuilt because the original pot was quiet until half-way up. I don't know how the connection to inverse square relates to human perception. I think the log dimmers are more for human comfort or ease, like the new pot on my guitar. For film gear, while we make or buy dimmers from off the shelf, it would technically be better to have an accurate change than a perceptually pleasant one. I'm sure some exist but we (I at least) end up dialing it in on the monitor with the DIY dimmer boxes anyway. Hope that helps.

I see, Viggo. Ultimately, if in doubt, shoot the way you are comfortable with. You'll learn with every setup. All these concerns arise from different points of views on imaging. Every shooter has different values and different approaches. Some lean more towards artsy without a concern over the capture technology, some operate under arbitrary "rules" such as "tungsten-only" or "raw-only," some consider quality of image first. My favorite photographer, Karl Taylor, is probably the only human in the world that considers every individual factor before capture. Every shooter finds their own priority priorities when it comes to imaging. Since we work in the arts, there's no strict right or wrong way to work. To answer your question. Yes, if trying to expose all channels for best possible data for your camera, 5600k light source is best, since 3200k WB boosts the blue channel. This is if you're going to color it in post. Coloring in post is easy. I'm not a colorist, but I used to do graphic design, and I've done images like that where I'll place the desired color over the footage then use "multiply" or "screen" to apply color information. Ask a colorist for their opinion. And again there will be different solutions from them as well. You're confusing image capture with image processing. The initial capture from the sensor happens on all three pixels (RGB). The resulting data is converted to an image file. At that point you can adjust the image. He's talking about giving your camera the most data for it to spit out a cleaner image.

The LUT route may be a good option. This is the time to test that theory. Set that fixture up in your house and do a pass with red light and then white light and try to grade it to match. Being that it's a monotone image, it may be easy to complete. And compare the two for quality. My suspicion is that due to the large amounts of black in the scene (which I love btw) and already low levels, it will get quite nosy if relying on one channel for image reproduction. Plus your shooting tungsten which boosts the vacant blue channel more anyway. I'm for completing a look in-camera, but there may be limiting factors you haven't seen. Be-it the camera or codec, etc. Say you throw more red at it and it ends up oversaturating, I don't know. A test will help identify that.

@Tomasz Brodecki, what if he just uses a 4x brighter light?

Oh convex. Not concave. That would act as a flood. Nevermind, please disregard.

I've mounted them in similar clamps on walls and such but not specifically a kino fixture. To compare, I've used cardelinis to hold them. You can feel the plastic buckle if you overtighten, but they still hold. And that's more pressure than the kino clamps. They'll work with any regular light dimmer, even the handmade ones from home despot.

A convex mirror! Now that's fun. What a thought. That should spot or flood the light depending on the distance from the fixture correct? So there'd have to be a distance sweet-spot depending on the curvature of the mirror, right?

A local! I've not heard of you yet. Yes, infomercials are driven by direct-to-consumer product companies, and it turns out you can make the shows with few talent and crew. So they had a quicker recovery time. I'm very lucky and grateful. I'd love to connect at some point. I'm not sure I understand correctly. Forgive my answer if it's off your point, Neal. I don't think the abundant video workflow and technical skills acquired by the shooter to be a negative thing. In-fact I see it as a fast avenue for growth. If you arent becoming more technically proficient after every setup in every job, then what are you doing? Some shooters arent learning anything new, and move to the next job. Yes, humility is important. And judgement should be contained. I wish to help many shooters correct some misconceptions they're working under, or suggest approaches, but from their point-of-view it would be rude or offensive to suggest they are incapable. Then, it's not my ego at all I'm competing against. And that's an unfortunate situation. We can all learn from each other. As much as I've studied lighting, I still get blown away by damned neat solutions some of my fellow DPs come up with.

That staccato effect you're referring to can be achieved simply by speeding up the footage, OR undercranking the recording if you have the option. Sony for example has the S&Q feature, so you can undercrank the fps for in-camera timelapse or overcrank for slower motion. I'd find a way to move the sun during your timelapse.

I like the array of mirrors. Mirrors along with the lights can be positioned for aiming the beams in. A lame can't, not in that space. You'll want the individual adjustability of mirrors if you have few floor lights, so the beams can be redirected to one direction. CRLS might be a great option for this, but they're expensive. Otherwise, gluing nail-on plates to the backs of department store mirrors would be my go-to. I'd consider a goalpost to mount all of them to conserve floorspace. As an addition to the plan, consider wrapping the balcony in an ultrbounce or other thick white cloth to collect the rest of the stray light. And what if you covered the windows in a frost like opal? Frosts blur the light passing through, so they'll preserve the beam better than any diffusion with the added benefit of blurring what's outside the window as well. Or perhaps hampshire. To compare, I use half-hampshire on some studio set windows where the backdrop is within a meter of the window to slightly blur it.

This is nauseating. Oh a high note. If life were a movie and the narrator spoke this line after that exchange, It'd be pretty funny.

My first thought was a griffolyn black side. At least a horizontal texture can be seen. But it wrinkles in the wind like a thinner material. And it has the white bands across it. What the heck is this?

Yes, I'm for promoting to the newer crowd too. I see a lot of misinformation taught by hotshots just discovering already established mechanics or processes.

I suppose I had a higher expectation (or perhaps a professional expectation) of our positions than has become commonplace. When starting out, I deliberately took short film gigs (unpaid) as a gaffer to better understand lighting. Because I knew you don't grow skills when you hit record. The "cinematographers" on those shoots knew less than I. And it was a bizarre experience, thinking I would learn from those shooters. I wonder if because our jobs are trades and don't require a college degree to get a job (we only need reels), that the newer folks don't seek betterment in the individual categories of our workform.

Oh that's an interesting point of view. That description makes sense. Yes, I think you're right Satsuki. Available technology is no doubt the root cause. And I agree, that I wouldn't be in my position had only film jobs existed. I know I benefitted from my DSLR which began my lighting intrigue snowball. But then I missed out on being AC and picking the brains of established shooters. Today, I only have Instagram to inquire on techniques and it's so anonymous and limited.

Yeah something like this would need tests to make sure you can pull off the effect. Those sodiums are so warm, even putting a CTB over the lens wouldn't make them as cold as your example. And a CTB cuts almost 1 2/3 stops. It could be a combination of blue lens filter with white balance. It could be color shifted in post. My stab at it would be to avoid the white balance (because as Stuart said, it will be noisy with that much blue gain in camera), and instead shoot at 5500k and daylight sources for the subject, then in post, select the sodium color and shift from there. That should keep the subject and BG colors individually adjustable in post. It would still need a test to be sure.

Hi Giorgio. Open face lights burn through gels on the doors a lot faster than fresnels because there is nothing collecting the heat. So anything with a lens is better for gelling on the doors. Like Stuart said, give the gel enough distance that the heat isn't a problem anymore. Perhaps build a custom wood frame that can be clamped to the stand with an arm.

@Stuart BreretonReally? That's great information to have, my friend. The local DPs I know use the fabric store stuff. I have some and wasn't impressed with the weave and wondered why folks suggested it.

So I've recently had a chat with a much more experienced local DP, who told me something disheartening. Our area is a boomtown for infomercials and commercials, with lots of players. Well regarded. Some experienced, some new. I'm a new kid on the block. And I'm curious about others' lighting approaches, because I don't have a mentor or education. So I've been looking up the local shooters to form a sort of chat. I found their websites. Composition in their shots were great. But I saw inconsistency in lighting or strange decisions. I'm talking about up-lighting, unrealistic light source locations, deep black shadows (symptom of harder sources), blown out windows (symptom of available light), deeply underexposed artsy style (symptom of available light), front lit hard fill (like a reflector on the face). The DP I talked to told me that the majority of the DPs got corporate or client jobs through their reels or other form of convincing. But most don't know how to light. And on set, the gaffers would light because they didn't want to redo the setup through trial and error. DP's entire careers have been made through reliance on the gaffers. And in particular cases, a DP who wanted to be in-charge would approach the gaffer for the lighting plan then dictate that out-loud to the gaffer in front of the crew. A newer shooter, who my friend has experience with, makes a living shooting inspirational documentary-style ads. For colleges and tourist spots. My friend said the guy didn't know what IRE or ASA was, and didn't know how to expose the image. He's represented by an agency and well regarded. His images are dark and artsy and shot with available light. I can tell. I've witnessed an experienced DP set up a book light on either end (both frontal) with a 5k in each and called one a key light and the other fill light. No backlight. It was flat. I recently ran audio on a pickup as a favor for people who turned out to own their own media company, and were moving a 1k tungsten around inside a diner (next to a window) for face lighting, and repositioning the frame a thousand times before recording. The light was clotheslining because they brought no stingers. They've been in business for 2 years. It's the epitome of "fake it till you make it," a mindset I abhor. Truly. I've heard that on set once and was quick to stop it, and encouraged questions or admittance rather than leaving bad work on set. I don't look down on those who can't light or are learning, in-fact I try to teach on the subjects I know, but pretending or faking your knowledge or expertise is a sad situation that I don't find respectable. It's false advertisement. I've heard of smaller freelance (non-client) jobs resulting in bad footage from some of the shooters. Remember, this is for commercial projects where the product or idea is being sold and must be presented in best light. It's like that quote from John Cage that Tim Tyler posted: "It is the people who do all the work all the time who eventually catch onto things. You can fool the fans, but not the players." Surely someone's ran into other workers like this. Or seen this mindset. Is this this elsewhere?

Bleached muslin has a loose weave and so some of the light shoots right through (doesn't bounce off). So by nature it is less efficient at bounce than a tighter weave fabric, a curtain for instance. By what percent efficiency loss there is, I haven't taken time to measure but I probably should then. Light loss also occurs through absorption, which is dependent on the material properties and how dark it is (for instance unbleached muslin is darker than bleached muslin). Just look at the material. If you can see through it, it's not collecting all the light for a bounce. It's this reason I don't prefer to use muslin or silk for diffusion.