Stephen Sanchez

I spent my twenties chasing dreams of making it big in bands. Everyone has their young adult learning years. I'm impressed with those kids who stay consistent at such a young age. It's a lifestyle, not just a job—something I wasn't good at as a band member. I knew a PA who wanted to be a director. He did minimum, didn't learn from mistakes, always got the vegan's order wrong, and complained about having to PA, saying once, "Is there anything else I can do that's not in my job description?" Not everyone is cut for the lifestyle. And I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. Who want's to do something it turns out they dislike? As for the interacting with those kids. It sucks about how you feel, Phil. Personally, I try to never be negative, even if I really want to speak. I find that afterward, it's doesn't matter. Or someone will word it in a less negative way.

A small hot bounce card close to the face at 90° could acheive that kind of kiss on the left cheek. But I think it is a soft silver reflector further away, by the kick on the cheekbone and glint in the eye.

I think it's really nice. The cigarette match and candle exposure is impressive. And doesn't feel digital. The fire effect felt artificial. It was too slow and the shadows didn't flicker. That was the only thing that didn't sell me. Given the amount of time on screen, I would have tried for real fire via propane tubes. Or a combination of fire and LEG gag.

Wow. What a response! This is great! It's a little over my head, though. It seems to refer to lensing, which is not my focus. I'll have to study it more. As I understand it, a Lambertian reflection is kin to a matte surface bounce? I understood half the math you supplied. I have to correctly identify and understand some of those terms. Visually, is your description similar to the drawing below? Once I am educated on some of these concepts, do you mind chatting sometime, Michael?

Please PM me. Or drop a contact you know that fits the bill. I'm looking to book a grip with a 1-ton truck/van. 5600k or bi-color lights are a plus. It's for a teleprompted setup at a big house in the hills. Easy day. One setup, maybe a second for b-roll. Sooner replies, the better. Thanks folks! Shooting in Studio City Nov. 11.

That is interesting. I figured silver-taping a dish like that would cause wrinkles and breaks in the reflection. Its so huge! The only things I'm aware of are the Dedolight 1200w PB70 (renamed CRLS 70). Dedolight 1.2kw PB70. https://www.dedolightcalifornia.com/collections/pb70-parallel-beam-light Softsun 3.5kw Parabolic. http://www.attitudelighting.com/equipment/softsun-3-5k-parabolic/#:~:text=The SoftSun 3.5K Parabolic,smooths out those unwanted wrinkles.

No two rays are perfectly parallel. So all light follows the inverse square, even lasers. The rate of fall is just scaled. Soft sources exhibit compounded math that describes the readings we get. I'm really looking for any available studies on the subject.

I imagine it's comparable to a vanity mirror but with more throw due to the integrated reflector.

Does anyone know of any studies done on soft light's relation to the inverse square law? Books, websites, forum members? I'm very curious to know how deep people have gotten into the subject. My web searches get littered with basic lighting tutorials and the like.

I wonder what he mean't by "that's the heat haze from the light bulb," when referencing the diffusion-esque quality of that light setup.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'll have to try that some time.

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.

This is what DSLR movie shooters have been requesting for the past 10 years. Way to go Canon!

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.

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.

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.

@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.