Stephen Sanchez

@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.

@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

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.

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.

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

Your image is unavailable

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.

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.

@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!

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.

Very beautiful! And I love the framing. That last shot of with the backlit red bags really sang. Did you use dolly or some kind of stabilizer?

Some flat panel monitors emit only polarized light (like my IPS screen below). They can be bright, exposing at f16. You can use a polarizer to easily control these monitors down to full black if desired. This seems to be a mixed bag toward the keepable light they cast, a vast majority of it eliminated by the CPL filter (splash on a wall or keyboard). But matte objects such as paper and skin exposure do not change. (Oils on skin are still affected by CPL.) I wish more folks used the C700 or shared their experiences with it.

I see. I re-read his request. Frost for sure.

1/4 Quiet Grid Cloth cuts one stop. Opal cuts a half-stop.

Max might be Arri M18 in general, but in practice, on locations you can't guarantee breakers will support it. Joker 1600s draws 13 amps and can run off a 15 amp circuit, and is a better bet against unknown breakers. I went this route in an old church in Chicago. But Joker 800s are probably the best bet and can be paired from separate rooms if breakers trip. I once had a 1200w trip household 15a circuits. No doubt there was something wrong with the house wiring, but that's my point. Jokers are also conveniently in an all-in-one case, with a handle, and wheels.

Yes it's easier and more accurate to point the spot-meter at an object to find it's exposure value, say the shaded tree trunk in the background, or the sunlight hitting the wall, or the sky. But spot-meter is only useful if there is a physical object that light is hitting. It also keeps you from running around the set with an incident meter. But, if you need the light value of the empty air that your actor will be in, then incident-meter is easier. Or I suppose, spot-meter your hand. Combination meters like sekonic 758 make both possible, so you can incident-meter the open yard, then spot-meter the background shady fence line and visualize the exposure difference and make your decisions from there. Ultimately, they're tools. Use what you find useful. Some people use false color, which is like a visual representation of what the spot meter can do. And of course, the incident-meter tells you the exact measure of light at a position in 3D space, via lux or foot candles. So you could calculate the wattage necessary from a certain distance to get you the value you want. Again, it's a tool.

I believe this subject was already covered in a post here: How does IRE correspond to exposure. This image below is the legend for Flanders false color. Image taken from Shane Hurlbut's Academy. So that will help decipher the IRE values of what's on the image. You can find out for certain yourself (highly recommended), by doing some tests with your specific camera, a white card, and a light (with scrims) in a dark room. Scrims are easy here because they are pre-measured to cut a half (single scrim) or full stop (double scrim). From this point, light the card and meter, then note the false color. Scrim the light and meter, then note the false color. Keep doing this, notating the IRE levels that each half/full stop registers on the monitor's false color. Then you will have your answer. You have successfully cataloged the IRE relationship between that specific camera's image and monitor model. The false color IRE values on an Atomos or SmallHD will each be different. Same with using another model camera, say cataloging with a Sony F55 then switching to a Red Epic on shoot day. This sounds like a lot of math, and I'm uncertain how much half stop increments will display in false color. So it may end up getting you only sorta there.

I hundred or so Kelvin off from 3200 is practically unnoticeable. Nothing in life is ever perfectly one color temperature. The viewer will never notice.

Halogen and tungsten are the same thing. Tungsten fillament. Halogen is simply a more efficient version of the standard eddison bulb you get at walmart. All film lights are Tungsten Halogen and emit a 3200k color. Color quality will match any other tungsten light. Good luck, my friend.

I've witnessed plenty of actors either offer unsolicited story suggestions, or debate the character's motivation on set. And I've had to sit through the awkward conversation as the director turns them down. I don't wish to slow down production and do that to the director. I would only make a suggestion if both, 1) I am educated enough on the particular subject or storytelling, and 2) If I know the director well enough for that to be acceptable. Very rare. Otherwise, I wish not to disrupt their workflow and to instead support it.

Have you considered flying a 4x4 or 6x6 frame overhead for the tights as well? Like Opal, half soft frost or 1/4 grid.

I think there are three color sources in your photos. Red front light, cyan back light and a yellowish-green top light. That might be be the yellow hint you're referring to.

Full Hampshire frame overhead will blur the top fixtures enough to remove harsh shadows. Opal, too, although it's a bit heavier. 4x4 size. Another thought. In these uncontrolled lighting situations, the florescents or CFLs might have a green or magenta cast. My only other consideration would be ensuring the ability to match the key light to the location lights so it doesn't appear different. Either correction gels, or an RGB tunable source, like the Gemini panels or Arri Fresnels (say if you like bounce keys). I think Aperture has a color matching feature on some of its lights as well. Food for thought.

When in doubt, go with more power. You can always cut light or turn off a fixture. But it's harder to add light once it's all built. I was told this by a fellow DP. You can do a little test at home (or back yard) with the rag and a light. You're lights will probably be flooded, so set one up with your double layers of cotton in front of it and mimic its planned distance to the cloth, then meter at the distance where the actors would be. If it meters at, lets say an f2, then remember account for the missing light and add a stop. So that brings you to f2.8 for both lights. From that point, double the wattage to gain a stop until you have a number you're comfortable working with on set. This is a rough estimate but it'll put you in the area of how many watts you're looking for, then order enough fixtures to deliver that or even a bit more, especially if you're dimming for warming effect. An example with me, my last big setup had a 6x12 half-grid 25ft away from talent. Four 2k fresnels (8,000 watts) gave me an f7.1. I ended up scrimming two lights and dimming the total until I reached 5.6. This was the level that appeared appropriate for the backlight I had set. I hope this helps. Happy shooting my friend!

These are all great points, used for emotional or abstract communication. That's a great use actually. I do consider the same technical details about light as you do as well, but consider "Quality (hard/soft)" to be Size(hard/soft). I also understand that might sound at this point like preference or semantics.