Jump to content

Gabriel Devereux

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gabriel Devereux

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  • Location
    Australia / United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

628 profile views
  1. Sir, Is it possible to see an example of this formula used in a practical location? This interests me greatly however cannot find useful education resources on the topic. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place.
  2. Sir, May I ask how you lit the first scene? The moonlight is stunning. It looks like a relatively harsh source but the colour temp and possible gel used looks great!
  3. Out of curiosity why would the truss system cost so much? One could easily rig a 3x3m (sorry I'm Australian) box goal post for less than a couple of hundred. You could attach the lights to the top rail as you could possibly go for less and have 2x 3m box pieces and speed rail in-between. Then attach a few outriggers further down the post with a couple of swivel clamps to give a bit more width to tie off your frame from there... That's what I did in a similar circumstance. It came to about $250 Australian for a 2 day rental.
  4. Thank you for the replies! Thank you Mr Mullen! Yes sorry I used the wrong terminology. So basically if my shooting stop is a T2.8 at 400 ASA 180 degree so on I need 50fc for a stop over key. So I can move the sources back further if I in a sense combine them. Therefore creating a lesser/smoother fall off. I really used the incorrect terms. The idea was if I bounced multiple sources into a singular bounce I could potentially move the bounce further back getting a lesser fall-off. Re-diagram read from top to bottom. The top two triangles are the lights and so on. With the distance marker I meant double the distance from the bounce as the bounce becomes the source. So the overall idea is if I bounced several sources into a singular small frame the light which is additive (thanks everyone!). Would in a sense combine creating a more powerful soft source which I can therefore move further away creating a smoother fall-off.
  5. Dear All, I have been wondering and testing how light stacks and its correlation to light fall off. The term 'stack' is most likely wrong, what I mean by it is when two beams of light overlap does the luminance value say foot candles in this instance add up? It makes sense as for example a maxi brute or other Fays that have several lower wattage lamps such as 1k's or 650's add up to produce a larger output. So for instance if I had several Par64 cans and rigged them in an array in which the distance between fixtures was minimal the total output would be the addition of all the outputs of the par cans combined? However I question this further (reference diagram bellow) in which then if you bounced several sources into the same area of say a frame of ultrabounce. If the beams overlapped would they add together create a more powerful source with therefore less fall off. Putting terms into words is not my strong suit so I have drawn a crude diagram bellow. The tests I have created had mixed results and while practical is good and something I shall test further for a future rig the theory behind it interests me greatly! Please do note nothing on this diagram is accurate from the refraction etc to anything. Just a crude idea.
  6. Sir, With painting walls for a scene such as this do you have a recommendation on what paint you should use? Something such as a middle grey or a little darker?
  7. A number of questions. I believe I’ve seen this post on Roger Deakins forums and you wanted it to be similar to The Goldfinch? Anyways. To bounce the light (Jokers) the way you said requires the lights to be higher than said wall. That wall is as high as the ceiling so I am very much confused. Maybe I’m looking at the wrong wall? Either way I have no clue what your shooting stop is or how high you can rate your camera. If you want to get the Goldfinch look without rigging to the roof you could use balloon lights... as I imagine sky panels are out of the question. However those are expensive. Through the top windows the skylights seem to be the obvious choice but I remember for some reason you can’t use those. For a far more educated and informed suggestion we need much more information. However a way that sprung to mind is you could have light coming from one of the door ways and go from there. If you do a reverse key or something to in a sense and cheat it. Who knows.
  8. I'm sorry if I seemed aggressive. I just feel that making a statement such as that over a suspicion probably isn't the best idea. I'm not sure how things work in other cultures entirely but I know in mine if one where to be endorsed by a company or brand monetarily and continuously recommend them WHILE being considered one of the BEST in the field without disclosing said deal would be incredibly poor form and even possibly illegal? Theres nothing wrong with an artist taking a pay check, the more the better! However something of this nature is something I at least frown upon and wouldn't be too thrilled about if true. Maybe the man just prefers the Alexa? By all means the film vs digital debate is interesting! I jump from side to side daily, each day very firm on my outlook however by tomorrow it will be different! That's the nature of the beast and it's fun to discuss! However I dislike to see casual defamation of character with no supporting evidence! Other than a video of Roger liking the camera. Which I can pull a Christopher Nolan, Linus Sandgren, Damien Chazelle etc video, interview etc of them saying the same thing about Kodak so on. I hope we are artists and scientists on this forum, not conspiracy theorists!
  9. Without evidence or proof your basically talking out of your arse. No offence intended. Would an artist, a wanky word but a word that describes someone such as Roger Deakins take a pay check to shoot on an ALEXA? Would Christoper Nolan take a pay check from Kodak and IMAX to shoot on film? The latter is far more likely seeing how far film has fallen. Will digital be able to ‘beat’ film? Yes. People are looking at digital like it’s a medium, it’s not. It’s just a series of switches that are getting smaller and smaller and faster and faster. People seem to look at digital in a way that it lacks art. It doesn’t look ‘good’. Well that’s entirely the persons fault. Unlike film which is a negative that has been designed by someone else a digital file entirely comprised of 1’s and 0’s that are entirely up to your interpretation to present in whatever form you wish. Nowadays the 1 and the 0 can be the same at the same time. Yet people still feel like they are stuck with a ‘bad’ digital image. The truth is we are just all too lazy to learn how to fix it.
  10. Sean Bobbit Camera Image: This is a good video showing some preventative measures you can take to stop irreparable damage to yourself. Operating a camera on a shoulder has to be one of the funniest feelings however it is always much much more comfortable with back support. Lifting things as a grip, spark etc. Follow basic workplace safety such as 'lifting with your legs, not your back' (something I'm sure we've all heard before). Workout routine wise look for one aimed at fitness and core strength. A lot of workouts are designed to improve the 'look' of ones body not its capability. As far as I'm aware there a very few downsides to a good well rounded workout. For me personally lifting items such as larger fixture or being on my feet for 12 hours is not as detrimental to my health as a camera on my shoulder. The spine and the body is designed pretty well putting a 5kg brick on one half is well...
  11. Some times I think cinematography has a likeness to Formula 1 racing (except cinematography is much more exciting). Part of it is the driving, the race. Watching and feeling the excitement of the race, the turns and the incredible amount of skill it takes from the drivers. I imagine that’s why most people watch it. But the cars are pretty cool too. Anyways the video is definitely interesting... all from such a small camera.
  12. Thank you for the reply! I was thinking of possibly layering black sheet with small holes, assortment of gels and then white diff. Re- photoshop and projector. Projecting onto a black sheet? I was thinking of doing that a while back but never thought it would work with the lack of reflectance. I imagine duvetyne would be too dark and matted for it. Would you by any chance know a good material?
  13. Dear All, I recently came across the concept of having a series of small holes covered with different coloured gel on a roll or a series of large cards for bokeh in poor mans process (Poorly drawn diagram attached bellow). I have a number of questions and am looking for tips if anyone has attempted or tried and tested this method. I imagine you'd need to use quite a low powered fixture and the sheet itself would need to be quite far away from the cars back window? For white light I imagine you'd attach 216 or equivalent over one of the holes? Thanks Gabe
  14. Not to relight this fire but... This is a painting. I knew this painter quite well and was always taken aback by the detail. It looked real, like someone had printed a photograph. I one day asked 'Why don't you just take a photo' (I was very young), he responded 'Because people can feel the difference'. Now by know means am I comparing the amount of work it takes to paint this work of art (which I may add the painter very much disliked and was pretty much forced to sign) to the amount of work it takes to shoot film. However film does take more work than digital and for that reason alone I think people can feel a difference. Now that may of been THE most wankiest pretentious statement I have ever made. Do note that I pretty much only shoot digital. One could argue the years of hard work Yedlin has put it in to make a digital negative look could be the same? Who knows.
×
×
  • Create New...