Large, distant soft sources vs. soft sources which

[Guest fstop]

Interesting you mentioned the silver umbrella, Greg- that's definitely something I want to get into more with moving images.

 

  How soft that light is, again for the millionth time, determined by the size of the source relative to the subject.  You spot a light into the center of a white card and get a hot spot, it is not as soft as when you flood the light. The same thing when you get a hot spot in the center of a diffusion frame.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I got that the first time and never disagreed- I just meant that (and now as a question) surely bounce conserves more space because it isn't a straight line of source, silk and subject?

 

As for Master and Commander and your own Kino portraits- as I said, I respect and even admire those who have their own thing going on with Kinos Robby Muller and Bill Pope do it beautifully and your shots are OBVIOUSLY gorgeous However, I don't know what it is but it has that "glow" to it, which some people love, but it's very different IMO to the look of tungsten or HMI- it just feels like this obvious stylised effect. It's always irked me even before I was aware of cinematography in the mid 90s and how all of a sudden actors seemed to have this weird artifical glow on screen - maybe I feel it worked better for b/w because b/w is inherently a more stylised medium?

 

As for my "lazy kino" comments, in context I never said I think it all looks lazy, I just think there's far too much lazy kino work out there on film and TV and I'm pretty sick of it. That samey softlight look is everywhere when done badly. As I said, I respect and admire those who seem to integrate it uniquely each time into their projects, but that look it gives just doesn't inspire me to pursue it, no matter how well it's done. I appreciate and admire the talent behind it even if I wouldn't go that route myself, though.

 

I disagree that Panic Room had a distinct signature look- to me it just looked like any other kino-goth MTV promo from the mid 90s onwards. Lightless interiors to me don't look like people clearly lit by fuzzy flo tubes. No style at all, just tedious Fincher parody generica (obviously not Hall Jr's fault). Was Khondji's original take as pedestrian before he was shown the door/walked off? I heard his vision was somewhere else.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Well, Fincher actually talks about it on the commentary track. He said something in the line of "not the best marriage of man and material", meaning that since it was so extensively previz'ed, there wasn't much for Khondji to do. Put the camera here, here and there with a 27mm, 32mm and a 65mm. "Huh?". Don't think they had a falling out at all, it was just probably all to laid out for Khondji - why get one of the best DP's in the world if you don't want his input? Fincher concludes with a friendly "I'll make it up to him someday", which supports the theory that there's no animosity.

 

BTW, on the upcoming The Interpreter it seems Khondji departed as well, since there's a split credit at IMDb. Anybody know anything? I look forward to it visually - Khondji's first scope feature since Evita.

Edited February 7, 2005 by AdamFrisch

[Glenn Hanns]

Clearly Russell Boyd has the same attitude towards Kinos that I do -- use whatever gets the job done!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

FYI David i've worked with Russell Boyd where he also loved to double bounce onto foamcore sheets with fresnels. So as you say what ever works!

[Glenn Hanns]

I disagree, to me kino, no matter how diffused, always has that look you get when someone lays down underneath strip lighting you see in offices and hospitals- like this weird translucent thing going on with the skin- I hate it when it's used to key a portrait that's suppose to look natural and you can see a smudged up nose shadow that doesn't have any direction, no natural triangular tidyness that works WITH the facial structure- it just looks like it's been motivated by a glowing tube (or tubes). IMO Flos have such a unique, characterisitic shape and look that they stick out like a sore thumb to myself (and many others it seems, like David's wonderful gaffer  ;) ) when they are used to imitate the qualities of natural light, or even theatrical light.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Maybe kino should create a circular solid tube like a ringlight but "filled in" so that when looking at reflections in peoples eyes you will see a lovely round disc instead of a thin line.

Does anyone know of such a light?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I built a flat panel light about a foot square using cold-cathode fluorescent tubes, which I guess you could mask to be round if you wanted!

 

Phil

[Glenn Hanns]

Hi,

 

I built a flat panel light about a foot square using cold-cathode fluorescent tubes, which I guess you could mask to be round if you wanted!

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What type of tubes did you use? Where they kino's?

G.

[Alvin Pingol]

What type of tubes did you use? Where they kino's?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Some information on it can be found in this thread (click).. B)

Edited February 8, 2005 by Alvin Pingol

[Max Jacoby]

Personnally I don't particularly like unfiltered Kinos either, just like Tim I find that most of the time they stick out like a sore thumb from other kind of lighting. After all they do not cover the full colorspectrum. If you use them straight on a face, very often they just feel like the fluorescent light that they are. If that is the look that you want then fine, but especially in period films it sometimes feels odd to me. The most recent example that I can remember was on 'The Merchant of Venice' where the scenes between Shylock and Jessica at night in their house were lit with Kinos. Despite them being filtered through depron they still look fluorescent. Eduardo Serra for instance never uses them unfiltered and he very often puts a quarter or eigth of CTO on them to match them with the other lights that he is using.

[Sean Conaty]

Howard Atherton, BSC, has a light that he calls the wedge-light, apparently. It's a shame I can't explain it with a drawing here, but it's really an ingenious way of creating a soft key light and a slightly harder edge/rim from the same source!!! Yes, you read that correctly - one lamp does both.

 

It's basically a diffusion frame but with a polyboard (white solid bounce) wedged at an angle to it. Much like a book you've opened just 10 degrees or something (just to get your thumb in as not to forget where you were kinda thing). At the "open" end he puts a Blondie (apparently, he likes Blondies). This will now hit both the diffusion frame and the polyboard. If you put a person facing the same direction as the wedge, then that person will get a harder rim from the hotspot of the Blonde at the back, and the further down the wedge the light travels then the softer it becomes since it's bounced back from the poly thru the diffusion and wraps around the talent. It's hard to explain, but it's basically a rimlight and side softlight all in one.

 

Could someone please post a picture of this (both the setup and the end result)? I think I understand it, but I want to make sure. the light is bounced into the bounce board. and, for example, 2/3 of the light is returned through a diffusion frame and the remaning 1/3 is returned straight (though still diffused because it's hitting the bounce? i'm assuming the seam of the diffusion frame is invisible (but would theoretically become more visible the closer the frame is to the subject).

 

-sean

[Bob Hayes]

The main difference is fall-off in exposure. When you have a really large soft light very close to the face in a portrait shot, the area of the face closest to the light can be very hot, falling off to darkness more rapidly, whereas an even larger soft light from farther away creates a similar soft shadow termination on the face but without the rapid change in exposure.

 

This becomes a real problem when doing a video interview with a medium sized source pushed super close to the talent to make it softer. When the talent moves or leans the difference in exposure can be pretty problematic. Once I realized that I started using larger sources farther away.

 

Also American Market makes a great material 1090. Which is like double 216. I find it creates a sourceless soft light.

[Jess Haas]

Looks like we have brought this topic back from the dead so I might as well throw in my two pence. I am one of those people who has a bit of an aversion to Kinos. Despite liking soft light there has always been something about the quality of them that bugged me a bit. I think this is mostly due to the fact that the color of light they put off isn't exactly right for tungsten or daylight. The end result looks fine on film or video but it is off just enough that it bugs me when looking at the scene with my naked eye. I do use them extensively, but because of this they usually aren't my first choice in fixture unless the situation calls for them.

 

~Jess

[Matt Workman]

From ICQ March 2008

 

"Sin City" Russell Carpenter, ASC Doubles Down on 21

 

Quote:

"I used Kino Flo VistaBeams, run through a layer of light grid and a layter of full grid, which subdued the light so much that it felt enviornmental, rather than being a modeling light from a movie. The trick is that it is modeled, but looks like it is part of the casino lighting."

 

Go kinos! :lol:

[Ed Moore]

On jobs with lots of Kinos I make sure they all have precut pieces of 216 and 1/8 CTO clipped to the back ready to go. Unfiltered I find them rather harsh.

 

Years ago I worked at a big lighting warehouse and did a lot of deliveries of kit out to shoots. A lot of UK dramas at the time were doused in unfiltered Kinos - not in the totally defendable way David describes, in which they're the right tool for the job at hand - but because they've become a de facto standard way of boshing up a load of soft(ish) light for interiors without overheating the set or requiring the electricians to sort out a load of bounces.

 

However, it's still a step forwards from the earlier UK trend in drama lighting, which usually involved pointing a 2.5K HMI into the ceiling and pressing record.