Axel

[quote name='richg101' timestamp='1352040330' post='20998']quite silly really -they threw away 1/3rd of their sensor.[/quote]

Mendes came out of the viewing room.
'Roger!'
'You liked it?"
'No! What have you done! The resolution is like that of my fucking pre-production GH3.'
'Oh, that. I actually extracted all we needed. You know, it's such a pain in the ass to have to deal with all those anal something adapters ...'
'Know what you did, half-wit? You threw away 1/3rd of your sensor!'
'I'm so sorry, Sam. Must be because I am so unexperienced. Give me a second chance.'

[quote name='richg101' timestamp='1352040330' post='20998']Re. Upscaling. I have played around with a 4k film grain overlay on top of nex5n footage and it really does add a perceived increase in detail.[/quote]

You mean you upscaled the 1,9 MP to 4k and then added grain in post to dither it? How do you know the grain is 4k?

[quote name='richg101' timestamp='1352040330' post='20998']quite silly really -they threw away 1/3rd of their sensor.[/quote]

Mendes came out of the viewing room.
'Roger!'
'You liked it?"
'No! What have you done! The resolution is like that of my fucking pre-production GH3.'
'Oh, that. I actually extracted all we needed. You know, it's such a pain in the ass to have to deal with all those anal something adapters ...'
'Know what you did, half-wit? You threw away 1/3rd of your sensor!'
'I'm so sorry, Sam. Must be because I am so unexperienced. Give me a second chance.'

[quote name='richg101' timestamp='1352040330' post='20998']Re. Upscaling. I have played around with a 4k film grain overlay on top of nex5n footage and it really does add a perceived increase in detail.[/quote]

You mean you upscaled the 1,9 MP to 4k and then added grain in post to dither it? How do you know the grain is 4k?

[quote name='richg101' timestamp='1352061412' post='21011']1. Using the full frame and taking the effort to shoot it anamorphic - It would have looked better. The crop method is a cost cutting thing.[/quote]

Another low budget movie, deprived of it's potential by measly economics.

[quote name='richg101' timestamp='1352061412' post='21011']2. Yes. upscale to 4k, apply slight blur to soften pixel steps, overlay grain, adjust levels and sharpenss to taste. The 4k is mock 4k film grain (Expression 500T) created by a friend of mine - it has no damage, just perfect fine grain at 25p. 5 second loop of uncompressed grain. works magic - specially on the background defocus and helps with moire too.[/quote]

Thanks. Sounds good.

A lot of assumptions being made about a camera that people have only seen preproduction footage from.

The moire issue is still unknown why some videos have it, why some don't, maybe 12-35, maybe early firmware?
Like i've always said, I'm not going to go out looking to shoot things in my videos that will show moire.

@Axel, the thing is...without a doubt, the GH3 is a better camera than the GH2, if a person decides not to upgrade, then they will be using the lesser of the two cameras, if that's all a persons budget will allow, then so be it, make the best of what you got, even if you are using a GH1.
Canon is usually the choice camera when it comes to photos, but I don't think we are concerned with photo quality when it comes to any GH, the real question is, Can the GH3 be hacked? and if so what will it unleash. MFT is hardly a dead end and I don't see it going anywhere except up.

And yeah, I love the GH2 and the GH3, they are amazing cameras for the price and wide variety of lenses. If I plan on just walking out the door and just messing around it's what I'm going to grab. If I have a professional gig I'm going to use my BMCC (when it ever arrives) or I am going to rent a camera. People seem picky or spoiled by technology and must have forgotten what consumer cameras were limited to 5-10 years ago. Do people really go out looking for objects that will cause moire in their footage? If so, they need to stop focusing on flaws, and focus on creativity.

It's
A= 'Er' or 'uh', the emphasis is on this first syllable.
rr-= like the 'j' in spanish [i]mejor[/i] (better), not soft like the americans pronounce it, but also not rolling as the 'r' in spanish [i]rapido[/i] (fast)
i= ee (short, like in english, two consonants make the following vowel short).

[quote name='charlie_orozco' timestamp='1351746659' post='20757'] And it'd be great if we could start shooting future proof content!
[/quote]
[quote name='Zach' timestamp='1351747048' post='20760']
This particular line kind of mind me chuckle a bit. I do understand the sentiment and the angle you're after I think. But nobody will want to watch a really polished turd in the future :)
[/quote]

As for professional use of video (and even more for film), the business is a 'business on demand', and I don't see anybody demanding 4k, let alone pay for it. Jannards manic speech makes me wonder if he is a cocaine addict.

As for amateurs, future-proof means that they can show off with their stuff ten years from now. I made quite a few dozens of videos ten years ago, and all I can say is, if they were any good (some of them can be enjoyed because they have interesting [i]content[/i] and are [i]edited well[/i]), they remain good. The rest deserves to be gone with the wind.

Very good. One thing I find distracting: He looks as if he not really sings. Either a bit out of synch, or, more probable, he didn't playback aloud. Looks fake.

Loved the racing car shots.

[media]http://vimeo.com/51004409[/media]

[color=#71767A][font=sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(244, 245, 247)]Official Music Video for artist Evan Gamble[/background][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#71767A][font=sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(244, 245, 247)]Starring Evan Gamble + Stephanie Lynn[/background][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#71767A][font=sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(244, 245, 247)]Featuring the 1936-37 Auto Union Type C (created using [/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#71767A][font=sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(244, 245, 247)]Videocopilot Element 3D)[/background][/size][/font][/color]


[color=#71767A][font=sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(244, 245, 247)]Panasonic GH2
Driftwood Quantam X Rocket
Voigtlander 25mm 0.95
Canon FD 50mm 1.2
LCW Fader ND MKii[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#71767A][font=sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(244, 245, 247)]Director + DP + Editor + VFX
Ben Redmond[/background][/size][/font][/color]

You didn't really record an uninterrupted 45' clip with a high bitrate hack? You did read all the warnings on thoroughly testing hacks before using them in real life? That - hacked or not -, after the recording of a longer than 5 minute clip, you should record a one second clip to force the camera to store the previous (which can take a few seconds)?

[b]> if you know you must record big chunks, unhack![/b]

[quote name='craigbuckley' timestamp='1351308578' post='20418']When I look on my camera it says no valid picture to display, but I never deleted the footage off my camera...[/quote]

This sometimes happens with hacks. I can't explain it, if it was on an unhacked GH2, one were entitled to call it a bug. Most times it helps to put the camera off and then on again, sometimes not, depends. But stay calm. I wasn't able to play back a lot of clips in the camera, but they were on the card. Unless you deleted something intentionally, probably nothing is gone. Only, if it wasn't stored in the first place.

[b]> never use your camera as card reader![/b]
[b]> use the card reader to make a copy of the card in a new folder on your hard drive.[/b]

If you plan to work with the native AVCHD, this folder, named i.e. [i]show oct 25[/i], should better be on a partition or a second drive (not just USB-connected). There is a simple reason for this: FCP X allows you to skim through all your footage diagonally. Since this is a file-based workflow, the computer needs to have quick access to all of the files it must display. At once. Poor USB 2.0 is the bottleneck here. It will cause FCP X to crash.

On a sfeadicam, once balanced. should be printed 'Don't touch this!'

In a bright place, you can be lucky, and the continous autofocus works. Much better of course is the so-called 'hyperfocal distance' with more tolerance, again, in a bright place, where you can close the aperture. If you want to keep a talent in focus while performing 'Don Juan', and have shallow DoF at the same time, you can use a black thread as distance-keeper. But first, as mentioned above, train yourself. Aim at a point with the crosshairs as guides, then move the camera with the point nailed to the crosshair. Pan and learn to ease out the pan at a predefined point. Watch online-tutorials. Be patient and get better.

I once was camera assistant for a video doc shot on SD U-matic high called [i]beauty & awareness[/i], produced by some rich german, lifted women, who sought spirituality in their lavish lifestyle. They invited a fat american female guru, the whole show was in american english, with the germans trying to sound californian above their heavy german accent. The rooms were white and lit with soft bounced highkey, smoothing their skin. They took each other by the hands and expressed their dedication to beauty, that came out of a pure heart. In the end, the guru performed a playback to Michael Jacksons [i]man in the mirror[/i], and it became apparent that she was a transvestite. Ever since I discovered youtube, I tried to find the film, but couldn't. Perhaps I misunderstood your approach, but nothing is funnier than reality.

Craig, you don't listen. The adapter works for mini-jack to cinch, for example the headphone output of your iPod to a stereo amplifier, but the other way is just horror. You've got a good mike, why don't you make up your mind and buy either a Juicedlink or Beachtek or a Tascam? Or you could go from XLR to mini-jack directly, with a short cable (wired in the right way, a friend of mine built such an adapter for himself, works) no problem. And then, your mixer is probably AC-bound, how practical is that?

I understand, you have not much money. Then take your time with your limited equipment and concentrate on the imagery. Don't try to buy [i]everything[/i] for 500 $. There are good shorts without any dialogue. Be patient. Do something now. Wait for the occasions to buy more and better (or the right) things. As an amateur (or beginner, if you find [i]amateur[/i] insulting), you will never be able to have exactly the equipment you are dreaming of. The enemy of art is the absence of limitations.

[quote name='aaronmc' timestamp='1350065251' post='19674']
jgjarding,

You mention HMI lights on your site post. Have you ever worked with them? I'm curious because a very salient memory of mine is when I was driving through the Rhode Island College campus back in 2006, and there is a satellite elementary school in which primary-ed students can learn in a practical environment.

The elementary school was being used as a location for the never-aired CBS show "Waterfront," and the scene's involved Joe Pantoliano's character's daughter in school. They needed to simulate daytime, so they had these MASSIVE circular lights set up blasting into the school's windows. Considering their size and brightness, I can only assume that they were HMI. Is this correct?

I read up on HMI and it doesn't seem to make sense why anyone would use them? Never use past half-life? Can EXPLODE?! Is it only the color temperature that is desirable? And if that's the case, can we expect LED and fluorescent to completely obviate HMI at some point in the future? Or is it also the sheer throw of the lights, something that neither LED nor CFL have?

And finally, as I eviscerate you with questions, why are HMI the go-to arc lights for the film industry? Why not other arc lights, especially considering that many of them have better safety profiles?
[/quote]

Yes, I used Arri HMI lights on this shoot: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgh-RSJh_Qw[/media]

Buying the following lights would be pretty mad. LEDs are worth owning though as they're so cheap. HMIs and Kinos are really hire lights. The stage has two Kino Divas with tungsten bulbs, while one Arri HMI 575 lights the curtain, and an Arrisun fills the stage from the upper circle. The Arrisun was so bright it has to be run on minimum and gelled with frost gel in order not to flood the stage too much. It's that powerful. I lit the scene it myself, believe me that's hard work as those lights weigh a lot, as do ballasts, sandbags and C-stands! Exhausting!

I also used a tungsten spot for the dancer, but it was a bit too dim, learned a lesson there!

HMI lights have a consistent colour temperature as well a powerful [i]quality [/i]of light, they are often described as 'punchy' and that's a word that suits very well. The fluorescents have a lovely glow to them. LEDs sit somewhere between, though to make them brighter you need more, thus a panel with a larger area that becomes harder to direct. They're a good cheap inbetweener though, and they can be battery powered (with [i]expensive [/i]batteries).

HMIs kick out insane levels of brightness for the watts, hence you seeing people using them to[i] [/i][i]augment the light of the sun!!! [/i]These are the only lights that will let you battle reality to a certain extent, I've found. I hope some of that is useful!

They aren't cheap to hire just to fool around with, but if you can find a budget this kind of lighting will kick the look of things up a notch.

Craig, you don't listen. The adapter works for mini-jack to cinch, for example the headphone output of your iPod to a stereo amplifier, but the other way is just horror. You've got a good mike, why don't you make up your mind and buy either a Juicedlink or Beachtek or a Tascam? Or you could go from XLR to mini-jack directly, with a short cable (wired in the right way, a friend of mine built such an adapter for himself, works) no problem. And then, your mixer is probably AC-bound, how practical is that?

I understand, you have not much money. Then take your time with your limited equipment and concentrate on the imagery. Don't try to buy [i]everything[/i] for 500 $. There are good shorts without any dialogue. Be patient. Do something now. Wait for the occasions to buy more and better (or the right) things. As an amateur (or beginner, if you find [i]amateur[/i] insulting), you will never be able to have exactly the equipment you are dreaming of. The enemy of art is the absence of limitations.

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1349992524' post='19640']A last bit of advice: 3 point lighting is a nice little trick (...) but I can't tell you how many people I've run into who actually keep that as an unbreakable rule.
[/quote]



[color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)][quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1350034148' post='19661']
Agreed on the 3-point thing! People are so often obsessed with it but I rarely find it looks nice. It tends to be quite flat and TV soap looking as it's often used.[/quote]

I also agree. Why I mentioned it at all: Imo it is useful as a rough guide as to how the direction(s) of light influences the look of it all. That one doesn't avoid backlight, since it can make a set look more three-dimensional. Like the rule of the 'divine proportion' or 'golden ratio' it can help you make an informed decision, that of course can deviate from the rule.

In particular I find that many confuse 3-point lighting with a set of 3 lamps. Even in some books on lighting you see the triangle-diagrams that very often lead people to the belief that if they arrange their lamps in such a way their images will look perfect - on the contrary!

[quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1350034148' post='19661']Hahaha watch Lord Of The Rings and find the shot without the obscenely over-powered blue backlight, or massive HMI blasting through trees! It's pretty funny how far we can suspend disbelief.
[/quote][/background][/size][/font][/color]

Not only funny. One way to make an image emblematic is to compose it of elements, like in Photoshop or After Effects, but not only by compositing layers, but by treating motif and background with some care. When everything you see is directed by the intention of the creator, it may look artificial, but it will draw attention and suspend disbelief. Highly stylized images are a way to tell a story. I use to go to exhibitions and take photos. The art objects themselves are dramatic, and so is the way they are presented, he light, the background, even snapshots transport the great gesture.

Surely 'realism' is also just a style, and a good photographer (not me!) will sometimes try to be at least hyperrealistic, if not surrealistic. Google images 'Gregory Crewdson'. Almost film.



[color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)][quote name='craigbuckley' timestamp='1350043406' post='19665']Could someone assist me with my audio troubles? Im not getting answer on my other thread and I am pretty confused. Why wouldn't panasonic put an audio jack in the gh2? Seems really silly.

What is the way around this? I have an azden shotgun mic and I would like to monitor the audio when I am recording.. Whats the best way?[/quote]

Your options:
• Use your microphone directly on the GH2. Even with different input levels, it will finally be an automatic level. You can't control it, so there is no need to monitor it over headphones. Doesn't need to be bad.

• Use a Beachtek (or something like this). I was often tempted to buy one, but I admit I have no personal experience with this.

• Buy an external recorder as Chrad recommends. They are not too expensive and a useful tool if you care for good audio. Good audio is often even more artificial than the image. It's composed (mixed) from various sources, and to do this in the best way, the separate events need to be as clean as possible. Speech in particular. Get a directional boom mic (I hope that's what it's called, correct me) and get as close to the speaker's mouth as possible. Let someone else capture the audio. The above mentioned Tascam for example allows two parallel recordings with different gain to always get the highest level and stay on the safe side. With an old fashioned clapperboard, it is unbelievably easy to synch video and external audio in your NLE. And you can record your own ambient sound with the good built-in stereomics. [/background][/size][/font][/color]

I must be board today... are you ready for this? :-)

This is all working from memory because I haven't seen that one in a couple of years other then some scenes I just watched off youtube: Well I noticed that most of his films use a variety of Studio and natural lighting techniques. He has a tendency to mock or go beyond reality in some of this scenes to achieve a sense of almost theatrical disconnection... Al least, that's how I interpret it. :-)

He's all over the place in his lighting theory. Sometimes the shots look very defused (You can get this effect by putting a large defuser of some sort in front of your light (although as axel pointed out, be careful it's made of some kind of non-flamible material, if there is a lighting a grip shop in your town, they will sell it in sheets) or bouncing a light off of white surfaces. Other times he's intentionally making the lighting look fake in order to achieve a subtle yet surreal look. As far as I can tell, some of those shots use an amber gel on a large light coming from the window the the left (or at least in the direction of the window) and then a cooler, softer fill light coming from the opposite side on the right. If you look at the opening scene, where the three kids are sitting with Royal and he's telling them that he's leaving, you can see that the kids are lit as if the sun is right outside the window and yet, the buildings behind them have a soft almost blue light from an overcast sky outside. I get the impression that it's supposed to look fake but that's part of this look.

There's also other shots where the lighting looks like it's just huge defused overhead work lights with smaller "specials" around the room to highlight things in the scene. For that look, place the lights high up and again, use a large defuser in front of them. It's actually pretty simple. Although you might need to fill in the darkness that pools around your subject's feet with yet another soft defused light. Sometimes two set at either side of the set almost perpendicular to the camera. Diffusers will help eliminate the harsh shadows you get without them.

And even more shots too that seem to use only daylight from a window and maybe an opposing fill to equalize the exposure of the room. Again, pretty simple stuff.

Just watch his movies (of better yet, movies from the 70's) and try and figure out where this lighting is coming from. Expect that you are going to be doing the wrong thing at fist but keep at it.

A last bit of advice: 3 point lighting is a nice little trick to get things to look like a hollywood movie but it isn't right for everything and never treat it like it was some kind of rule that you always need to follow. This may seem obvious but I can't tell you how many people I've run into who actually keep that as an unbreakable rule. I've often heard directors or DP's say, "You always need to have some kind of rim light" even when the scene looked fine without it. I would especially avoid it if you are trying to achieve a natural look. 3 point lighting rarely happens in real life. However, that being said, it is a good trick to get your subject to pop out of the scene... if that's your intent. I prefer subtlety.

][quote name='kirk' timestamp='1349939840' post='19592']
I agree on the usability of no-brand stuff ! There's a LOT of snobbery about what is needed to do a bit of filming.
[/quote]

I say! This is true for a lot of things. There are a few things, that, while still being affordable, are of another class. Any microphone will do, but a real leap in quality you will have only if you go over a certain price limit. If you had this thing once, you think of all cheaper options simply as junk, not worth their small price, not worth to carry around. Headphones that don't playback every frequency you recorded - what are they good for? Why should you bother to take them on? Lenses that have a nice first look, but always degrade your image unnecessarily, one- or two hundred bucks cheaper than a good lens? Finally: A tripod that weighs as much as the rest of your equipment plus something and that you need ten tries with to get that Andrew Reid pan - instead of one because the head of the more expensive is way better?

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1349975876' post='19624']
Exactly! Good point! A lot of the so called superior name brand equipment is made in China and then re-branded in other countries. They Sometime even license Chinese goods for sale in their own country and no one is even the wiser. What's even sillier is that some of the brands that we think are of superior quality are actually outsourcing to china. Eventually we are going to have to come to terms with the fact that not everything that comes from China is poorly made. Yes, there are a lot of cheap knock-off goods that are just made to look like they are passable but the same can be true for equipment made anywhere. I live in the US and I would not say that everything made here is of higher quality.
[/quote]

There you mix something up. Things are more complicated. A lot of products are made in China but invented elsewhere. Take an Apple computer. It's american. Chinese people just can't. Take precision clockworks, cars, tripods. Manfrotto has a reputation, their tripods are high tech products. Sachtler would be out of business quickly if they delivered something that's not up to the highest expectations. Every part, it may be plastic, carbon fibre or magnesium, is thoroughly tested. You can dissasemble it, make a equal-looking copy, but it will never work the same.

You [i]can[/i] buy a chinese LED light without much risk, because the design is quite simple and it costs 50 bucks. Maybe the 200 $ Litepanel version has a slightly smoother dimmer wheel. There were comparisons, and afterwards it seemed possible that the [i]brands[/i] (also 'Made in China') were the copies, but you can't generalize this.

On the other hand: A [i]very[/i] cheap tripod can do. You have to train yourself to overcome the limitations. You can put some pressure on the head while panning and, with great concentration and enough time for redos, you will get what you want. You don't need redheads (or fresnels, Kinoflos, HMIs) to light, you can also take the cheap halogen floodlights from the department store. And so forth.

Pans, when do you need them? Imho pans are like zooms, the rarer you use them, the better the film. The narrational functions are limited. They are and should be ends in themselves. They tell (in the language of film): Look, brace yourself for a grand panorama I am about to show you. And a fast follow of the main character, a passing train, all this can be done almost as well with a cheap head. It's not the question if a tripod for 150 $ is better than one for 70 $, it's just that you won't get a decent tripod for under, say, 500 $.




[color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)][quote name='craigbuckley' timestamp='1349965956' post='19614']GalenB's suggestions were awesome, its just weird that some of the reviews on amazon say those tripods are terrible, and some say they are awesome.
[/quote]

Same story. If you can afford only a 300 $ camcorder, you are surprised at how good the video is. Not if you tried a GH2 before, let alone a Sony FS-700 or higher.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[quote name='craigbuckley' timestamp='1349981418' post='19629']
Ok Ok great.

I just found 2 construction lights (those orange ones) in my basement. They seem to work alright, do you think this could be usable or are these lights crap for film? Maybe I should get some reflectors or something...
[/quote]

DIY a couple of wooden frames. Buy some heavy duty clamps to attach them to back of chairs and the like (the more easy solution were [url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/Manfrotto-super-clamp-without-stud-/320992342888?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4abca27368"]Manfrotto super clamps[/url] with studs on the cheapest [url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/656-200cm-Light-Stand-Tripod-for-Photo-Video-Lighting-SCP-0059-/221114768369?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item337b779bf1"]light stands[/url]). Over the frames, you can tape [url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lee-Filters-LF-LF250-1-2-White-Diffusion-Lee-Filter-Color-Gels-21-x-24-/330755568405?pt=US_Stage_Lighting_Parts_Accessories&hash=item4d02917315"]diffusor gel[/url]s (heat no problem), black tissue, rescue blankets, whatever. Styrofoams to bounce, they are neutral white (a white wall also works).

There is an old concept of how to light a set. It's called [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-point_lighting"]3-point-lighting[/url] (you don't need to read that). Forget about the three points. But keep in mind, that there are indeed three things to stay aware of:
a) The key light. Think of it as the spot that lights your main motif.
B) The fill light. Reducing the shadows caused by the key light and/or lighting the surrounding set.
c) The back light. Highlights the outlines, avoids the surface to look flat. Not always plausible, but always interesting.

The backlight can of cause also be the fill light. Or the key light. Neither of the light categories needs to be a [i]lamp[/i]. A person standing at a window will have a bright side and a dark side. You could position him/her, so that the profile is highlighted and the face would be a silhouette. You could bend a [url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pro-43-Light-Mulit-Collapsible-disc-5-in-1-Reflector-110cm-/280994241982?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item416c8fddbe"]reflector[/url] to focus the light from the window back to the face. The face will still be darker, but look natural, and the brighter outline will make the head stand out. With one natural light source, you have key light, fill light and backlight. You got the picture. It's like painting. You have to manipulate the scene through the viewfinder until you get what you want.

With your construction lamps, you need to avoid daylight, because the color temperature doesn't match. Your options are:
● Exclude daylight. Use the tungsten WB (or better yet: Make a manual WB). A lamp behind a diffusor is like a moveable window.
● buy filter gels for the windows (conversation filter daylight to tungsten), they stay in place if you make them wet and press them on the pane with a squeegee, reusable. You can also stop down the light from outside by attaching ND gels.

Again: Use every light that suits you. Experiment. Perhaps some day you buy more lights. Spots for example. Or borrow them. Some are just too expensive to buy.

There are imo two completely different concepts of lighting, and to understand why can get you faster to where you like to be with light.

1. Lighting every take to the greatest effect, bending logic as far as needed, excluding natural light from the set or at least rigorously changing it. You study the characteristics of certain types of lights and choose the ones that fit.

2. Looking at natural light on a set. Since someone scouted the set as suitable for the scene, it very probably has something special. It will already capture and reflect the natural or existing light in a nice way. You think hard about what it is that makes the light work and then you merely amplify this mood, usually seldom by much more than reflectors or diffused floodlamps.

Once these two methods were called expressionistic and impressionistic, but if you take them as a yin & yang thing and not as contradictions, you have found the key to see the world through epiphanies of light.

Consider every lightsource as usable - for certain purposes. If there ever was a craft to which 'WYSIWYG' could be attached, it is lighting. But you need to learn how to see.

[quote name='craigbuckley' timestamp='1349981418' post='19629']
Ok Ok great.

I just found 2 construction lights (those orange ones) in my basement. They seem to work alright, do you think this could be usable or are these lights crap for film? Maybe I should get some reflectors or something...
[/quote]

DIY a couple of wooden frames. Buy some heavy duty clamps to attach them to back of chairs and the like (the more easy solution were [url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/Manfrotto-super-clamp-without-stud-/320992342888?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4abca27368"]Manfrotto super clamps[/url] with studs on the cheapest [url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/656-200cm-Light-Stand-Tripod-for-Photo-Video-Lighting-SCP-0059-/221114768369?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item337b779bf1"]light stands[/url]). Over the frames, you can tape [url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lee-Filters-LF-LF250-1-2-White-Diffusion-Lee-Filter-Color-Gels-21-x-24-/330755568405?pt=US_Stage_Lighting_Parts_Accessories&hash=item4d02917315"]diffusor gel[/url]s (heat no problem), black tissue, rescue blankets, whatever. Styrofoams to bounce, they are neutral white (a white wall also works).

There is an old concept of how to light a set. It's called [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-point_lighting"]3-point-lighting[/url] (you don't need to read that). Forget about the three points. But keep in mind, that there are indeed three things to stay aware of:
a) The key light. Think of it as the spot that lights your main motif.
B) The fill light. Reducing the shadows caused by the key light and/or lighting the surrounding set.
c) The back light. Highlights the outlines, avoids the surface to look flat. Not always plausible, but always interesting.

The backlight can of cause also be the fill light. Or the key light. Neither of the light categories needs to be a [i]lamp[/i]. A person standing at a window will have a bright side and a dark side. You could position him/her, so that the profile is highlighted and the face would be a silhouette. You could bend a [url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pro-43-Light-Mulit-Collapsible-disc-5-in-1-Reflector-110cm-/280994241982?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item416c8fddbe"]reflector[/url] to focus the light from the window back to the face. The face will still be darker, but look natural, and the brighter outline will make the head stand out. With one natural light source, you have key light, fill light and backlight. You got the picture. It's like painting. You have to manipulate the scene through the viewfinder until you get what you want.

With your construction lamps, you need to avoid daylight, because the color temperature doesn't match. Your options are:
● Exclude daylight. Use the tungsten WB (or better yet: Make a manual WB). A lamp behind a diffusor is like a moveable window.
● buy filter gels for the windows (conversation filter daylight to tungsten), they stay in place if you make them wet and press them on the pane with a squeegee, reusable. You can also stop down the light from outside by attaching ND gels.

Again: Use every light that suits you. Experiment. Perhaps some day you buy more lights. Spots for example. Or borrow them. Some are just too expensive to buy.

There are imo two completely different concepts of lighting, and to understand why can get you faster to where you like to be with light.

1. Lighting every take to the greatest effect, bending logic as far as needed, excluding natural light from the set or at least rigorously changing it. You study the characteristics of certain types of lights and choose the ones that fit.

2. Looking at natural light on a set. Since someone scouted the set as suitable for the scene, it very probably has something special. It will already capture and reflect the natural or existing light in a nice way. You think hard about what it is that makes the light work and then you merely amplify this mood, usually seldom by much more than reflectors or diffused floodlamps.

Once these two methods were called expressionistic and impressionistic, but if you take them as a yin & yang thing and not as contradictions, you have found the key to see the world through epiphanies of light.

Consider every lightsource as usable - for certain purposes. If there ever was a craft to which 'WYSIWYG' could be attached, it is lighting. But you need to learn how to see.

There are imo two completely different concepts of lighting, and to understand why can get you faster to where you like to be with light.

1. Lighting every take to the greatest effect, bending logic as far as needed, excluding natural light from the set or at least rigorously changing it. You study the characteristics of certain types of lights and choose the ones that fit.

2. Looking at natural light on a set. Since someone scouted the set as suitable for the scene, it very probably has something special. It will already capture and reflect the natural or existing light in a nice way. You think hard about what it is that makes the light work and then you merely amplify this mood, usually seldom by much more than reflectors or diffused floodlamps.

Once these two methods were called expressionistic and impressionistic, but if you take them as a yin & yang thing and not as contradictions, you have found the key to see the world through epiphanies of light.

Consider every lightsource as usable - for certain purposes. If there ever was a craft to which 'WYSIWYG' could be attached, it is lighting. But you need to learn how to see.

I'm about ready to cross this one off the list. Right now I'm most tempted to swap my 550D for a 600D and get the new ALL-I hacks from Magic Lantern TBH, rather than drop a fortune on a small codec update!

Looks like the Sony sensor has scuppered the GH line's individual feel...

Set your mind at rest forever with the Sachtler ACE (preferably the ground spreader version). For another 150 bucks more, you get the [i]definite[/i] solution. That is, if you really plan to make fluent pans. If you just need a stand, get some 70$ junk, enough for the lightweight GH2.

Yes, I have. These presets are just combinations of parameters every color correction software has built-in. And the 'look' is just applied as an effect, there is nothing genuine to it. When will we finally be freed from the urge to make such awful mock-ups?

You want a sophisticated look? Create it. Save combinations of filters you experimented with to your own, unprejudiced liking. Do it for a reason. Enhance the emotional impact of a scene. If you want it to taste special, never use spice blends!