galenb

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.

The Fancierstudio is cheaper than the Silk and more stable at full hight. Also, I know it sounds weird but, the longer handle is actually quite important for doing smooth pans and tilts. It give you more leverage. The shorter handle on the Silk is more prone to jerky movement. Another nice thing about the Fancier is that the quick release plate is a larger sliding type as opposed to a clip in one. This is just easer for use with larger video cameras. The legs also have pins as well as soft rubber feel so you can stick it into the ground when you need to. But really, the Fancier is a video tripod and the Silk is for photography. The advantage that the Silk has is that it's smaller and lighter weight but still pretty stable.

Well, I happen to disagree. Craig, you are just starting out, you don't need to buy a $500 tripod. The one you picked out on ebay looks fine for what you are trying to do. I've always preferred the aluminum tube, crutch legs over the telescoping legs design. Most of the tripods I've used in studios have been this type. But whatever, thats a matter of taste I think. There are a bunch of similar ones on Amazon for about $120-150. Just look up Fluid head video tripod.

http://www.amazon.com/Ravelli-AVTP-Professional-Camera-Tripod/dp/B00139W0XM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1349936949&sr=8-2&keywords=fluid+head+tripod+for+video

http://www.amazon.com/Professional-Heavy-Video-Camcorder-Tripod/dp/B003UOMWOK/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1349936983&sr=8-3&keywords=fluid+head+tripod+for+video

My personal pick:

http://www.amazon.com/Fancierstudio-Professional-Camera-Tripod-FC-270/dp/B004XMW4SW/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1349937009&sr=8-7&keywords=fluid+head+tripod+for+video

By the way, if you are concerned about your tripod blowing over, try using a sandbag. Sheesh guys.

Well, I happen to disagree. Craig, you are just starting out, you don't need to buy a $500 tripod. The one you picked out on ebay looks fine for what you are trying to do. I've always preferred the aluminum tube, crutch legs over the telescoping legs design. Most of the tripods I've used in studios have been this type. But whatever, thats a matter of taste I think. There are a bunch of similar ones on Amazon for about $120-150. Just look up Fluid head video tripod.

http://www.amazon.com/Ravelli-AVTP-Professional-Camera-Tripod/dp/B00139W0XM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1349936949&sr=8-2&keywords=fluid+head+tripod+for+video

http://www.amazon.com/Professional-Heavy-Video-Camcorder-Tripod/dp/B003UOMWOK/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1349936983&sr=8-3&keywords=fluid+head+tripod+for+video

My personal pick:

http://www.amazon.com/Fancierstudio-Professional-Camera-Tripod-FC-270/dp/B004XMW4SW/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1349937009&sr=8-7&keywords=fluid+head+tripod+for+video

By the way, if you are concerned about your tripod blowing over, try using a sandbag. Sheesh guys.

Well, I happen to disagree. Craig, you are just starting out, you don't need to buy a $500 tripod. The one you picked out on ebay looks fine for what you are trying to do. I've always preferred the aluminum tube, crutch legs over the telescoping legs design. Most of the tripods I've used in studios have been this type. But whatever, thats a matter of taste I think. There are a bunch of similar ones on Amazon for about $120-150. Just look up Fluid head video tripod.

http://www.amazon.com/Ravelli-AVTP-Professional-Camera-Tripod/dp/B00139W0XM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1349936949&sr=8-2&keywords=fluid+head+tripod+for+video

http://www.amazon.com/Professional-Heavy-Video-Camcorder-Tripod/dp/B003UOMWOK/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1349936983&sr=8-3&keywords=fluid+head+tripod+for+video

My personal pick:

http://www.amazon.com/Fancierstudio-Professional-Camera-Tripod-FC-270/dp/B004XMW4SW/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1349937009&sr=8-7&keywords=fluid+head+tripod+for+video

By the way, if you are concerned about your tripod blowing over, try using a sandbag. Sheesh guys.

[color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)][quote name='galenb' timestamp='1349202502' post='19327']P.S. I find it funny sometimes when people say that full frame cameras are more cinematic because of their larger sensors. I mean, it's true and all but actually a frame of film on a super 35 motion picture camera is actually closer in size to an APS-C sensors. So, with a FF camera you are actually getting a "Vistavision" frame.
[/quote][/background][/size][/font][/color]

While we type and read, a huge shift is underway. Digital cinema is growing up, and a change in perceiving the spirited images we call [i]film[/i] has already begun. Sunday I watched a doc in an arthouse cinema that was obviously shot mostly with DSLRs. Despite all efforts to mimic the analog 'world' (RIP), digital cinema, and 8-bit video in particular, never looks like [i]film[/i]. But I, a projectionst and almost an analog fundamentalist, found that I felt completely happy with the clean, videoish look, and that it did not weaken the impact of what was to be - er - [i]transported[/i]. If there [i]is[/i] something to be transported and not just the travesty of a look of the past. I say, let's stop comparing film to video. Perhaps we should eliminate the word film from our vocabulary and invent something else. Something that lets us love our stuff as it is, forget about stupid looks and start telling something. This can be great times for independent _ _ _ _makers.

Lower f-stop numbers like f/1.4 or f/2.0 are better then f/3.5 or f/4. Lenses are usually described with a focal length and widest possible aperture. The wider the aperture the better. So if you see a lens described as a "50mm, f/3.5" and then another "50mm, f/1.4", the latter is better because the lower F-stop number indicates a wider aperture opening. f/1.4 is better then f/3.5.

I still think you should get the 14-42mm but the Panasonic 14mm f2.8 is a really nice lens and very inexpensive. It looks like it's about the cheapest 14mm you can get:
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Aspherical-Thirds-Interchangeable-Cameras/dp/B008R6F6HG/ref=pd_sim_sbs_p_2

Oh and check out this guys website where he does some really great scientific comparisons between different micro 4/3 lenses:
http://m43photo.blogspot.com

About Neutral Density filter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_density_filter
Basically, it allows you to shoot wide open aperture in full daylight by cutting down the light entering the lens. It's so you can get that shallow depth of field look in brightly lit scenes. A variable ND filter is actually two pieces of specially coated glass that rotate against each other. The more you rotate the top glass, the less light gets through. It's an indispensable tool and great for outdoor shooting.

Yes, that adaptor will work on the GH2.

Now for that particular lens, I'm going to offer my personal opinion. ;-) First off, I have a lens almost exactly like it but I paid about $40 for it. It's a Minolta 50mm f1.4. 50mm is about the most common lens you can find out there. Check ebay and I'm sure you'll see what I'm talking about.

But here, there is a slight issue you should be aware of. The sensor in the GH2 is a micro 4/3 size. That means it's smaller then an APS-C sensor and even smaller then a full frame sensor. So, if you had a full frame sensor camera, a 50mm lens would be a 50mm lens just fine. But on a micro 4/3 camera, The sensor is actually crops the lens by 2x more then a full frame sensor. So a 50mm (which is about medium focal length on a full frame camera) is actually 100mm on the GH2! This means that a medium lens is actually a telephoto! Now, this is both good news and bad for some people. I love the look of telephoto. To me, I have this cool, 70's, raw documentary kind of romantic vision in my head. So this is right up my alley. However, a lot of people are really into wide angle or even fisheye lenses. If you look through the listings on ebay, you'll quickly see that wide angle lenses are some of the most expensive out there. To make things worse, what is considered wide to a full frame camera is actually medium focal length on a GH2 because of the 2x crop. So a 24mm lens is almost a 50mm on a GH2. So, you need to go down further and further in focal length to to actually get a wide angle look. The kit lens is 14mm-42mm so with the crop that's actually 28mm-84mm (which is actually perfect for most people's taste). So, the kind of lens that you'll be wanting to get is either something wider then 14mm (like a 7mm or 10mm) if you want to shoot skateboard videos... Or, something longer then 42 mm (like 100mm... well, you get the idea). But wait, there's a special trick that GH2 has that allows you to push in on the sensor to get a 2X telephoto zoom. It's kind of like digital zoom but it actually just grabs the middle 1920x1080 pixels of the full 16 megapixel image and gives you a 1:1 pixel ratio. So it is for all practical purposes a regular 2X zoom with the flick of a switch.

One thing I also wanted to say about the Nikon lens you picked out. That lens is pretty expensive due in part to a lot of features that you wouldn't even be able to use on that camera. So, you need to keep in mind that even though Nikon lenses and Canon lenses and whatever lenses can be adapted to micro 4/3, the GH2 won't be able to use auto focus, in-body aperture control or optical image stabilization. Only the full manual lenses are of any use. If you really want those features, take a look at the Panasonic micro 4/3 lenses out there. They are expensive but very sharp.

If you don't care about auto control, cruse ebay for old lenses. Search for "Nikon F mount", "Canon FD mount", "minolta MD", "Pentax PK", "Olympus OM" and "M42". These are all manual lens mounts and in general, pretty safe for the GH2. I have PK, F, and MD adaptors for my lenses and they all work great.

The last thing I wanted to add was, if you have money burning a whole in your pocket, think about investing in some of the other tools you might need. Like a really nice tripod or a follow focus rig ( [url="http://www.amazon.com/Camera-Shoulder-Support-Handles-Standard/dp/B008MTRGJY/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=2JCTXBQZ88F4F&coliid=IXXSDLH9NRU1G"]I've had my eye on this[/url] ) or a nice veriable-ND filter with some stepper rings. Reflectors, lights, soft boxes, etc, etc...


[edit: hmmm. Looks like I took so long responding that two other got there before I could! :-D]

Which adaptor you buy depends on the mount of the lens you buy. So for example, if you get a nikon lens, then you'll need a Nikon F mount to micro 4/3 adaptor or if you get a minolta lens, you need a minolta MD mount to micro 4/3 adaptor etc., etc.

I feel like lenses are kind of a subjective thing. They arguably have the largest influence on you final image. So what lens you need will be dictated by what kind of look you are going for. At least that's what I think anyway. :-)

I would definitely recommend getting the kit lens with the camera. I got a GH1 body only because I already had a bunch of old lenses but now I'm really wishing I had a nice simple zooming autofocus lens with image stabilization so that I would just quickly pop off a shot now and then or shoot hand held any time I felt like it. As it is, I always need to use some kind of rig and I often miss a shot because I'm busy focusing. Not that I would use it all the time it's just nice to have for those quick, in the moment times. From what I hear, the panasonic 14-42mm is actually a really nice lens. In fact, I would recommend starting with that, shooting with it for a while and seeing what it is that you feel it's lacking and then using that to inform your next lens purchase.

[quote name='bwhitz' timestamp='1346576004' post='17141']Smoke and mirrors. People just want to get paid to play with big toys that other people can't afford.
[/quote]


[left]Fundamental truth. Male brain stem. Threads like this (and the whole technical gadgets affairs) are more fueled by testosterone than by economical reason or technical needs (EDIT: You see that what you say about 'the people' tells a lot about yourself. Like in [font="Arial, Verdana, sans-serif"][color="#000000"][i]what I myself do think or do is what I expect of others too[/i], german proverb. [/color][/font]It's a mechanism called 'projection', which is my domain, but really in a technical sense ;) ).[/left]

However, on a commercial film set (no matter if it's a film with Diane Keaton or if the director is a woman), you have at least four people responsible for the image: DoP, operator(s), lighting technician(s), focus puller(s), a few hundred dollars more or less for gear rentals simply don't count much.

Why do we compare an Alexa to the cameras we can afford? Masochism? Penis envy? A sober calculation whether our finished feature might be rejected by the distributors because of some far-fetched color-issue? Are we indies or what?

Well, I do VFX/CG Animation for a living. I have no idea why he wouldn't be able to get a good key off a GH2 versus a 7D. That doesn't make any sense. Maybe someone with a GH2 can do some tests?

Anyway baring that, I'll say that yes, for your budget the GH2 is probably the right camera. Not that I've ever had to key GH2 footage. I've mostly dealt with RED and Canon 5D/7D footage. The biggest issue for me when keying DSLR footage (and the biggest difference between that and the RED) is the compression in the details and across color gradations. Since the hacked GH2 can give you much finer details due to less compression, it's going to be the better camera for green screen work in your budget. That said, I've never had a shot that couldn't be dealt with in some way. You can always use multiple keys for different areas of the shot, garbage masks and if worse comes to worse, you always just hand roto. While working on commercials, a lot of times they don't have a technical director on set and they shoot stuff without knowing exactly what to do. Or sometimes, you just don't know because you've never done anything like that. In those cases, hind sight is always 20/20 but you end up learning a lot in the process. If you wanted to avoid all the pit falls and be as safe and practical as you possibly could, you'd just shoot on a RED or similar high end camera and be done with it. But, being as it is that you are on a budget, I think you'll be just fine with a hacked GH2. As far as Canon cameras go, I personally wouldn't choose a 7D. Not even for anything else to be quite frank. I know a ton of people who have 7D's and they always look soft and smeared. Keying hair is a real problem on the 7D because of this. If you are stuck on Canon cameras, I think you are better off saving your money and getting something like a t3i or similar and just selling it later or. You can spend the money you saved on the 7D and get a nice lens. ;-) In my eyes the step up in quality from a t3i to 7D is a lot less noticeable then going up to a 5DII since the t2/3/4i all have essentially the same APS-C sensor as a 7D. But again, as long as you are not expecting ILM quality green screen keying, you should be just fine. Later when you have the money to make a larger budget film, you can just rent a RED or something similar.

Well, I do VFX/CG Animation for a living. I have no idea why he wouldn't be able to get a good key off a GH2 versus a 7D. That doesn't make any sense. Maybe someone with a GH2 can do some tests?

Anyway baring that, I'll say that yes, for your budget the GH2 is probably the right camera. Not that I've ever had to key GH2 footage. I've mostly dealt with RED and Canon 5D/7D footage. The biggest issue for me when keying DSLR footage (and the biggest difference between that and the RED) is the compression in the details and across color gradations. Since the hacked GH2 can give you much finer details due to less compression, it's going to be the better camera for green screen work in your budget. That said, I've never had a shot that couldn't be dealt with in some way. You can always use multiple keys for different areas of the shot, garbage masks and if worse comes to worse, you always just hand roto. While working on commercials, a lot of times they don't have a technical director on set and they shoot stuff without knowing exactly what to do. Or sometimes, you just don't know because you've never done anything like that. In those cases, hind sight is always 20/20 but you end up learning a lot in the process. If you wanted to avoid all the pit falls and be as safe and practical as you possibly could, you'd just shoot on a RED or similar high end camera and be done with it. But, being as it is that you are on a budget, I think you'll be just fine with a hacked GH2. As far as Canon cameras go, I personally wouldn't choose a 7D. Not even for anything else to be quite frank. I know a ton of people who have 7D's and they always look soft and smeared. Keying hair is a real problem on the 7D because of this. If you are stuck on Canon cameras, I think you are better off saving your money and getting something like a t3i or similar and just selling it later or. You can spend the money you saved on the 7D and get a nice lens. ;-) In my eyes the step up in quality from a t3i to 7D is a lot less noticeable then going up to a 5DII since the t2/3/4i all have essentially the same APS-C sensor as a 7D. But again, as long as you are not expecting ILM quality green screen keying, you should be just fine. Later when you have the money to make a larger budget film, you can just rent a RED or something similar.

Oh and new Blackmagic forum too!
http://forum.blackmagicdesign.com

Still a happy GH2 owner. Just shows you have to know and work around the limitations of your camera. Since the set had a greater DR than the camera can handle there had to be adjustments made to the interior lighting to cope... Noone would ever suggest the GH2 camera could fairly compete with a F65... But handled by a creative crew it did very well, as the comments and round one votes also mirror. And as far as economics go, the fictive rental scheme is fairly uninteresting. If you were producing a real movie you'd probably not rent a GH2 or an I-phone... The luxury of the GH2 is that for the first time a poor bastard like me can afford to own an impressively good camera and use it every day without breaking the bank.

Has anyone mentioned what profile was used on the GH2? Didn't look like Nostalgic to me... and was the Mac gamma shift/clipping issue part of the problem for the GH2?

The retailer has my deposit, not Black Magic, so the manufacturer has not been using customer's money to fund development in this instance.

Hi everyone, this is my first post but I just had to point out something: I used to have a chair like that. It's not actually moire like what happens with a lot of other DSLR footage that's caused by aliasing. This is actually caused naturally by the fact that you are looking through two layers of mesh. It's imposable for the front mesh the line up exactly with the back mesh so you see a moire pattern. It's a completely naturally occurring optical effect that you would see with your naked eye. Another way you can tell this is the case is that the pattern doesn't change or move every frame like normal moire caused by aliasing or the simple fact there is no moire anywhere else.

Thanks!