tupp

The reason diffusion is used on Fresnels is probably a combination of "convenience," bad planning and the fact that most people don't know any better. Of course, on many sets its a race against time. Once a light is set up, one generally wants it to live there until it is wrapped. So, a common practice is to use overpowered Fresnels (which have beam controllability), and then scrim/dim them down to the desired level or, if necessary, use the extra output to bang through diffusion/softbox. Often there is a piece of 250 diffusion gel rolled up in the Fresnel's scrim box. This technique often avoids the time sink needed to replace the Fresnel with another fixture, and also having to bring the Fresnel back to the staging area and wrap/head-wrap it. On the other hand, some folks start out with the intention of using diffusion on Fresnels, even though they may have open-faced lights and softboxes already on stands in the staging area. I am not certain that this thread now has a singular topic, nor am I sure on how an LED panel in a softbox cannot "compete" with any other source with any other source in the same sized softbox. On the other hand, compared to a smaller light source, the panel light should give a smoother pattern on the front diffuser of a softbox. At any rate, one could use that panel light in question directly on a middle-aged woman without any complaints from the subject. I was responding to your statement regarding your "1x1" panels not being large enough for a "soft key." Your "1-by" is plenty soft for a lot of subjects. In regards to your original questions, I addressed them here. Well, now you are bringing up cost, and that is an entirely different consideration. I have no idea what the prices are for the zillions of LED fixtures out there. In regards to getting the most output from a "COB" LED source banged through diffusion, it is more efficient to use a reflector on the head and move it close to the diffuser, rather than using a Fresnel (or Fresnel attachment).

Of course. The larger the source, the larger the specular highlight. That's why it is best to light flat art and walls with a smaller source -- there's less chance of glare problems because the highlight is smaller. A big variable in regards to "harshness" and/or contrast of specular highlights is the distance of the light source from the subject. The closer the source is to the subject, the greater the subject's diffuse value relative to the highlight value -- so as you move the source closer, the contrast ("harshness") decreases between the highligts and the subject's diffuse brightness. Thank you for the kind word!

Some open-faced focusable sources can produce a double cast shadow in the outer parts of the beam, when focused to "spot." So, cutting into the beam with barndoors or a flag can sometimes not give a clean edge as with a Fresnel. I tend to use open faced fixtures, as that double cast shadow usually is not apparent, and because they are more compact and lightweight than Fresnels. The Lowel Omni light. A great, lightweight, compact, powerful and exceedingly versatile fixture. It's focusing range is greater than many Fresnels. Always use a protective screen on the front of the fixture. Use FTK bulbs with a filament support, and avoid off-brand bulbs. The focusing mechanism is very fast and can break the bulb's filament if one is not careful.

Not sure what is meant by "doesn't really do a good job in 'full flood,'" A Fresnel attachment on an LED fixture might be disappointing to one having experience with tungsten and HMI Fresnels. Regardless, the range of beam angles from a focusable fixture/attachment depends on a few variables. With Fresnel fixtures, the source is always closest to the lens in the full flood setting. So, if the Fresnel attachment doesn't allow the LED to get close to lens, then the beam angle will not reach its widest potential. Of course, there are safety reasons why the light source should not get too close to the lens. On the other hand, if one can just remove the lens/attachment, then it's best to just use the fixture without the lens, one wants to go really wide and use all of the output from the source. By the way, it is dangerous to run a tungsten or HMI Fresnel without its lens. I don't advocate using Fresnels to illuminate diffusion -- it doesn't make a lot of sense to do so. However, I see it on set often. Fresnels and other focusable fixtures are more than "fun to play around with." If one knows how to use them, they are a valuable tool that "play" often on set.

You call a diffuser a "scrim" -- do you have a background in still photography? Generally, a Fresnel will be significantly less efficient than an open-face fixture. A lot of the light is lost when it strikes the inside of the housing of the Fresnel fixture/attachment. An open-faced focusable source would be better and more efficient in this situation.

Fresnels don't focus all of the output in one place -- such fixtures can only focus the light that hits the lens. The light that hits the inside of the housing is wasted. In this sense, many open-faced fixtures are more efficient than Fresnel fixtures as almost all of the light from an open-faced fixture comes out the front of the unit. No. The Fresnel will be dimmer than using the exposed LED with a reflector. By the way, softboxes are generally a lot more efficient and controllable than naked diffusers. Naked diffusers also generate a lot of spill light. Folks, Fresnel lights on set generally have a continuous "focus" range of beam angles from "spot" to "flood." The range of those beam angles varies with each fixture. I can't recall all the times I've seen someone illuminate a diffuser with a Fresnel light, but almost always they focused the light to "full flood" to completely illuminate the diffuser. Fresnels are used all the time on film sets. I use Fresnels and open-faced focusable fixtures directly on people and sets. Keep in mind that the "spotlight" effect from a naked Fresnel will usually give a soft edge to the spot. If one wants a harder edge on a spot, use a snoot and focus the light to "full flood" (or use a good ellipsoidal/followspot or projection fixture that has minimal fringing). A lot depends on what you are trying to do. I could use that panel fixture naked in a lot of shoots. Softness in lighting is a matter of degree between a point source and completely surrounding your subject with a smooth light source. There is not definitive "soft light" and "hard light." By the way, you can use a panel light in a soft box. A lot depends on the optics in front of the LED, but, again, open-faced fixtures are almost always more efficient than fixtures using Fresnel/plano-convex lenses.

The stills look great!

Keep in mind that although signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range are similar properties, SNR will always be smaller than DR. Both he upper limits and noise thresholds differ in the way that they are obtained, especially in regards to capturing photons with image sensors. This article breaks down the differences. A downscale with binning usually reduces noise, which increases the effective DR/'SNR Perhaps the in-camera downscale is not binning properly, or perhaps it might be too difficult to do in the camera because of the sensor's complex filter array.

I have a fair bit of experience creating patterns and slashes on backgrounds, and unless the desired pattern is complex, you might be better off just cutting what you need out of foamcor and just casting a shadow. Slashes are easy to make with zero spill using bardoors and/or blackwrap. With foamcor patterns the spill is not that big of a problem, if you are careful with your doors/snoot and if you leave a big border around the pattern. If you really need to go with a projection fixture, consider a used Source 4 ellipsoidal. They have a nice punch and go for as low as US$175 on Ebay (sometimes with the pattern holder included). In addition, they take standard theatrical patterns -- there are zillions of them. If you anticipate working mostly in close quarters, get the 36-degree lens (or the 50-degree lens).

Your video is easily better than 95% of the work that is out there -- great eye and a nicely coordinated edit. The narrator did a great job, as well. Did someone give her line readings? I noticed that the interior shot had slight noise, but I was pixel peeping. I would guess that you had to stop down due to the high scene contrast. It certainly was not enough noise to warrant using an unwieldy cinema camera, although it might have been interesting to try a minor adjustment to the E-M10's "Highlights & Shadows" setting. Your video is a superb and inspiring piece that brings life to a mundane subject.

The red line didn't help, but a black Sharpie could quickly fix that.

Film grain is "organized" to actually form/create the image, while noise is random (except for FPN) and obscures the image. Noise doesn't "destroy" resolution -- it just obscures pixels. On the other hand, with too much noise the image forming pixels are not visible, so there's no discernible image and, thus, no resolution. Grain actually forms the image on film. Noise obscures the image. Yep. That notion is subjective, but not uncommon. Actual electronic noise is random, whether digital or analog. It could be argued that FPN and extraneous signal interference are not "noise." This is another subjective but common notion. Again, with the medium of film, grain is organized to actually form the image -- noise is random and noise obscures the image. To me, it doesn't make much sense to remove random noise and then add an overlay of random grain -- grain that does absolutely nothing to form the image.

Yes. Fringing can sometimes be an issue with some ellipsoidal fixtures. Instruments that use lenses made for slide/film projectors usually exhibit minimal fringing. Use an open-face tungsten or HMI source with a snoot. Add a tube of blackwrap if the snoot is too short. That should eliminate most of your spill, and the open-face filament/arc will give you sharp shadows if the fixture is set to full flood. Both open-face and Fresnel fixtures always give their sharpest shadows on full flood.

I know what it is like to suffer attacks and abuse for merely telling the truth and stating fact. All I can say is:

Okay. If you can keep your set-up and shoot time down to an hour total and if you are only using two or three fixtures, then it is probably better to use batteries. Bring spares. LED fixtures might need to be fairly close to the subject when shooting in the daytime.

You have plenty of work light? Are you shooting nighttime exteriors 1000km form the nearest town? What is "IV/PTC?"

If your LED lights actually draw a total of 600W, you might suffer continual battery management/charge anxiety. Also, when you kill your battery-powered set lights in between takes and in between set-ups, will you also have a separate battery-powered work-light running? On the other hand, a genny with a 600W constant capacity is not that big (but it's good practice to use a genny that is rated at twice the anticipated power draw). You can keep it and a gas can in a large plastic bin(s) to protect your car's interior from gasoline/oil. By the way, gennys last longer than batteries because their tanks have much larger power capacities than typical batteries -- not because they can be "topped-up." A battery system can be "topped-up" with a parallel, rectified circuit and/or switches. If you are recording sound, make sure to have at least 150 feet of 12 guage stingers (extension cords) just to run power from the genny to the set, and hide the genny behind a distant building or thick bushes. You can also build a sound shield with stands, heavy vinyl and a furniture pad (or a thick blanket). If you can arrange in advance to run power from a nearby building, that might be an even better solution.

There might be a way to attach a speedbooster. This is a really interesting thread!

Yes! The EOSM with ML raw is amazing, and @ZEEK has a great eye! EOSM ML raw videos are constantly appearing on YouTube. This guy also does nice work with the EOSM.

Perhaps it was interlaced (60i), and then deinterlaced to 30p. There are probably plug-ins/filters in those programs that might work, but I am not familiar those apps.

Look again. I am not trolling. I have presented facts, often with detailed explanations and with supporting images and links. These facts show that Yedlin's test is faulty, and that we cannot draw any sound conclusions from his comparison. In addition, I have point-out contradictions and/or falsehoods (or lies) of others, also using facts/links. If my posting methods look like trolling to you, please explain how it is so. It doesn't sound like you are actually interested in the topic of this thread. No need to apologize for your shallowness and frivolity. Those are two real funny (and original) jokes. Another real funny joke. I am not sure that I believe you. So, you don't really have anything to add to the topic of the discussion with this solitary post late in the thread. You have made similar posts near the end of another extended thread, posts which likewise had no relation to that discussion. What is the purpose of these late, irrelevant posts? I don't wonder about that. Please... If you have something worthwhile to offer to the discussion, I'd like to hear it, but don't talk down to someone who is actually contributing facts, explanations and supporting evidence that relate directly to the topic of this thread.

Ffmpeg has a "pullup" filter, but removing pulldowns can be done in ffmpeg without that special filter. Mencoder and AviSynth can also remove pulldowns. Several NLEs and post programs have plugins that do the same. However, the pulled-down 30fps footage is usually interlaced. Can you post a few seconds of the 30fps footage?

What were you hoping to achieve with your personal insults of me below: I didn't mind any of these blatant insults nor the numerous sarcastic insinuations that you have made about me (I have made one or two sarcastic innuendos about you -- but not as many as you have about me). I don't mind it that you constantly contradict yourself and project those contraditions on me, nor do I mind when you inadvertently disprove your own points, nor do I care when you just make stuff up to suit your position. However, when you lied about me making a fictitious claim comparing myself to Yedlin, you went too far. Here is your lie: I never made any such claim. You need to take back that lie. Classic projection... You should ask yourself the same question -- how are your personal insults (listed above), contradictions and falsehoods helping anyone? I have given many reason's in great detail on why Yedlin's test is not valid, and I even linked two straightforward resolution demos that disagree with the results of Yedlin's more convoluted test. Additionally, you unwittingly presented results from a thorough empirical study that directly contradict the results of Yedlin's test. Those results showed a "pretty obvious" (your own words) distinguishability between two resolutions that differ by 2x, while Yedlin's results show no distinguishability between two resolutions with a more disparate resolution difference of 3x -- and the study that you presented was also made with an Alexa! I cannot conceive of any additional argument against the validity of Yedlin's comparison that is more convincing than those obviously damning results of the empirical study that you yourself inadvertently presented in this thread. Indeed, it's a question you should ask of yourself.

I thought that you were just being trollish, but now it seems that you are truly delusional. Somehow in your mind you get the notion that I am "criticizing Yedlin for using a 6K camera on a 4K timeline" from this passage: Nowhere in that passage do I mention Yedlin, nor do I mention a camera, nor do I ever refer to anyone "using a 6K image on a 4K timeline." Most importantly, I was not criticizing anyone in that passage. Anybody can go to that post and see for themselves that I was simply making a direct response to your quoted statement: Even YOU did not refer to Yedlin, nor to a camera nor to using 6K on a 4K timeline. Making up things in your mind is harmless, but posting lies about someone is too much. You need to take back your lie that I claimed that my intellect was elevated in comparison to Yedlin's. Also, if you are on meds, keep taking them regularly.

No I didn't. What is the matter with you -- why do you always make up false realities? Also, I already corrected you when you stated this very same falsehood before. I never criticized Yedlin for using ANY particular camera -- YOU are the one who is particular about cameras. The fact is that I have repeatedly stated that the particular camera used in a resolution doesn't really matter: Once again, here are the two primary points on which I criticized Yedlin's test (please read these two points carefully and try to retain them so that I don't have to repeat them again): The particular camera used for a resolution test doesn't matter! Actually, I linked two tests. I am not familiar with the camera in the other test. It is truly saddening to witness your continued desperate attempts to twist my statements in an attempt to create a contradiction in my points. I have repeatedly stated that the camera doesn't matter as long as it's effective resolution is high enough and it's image is sharp enough. So, camera interpolation is irrelevant, as I have also already specifically explained. The "interpolation" that Yedlin's test suffered was pixel blending that happened accidentally in post (as I have stated repeatedly) -- it had nothing to do with sensor interpolation. Yes. *Both* tests that I linked are not perfect. The first tester has a confirmation bias, and he doesn't give a lot of details on his settings, and the second comparison just doesn't give a lot of settings details, and the chosen subject is not that great. Nevertheless, both comparisons are implemented in a much cleaner and more straightforward manner than Yedlin's video, and both tests clearly show a discernible distinction between resolutions having only a 2x difference. Unless the testers somehow skewed the lower resolution images to look softer than normal, that clear resolution difference cannot be reconciled with the lack of discernability between 6K and 2K in Yedlin's comparison. Again, it's sad that you have to grasp at straws by using insults, instead of reasonably arguing the points. Your declaration regarding Yedlin's demo doesn't change the fact that it is not valid. So far, the most thorough comparison presented in this thread is the Alexa test you linked that shows a "pretty obvious" (your words) distinguishability between resolutions having a mere 2x difference. The test that you linked is the most empirical, because it: This: I never made such a claim, and you've crossed the line with your falsehoods here. Unless you can find and link any post of mine in which I claimed that my intellect was elevated in comparison to Yedlin's, you are a liar.