Gregormannschaft

This is going to be an ugly thread and no one is going to change their opinion.

The importance of autofocus. I discounted it when I first made my mind up, but in hindsight I'd love some sort of usable AF. I hear the lowlight is still pretty good too + you have the added benefit of a full frame 4K mode with minimal rolling shooter, albeit slightly soft. I think the A7RII is a more complicated camera, but I think it might be worth it. Still, there's not much in it and you can't go wrong with either. 

Thanks for taking the time to watch!

Cheers Juxx, I'd recommend the A7RII over the SII, in case your eyeballing becomes cash spending.

This Great... Eyeballing that A7s2... You shots and your sound design were top notch! 

Hey folks. Last year I travelled to Sri Lanka for four weeks, hopping about the place and pulling all kinds of strange poses in the name of having a totally not relaxing vacation. But it's what happens, I guess. I edited together all the footage I collected and I'd love to hear any kind of feedback you might have. In hindsight, I wish I'd collected more footage, but I hope that doesn't shine through too strongly.

Edit wise, I dabbled a little with the fast zooms that have become so commonplace in this genre over the past few years but wanted to restrain myself so to not go too overboard. The Watchtower of Turkey style isn't really my thing, as much as I appreciate it, but I wanted to steal a little of that energy films like this can generate.

Cam wise, I used my Sony A7SII, GFILM colour profile, Canon 24-105 and an old Zeiss Jena 35mm that I absolutely love. No rigs, no stabiliser.

Hey folks. Last year I travelled to Sri Lanka for four weeks, hopping about the place and pulling all kinds of strange poses in the name of having a totally not relaxing vacation. But it's what happens, I guess. I edited together all the footage I collected and I'd love to hear any kind of feedback you might have. In hindsight, I wish I'd collected more footage, but I hope that doesn't shine through too strongly.

Edit wise, I dabbled a little with the fast zooms that have become so commonplace in this genre over the past few years but wanted to restrain myself so to not go too overboard. The Watchtower of Turkey style isn't really my thing, as much as I appreciate it, but I wanted to steal a little of that energy films like this can generate.

Cam wise, I used my Sony A7SII, GFILM colour profile, Canon 24-105 and an old Zeiss Jena 35mm that I absolutely love. No rigs, no stabiliser.

EOSHD is perfect for what its suposed to be, a color profile that requires little to no grading/correcting, you either like the look or not but it works perfectly!
Below is a test i did, first two clips are in SLOG2 graded with film convert, other two are EOSHD with no grading
 
 

THis thread has a wealth of information on hard lighting techniques: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=67478&page=1

Sorry, but if you lose resolution from motion blur at 4K, surely you're also losing resolution from motion blur at 1080p? I'm not really getting this argument.

Sorry, but if you lose resolution from motion blur at 4K, surely you're also losing resolution from motion blur at 1080p? I'm not really getting this argument.

If you want to try cheap LED fresnels there's a few options:
- Godox SL series (unsure of actual CRI values), must buy fresnel attachment like Nanguang NG-10X or Aputure fresnel.
- The similar model is Jinbei EF series (I think they have lower CRI though)
- Nanguang CN series
- More expensive = Rayzr 7 
- Smaller, cheaper, and might work if you are very close are the Came Boltzens and Fotodiox J-500
- Other stuff in UK, I'm in NA so I didn't look into them like the intellitech or whatever.
 
I am taking a chance on the Godox series because they are the cheapest lux per $.  But you have to mod them by replacing fan because it's relatively loud.  Hopefully someone will measure the actual CRI and TLCI at some point.  I am waiting to find a good deal on a spectrometer.
 
The Boltzens stats also seem very competitive so look into those too, but I am not sure how they measured the lux values, it seems to be an open face measurement.  If so when spotted down should be really bright.  The Fotodiox seems to be very weak based on their stats.
 
All you need is a point light source.  Even a small LED panel casts some pretty harsh shadows if you put it more than a few feet away from subject, but they usually have low output and can't compete with ambient.  The monolight design with reflector also works if you don't want to get the fresnel attachment, but the fresnel really helps focus the light and boost output when spotted down.

You don't mention whether or not you want the windows in shot whilst you light the talent with hard light. If you don't, then simply close the curtains, hang a drape over it, or use bin bags and you are good to go. If you do need them in shot then buy a roll of neutral density gel from a theatre lighting place and tape or blu  tack over the windows it in order to bring the level down to the point where your hard lights are the dominant source.
ND gel is cheap and reusable. I once wanted to buy a sheet (I design lighting for dance and theatre) but ordered a roll by mistake. It was so useful I kept it.
 

Manufacturers in the USA have been putting protective screens over the front of their open-face halogen fixtures since the early 1990s.  This practice was mandated by a few local fire depts. (mostly SoCal) in their push for testing lab approval (ETL, UL, etc.) for filmmaking fixtures.  These protective screens are basically scrims that block 25%-or-less of the light.  To avoid liability, some lighting manufacturers (the smart ones) provide these protective screens for free, even if one has a used, out-of-warranty fixture.
 
Always use a protective screen (or some other barrier) in front of an open face halogen source.
 
In regards to the lighting needed for OP's shoot, OP needs to first determine what the client means by "hard light" (as  @TheRenaissanceMan suggested in an earlier post.  A lot of folks confuse "spot lighting" with "hard" light, and those two lighting conditions are not necessarily the same.  (In fact, the "spot" setting on most focusable fixtures is actually softer than the "flood" setting.)  Also, many confuse "contrasty" lighting with "hard" lighting.
 
It would probably best to get the client to link an example of what he/she wants.

The difference between hard and soft lighting is simple: diffusion, or not, and how much (shadow edges hard or soft/diffuse). A point light source is a perfect hard light with little or no visible diffusion: very crisp shadow edges. Being inside a glowing perfect sphere is perfect diffusion (actually, if the sphere was filled with glowing plasma, that would eliminate all shadows :)). A formula: a single point source is hard, add more sources to get more diffusion (or bounce/shoot-through (fabric etc.) to make a larger source, also known as increasing light wrap. http://www.canvaspress.com/focal-point/article/2014/06/19/hard-light-vs-soft-light/

Can you pin down exactly what they mean by "hard light look"? Do they mean gritty with lots of contrast? High key? 
If it's what I'm thinking of, you could cover all the windows except one, then use that as a hot edge and gel a softer source (1/2 CTB should be fine) from the opposite side as your key. Or vice versa, depending how the ratios work out. Then some negative fill on the down side of the face. Should give you something like this. 

I would avoid undiffused redheads/blondes. They tend to have hot spots and an uneven spread, and are therefore not controllable enough to use directly on talent IMO. Better off using a fresnel with Hollywood Frost or a couple sheets of Opal.

The cheap easy option is un diffused red heads lamps and put black bin liners on the windows to block out the sunlight

Wow, "extremely brightly" sounds like a blowout from hell on their faces. You are going to have to diffuse it a little somehow, maybe move them way back, or your sensor is going to go into meltdown LoL.
Naked light sources on a face, ahh I don't think that is a plan. You are going to have to have a camera like a Arri to handle the DR.
Try this website for some good suggestions. About the eaisest page I have found to see differnet looks that work.
https://postimg.org/image/c3e3dnmht/

Lighting, my achilles heel and something I really need to work on. SO, I've got a client who has requested a hard light look for a corporate interview shoot. The only thing is, their office has a ton of natural light and is surrounded on two sides by windows. It's lovely, but I'm not sure how to create that hard light look they're after in such a well-lit environment. Would anyone have any tips at this stage?
My gut says, light the subjects extremely brightly and then expose for that in camera, so that the usually light office environment looks like it's in the shade. I'm also very used to working with LED panels and I feel like at some point it might be time to take the step up to more complex lighting systems. 

Any help is hugely appreciated!
p.s We should really have a go-to 'Lighting' topic.

Currently going through a hell of a time grading holiday footage. Be my guest taking a shot at a very easy scene to grade, and one that is giving me nightmares. Shot on the Sony A7S II with SLOG 2.

 

Currently going through a hell of a time grading holiday footage. Be my guest taking a shot at a very easy scene to grade, and one that is giving me nightmares. Shot on the Sony A7S II with SLOG 2.

 

Commander Reid, following your dispatches all these years has been like visiting the front lines of the DSLR community where shooting truly magical cinematic images is within our grasp. You were the first one to show it was possible to mount vintage LOMO anamorphic lenses on a GH2 and how to hack the camera. That changed my world. I quit my day job, bought a GH2 from Andrew via Japan, and went out and made a feature film with LOMOs that is now coming out worldwide on March 20. Yep, that's a plug for the film, but it's also a testament to what Andrew has started and achieved here. You'll find him thanked in the credits. Can't wait to get my GH5 and get on with the next film.

Jupiter 9 is a lovely small lens - soft & dreamy wide open at f2, but stop down to f2.8 & it is sharp.
Beware that there are 2 versions of it & i've only got the older/orignal version - so can't speak about the newer version (which has a thick pre-set aperture ring).
If size & weight aren't a problem then go for the Helios 40-2 85mm f1.9 - again dreamy wide open (with the added super swirly bokeh), but stopped down to f2 & it's sharp. The only downsides are the weight (1kg) & once stopped down the bokeh is star shaped, unlike the Jupiter 9.

Already in the bag, also a great lens. I find that the 35mm gets a lot more use though, it's the perfect walk around lens and that close focusing distance is incredible. I was looking for a macro lens before that but not anymore.

I had the older f4 zebra version and yeah, it's a nice lens. Also you should get the cheap Jena 50mm f/2.8... so cinematic. 

That's one example. No sharpening nor noise reduction applied (-5 both).
I never saw any GH5 footage without any sharpening applied in camera, lol.
The only answer I got from these Panasonic marketing guys was like: "All the DOPs loved the sharpening"... WTF