Jump to content

barefoot_dp

Members
  • Posts

    213
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About barefoot_dp

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

barefoot_dp's Achievements

Active member

Active member (3/5)

166

Reputation

  1. I 2nd the 2 above - Wandering DP and Epic Light Media. The Aputure youtube channel have a lot of good tutorials and "Gaffer and Gear" has some fantastic info on lighting too. Also - probably even more importantly if you're trying to make a living out of it - research SEO (particularly local SEO). Having an effective website that actually generates leads is far more important for making a living than knowing how to shoot like Daniel Schiffer, or how many Skypanels were used on the latest Audi commercial.
  2. Is this simply because the only (or the most convenient) lights they have are fresnels? Or is there some other reason. Yes, as I said I do use panels as well. But this discussion is about getting equivalent output/quality as a COB keylight with a large softbox - this light can't compete in that respect. Doesn't mean it doesn't have it's purpose. Yes, it's all relative. But the original question did quantify what soft light means in this particular discussion - the equivalent of a 4x4 silk or large softbox in very close proximity to a talking subject (so with the exception of some parrots, that would suggest a human-sized subject!). Yes, as I mentioned you can do that, but not at equivalent prices to most COB lights that I am aware of (any decent 300W LED panels under $500?). If budget wasn't a consideration I'd just get an LS1200D rather that wondering what the most output I can get out of my current lights is!
  3. Thanks Mark. In regards to points 1 & 3, and taking in to account Scotchtape's comments above, how would a fresnel compare to a bare COB (with a dish)? Would you not run in to the same issue Scotchtape mentions, that you need to back the Fresnel further from the wall or scrim in order to get an acceptable sized beam - resulting in more light loss than if you'd just put the bare COB closer to the bounce/scrim?
  4. He literally says in that video that the light is too harsh on its own. I own and use a couple of 1x1s and they are simply not large enough for a soft key. They're great for backlights, quick 'n' dirty portable/field/battery setups, or even as an eye light outdoors, but if you want soft light they come nowhere near competing with a COB light pushed through a softbox or scrim (at equivalent prices). Of course you can use a panel with a scrim or reflector too but most simply do not have the power. It's fine for his indoor setup, where he doesn't have to balance any ambient light and has a fairly tight frame so the light can be just a few feet from his face, but I doubt the setup he's demonstrating in that video would work in very many real scenarios (eg setting up an interview in front of a window in a cluttered office space).
  5. I'm yet to find an affordable LED panel that offers the same size source/softness as a 4x4 diffusion frame (let alone a larger butterfly!).
  6. Hi All, Just contemplating adding a few bits and pieces to my lighting kit and was wondering about fresnel lenses. From what I've read (ie what is advertised) they actually increase the light output over the bare bulb by focusing it all on one place - does this mean a COB LED would give more output with a fresnel pointed towards say a 4x4 silk, than it would just mounting a softbox directly on to the light? Or am I missing something? I can see that being a big benefit, not only for getting the most out of the lights but also being able to put them further away from the subject where fan noise will not be a problem (while still having the diffusion nice and close to the subject). Anybody got practical experience with this?
  7. I'm 2/3rds through a big project now and glad I chose not to upgrade - my current system is handling it amiably. I built this i7-6700K machine back in 2016, never really intending it to do heavy lifting with 4K. It was designed to ride out the HD era as a stop-gap build. Nonetheless it's happily cutting through an 8x22min series with all 8 eps in a single project (over 300 4K sequences in the project). 18TB of source media from a mix of Red, BMPCC6K, GH5, GoPro, 5DmkIV, and lots of AE dynamically linked graphics. CPU & GPU barely puffing, but definitely wishing I had more ram. the 32GB is maxed out when I have 2 projects open at once - which I do regularly to consolidate versions from multiple editors. I think I'll manage fine at least until next year; I've actually been impressed by this old rig so there's no way I'm going to upgrade while prices are at the current inflated levels.
  8. Haha I didn't even notice that. Just saw it at the top of the feed and replied! I guess in 2014 they might have still been figuring the EOS Cinema thing out.
  9. The way the A7s or other cameras do this is by lowering the frame rate... So how is this possible if you're also claiming the Canon can only read the sensor at 60fps?
  10. Yes - exactly what I meant about the forced design choices. Want even the most BASIC functionality? No problem, buy our monitor for an extra $3000! It Iooks like they're offering a side handle without controls but it looks terribly awkward. I'm also not sure if any of the ports would even allow an active handgrip to be added (Maybe the EXT port?) as an accessory. And if that's the case it means there will be no way to start/stop recording or adjust exposure (for any price) without taking one of your hands off the camera (or having a 2nd person do it). It's ok for tripod use, I guess.
  11. That's what confuses me so much. If they want to make a solo-operator camera, do it! Put the controls where you can reach them, for a start. This thing looks like they copied a whole bunch of features from different cameras without realising WHY those cameras made those choices in the first place - Shape from the Z-Cam (but all the sensible mounting points are now fans instead), RF mount from C70 (even though a large portion of the user base will want PL), AC panel from the Venice (at the expense of operator-side controls), minimal buttons like an Alexa Mini (but susing an electronic lens mount which now cannot be controlled from the operator side), etc. If feels just eerily similar to Apple's forced design choices: "We've purposely designed this product poorly so you'll have to buy more accessories from us". Either that or it's built by someone who has never actually used a camera. The price is nice compared to the Monstro though, and of course the image will be top-notch - I'm not going to argue with that.
  12. I'm sure the images from this will be fantastic, but - to quote Ellen Ripley - did IQ's just drop sharply while I was away? This camera seems to be completely at odds with itself. All the controls are on the dumb side - implying it's made for crews with an AC. Ok, so then why prioritize RF mount with AF, over PL/MF? Why make it so hard for the operator to reach or see the controls? Or even the record button? Where are you supposed to put your handles? On the side it will block the AC panel, and on the top you'll get a constant blasting of hot air. Same goes for shoulder-mounting - not very fun at all when you've got the camera breathing hot air in to your ear all day. It's a small brick/brain designed to be modular but the placement of everything means you can't mount anything where you want/need, defeating the purpose of having a small modular body. Not to mention that none of your previous red accessories will work on this one. Time to buy new lenses/adapters, handles, media, etc. What ever happened to making obsolecence obsolete? Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and this actually is what most DOP's actually want in a body design. All the fanboys will eat this up but to me this just kind of feels like the episode of the Simpsons where Homer's brother lets him design a car.
  13. I think that should replace the current description of Moore's Law!
  14. I'm sure that will change soon now that the Premiere native support update is out, but I still think that most of the positive reviews so far are just paid ads or hype. There seems to be a lot of hyperbole around, and I'm guessing it is either a) people who got early access/free hardware in exchange for a good review, or b) people who have only ever edited on $1000 laptops so have pretty low standards. I've not seen anything yet that gives something close to a usable comparison, along the lines of "the M1 with 16GB RAM will perform about the same as an i7-xxxxx with xxGB RAM and an RTXxxxx when running Premiere Pro". And whenever there is a tendency to shy away from those comparisons in a review, it tends to stink of selective non-disclosure - particularly in the computer world where EVERYTHING is bench-marked and tested endlessly.
  15. I'm using Adobe Premiere. Occasionally After Effects for motion graphics. For editing my own footage, my current machine is mostly fine because I'm shooting Prores (Z Cam). I started off more as an editor, so I tend to prioritize edit-friendly cameras for my own purchases. However others don't do this so much, and the latest gen of cameras (R5, A7sIII, C70) are going to be a much bigger strain for editing supplied footage. I'm not always editing my own work either - I've just started as lead editor an 8x22min series and the footage supplied is a mix of Red, Blackmagic, GH5 and GoPro. This is going to be tough for my current system, though thankfully I'm not having to deal with those latest codecs just yet. I'm trying to avoid proxies for this one as we'll be bouncing projects around between editors quite a bit, and I don't want things going offline constantly when switching between different machines.
×
×
  • Create New...