Leaderboard

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.

OMG you guys! That's practically the same tripod he picked out earlier? Did you guys even click on the link before you dismissed it? Hahahahaha! Seriously guys! This is the one Craig picked out: [url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/Professional-Heavy-Duty-FT9901-75mm-Video-Camera-Tripod-with-Fluid-Drag-Pan-Head-/120996664371?pt=US_Tripods&hash=item1c2bf69433"]http://www.ebay.com/...=item1c2bf69433[/url] And here's the one Rich picked out. [url="http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/360495479025?nma=true&si=IpW8TCfQYlyzNVkQwYvhnc3GSWY%3D&rt=nc&_trksid=p4340.l2557&orig_cvip=true#ht_3023wt_1141"]http://www.ebay.co.u...#ht_3023wt_1141[/url] It looks like the exact same tripod! I'm sorry but you guys make me laugh sometimes. ;-)

Kind of off topic but oh man, sometimes I just want to scream at those guys who post "video samples" from these cameras. "If you're just going to shoot shaky hand held crap on the street or in your back yard, just STOP RIGHT THERE!" I don't even want to see it! I don't know why but I find it so irritating.

[quote name='craigbuckley' timestamp='1350043406' post='19665'] Thanks again. 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] Wait... are you talking about audio in or audio out? There is a mic in jack on the GH2... At least there is on my GH1. It's not with the other (USB/HDMI) ports though. It's up and to the left, toward the front of the camera under it's own little rubber door. If you flip it open it says, "Mic" on top and "Remote" below. You'll need a little adaptor because it's an odd format 3/4" plug or something. Of course you'll need a mic pre-amp to plug in your shotgun and then you plug the pre-amp into the mic socket on the camera. I've never tried it before but I've heard of people going this before so I'm pretty sure there's no problem. As far as monitoring goes, well, hopefully there's a some sort of a meter or at least a clip LED on the pre-amp you get. ;-) [EDIT] Okay I see you already know about the audio in port. Sorry, I was a little to quick on the draw there.

[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]

Get a Zoom H4N or a Tascam DR40, plug the microphone into it, and record and monitor from there. Use a clapperboard or something like it so you can synch up the audio and video tracks.

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. 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.

They have the same kind of tint the super expensive LED panels do, sometimes a bit more, sometimes a little less :o There's a lot of talk out there about one LED panel being better than another. It's true a [i]certain [/i]extent. Parts are graded in the factory, and the premium diodes with least shift will go to the big paying branded manufacturers. Some use filters built into the diodes, but you can still do it with a gel. The green/magenta colour shift (not the blue/orange one) is a [i]spike[/i] in frequency output, it's hard to eliminate. The magenta filter provided for this purpose just makes the light rose coloured and sickly, I don't use it. The lLEDs in the cheap panels have around a +/- 200K temp shift, and when it comes to green/magenta spike, well that's just a "feature" ;) I've never ever had it be a significant problem once it's all gone through post. If you can afford Arri HMI and Kino Flo on every shoot go ahead, otherwise these panels are great! And can run off of (expensive) batteries. Once you've used HMI and Kino though, it is a bit of a shame going back. But hey, the easiest way to enjoy the basics is never to sample the best, right?

That's a lot nicer that the other tests. Still be a while before we find out al the tweaks and tips to get the best I suppose. I think I'll someone else spend a year working that out... ;)

LOL yeah that was a typo. I definitely meant to write "Diffuser" Sorry about that. I can't remember exactly so hopefully someone else can chime in here: I think the amber gels are called CTO and can be bought in rolls or large sheets. The come in varying degrees from 'full CTO' which is really Amber/Orange and come in something like 1/2 and 1/4 and so on shades. I think blue gels are the same way too but are called 'CTB'. I don't remember the range that diffuser gets come in but I seem to remember 172 - 250 being the standard range we used to use a lot. You'll see a number associated with them and that's the amount of diffusion they apply. I would just recommend getting a daylight to tungsten conversion kit. Usually this includes a bunch of amber gels and some diffusers and maybe a sheet of ND. I think they were pretty cheep if I remember right. Also, please look on youtube for lighting tutorials and especially about using gels. There's tons of free information out there.

Superb:- http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Professional-Photo-Video-Camera-Tripod-with-Fluid-Head-Aluminium-Very-Sturdy-NEW-/360495479025?pt=UK_Tripods_Monopods&hash=item53ef3478f1#ht_3023wt_1141 heavy yes. sturdy yes. rugged yes - but you have to replace the rivets with m3 bolts after about 6months of heavy use - £5 maximum for the bolts and anti vibration nuts required. also, the fluidity improves over time. straight out of the box it is not as smooth as you'd like. but after a few uses its beautiful. best value £125 I have spent.

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1349720689' post='19491'] 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! [/quote] At first I saw this and thought, "Yeah! Stupid plugin!" In general, I hate those heavy over-graded drop in looks that come from red giant and crumplepop. to me, they just look like every other low budget movie trying to look like a Hollywood block buster. But then upon further inspection I discovered this is not some silly levels and noise adjustment. They have actually painstakingly tried to replicate the look of actual film. If this is what you need then this is a really great way to get that look. It really does seem to add some nice beautiful sweetening to your final image. Also, the grain can be used to help hide banding if your camera has an issue with it and it's distracting. ;-) I do agree with Axil in principal though. We need to develop our own look instead of trying to cop some look just because it's fashionable right now or it's what people are used to. Video cameras and DSLR's are what we have to tell stories with. There's no reason to be ashamed of that.

[quote name='TC' timestamp='1349875780' post='19558'] "Improved RAW coded" sounds suspicious, not just because of the typo. It is quite difficult to "improve" raw. It is exactly what it says it is - the raw data from the camera. You could compress it to make you hard discs go further, but I wouldn't really call that an improvement. [/quote] It's possible that they've finally licensed CineForm RAW, which has a number of compression levels, including uncompressed. Considering that Adobe doesn't appear to be motivated to improve CinemaDNG support in Premier Pro and CineForm RAW is already supported, addition of the latter to the BMC's codecs would be a wise move.

I've been shooting with the RX100 for a couple weeks and would like to submit a few of my samples here: Lowlight footage: [url="https://vimeo.com/50587334"][media]http://vimeo.com/50587334[/media][/url] Using the RX100 as a handheld "steadicam": [media]http://vimeo.com/50493691[/media] Chronicling the Hollywood nightlife with RX100: [media]http://vimeo.com/49147544[/media]