Leaderboard

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/leaked-new-venice-2-digital-cinema-camera-with-a-new-8-6k-full-frame-image-sensor/ 8.6K 3:2 30FPS Full-Frame 8.2K 17:9 60FPS Full-Frame 5.8K 6:5 Anamorphic 48FPS Super 35 5.8K 17:9 90FPS Super 35 It shares the same 8.6K sensor IMX610 (but no DRAM) with Sony A1 mirrorless camera.

DJI is still pushing the boundaries but is beginning to take the piss with its pricing. How come its 'upgraded' smart controller has gone from US$650 to US$1100? But my biggest beef (and quite frankly it isnt just DJI) is the 'this drone has a bunch of fantastic features but you will have to wait for a firmware update in January for them to work.' It really is a huge 'pass' to claim a product does this or that when some future update arrives. And to be honest it makes a total mockery of all the youtube reviews if instead of reviewing a product they are actually reviewing what DJI envisions the product will become at some future date. 'These problems will be sorted out in a future firmware update' should read 'this product was not ready for release'....

My fresnel attachment that I use on my Godox COB lights doesn't really do a good job in "full flood", though it works great when in spotlight (which is my primary use for it.) I imagine you'd get better results from a nicer one then? I'm not on major sets, just small commercial ones, and I've never seen a fresnel attachment being used with diffusion, so I find that interesting. I still feel like the op would be better off using more lights instead of a fresnel attachment. Not to say he shouldn't get one, as they're very fun to play around with and good to have in your kit, I'm just not sure that it's the solution he'd want to go with for diffusion?

I knew a guy who edited music videos in late 80's. They edited them on 3/4" Umatic. This wasn't one of his, but here is an example of what they were doing back then.

Leaning heavily into the "Golden Era" of Hollywood filmmaking with this one. Cool to play around with visual styles from yesteryear. 8-bit 4K from a EM10iii and a GH5, for those that are interested in tech specs.

It's a leak, full info hasn't been released yet. Based on the framerates above, it will very likely do 5.8K 2.39:1 at 120fps.

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.

I am a little confused by this (Again, I come from a photography background, but I haven't seen anything to contradict this). In terms of shadows, I understand that softness "is a matter of degree between a point source and completely surrounding your subject with a smooth light source." But wouldn't there still be a difference in specular highlights? I know that (in still photography) when a silver-lined umbrella is used, the specular highlights are stronger (more pronounced / more contrasty) than when a white-lined reflective umbrella is used. (And they are even more contrasty when using a non-bounced light.) P.S. Wanted to say thank you again for your input in this conversation.

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.

Yes! Thanks. Good to know. I certainly wasn't aware of that. Again, good to know. Thanks. That raises two questions though: 1) When would you choose the Fresnel over an open-faced focusable source? 2) Can you give us an example of a (more-or-less affordable) open-faced focusable light (or modifier)?

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.

I think that when shooting through a scrim, you are correct. Moving the light far back enough to get an even spread is going to make the lights more or less equal, regardless if it is a fresnel or a cob with a dish. On the other hand, if you are actually shooting in a softbox, you are actually bouncing the light around so that the light can be closer to the diffusion material and still cover the entire area of the front diffusion. Plus if the COB light is in an enclosed softbox, you won't have the spill that you would have from bouncing it off of a scrim. All that spill is just wasted light. I don't know the exact mathematics but I am pretty certain that when inside a softbox, the light that is bounced off the front diffusion material (and bounced around the softbox), eventually makes its way out to the subject, but at some reduced amount. In terms of bouncing light off the wall or a ceiling, I guess that yes, you would have to back the fresnel or COB with dish further from the wall. This could be good or bad. If bouncing off a wall, you would probably want to use a COB with dish to get the light further away from the talent (and further from the mic) as you could move it closer to the wall than a fresnel. When bouncing off a HIGH ceiling, it might be easier to use a fresnel because you wouldn't have to raise the light as high to achieve the same light spread. This would be applicable in a place with high ceilings. But in a place with low ceilings, the fresnel might be at a disadvantage as you might not be able to get it low enough to get the amount of spread you want. Ideally, I think the best solution would be to get a COB light with an optional fresnel attachment. Also, a disclaimer: all of my practical experience with fresnel lenses / attachments is from shooting flash photography with strobes. The AD-200 and other strobes I use allow for either a bare bulb or fresnel head on the same light, so the only variable is the actual head.

An 80's classic. Then something from the 90's which is a mixture of 60's, 70's, and 80's themes.

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).

I think a fresnel could come in handy when: 1) Bouncing light 2) Illuminating through a window or cookie for a hard light / hard shadows. 3) When you need to use more than one light for a diffused key, and you can shoot two (or more) fresnel lights through a scrim (since we can't really fit more than one light in to a softbox, can we???) 4) When you want a spotlight effect

I am a bit hesitant to suggest these since I am not sure how applicable they are to one-man band videographers. They do inspire me a bit though and I do at least learn "something" from them. Maybe the last one (Indy Mogul) would be most relevant. I really like watching the cinematography breakdowns on The Wandering DP's youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/wanderingdp/featured He tends to feature higher end work, and it can be disheartening when he mentions that they probably used a whole bank of sky panels for the key. But he does at least provide alternative ideas and seems to have a good grasp of how things were actually done. Plus he is funny. I also spend some time on the Epic Light Media YT channel as well for some of their "How To" videos: https://www.youtube.com/c/EpicLightMedia/featured While they do have a fair share of product review videos, they also have a decent selection of how to videos that could work for narrative, but seem to be geared more toward commercial / corporate videos. Tangentially, studying for my part 107 drone license allowed me to get my license and shoot drone video (and stills) commercially. I used remotepilot101 for studying, although technically, you don't have to use a paid class. I think the FAA has their own "courses" on one of their websites. (They have a "course" on their Re-Current test, which you need to take every two years to keep your license current, and only after completing the course can you take the Re-current test, which is only offered through the faa safety website). Studio Binder on YT is a good place to kill a weekend or two if you are interested in breakdowns of how some of the bigger directors and DPs work. They talk not only about lenses and angles, but also about color pallets, music, and set design. And Indy Mogul did have some good stuff, but I think they aren't producing any more new videos. Some of their really good videos were covering things like how to figure out what to charge clients / how to negotiate, and how to calculate production costs. But they also have some decent lighting and audio instructional videos. Probably the Indy Mogul channel would be the best fit for one-man band or a two-man band. Hoping this helps, or at least helps to seed the conversation.

Not that I know of in a general sense. AFAIK the record and shutter buttons can't be re-assigned/programmed, only the 'function buttons'. '4k photo' mode uses the shutter button, but that's limited to 4k at 30p only.

Without a doubt one of my favorites is Blackmagic Design's Davinci Resolve color grading courses. The art of color grading is excellent.

Don´t forget that years ago most cinema lights were fresnel

I like fresnels, they are in my opinion the most flexible type of lighting. However, if you want soft light, an LED panel will usually be more quiet and softer. You can do some nice bounce lighting with fresnels which are impossible with LED panels. Pointing it at a white ceiling or white wall basically produces a light source anywhere, even if it's rather far away. Fresnels are also much better at making hard light. For learning how light properly and to be able to experiment with light, nothing really beats a fresnel light. Conclusion: fresnels are a lot of fun

In my experience of trying to maximize efficiency of lights, the answer is no. In your example, at the same distance if you used the fresnel vs softbox, the fresnel would produce a small hotspot which is totally useless for soft lighting. If you then moved the light with the fresnel back to cover the same area, it would be farther away and the intensity would greatly decrease. If I've learned anything about softlighting it's that nothing beats more power. The most effective way to get more soft light is to literally get more lights.

I don't think you'd get the spread you'd want / need since the light would be concentrated in one spot on the silk, though I've never tried it and never heard it being done.

I have the same problem as well, the revert procedure didn't work, anybody has done it?

Indeed. And pretty determinant to launch the career of a song. Now or before the digital revolution. Recalls this classic I was used to play and open my first radio program back to my teens and where actually I began my adventure on media -- visual matters and we were used to make reference to the video-clip as music videos started to be called in my native country then: