tupp

Just try it -- ffmpeg is free and open source. Here is a tutorial on an easy way to install ffmpeg (with extra codecs) on a Mac, using Homebrew. Here is another tutorial on how to manually install ffmpeg (with extra codecs). The ffmpeg command to split a file without re-encoding is fairly simple, because one is merely copying the video and audio. It is probably easiest to use a separate command for each part of the file desired. So, the ffmpeg commands to split a five minute file directly in half will be something close to these:

Fairly sure that ffmpeg can split files with interframe compression without any re-encoding (thus, no re-compression). It might want to position the splits at the I-frames, but it still allows parts of a file to be copied without re-encoding. Pretty sure that mencoder can do the same:

I think that ffmpeg can separate parts of the clip without re-encoding. Such a command might look something like this: "-ss 00:01:32" means the "start second" (or start time) of the new video is at 1 minute and 32 seconds in the source video "-t 00:00:17" means to record 17 seconds from the start time. "-c copy" means copy all video and audio streams (with no encoding).

On low budget paid shoots, leads should probably not get less than crew department heads, and day players should probably get around the same as third tier crew.

It's surprising that he didn't throw the image out of focus when shooting, but such a test really needs to be done without a lens. To prevent dust from reaching the sensor, tape a small pane of glass to the opening of the lens mount.

I am certainly interested in trying the 120T, but, alas, I don't have a lot of shoots coming up in which it could play. However, I am happy to meet with you to briefly test the fixture and possibly give some feedback.

Okay. I look forward to those charts. Thanks.

Thank you, but you must realize that it is sort of necessary to have an open, isolated space to properly take such readings, and that there would be too much spill and interfering clutter in/amongst trade show booths. Of course, such an undertaking would be especially useless if you have one of the Cinegear outdoor booths. So, Aputure is not providing a photometric chart for the 120T?

Okay. Just curious -- did you originate the reference to a redhead and blonde, or did someone else say that? That sounds like less than 1/3 the output of a 1K, Mole Mickey (or a 1K Lowel DP-light) at full flood. With a Mickey at full spot, the brightness of that LED panel is probably fractional compared to that of a Mickey (and of a DP-light). Certainly, something that small and inexpensive has a unique utility. However, keep in mind that a small 200W Lowel Pro-Light at full flood has around twice the rated brightness of the AL-H198, with a lot more coverage/output. With a Pro-light at full spot, that AL-H198 brightness is fractional. Actually, there currently is no way for us to assess the output of the 120T, as no one but Aputure knows the meaning of that "brightness average" figure. As I have stated before in this thread, it is common/proper to give a light reading(s) along with the beam angle delineated by where it drops to 50% of its brightest point -- that the only useful way to present photometrics. Some manufacturers avoid giving this simple, straightforward measurement, because the actual output of their fixture is disappointing. A light reading at 1/2 meter is not particularly useful, but we can use more distant readings from the LS1 chart that you provided to make some sort of comparison. We don't actually know how Aputure is delineating the beam angle, so we really can't assess the overall output of the LS1. If they are using the 10% beam angle delineation method, than the figures will make the fixture seem like it has a lot more punch than it actually puts out. Also, it is interesting how the chart seems to show the beam angle varying with the given distances. The 3 meter (9.84 feet) reading on that chart shows 120fc with a rated beam diameter of 1.6 meters (5.25 feet) and a beam angle of 25 degrees. At a slightly longer distance of 10 feet, the 1k Mole Mickey is rated at 1220fc with a beam diameter of 3 feet (0.91 meters). That Mickey footcandle rating from a slightly longer distance is over 10 times greater than that of LS1! Now, we would need to flood out the Mickey slightly for its beam diameter to more closely match that of the LS1, but no doubt the Mickey's brightness will still be many times the brightness of the LS1 after that adjustment. We can also compare the 1k Lowel DP. That fixture is rated at 711fc at 3 meters, with a 20 degree beam angle. That beam angle will give about a slightly larger beam diameter than 1 meter, so we will back off of the flood setting a little less than we did for the Mickey. Starting with 711fc, the DP-light must still be at least a couple of stops brighter than the 120fc of the LS1. So, the notion that the LS1 has a brightness "which is almost equal to a traditional 1000W tungsten" is false. Furthermore, note that we are actually comparing brightness (and rated beam angles) -- not total output. Total output requires the beam angle to be properly delineated. Mole-Richardson and Lowel use the 50% method, but Aputure might use a method that isn't as stringent. Apututre doesn't state the beam angle delineation method with that photometric chart. Here are the Mickey and DP-light photometric charts with their beam angle delineation statements. These are solid charts with nothing squirrely. Mole Mickey: Lowel DP-light: I did not intend to make you look disingenuous (and I don't think that I did so). There are some manufacturers who enjoy a bit of a reality distortion field, and folks occasionally get a little over-enthused and sometimes parrot what they read/hear from a company's marketing. I figured that is what happened with your statement about the redhead/blonde. By the way, thanks for the personal dig!:

Not sure what that question means. Is it some sort of personal attack? Why would anyone be "out" or "in." What if it's not equivalent to 1.5K tungsten -- would that make someone else "out?"

Thank you for taking the time to provide the PDF. Indeed, the beam angle measurement is crucial to assessing overall output of a light source. As I have mentioned earlier in this thread, a proper beam angle measurement delineates the edge of the beam at 50% (one stop down) from the brightest part of the beam. Some manufacturers additionally include beam angles delineated at 10% of the brightest part of the beam, but that figure is usually intended to give an idea of the amount of spill outside of the main part of the beam (delineated by the 50% figure). Less scrupulous manufacturers provide only this 10%-delineated beam angle, without the 50%-delineated figure, which is exceptionally misleading. I looked at the spec sheet, and I honestly have to say that I have never in all my years seen a photometric of "Brightness (average)." So, the "average" output at 2 meters is 610 lux (57 fc) seems very weak, but what does it mean by "average?" It can't involve an average between the flood and spot settings, if, as you say, the reading(s) was taken when the fixture was fully flooded. I am afraid that this "average" figure is vague and not very useful in assessing the output of the 120T. When you get a chance, please provide proper photometrics on this fixture. You have stated on videos that the 120T has an equivalent output of a 1500-watt tungsten fixture and someone in this very thread has suggested that the 120T is equivalent to a redhead (1k tungsten) and a blonde (2k tungsten). Until these claims can be verified with proper photometric readings, it would probably be best to cease in making them. I look forward to reviewing the proper photometrics on this fixture.

A production day is often 12 hours. Even if your batteries last that long, how do you manage 5 to 8 battery-powered lights, any one of which could go dead in the middle of a take? Yes. I have used generators many times. Everything from the smallest Honda putt-putt to 1500 amps. However, I have used "house" power countless times, and that situation is always preferred on small and medium shoots. I ALWAYS prefer house power instead of batteries. Much easier to manage. How do you position/mount your heavy, battery-weighted backlight so that you do not see it in the frame? If the backlight is on a stand (extra top-heavy with a battery) on one side of the frame, there is no need to dress the cable with a tungsten light, as the light and stand are already out of the frame. If your are mounting your backlight on a ceiling pick-point, the extra weight of the battery requires an extra-heavy-duty mounting and more secure "safety." Plus, how do you easily manage that battery capacity when it is mounted on the ceiling? I was an IA electrician and grip for several years. Please feel free to educate me on set safety and on dealing with hot lights. Gloves are mainly needed for changing scrims and for problem lights. There exist portable tungsten lights that feature large, cool handles, and such fixtures rarely require gloves. The last two shoots I did were all tungsten, and neither I nor the swings used gloves (nor belts). Certainly, the 120T's ability to accept Bowens front-end attachments makes it exceptionally versatile. However, it isn't as if there aren't already long-established tungsten lights that share front-end accessories with other manufacturers. Plus, the lack of luminance density makes typical LEDs not suitable for a lot of situations. I also wonder about the actual focus range of the 120T. In regards to the "1.5K" output, I am waiting for @Ted_from_Aputure to post proper photometrics on the 120T. If the brightness is typical of most prosumer LEDs, then the output of the 120T combined with some of those accessories might be a little weak. Power/luminance density is basically how much "oomph" a fixture has per cubic inch. In other words, "output-per-size (or output-per-pound)." Tungsten fixtures often have more output-per-size and/or output-per-pound compared to LEDs. Yes, LEDs are more efficient than tungsten sources. However, the versatility, ease of use, focus range and, especially, "oomph" are more important factors to me. In regards to efficiency, LEP (plasma) fixtures are more efficient than LEDs. I have followed plasma technology for over 20 years, since it was off-color, sulfur based and unwieldy. It is very possible that once the price of the plasma fixtures drop, that they will be the next "flavor-of-the-month" and everybody will flock to them. Even so, tungsten will likely still be the less expensive and more versatile way to go. That's a real funny joke, but I have worked on tungsten sets for longer than I care to tell, and not once was anyone "stationed" at a breaker/fuse box. We often "scout" the breaker box (and sometimes do tie-ins). On medium-sized shoots, the person who scouts the breaker box is usually called the "gaffer." On large shoots, the person who scouts the breaker box is often called the "best boy." On small shoots, I am the one who scouts the breaker box. Daytime exteriors are usually "grip" days, unless you are using big guns. Medium-sized night time exteriors can usually be handled with 1k to 2k sources. Keep in mind, you're probably not going to be lighting a whole night time forest with your battery-powered LED panels. You also might have trouble covering a 30'x30' exterior area with distant "moonlight" using a typical LED fixture.

@Ted from Aputure Thank you for joining the forum. I commend Aputure for the new 120T's compatibility with the Bowens accessories. Even though I don't have any Bowens gear, it's always smart and beneficial to both manufacturers to share accessories (especially between a strobe and constant line). I have noticed that kind of cooperation in the past between Profoto, Lowel, Dynalite and Speedotron. It is interesting that the 120T has a separate power pack. You and @squig have claimed that the 120T is comparable to a redhead and a blonde. Could you please post the photometrics on your 120T, using the standard beam angle delineation of 50% (one stop down) from the brightest point? It would be helpful if you could include a range of distances -- 1.5 meters, 3 meters, 4.5 meters, 6 meters, etc. Full spot and full flood readings would be great. Thanks!

Nice shot! Again, I do not dispute that LEDs work better than tungsten with batteries. However, your example of an exceptionally remote location is just that -- an exception -- and tungsten is generally a more versatile and controllable light source than LEDs. On the other hand, I can see how the director could be disappointed by the lack of versatility inherent in that LED kit. For instance, what if the director looked at viewfinder (at the shot you posted) and said, "That's nice, but can you give me one or two dramatic narrow light beams that travel through the haze?" What could you do? That LED panel can't make light beams and the P180E might not have the punch to make a readable beam through the haze with the ambient light needed for base exposure. There are open-faced, light-weight, focasable tungsten fixtures that could provide those light beams off of 12-volts, or, even better, off of a 30-volt battery belt. There is another possible scenario in which the LEDs could have fallen short in the tunnel situation -- what if the director was a "gimbal kiddie" and asked for a wide tracking shot (as gimbal kiddies are wont to do) 100 feet into the tunnel? How would you do that with the LED panel and the P180E? You want to convey the natural fall-off from the entrance of the tunnel, but the panel falls-off too quickly to give the needed exposure at the end of the move, and the P180E doesn't have the punch to be readable at 100 feet. You can't track the light, because that would create moving shadows (and probably look unnatural, anyway). You can't mount an LED on the ceiling further down the tunnel, because you can't reach the ceiling and/or there are no pick-points on the ceiling. If you had an open-faced, focasable tungsten source, you could stem it up high and feather the beam so that the brighter spot falls on the distant end of the move while the dimmer, outer portion of the beam falls nearer to the start of the move. With the focusable tungsten source, you would still have some of the desired fall-off, but you would get the exposure you needed deeper in the tunnel. This scenario could be easily accomplished with a 420-watt, 30-volt tungsten bulb and a battery belt. So, tungsten sources have the versatility to accommodate more lighting scenarios. I'll tell you what, I'll bet you US$10 that if you research your favorite current movie or TV show, that you will find that they use mostly tungsten lights on their windowless locations.

A generator is almost never needed for fixtures of 2k or less, or, in your example, if one is in an exceptionally remote location. I do not dispute that LEDs work well with battery power. I have used them precisely for that advantage. However, when one has to shoot all day, it is much preferred to run off of AC. And, again, in most situations, one can do a lot more with a tungsten kit, compared to bulkier and less versatile and less controllable LED fixtures. Many LED units indeed have good CRI, but if I had to shoot an interview of a middle-aged woman, I would always choose a large tungsten soft box over a LED panel! This notion could not be further from the truth. Again, tungsten has a higher power-luminance density than LEDs, so they are actually more portable, more controllable and more versatile -- all very important properties when shooting on location.

Certainly, if one's shoot takes a short time, then batteries can work. However, lots of shoots take all day (especially narrative work) and battery power is not practical in such situations. Of course, a lot of work (especially narrative) requires the versatility and control that tungsten fixtures offer, LED fixtures are not practical. The thing is, tungsten fixtures can work in most all situations. Tungsten can sometimes generate noticeable heat, but the versatility usually outweighs that potential problem. You hide cables? The only time I ever hid cables was when they were in the shot, but that was just basic dressing. Gloves are usually not necessary, unless one is perhaps removing scrims or wrangling a hot Fresnel with some problem. You stationed someone at the fusebox? Really? Generators are almost never necessary for fixtures of 2k or less. Again, LEDs also have less control, less versatility and a lower power-luminance density, when compared to tungsten units.

No, they're not -- not compared to LEDs with the same output and beam angle. Tungsten fixtures generally have a greater power-luminance density than LEDs, so tungsten fixtures are often smaller and lighter than LED fixtures with the same output and beam angle, especially when considering open-faced, focasable tungsten fixtures (which are non-existent in the LED world). Tungsten fixtures are hotter than LEDs, but with tungsten you get: more control; greater power-luminance density; better footcandle-per-dollar value; more versatility; and you almost never have to worry about color accuracy (CRI). For interviews, an LED fixture is not as good as a tungsten softbox. The usually larger tungsten softbox gives a more flattering light than the smaller, sometimes "metallic" looking light from an LED unit.

Don't get LED fixtures. Get straight tungsten. The footcandle-per-dollar is generally better with tungsten as is the power-luminance density. Plus, focusable tungsten fixtures are significantly less expensive than their LED counterparts. Straight tungsten fixtures are probably the most versatile source, so they cover most lighting situations.

Be aware that not all Nikkor lenses will work with the Metabones EF speed boosters. Metabones puts a flange around the front element of their EF speed boosters. This flange sits a little too far forward, presumably to prevent the use of EF-S lenses. This flange hits the rear protective hood on some Nikkor lenses, preventing those Nikkor lenses from being mounted in the Metabones EF speed booster. Of course, the Metabones Nikkor F speed booster has no problem mounting Nikkor lenses. It would be great if Metabones would make dummy EF Speedboosters without that forward flange, which would allow many more lenses to be mounted to a speedbooster.

Exposing skin tones by numbers can get one into trouble. In the first place, skin tone varies. Consider a shot in which an exceptionally pale skinned person and a very dark skinned person are standing next to each other in the same frame -- which one's skin do you set to 70% IRE? Secondly, what if the shot is supposed to be low key, with the subject darker than normal? Generally, the exposure should be as high as possible to reduce noise, without undesirably blowing out areas and/or without making it difficult to regain normal looking highlights. Use your eyes (and your lighting skills) to determine the relative values of the subject/set, and use the zebras to determine the highest feasible exposure.

Be careful when using zebras at 100%, because the zebras on some cameras are misleading in that they "sum" the color channel levels to determine if the threshold has been reached. In such scenarios, the zebras don't indicate when a single color channel has breached the threshold. So, if one sets the zebras to 100%, one (or two) of the color channels could be blown out, and you might not see a zebra. If the camera also has an RGB histogram, one can get a good idea of how the zebras handle individual color channels. Personally, I tend to set the zebra higher on raw and on some flat/log profiles. I often ETTR when shooting raw.

You can probably get your lenses "rehoused" with PL mounts, but it could cost up to US$1,000 per lens, depending on who does it. Here and here are some cheap PL lenses. Don't know if they qualify as "best bang for buck." Also, some of the Sony PL lenses for the F3 can sometimes be had for a deal

From the linked article: I'd take those sheets!

Beautiful. Must be nice to live in such a scenic area.

Yes. Not to mention that they merely could be licensing the encoder from a third party, especially if the OS/firmware is POSIX-based/Linux-based.