Essential elements of setting up a workable greenscreen key

[Dennis Size]

The boldface is merely to provide a strong visual distinction — for clarity’s sake — between your question (or request for advice) and my response.

My “nonsensical” statement is merely a direct answer, as you requested earlier, to your question. Your choice of instrumentation has been questioned by several people in previous posts — who have also provided you with reasons why (and suggested better fixtures). There’s no reason for me to expound.

DS

[Dennis Size]

Thanks for the advice, Mark ….. I agree TOTALLY with you.

DS

[Brian Walker]

You asked for advice but instead of listening, you just defend your method of lighting and seem to have your mind already made up.
Good Luck!

[Bill Davis]

Ian,

What this has come down to is that you came here for advice, but you appear unwilling to take any of that advice.

That’s fine.

I will only mention that the whole point of asking people with hands on experience in doing something before you is to gain some benefit from their experience.

It’s clear from your tone and intention that you’re bound and determined to do this your own way and that in being argumentative about what advice is offered, you’re betting that things will work as you expect and NOT as they might have worked for the countless people who’ve been along the same path before you.

Excellent. Perhaps you’ll be that ONE guy who got a clearer understanding of all of this than everyone else and blazes a new trail.

Stop back and let us know how it all works for you.

Good luck.

[Ian Maclean]

Bill,

That’s an astonishing, inaccurate, and unfair characterization. You clearly don’t pay much attention to the actual content of these threads. It would be far more accurate to state that I came looking for specific advice and help, and got some responses that demonstrated the writer hadn’t read my original posts very clearly, were not clear in their suggestions or comments, and / or evidenced a bias against anyone trying to push the limits of low budget filmmaking – specifically by asking for expert advice.

Should someone ask advice and specifically state they are limited to a 12’x14′ foot room, and one gives advice only relevant to people with professional resources, they are not helping the efficiency of either the thread or this forum.

When someone states clearly and repeatedly that they are on a budget, and asks for advice on how to make a specific light kit (the only one they could afford) perform optimally, it’s neither helpful nor efficient to lecture them on attitude when they request clarification or are only looking for help for a specific situation.

Assuming people who post to the Cow haven’t researched basic theories, questioning the same people’s motives and intelligence, and doing so while not paying attention to what they write is not, I must tell you, very professional.

Frankly, if my cheap lighting kit is able to light the paper backdrop fairly evenly and without fuss, I will resent the time lost bickering in these threads. I’d much rather get quick and useful information without all the negative attitude that’s been shown to me. I’ve expressed thanks many times to those who have provided the same.

Only now am I understanding the confusion caused by Mark Suszko (on Jun 4, 2009 at 2:19:11 pm) when, in criticizing my lighting plan, he wrote:

“…The wall or backdrop is already green. Now you want to wash it with more green using gels on regular lighting…Now you have unevenly-lit paper with two, subtly different, shades of green, instead of just the one green shade, with a differnce in the brightness or contrast.”

If I now understand him correctly, he believes the flat green paper will emit two separate shades of green towards the camera. As this is contrary to my understanding of basic physics and color theory, I had assumed he was suggesting I wouldn’t be able to make my two-light kit symmetrical. When Dennis Size (on Jun 4, 2009 at 4:12:23 pm) used the same terminology without any explanation, I defended my ability to use two simple lights symmetrically.

Now, I am confused as to the basic competence of these two men giving me ‘expert’ advice on this forum. It may be they are only decreasing the signal to noise ratio. Also, how you could mischaracterize every one of my posts as argumentative when I am nothing but polite and nothing but interested in understanding the hows and whys of lighting for digital cinema. Yes, I use these forums to debate when I don’t understand, when something is contradictory, or someone is inaccurate. If a piece of paper really can radiate color in two separate frequency spikes, it would be good to know. I had thought there was a little more absorption going on in reflected light. But you should remember we are in a section labelled ‘Forum,’ – i.e. A place for discussion.

If you want to leave incompetence by your ‘experts’ unchallenged on these boards, you really don’t get the concept of a web board or the Creative Cow. For example, and to repeat myself, if many low-budget digital filmmakers end up with tungsten main lights, and fluorescents to light a backdrop, does this mixture create a problem? Here’s what Dennis Size said in answer to my specific question (on Jun 4, 2009 at 4:06:42 pm):

-I also haven’t had anyone address what seems to me a potentially common dilemna for entry level / low budget shooters: those using tungsten for key and backlight, and fluorescent for backdrop. A light green gel would remove any potential for blue light spilling on to the subject. …this is a potential fix to a potential problem, is it not?
…….I have to say I like the peace of mind of not worrying about blue wash contaminating my subject.”

It is not.
Don’t use blue light, regardless of the source –whether it be fluorescent or tungsten — on your greenscreen when you’re using ‘amber’ light on your subject.

So if one should not use blue light regardless, then there IS a potential problem, and using a light green gel over a fluorescent IS a potential fix. Dennis Size is not demonstrating much understanding of the topic, and when he criticizes my lighting plan he also obfuscates it (why would anyone use a tungsten light, colored blue, to light a green backdrop? huh? what?).

You may criticize me for challenging what I find to be sloppy and/or incompetent advice, but I’m not the one with poor attitude and/or writing skill. I react with gratitude and pleasure when I get useful and good natured help. See Curt Pair’s post (on Jun 4, 2009 at 4:34:54 pm) which contradicts Dennis Size’s statement, btw, and my response to it: https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/47/856881

I really like his suggestion to check with the recommendations for each software keyer as useful (even potentially crucial) information in setting up a lighting plan. Very helpful, and I’m going to look into that. Thanks Curt. And thank you, Bill, for the excellent summary that deserved it’s own thread. Perhaps one of the moderators could change the name on the thread posting back to you.

[Mark Suszko]

I hereby nominate Ian to moderate the Lighting forum. And just let me know where to send you a refund for my advice.

[Ian Maclean]

“Now you have …paper with two, subtly different, shades of green…”

Any physics department. Or perhaps psychiatry. They might be able to explain that anyone is better off when they stand by what they say, are able to admit tiny inconsequential errors, and take no offense when asked to defend or explain their advice. I like getting corrected. I like learning. I don’t take myself so seriously that I think I’m beyond error, new information, or new minimal techniques that might work. This forum actually does seem to need moderators with a little thicker skin and fewer drama queens.

Ultimately these are discussions about light bulbs and their use, after all.