-
Lighting kit … comments?
Some quick background before I list the lights we’re considering buying. We are a marketing company and do about 20 case study videos per year for our clients. In every case we do a talking head interview where the subject is seated. It is not a complex shot, but lighting can make all the difference.
One year ago we made the decision to bring the videography in-house. We purchased a Panasonic HPX170 and related gear (tripod, etc.). We then used the very best videographer we have used over the years to train one of our people over the course of 6 months. That worked well and we now have in-house capabilities.
We had put off buying lights during this period, opting instead to use the lights our trainer owned. He is a pro and has a LOT of gear. The idea was we wanted to get a feel for what we felt was necessary and what was fluff for our kind of interviews.
Okay, so now the question. Here is what we’ve decided to purchase. I have so much respect for the folks here at CC that I wanted to post this and see if anyone had comments or suggestions.
Key light: Kino Flo Diva-Lite 401 kit
Fill: Reflector
Hair light: Lowel I-Light Complete Focusing Flood Light Set
Background: Dedolight with set of gobosWe had considered not going with the Dedolight, but we almost always use it. We are often shooting in rather drab locations (an old conference room, for example) and it does such a nice job of making the shoot look interesting. The clients really like it.
One more note: We often travel using my own aircraft (a 4-seater Cirrus), which makes it easier to carry all this stuff. But, we do also travel on occasion commercially. So travel-ability is an issue.
So, comments? Would you add/change/delete anything from this list?
Budget is always an issue, but we have enough business that we don’t mind making the investment.
Neil Myers
Connect Public Relations
CS4 Master Suite, 3DS -
21 Replies
-
Neil, every single filmmaker/videographer will have a different approach and battery of gear. You have wisely worked with your former vendor who has generously trained your inhouse guys and given you many of the keys to the kingdom. I see no use in second or third guessing what the man on the ground has done for you. In fact, I am surprised by your request. Have you suddenly decided that you don’t like the results you are getting? If that is the case, what you may be experiencing is that although anyone can pick up a camcorder and get images, it takes years of practice to get consistently good images. Your inhouse guys are new to this game and have a huge amount to learn.
Bottom line, you have a workable base lighting package. I see no grip gear to shape lights and form shadows.
Rick Wise
director of photography
San Francisco Bay Area
and part-time instructor lighting and camera
grad school, SF Academy of Art University/Film and Video
https://www.RickWiseDP.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/rwise
email: Rick@RickWiseDP.com -
We are not second guessing him. It is just that he has a ton of lighting equipment and while he gave us his best advice, it was not very specific.
It isn’t that he wasn’t willing to give us advice, it is just that what he does is much more general purpose than what we do and he had a hard time coming up with a list of equipment that wouldn’t require a moving van to transport.
So, I took pieces of what he recommended and combined it with pieces of threads I have read here at CC. I rolled my own list. I then posted it in the hopes that those with more experience than I would be willing to offer a reality check. This will cost use a fair amount and it seems prudent to check.
I am somewhat new to this forum, so help me understand if I am making a forum faux pas with this approach.
Neil Myers
Connect Public Relations
CS4 Master Suite, 3DS -
Hi Neil,
No faux pas per se, but this trend that you enunciate, namely replacing freelance camera technician vendors with in house employees and prosumer equipment is seen by many here (namely other freelance camera technicians) as a direct threat to their existence. The reason your freelancer was able to do such a good job in the past is that he has a complete kit from which to draw the proper gear for the particular shot that you’re doing at that moment. Every setup might require a different tool set for the best result; that’s why there are hundreds of different types of lighting units manufactured.
If in fact you are always recreating the same lighting effect in the same environment, of course it is possible to own a small kit that will serve your purpose. If however you are in different conditions, such as rooms with windows, exteriors, large warehouses, fluorescent workspaces, etc. the small kit you describe will be a compromise and the quality of the work you’re able to produce will suffer.
Bottom line, none of us here want to see our peers put out of work by the scenario you describe, it is affecting all of us who do this job across the country (and I suspect around the world too) so we are reluctant to assist you on that basis. Don’t take it personally, we’re trying not to as well!
Regards,
JS
-
John, really well put.
Rick Wise
director of photography
San Francisco Bay Area
and part-time instructor lighting and camera
grad school, SF Academy of Art University/Film and Video
https://www.RickWiseDP.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/rwise
email: Rick@RickWiseDP.com -
Add a few skinny light stands, some black-wrap cinefoil, bulldog clips and wooden clothespins, an assorted package of gels, perhaps, for the dedolight. Black posterboard, you can buy while driving near the shoot location at a Walgreens or art store, rather than carry all over in the Cirrus. Use the foil and the black cards on stands to help keep spill from that soft keylight from going where you don’t want it to, and to add “negative fill” or help with eyeglass reflections in certain setups. Buying the tools as you have found, is the easy part; building the skills to use them takes longer.
-
What John said.
-
So wise…just so wise and respectful.
Nicely put Mr. Sharaf.
Jim Mulleder
Level Horizon Productions
Cameraman/Editor
778.888.4336 -
John:
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I understand. If you don’t mind I would like to expand on this, because I think it is an important issue and bears a little more introspection. This will be long … sorry for that … but I want to be clear.
First, I own a marketing firm. It used to be a PR firm. In fact, we still do a lot of PR, but we had to expand in order to survive. Why? Because traditional PR depends on the existence of traditional media, and the Internet is pretty much killing traditional media. Look at this forum, for example. 10 years ago one would read a magazine for this kind of information. Now we cut out the middleman and get it for free.
So, I too have experienced the discomfort of having your base market change on you.
Second, the kind of videos we are doing today are videos that nobody did 10 or even 5 years ago. Our clients want 5 minute video customer case studies to put up on YouTube. In the old days a video case study was a low volume, high ticket business. The YouTube business is a high volume, low ticket business. The budget for these videos are 7 or 8 times less than what we used to do.
What to do? We could just say “No way … we don’t do YouTube”. But that makes no sense. YouTube and the Internet in general is the main medium for our clients. If we are going to be relevant, we have to figure out how to do this. Which means we need to change our cost model to one that works for our clients.
Most companies adapted by just putting crap up. A cheap camera, no lighting, audio from the camera-mounted microphone, and bad editing. That’s stupid. We stubbornly wanted to find a way to produce a quality product at the new, lower price point.
The first thing we tried was cheaper videographers. I knew they would not be as good as our pro — who we loved and used for 20 years. But WOW! I was amazed at just how bad they cheaper guys were. Some examples:
– One guy was busy so he sent his wife. She had never shot video. She didn’t have a microphone, lights or a tripod.
– One guy had no idea how to give us media that would work on a PC. It took two weeks after the shoot to get the media worked out.
– One guy didn’t have a field monitor (too expensive), instead just using the eyepiece for framing. When we got the raw footage we found that we could see his reflection in a window behind the subject. Clear as day! For 45 minutes straight.
Ultimately we decided that the only solution would be to buy the equipment and do it ourselves. There will be times where our old pro would have been able to do better than we will. But that is a moot point because these kind of videos just don’t have the budget to use a pro with his experience and talent. I wish they did, but they don’t.
By the way, the pro to which I refer is a friend. I have known him for 20 years. I paid him well for his help in training our guy. I also spent time over dinner brainstorming ideas on how he could morph his business model to gain more business.
We still do get higher end jobs and when we do I use him. We had a shoot for a major client a few months ago in New York. Locations all around the City — both interiors and exteriors. Sure, we have our own gear and a guy who can shoot talking heads. But the pro was clearly the better option and we had no trouble pulling the trigger in that.
It isn’t just videography, by the way. The cost-crunch applies to all aspects of video production. Voice-overs used to cost $2,000 or more with talent and studio and now cost $500 or less. Obviously stock footage and music is a fraction of what it once was.
Anyway, sorry this is a sore point. I understand your comments. I am not trying to cause trouble.
Neil Myers
Connect Public Relations
CS4 Master Suite, 3DS -
Mark:
Thank you for your response … I really appreciate your advice.
Neil Myers
Connect Public Relations
CS4 Master Suite, 3DS -
Unless you shoot under the same conditions over and over, you will not get the same results as having a lighting pro with a truck load of equipment and experience. However, one piece of gear that is a must, particularly without a pro on board, is a good broadcast monitor. That way, what you see is what you get. Add some scrims and flags to your kit. If you want the pros here to help, then show them an image from a shoot that is not up to par, explain the conditions, sources of light, etc, and I’m sure you’ll get some very good feedback. Taking all this stuff on a commercial flight might not be worth it. Under those circumstances, why not hire a local lighting pro? or rent the gear you need locally?
The Pro-light is a tungsten-halogen source, with a color
temperature in the 3000–3200°K range, depending on lamp
choice. To use Pro in locations where its output will mix with
daylight (5600–6500°K ), its color temperature can be converted
by attaching a Dichroic Filter accessory, or adding day blue
gels to the Pro & i gel-frame. Both will give more realistic daylight
white-balancing in video or film.If some locations have sunlight in the mix you might want to add these accessories and put daylight bulbs in your kino.
OSX 10.5.7; MAC Book PRO (EARLY 2008); Camcorders: Sony Z7U, Canon HV30, Sony vx2000/PD170, Canon xl2; Pana, Sony, and Canon consumer cams; FCP certified; write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up