[John Sharaf]

Stan,

I think you have the right idea; two lights left and right to evenly illuminate your chroma key background and two lights on the foreground subject, a key and a backlight. You do not mention what you will magically put in the background, so the last thing to determine is the best possible match of “quality” of light to carry the effect. Day, night, fantasy, etc. The more convincingly you can light the foreground to “marry” the effect of the background the better, unless you’re going after the 6 O’clock news look, or virtual set, in which case you just want nice portraiture.

JS

[John Sharaf]

For fast and dirty single source key with a light like the 1K Arri we’re talking about, my favorite approach is to take a roll of heavy white diffusion (we used to use shower curtain or “Vinyl-lite” but Lee 129 or 216 is good too) and un-spool it from a roll while hanging on a c-stand arm in front of the open faced light.

This way you get to reuse the roll indefinatly (use a spring clamp to keep from totally unfurling) and create a large (4×4′) source light. If you stage your shot far enough from the wall behind the subject you don’t even have to worry about controlling the spill.

Another cheap and elegant application is to use a photo strobe umbrella (either white for softness or silver for strength) as a reflector. Hold it in a c-stand head to aim effectively.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Robert,

Yeah, that’s a good start. Add a 650 and 300 Fresnel later and you’ll have a very tidy, useful kit. Lighting “kit” is like stamp collecting, one piece at a time, only it’s a lot more useful (and fun too). You don’t want a bunch of crappy stuff, but rather a select quiver of quality tools that will last a long time.

Good luck,

JS

[John Sharaf]

Robert,

Now that you mention it, I’d suggest that you start lighting with the one light. Use windows or other sources of natural or existing artificial lights for backlight, set light and fill. There is nothing more “elegant” than single source lighting when done correctly. Just as I recommend that in still photography you start with just a normal lens and add wide and telephoto after you’ve mastered the normal, it is verty liberating to have one light and have to consider how best to use it for each setup. I definitely woulds not advise ant cheap hardware lighting.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Robert,

Although motion picture lights can be used for still photography, strobe lights can not be used for motion picture lighting (except special strobes used for high speed “slow motion” work at high frame rates.

The concept of “really cheap” lighting is kind of an oxymoron, because lights that burn hot can be dangerous both for the operator and the subject. Unlike video cameras, which often become obsolete the minute their unpacked, motion picture lights can often last 20 years or more, so even the most expensive unit is cheap in the long run, being amortized over a long period of time, and furthermore often has a substantial resale even then.

I think the thing to consider with your budget is the starter light of a kit that you’ll build over time, and I think you’re totally correct to look at ebay as a good source for used lighting. I’d recommend a 1K (1000 watt) Mole or Arri open face light as such a starter. It can be used straight on with a little diffusion clipped on the doors (like Lee 216), bounced into a white card or with a Chimera light bank. Later when you’;re ready to expand your kit, add a 650 watt fresnel and then a 300 fresnel. Over time, you might spend a $1000 buying these three used lights and accessories, but you’ll have a safe, worthy kit that will last many years.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Justin,

Most all cameras have a choice of “preset” or “auto white balance”. The one you decide to use is a creative decision, as usually the preset when used in the correct conditions will produce a better (often slightly warmer) look.

White balance is really the “absence” of color in the whites. It’s derived by adjusting the red and the blue gains to minimize the red and blue in the white. The color of the ambient light determines the amount of R&B gain (both + and -) required to do so. A target that’s devoid of color, obviously a white card or even better, a chip chart, is the preferred choice, although I’ve seen news photogs in a hurry white balance on their white sneakers. The problem with using any old white target in the field is that it might not actually be white and furthermore might be reflecting another color.

By using the preset in combination with daylight correction filter (in daylight) or without in tungsten often gives you, as I said, a more pleasing look. It’s easy to preview by making an auto white and toggling back and forth to preset and observing the color on the monitor. Another advantage in this method is that the color balance will be consistent from day to day and project to project, and also that naturally occurring colors will be shown in their true effect, such as warm light in the early morning or late afternoon.

Ultimately, to become comfortable with white balance, you must test and experiment in all the various lighting conditions (don’t worry there is a finite number) and carefully observe the results. This way you will gain the experience and confidence to swiftly and correctly apply the preferred setting when and where you want it.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Jason,

Remember 29.97fps = 59.94 fields per second.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Jason,

Blu-Ray would necessarily leverage the same rational if editing in a 24p timeline (of material shot that way like 100% of movies) so that it wcould fit feature length material (90-120 minutes or more) within it’s storage capacity. The player hardware then does the telecine out to 60p were it repeates 2 then three frames in cadence to “stretch” 24 frames into 60 frames per second whilst retaining the “filmic” motion.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Bram,

I am (unfortunately) editing a project in 720 60p at the moment and I can tell you that it uses a lot of storage.

I shot a documentary this past summer using the first generation of the Sony PDW700 camera. At the time 1080/24p had not been implemented (although it is now with v1.5 software and an optional software “key” upgrade), but at the time the camera contained a “24 over 60” speed, essentially writing a 2:3 pulldown over the 60 frames, “like the Varicam does” I was told and thought.

Unfortunately it did not work like the Varicam, as it did not write “A” frames in the user bit to identify the beginning of the cadence nor did it even conform to the SMPTE RP188 standard which aligns the 00 frames of time code to the beginning of the cadence. As a result, even though I still have the 24p “effect” I could not use FCP nor AJA Kona to “pull the 24’s” and create a 24p timeline which would use only 40% of the storage space I must use at 60p.

As a work around, if we end up going to a filmmout at the end we can use a fancy box called “Alcemist” to jigger the frames back and forth to find the cadence and create a “reverse telecine” in on-line.

Needless to say in the latest software Sony has fixed this problem, at least as conforming to RP188 and all my cameras have the 1080/24 option installed which of course is the preferred method.

Long story, but yes, sometimes (once in my life), I’ve edited in 60p.

Also consider the “Showscan” experiment of Dulton Trumble many years ago where they shot tests of shooting film and projecting it at 60 fps. It was an incredible experience to view on a large screen (as I did one day long ago in Westwood Village) where film actually looked like television. Obviously the expense of shooting, processing and printing 2.5 times as much stock as conventional 24fps cinema and the conversion of the projectors doomed this experiment because of economics.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Jason,

Very astute question. Problem is that at 1920×1080 60p is a massive amount of data, capable of being recorded only in the HDCAM-SR format which records 880mbs (and also slo-mo disc recorders like those used for pro sports broadcasts). Essentially this frame rate has been referred to up until now as “the holy grail”. 720 can and does run at this rate because it uses less bandwidth, but 1080 would clog all means of broadcast and other forms of distribution and playback.

That is not to say that in the future (Moore’s Law) methods of recording and transmitting this much data will not be possible. Until then the viability of 720p continues.

JS