[Rick Wise]

Craig,

The University has plenty of lights, up to 5Ks. But the issue is, I am required to design an on-line 100% digital lighting class that shoots only video (no film) and also involves equipment that on-line students from all over the US and the world have to purchase themselves. I am adamant that they will need:

–at least one fresnel unit rated at 650 or higher
–at least 3 open faced units that they will learn to use well
–barn doors for all
–a set of Mathews 24×24 road rags
–1 24 x 36 flag
–1/2 CTB, 1/2 CTO, 1/4 minus green, 1/4 plus green, 1/2 grid, opal — all in sheets, a minimum of 2 sheets of each
–foamcore
–at least 2 complete c-stands
–at least 2 sandbags (they can buy these empty and fill them locally)
–roll gaffer’s tape
–C-47s
–9×12 green screen kit (there’s a cheap on for $120 which will do)

These students are going after an MFA.

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

[Rick Wise]

I’ll second that: NEVER use stick-ons for DVDs. For the small runs you speak of, the cheap Epson Photo R280 is a terrific, economical solution, combined with those white, printable Taiyo Yuden’s, which are extremely reliable. Let your Google fingers do the searching for the best prices.

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

[Rick Wise]

Mark, that’s an interesting idea. However, I took a quick look at Blender. Does not appear to be an easy app to learn. I don’t think I want to teach software on top of everything else I will be teaching. But still, most intriguing. Thanks for the suggestion.

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

[Rick Wise]

The tripod/head combo you specify is rated as holding up to 8.8 lbs by B&H (cheaper there too than at Amazon). However, I have a very slightly more beefy head, the 701RC2, which I use for fee jobs with my old Panasonic GS400. I find it takes a lot of Zen to make smooth pans and tilts with this head, but it can be done. I agree with Mark: a heavier “than-needed” tripod is always better for those silky pans, tilts, and compound moves you will want to make.

If your budget maxes out at $300, go to BHphotovideo.com and check out their tripods: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=sort&A=search&Q=&sortDrop=Price%3A+Low+to+High&bl=&atl=Price_+200+%3C%3D++%3C%3D+399.99&pn=1&st=categoryNavigation&mnp=0.0&mxp=0.0&sv=3949&bhs=t&shs=&ac=&fi=all&pn=1&ci=3949&cmpsrch=&cltp=&clsgr=. (The link limits max price to $400 and displays from cheapest, $200, to most expensive.) It looks like you could afford sticks with a 501 head, which should be a bit better for pans and tilts, though I suspect not very much. Since you want to back pack, also check total weights for each possible selection.

A monopod will work for relatively static shots but not for real pans and tilts.

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

[Rick Wise]

What camera are you using with those primes? The field of view of any lens is relative to the recording format, whether it’s film or video. In film, a 25mm lens has the same coverage when shooting 16mm film as does a 50mm lens when shooting 35mm (well, roughly so.) However, the depth of field characteristics do not change for any lens, no matter what format it is being used on. That is, at a given distance and f/stop, a 50mm lens with have the same depth of field if it is used on a 35mm camera as on a 16mm camera. It is only the field of view that changes.

Your lens selection looks quite complete. To make sure, go to the rental house and set up your widest and your longest lens to see if your wide coverage will work, and your long, given the limitations of your location.

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

[Rick Wise]

Todd,

I took another look at the sample video and you are indeed correct that the shooter used some lights. At 2:47 there’s a relatively wide shot with a window behind the two actors. The shadow of a tree says the sun is coming from the right, fairly high in the sky, as does the look of the hill outside the window. But hard warm (setting) “sunlight” is coming in from the left at eye level. The close-up of the girl at 2:55 shows that also. (While a lot of the lighting is soft, sometimes it is hard with hard shadows.)

I think I was seduced into the “available light” idea by the underexposed shots of the couple on the floor in the kitchen where they cavort below where the “window” light can reach. (3:21 and earlier.) This is the kind of lighting situation video can often handle well.

(Note, I just discovered something you all may know: on YouTube, if you pause the video, then move the slider along, a tiny window shows where in the video you are, timewise.)

Shooting available light is definitely going out on a very thin limb. It’s fun, though…. On one of my favorite shoots (the boxing spot on my reel –https://rickwisedp.com/Box.htm) I had a full LA crew with all the lights and grip equipment and crew you could ask for. I shot 95% available light, because what was there was perfect. I sort of felt bad about the crew not doing much (other than the dolly grip) but they didn’t mind at all. Had the weather turned dark, I had the reserves to restore the “sun.” Not a luxury you are likely to encounter these days.

One more observation about the sample shoot: filter. I think it highly likely the DP used a light classic soft or some such.

Good catch, Todd!

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

[Rick Wise]

Steven, great solution. I’ve been fortunate enough to always have a full-up video camera plus a terrific tech for any green screen shoots. I suspect sooner or later I will be forced to tape with a prosumer camera for such a shoot and will remember your great advice.

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

[Rick Wise]

There are at least five issues here: lenses, location, lighting, angles, and exposure.

Lenses: looks like shot with primes, frequently with shallow depth of field (achieved, as you probably know by now, by shooting with the iris close to wide open and also shooting with a longer focal length.)

Location: one that offers the variety of shots you need. (This location offers variety, but is not in itself very interesting. An opportunity missed.)

Lighting: looks to me likely that the shooter used available light, possibly augmented with very soft additional light, but I suspect it’s all just what’s there. Note that to pull this off with available light you need to be able to “read” the light that’s there and find the best angles accordingly.

Shooting angles: a variety that fits the story. Myself, I’m not crazy about the wide shots flat on to the couch with the light coming in over the camera, but many of the other shots “work” well. The crew could have turned the couch 45 or 0 degrees to the window light for a more nuanced look.

Exposure: dp not afraid to “underexpose” many shots. Often those “underexposed” shots are visually the most interesting.

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

[Rick Wise]

First off, do a little homework. Go to BHPhotovideo.com. Click on: Camcorders/Professional Camcorders/Video Cameras/Prosumer/ and then sort by low to high, or high to low. Find all the cameras in your budget range. (For what you want to do, I’d start at the top end and work down.) Read the user reviews for each camera if there are any. Research each potential camera via Google. Etc. Come back here with your top 4 or 5 choices, if you are still undecided.

If your TOTAL budget is $2000-5000, then you have to allow for a decent tripod, extra batteries, lights, recording media, the green screen itself, mics, props, sets. If that’s the case, your budget is more than tight. It’s impossible.

Alternatively, hire a professional crew to come in and shoot your first projects. Then do the math to see if it’s worth while becoming your own production company. Odds are high that it’s not worth it unless you are generating lots of video every week. Note that it’s also difficult to keep good professional people working a corporate job like that unless you include a significant amount of challenging, interesting work. Right now, however, you will have a much better chance at finding and holding good people for at least a year or more, until this recession turns up.

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

[Rick Wise]

There are a few cameras that still shoot both SD and HD. The Canon HV20/30/40 does, but none of those models are terrific in low light. You have to go to a more expensive camera for good low-light handling. Here are a couple of cameras that still shoot both SD and HDV (on tape) and are reported to be very good in low light:

–Sony HDR-FX1000, $3,199
–Sony HVR-Z5u, $4,250 — the prosumer version of the above, with XLR audio inputs

There is also the Canon XH-A1s ($3,400) which is also tape-based and shoots both SD and HDV. I am not certain about its low-light capabilities. It seems to be the successor to the great SD Canon, DVX-100b, which worked well in low light. If you go to B&H’s description/reviews, wedding videographers seems to like it — which strongly suggests it works well in low light.

Otherwise, you could shoot on one of the new Panasonics, or as already suggested the Sony EX1 or 3, and downconvert to SD when needed.

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