Rick Wise
1
COW Coin
Forum Replies Created
-
Looks like a good package. However, some questions:
–Does your HVX package include any P2 cards? How many? How long can you shoot before you have to dump the cards onto a computer?
–Have you researched the post flow problems with this camera and are you equipped to handle it?
–Do you already have the lights you need?
–Do you need a wide-angle lens?
Rick Wise
director of photography
Oakland, CA
http://www.RickWiseDP.com
email: Rick@RickWiseDP.com -
Schneider’s Classic Soft seems to be the only good filter for HDV and HD. The black pro mists degrade the image too much, even though they work great in SD. No idea why. I’d tread very, very softly here, like with 1/8 strength, at least for starters.
This also happens to be my favorite filter (when I use one at all) for film, when the actors need a little skin help.
Note that Tiffen now sells a filter software program to use in post, but they do not (yet?) have a version for Vegas. It had a pretty good review somewhere recently (DV.com, I think).
The problem with using any filter in the field is that unless you have a really good field monitor, you cannot accurately judge the effect.
Rick Wise
director of photography
Oakland, CA
http://www.RickWiseDP.com
email: Rick@RickWiseDP.com -
The yellow should not cause you a problem provided:
–you light the green screen evenly across
–you place talent far enough in front of the screen that there is no contamination — no green edges on the yellow clothes or on anything else — you can help yourself here by blacking off all the green screen that isn’t directly behind the talent, and in post fill in that black with matching green (“garbage mat”)
–you control the light on the yellow clothes so they are not too hot in relation to the skin and the green screen; some yellows can be pretty vivid
–you do not put a hot rim light on your talent — a light back-light and possibly equally light side kickers work best for compositing. You might get away with a little warmth on the back/side lights to counter any green spill, but if you see the color, it’s too muchAll of the above holds true, no matter what the color of the clothes.
Rick Wise
director of photography
Oakland, CA
http://www.RickWiseDP.com
email: Rick@RickWiseDP.com -
I think the suggestion of a soft, on-camera fill light is a great one, if you can rent one, or afford to buy it. In general, I hate to have a light on camera — ugly flat. But in the possible extreme lighting situations you may encounter, it could be a great help.
Glad you are going for the manual approach, though I disagree about nixing auto focus. I think you will have too many variables going to be able to effectively balance focus, white balance, exposure, framing, story. That said, if you find the camera hunting for focus because of the low light level, you will just have to switch to manual for that element too.
If there’s anyway you can upgrade to a Sony Z7u or (the more difficult to handle hand-held) EX-1 or 3, you will have better opportunities.
Rick Wise
director of photography
Oakland, CA
http://www.RickWiseDP.com
email: Rick@RickWiseDP.com -
In general, I find LCDs have less reflective problems than CRTs. For one thing, they are flat surfaces rather than curved. For another, they are not hard glass. If you eliminated the reflections on your CRTs you are probably going to be just fine.
Rick Wise
director of photography
Oakland, CA
http://www.RickWiseDP.com
email: Rick@RickWiseDP.com -
I find that the Z1u has pretty good auto focus, but lousy auto color temp. Auto exposure is OK, especially for what you are trying to do. However, you may run into severe back lighting that fools the camera. Still, if you are comfortable fixing things in post, probably your best bet is to go auto all the way.
On the other hand, if you are swift at adjusting things by hand, go for broke and try to do it all manually!
Playing it safe is no way to stretch your abilities.
Rick Wise
director of photography
Oakland, CA
http://www.RickWiseDP.com
email: Rick@RickWiseDP.com -
The answer depends largely on what you plan to shoot, and how. I still use my trusty old Minolta Color Meter to double-check what my eye tells me. In general, I use 1/2 the correction that the meter tells me to use. Where such a meter is particularly useful is going on location where there are existing fluorescents of uncertain characteristics. With experience, you eye will tell you if they are cool whites (roughly daylight) or warm whites (roughly tungsten.) All of them will have a green spike. That means either you will want to add about 1/4 minus green to the existing fluorescents, or add 1/4 plus green to your lights. (If the fluroexcents are tungsten, you’d use tungsten lights to supplement; daylight would require daylight lights, or else adding at least 1/2 CTB.)
So, is this meter essential? For we film shooters, back in the old days when we walked to school in our bare feet through 2 feet of snow, it was essential. We shot reversal 16mm film (a standard for 16mm) and 35mm negative. Both had a very poor tolerance of light variations. Now days, all the stocks handle “off temperature” light sources very, very well, and what doesn’t look right can be usually amended in post. Nevertheless, on full-up film shoots, either I or the gaffer checks very light, especially HMIs, to make sure there is no color shift from what we want.
If you are comfortable reading what kind of fluorescents are in place with your eye, or evaluating the color via the LCD screen (a very rough approximation, varying by camera to camera) I would say that in general, it is NOT worth spending $1,000 for this meter. However, if you do buy it, you will use it, and it will help you to sharpen your ability to see color shifts.
Rick Wise
director of photography
Oakland, CA
http://www.RickWiseDP.com
email: Rick@RickWiseDP.com -
That’s an interesting rule of thumb, one I’ve never heard before. I presume you are referring to getting enough light for a decent exposure. The other factor to consider is, soft vs. hard light: That’s strongly effected by the size of lighting surface in relation to size of subject you are lighting. If you take a 3′ x 3′ lighting surface (no matter what kind of diffusion) and move it two feet from the subject, the light will wrap around far more than if you move that surface six feet from the subject. In other words, when the lighting surface is close to the subject, it becomes big in relation to the subject, and is much softer than when it is moved further back, and becomes small in relation to the subject. The geometry is obvious once you think about it. As a corollary, you can take a really soft light and move it, say, 12 feet from the subject, and it becomes much harder; the light no longer wraps, and so casts sharper shadows.
The bottom line is: for a really soft key, have a large lighting surface and set it close to the subject. Suppose you can afford only a small surface, such as one of the small Rifas. You can transform the front lighting surface into a larger one by hanging a larger piece of light diffusion out in front of the Rifa. That piece of diffusion now becomes the lighting surface. Shower curtain cuts the light only a bit, and will soften the light considerably when used this way.
There is another consideration: if you place the key close to the subject, but you have two people sitting side by side, the one further away from the key will receive a lot less light than the guy sitting close to the key. Light drops of at the inverse square of the distance. That means, if the second person is twice the distance from the key as the first, that person is receiving one quarter (two stops) less light. In such a situation, you have no choice but to either move the key way back so that the exposure difference is minimal (and place the more fair subject the furthest from the key), or else add a supplemental light reaching just subject #2. The ideal way to key softly is to have lots of space, use at least a 5K, preferably a 10K as the key, diffuse it first through an 8 x 8 and then a second layer on a 12 x 12, which is at least 12-15 feet from the two subjects. It’s rare one gets to do that for a variety of cost reasons.
Rick Wise
director of photography
Oakland, CA
http://www.RickWiseDP.com
email: Rick@RickWiseDP.com -
Sounds like you might want to letterbox the entire video to cover the mistake. Otherwise, you will have to slightly blow up the shots with the mic protruding.
Rick Wise
director of photography
Oakland, CA
http://www.RickWiseDP.com
email: Rick@RickWiseDP.com -
Richard, that’s great advice, and a fresh approach to this guy’s immense project. A couple of additional thoughts: you could double up the 1/4 CTB to get to 1/2 CTB, for perhaps a better match to the outside daylight. I would think using two open-faced units as key would give you double-shadows, unless you are blasting them through some common diffusion placed well in front of the lights.
Have you tried using the light coming in the window as you key? If you can place your talking head close enough to that light source, it should work. Add a little bounce fill, and a small backlight.
Note that, as you no doubt know, having the outside a couple of stops hot in relation to the inside looks natural.
The china-ball lighting for the boardroom is a super cheap and effective way to go. Otherwise, I’d say you’d need some banks of Kino Flos angled across the table — Flos above the left side illuminate the right side, etc.
Having practicals on is a great, simple, cheap and highly effective way to give the room some dimension and appeal to the eye.
Rick Wise
director of photography
Oakland, CA
http://www.RickWiseDP.com
email: Rick@RickWiseDP.com