More buhbs.....

Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by Existential Angst, Feb 20, 2013.

  1. Awl --

    Here's my li'l conceptualization of lighting:
    Is it correct to say that what may be garish lighting from a *living*,
    reading pov is actually GOOD lighting from a film pov?
    And vice versa: what is pleasing, soothing lighting from a living pov is
    bad lighting from a film pov?

    If these notions are correct, than this clarifies a lot for me.

    Also, from a physic-intuition-energetics pov, it seems that ito white
    balancing, it would be "easier" for cameras to white-balance from too-white
    to too-warm, rather than vice versa. Is this notion correct?

    Inneresting also is that answered my query on 5500K
    bulbs vs 6500, and conceded that 5500 WERE better for filming, but that they
    only carried the 6500..... lol Go figger.
    Based on the 5,000K stuff (below), 6500 must be REALLY intense!!

    I went to HD yesterday, and checked out their 23 W (100 W equiv) cfl's, and
    they come in 3 varieties: warm, bright, and daylight, 2700 K, 3500 K, and
    5000 K respectively.

    So even tho I liked the warm stuff, apropos of the various threads here I
    got the 5,000K daylight, and goddamm, is that stuff WHITE and BRIGHT!!!

    BUT, it's 5,000K (supposedly), which should be much closer to what is good
    for filming, as mentioned in those threads.
    But wow, tough on the eyes -- almost metal-halide-ish.... hope it works.

    I'll also try their bright (3500 K), see what happens.

    In similar side-by-side fixtures, the 23 W 5000K cfl makes a 60 W
    incandescant look positively *dingey*.
    A 100 W incandescant faired better in comparison of course, but still sort
    of "dull".

    They are relatively cheap, from about $2.25 ea to about $3 ea, inc'g with
    higher temps.

    With the ban on incandescants, and what with mercury becoming an
    environmentally friendly metal (and proly an essential nutrient, along with
    iron, copper, and zinc), and the fact that they are supplying these bulbs
    from the truly warm to the truly brite spectrum, I think incandescants are a
    thing of the past, and proly won't be missed much.
    The comparison in heat production is amazing as well.

    Hooooo-raaaay Mercury!!!

    But, I think CFLs are going to be a very short-lived photonic interlude, as
    leds are made affordable. I think in 5 years or so, CFLs will be banned. I
    guess then we'll have to get our mercury in vitamin pills.....
    Existential Angst, Feb 20, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  2. Existential Angst

    Paul Guest

    I'm really surprised CFLs aren't banned now.

    When you do your tests, you should look for a few things. Can you
    read newsprint with the various test lamps ? And, when viewing a colorful
    object, are some colors lacking at all ? Like, you're having trouble
    telling the difference between red and pink, or red and orange ?

    On digital camera test sites, they use test targets like this,
    to check colors.

    And for flatbed scanners, they use color tests like this (IT8 of
    various flavors). When I got my scanner, it came with an IT8 target.

    For video, skin tone is all important. Shoot a reference shot of
    yourself in sunlight outside, then compare to shots of your face while in
    the studio, and see how they compare. People viewing the results of
    your shoot, might be forgiving of clothing colors being off, but
    people immediately spot skin tone problems.

    And there's gotta be a test procedure written up somewhere, on
    how to do this testing right. You're not the first person
    to experiment with lighting :)

    Paul, Feb 20, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  3. Existential Angst

    j Guest

    On 2/20/2013 9:04 AM, Existential Angst wrote:> Awl --
    You've wandered into the weeds and are completely missing the whole idea
    of quality of light,which is many things. Hardness/softness, CRI, and
    light position. You are concentrating on color temp when you should have
    more concern over any of the others. You can fix color temp in post, you
    can't fix any of the others.

    The eye will adjust to a wide variety of lighting colors automatically
    based on what it expects and *other* lighting around it. So, if you are
    tuned to the warm light of incandescent, the cooler light of a 5000K CFL
    will make flesh look unnaturally blueish. But in general skin tones will
    look similar to the eye at home, outdoors, and in an office because the
    brain is subconciously doing all the color corrections.

    But what the eye sees is unimportant, it is what the camera sees.

    Now, getting back to quality of light, the eye also is way more tolerant
    and adjusting to bad lighting than the camera is. The eye will tolerate
    uneven lighting and contrasty lighting. Video will not.

    You don't have enough experience to tell just by looking what the camera
    will record. You have to look at the recorded footage. Even when you
    have experience, you have to look at the recorded. And you really have
    to do this on a device similar to the one it is viewed on. Video on the
    camera screen will always look better than it is.

    j, Feb 23, 2013
  4. I can barely keep up with the TEMP bidniss!!!!! lol

    So I take it that my assertion is essentially correct, that what *I* like
    and what the camera likes are two different things.

    Thus, my 5,000 K cfl's are my first attempt to "control" what I'm doing.
    It's a start. I'm hoping this is a better choice than 6500K. At the very
    leasdt, I'll have some diy reference points, to compare with whatever more
    expensive stuff I try in the future.

    I have the 23 W 5K cfl on, next to a 60 W incandescent all the time now
    (just for room lighting), and I can quite see how the cfl will be much
    better for the camera, even tho it grates on me.

    When I get over this initial hump -- which is semi-decent lighting, upgrade
    to Vegas 12, other machining/preparation stuff -- I'll get to CRI and the
    other stuff. I've already abandoned the multiple-fixed-location camera
    strategy I was obsessing about some time ago, as I now have my machining
    partner, who is really quite the roving camera-man!! And it really makes
    things so much easier, better, quicker.... 'ceptin, .of course, I have to
    pay him.... lol

    From a lighting pov, I now realize why real studio ceilings are so high: It
    gives almost unlimited versatility with lighting, with 8' ceilings forever
    condemning one to short clips, as the lighting always has to be changed as
    the camera position is changed.
    What a videographic luxury, to have those kinds of high ceilings!

    The other thing that surprised me was how similar the "brite" seems compated
    with "daylight" by eye, but the temps are vastly different: 3500 vs. 5000
    K. I should mebbe bring one home, and just leave it on as a side-by-side
    (along with the incandescant), to better grok the visual diffs. And mebbe
    the camera diffs.
    I will be doing quite a bit of experimentation. These threads have quite
    helped toward that end. I may not be doing exactly what people are
    recommending, but at least I'm more aware of what should be done, and I'll
    adjust my DIY strategies accordingly. 5,000K is a start... lol
    Existential Angst, Feb 23, 2013
  5. Existential Angst

    Paul Guest

    Without getting too enamored with the devices here, you can see
    some people have already been doing these experiments. The spiky output
    devices may appear to be "white", but don't treat all colors
    equally, as the color target with the squares shows. The Macbeth
    6x4 target, has the light output of two light sources overlaid on it,
    and the gray squares in the lower left are "discolored". So there's more
    to it, than just "seeing white light coming from the lamp".

    Apparently, it's even a problem mixing light sources, like
    using a different color light shining right on a person's face
    for highlights, and then a different light type for the background.
    Apparently it can make correction in the editor later, virtually

    It's more complicated than it looks.

    Paul, Feb 24, 2013
  6. Indeed.
    Mebbe I'll just film it in Exercise Noir, all in shadow, silhouette?? lol

    Actually, I seemed to have lucked out early on, with simple "banks" of 100 W
    incandescants, with the demo taking place in one area. Pretty uniformly
    lit, from multiple angles, seemed no worse than anything else I've seen on
    youtube, but then who knows.
    I assume that the one thing incandescants do NOT suffer from is spikey-ness,
    That may indeed be a problem with HD cfl's.... we'll soon see.

    Mebbe I'll find some short vids on youtube, see what y'all think.... that
    way I"ll have a better ref. pt on my stuff. I'd link my stuff, but my
    demo's are worse than the lighting..... lol

    Does anyone have youtube examples of good lighting vs. bad lighting?

    Anyway, I'm hoping these cfl's do at least as well as my banks of 100
    Watters. They'll certainly make the room less hot.
    Existential Angst, Feb 24, 2013
  7. Existential Angst

    Brian Guest

    Just had a look at YouTube and typed in the search words "good camera
    lighting" and found a lot of videos on camera lighting so it would be a
    good place to learn more about camera lighting.
    Brian, Feb 24, 2013
  8. I'll also search "bad camera lighting".... :) :)
    Good idear, I'll report back. Should help my own (un)critical eye, as well.
    Existential Angst, Feb 24, 2013
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.