let there be light

[Dylan Couper]

I noticed that too, that Lowel weren't much cheaper than equivalent Arri lights. I think an Arri 650 was around $575cdn. That's without lamp, stand, or anything of course.

Boy is stuff expensive. I mean it's a light for cryin' out loud.
Sheesh. Oh well, no point P&M'ing about it. :)

[Bryan Beasleigh]

Try Cinequip at www.cinequip.ca. That price for an Arri 650 sounds a bit high. Who are you dealing with in Vancouver?

They aren't "just a light" they are a tools and good tools cost.

[Dylan Couper]

I know it's not "just a light". :) Just getting frustrated because I can't get everything into my start-up budget that I want and still have enough left over to shoot my first video.

But it's not important how much things cost. It's how much money they make you that counts.

Those prices were from Leo's Camera. I'm not dealing with them per se, just checking out gear there. I didn't think the Arri prices were competitive, just that they were less than $100 more than the comparable Lowel lights. www.leoscamera.com
I'll check out Cinequip.
Thanks!

[K. Forman]

I know your pain Dylan. Everything I had budgeted ran a bit more than the original price. I'm still getting my gear together.
Keith

[Ken Tanaka]

Dylan,
I don't know if these remarks will be welcome but after following your plight I feel compelled to make them anyway.

Don't lose perspective on your objectives. It's a very easy thing to do while chasing gear. Remember photons are not patented. To a very great degree, it -IS- "...just a light". Nobody will give a diggedy damn whether you used Arri's, Lowel's, or Home Depot worklights. As long as you are able to control the general behaviour of those photons you're prepared to shoot. The incremental added values of one brand of light over another, if any, will largely be lost on your viewers. In some cases, some brands of equipment are priced-up more for their ruggedness or for the average budgets of the products' target market.

Which brings me to my main point. The particular tools you use on your project are far less important than the value of your imagination and your ability to use your tools to create that vision for others. Many people, especially young people, get caught-up in the consumerism of videography and become spec-paralyzed when selecting equipment. They then use their budget as an excuse for why they produced disappointing results. As an ex-boss once said to me (when I was young, in fact), "Don't let the best get the better of the good.".

One last thought, fwiw. Don't lose perspective on life, either. That is, before spending every penny on getting the top-of-the-line equipment be realistic about how long, and how often, you'll -really- be using it. Are you really going to be shooting many videos in, say, 10-15yrs? If you get hold of a commercial project that has a commercial-sized budget ($100K+) are you likely to be using any of this equipment? Probably not. Keep in mind that the residual value of most of this gear is nearly nil or, at best, a miserable financial proposition.

So, while I suggest that you get good, reliable gear I think it's much more important to keep perspective on your project and on life.

Good luck on your projects, Dylan.

[Dylan Couper]

Ken, you make an excellent point and I don't think anyone could disagree with it. It's very easy to get lost amongst the tools of the trade.

So far I've been way underbudget on everything. I try to buy mint condition used equiptment whenever I can, which I've had a lot of luck with so far. I figure at worst, I can sell it all in a month for pretty much exactly what I paid for it.

A set of Arri lights were going to be my extravagence. I had planned on going cheap, and then buying better lights later, but I got to thinking I might just buy better ones now. There is a lot to be said for looking 'professional' when it comes to any business. On the other hand, it's what shows up on tape that counts.


Oh, BTW, in 10-15 years, I hope to be shooting on 35mm film. If it still exists. :)

[Josh Mellicker]

Ken,

Excellent common sense points. It's nice to hear a voice of reason amidst obsession with minute technical details. Trust your eyes and ears, that's what we teach.

We use a TO-98 Lowel kit- that's the one with 2 Omnis and 1 Tota- in our "Secrets of Shooting Great DV" touring workshop.

http://www.dvcreators.net/shootgreatdv

We usually use the Tota for a key light- with an umbrella - or a soft box to reduce spill. We use a piece of artboard or foamcore for fill, and a low wattage Omni for a backlight. The other higher wattage Omni we use to cast a pattern of light and shadow over the background in many cases.

This kit comes with stands, cords, gel frames and barn doors (for the Omnis).

It is a nice kit for the $$$ in my opinion.

We've also used a kit with a China ball on a boom mic stand for the key, and worklights for backlight and background lights.

[Dylan Couper]

Since this thread has made it's way back to the front I'll let you know how my light plight worked out.

I ended up buying three Lowel Fren-L 650's. I opted for the heavier Manfrotto 004 stands as well and a nice Manfrotto bag for them. I'm still trying to find a reasonably priced case that will hold all three frenels.

I'm going to pick up some umbrellas for them, but I also plan on building two compact flourescent light banks for large soft lighting. I think I'm also going to get two DP lights for smaller use lighting.

[Aaron Koolen]

Regarding those floursecents, don't they wreak havoc with lighting because they don't give an even colour temperature? (They spiike in the green range so I've read) Can someone explain to me how folouro's are ok?

Cheers
Aaron

Good luck with your lights!

[Dylan Couper]

Most flourescents are not 3200k but you can buy bulbs that are. Compact flourescents are more stable (less flicker) and longer lasting than regular flourescents and put out much more light per watt.

Check out Kino-Flo's Diva Lights. They are compact flourescent lights for video/film use, but they run about $1400us for a 220 watt fixture. I'm planning on building my own variation of these.

[whiterabbit]

Check out Sylvanias line of photo optic flourescents.

We built our T5 flourescents using top of the line components for around $200 a pop. The ballasts alone were about $100 ea.

they are 1.5 x 1.5 x 4' long double lamped 55 watts and they give lots of flicker free, hum free light. We use color temp lamps at 3000 but a wide range of color temps are available.

[Jacques Mersereau]

IMO, without good lighting, you can go home. Lights
are more important than anything else, because what
you do with your light is what the camera sees
and records.

We just got a couple of the lowell rifa softbox lights and a
chimera pancake lantern.

Yes, the lowell Rifas are very light, very portable,
_quick_ to set up, easy to move once set up, and do a nice job.
I think they were under $800 each at B&H and worth it IMO.

I just did an on location shoot in a restaurant for a DV movie
shot with an XL1 in frame mode using this lighting kit:

Leprechon 1536 light board
Leprechon VX2400 dimmer (12 channels @ 2.4K per)
3 Desisti 1K fresnels on rolling stands
6 Desisti 400W fresnels with clamps
2 Lowell Rifa softboxes with 1K lamps
1 Chimera pancake lantern w/ mogul speed ring and 1K lamp
Lots of 12 gauge cables w/ stage pin connectors
Color gels, color correction and diffusion.

You'll notice that most everything has a 1K lamp.
Why? The reason is that I wanted to shoot
@ -3 db to keep video noise to a minimum, and because frame
mode seems to need lots of light for maximum results.

The 1K fresnels have scrims (screens) so you can cut their output without dimming them down which would change their color temp.
Sometimes you want a redder light, then you simply dim them.
(I have not heard that running a light dim has any effect on lamp
life.)

The softboxes and chimera were used to give broad soft light
to everything in the image without casting ugly shadows all over
the place. The 1Ks and 400W fresnels were used for accents, such
as back lighting heads/hair, lighting objects like statues and paintings, and
fill for what ever needed more light to make it pop.

We used two sony NTSC montors. A 8" HR 8045Q and a 14" MU2U.

Everything turned out pretty good, but having witnessed an XL1s
working with a PS Technik adapter and Arri film lens on a previous
shoot, I could not help and wonder if the standard Canon
"video" lens have any more than 250 lines of resolution.
I would bet NOT. I think the camera can do 500, but that glass . . .
UGH!

The images looked soft on the big monitor using both the 16X
and the 3X video lens. Much softer than the canon 100-400 EV IS
lens/EOS adapter which I have been using on our wildlife doc.
and LOVE. When this is projected, it AIN'T gonna be 16mm.

Argh, the only thing I kept thinking was if we had only had a real
film camera or an HD camera (the producer tried, but just didn't
have the money) we'd have a real product.

I am very excited to hear that JVC (Panny's brother co.) is or has
released a consumer HD camera that uses 1/3" chips.
The DVX100 also has 1/3" chips, so maybe canon will
license those to give us real progressive and MORE resolution.
Those electronics coupled with
real glass should be a winning package.

I want an XL1HD/PS Technik/Film lens combo!!!

[whiterabbit]

I liked this article on the xl1 with third party lense

http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles.htm

is sounds like an affordable alternative to the mini35.

[Jacques Mersereau]

<<<-- Originally posted by whiterabbit :
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles.htm
is sounds like an affordable alternative to the mini35. -->>>


I'm not sure what/which you are talking about Mr. Rabbit.

Are you are referring to using Canon 35mm
lens with their EOS adapter?
I have an EOS and 100-400 EV IS lens. Images from this
combo are MUCH better (sharper & richer color) than the
video lens. Too bad even a 16mm wide angle will turn into
115 mm because of the 7.2X maginification issue,
so the EOS/EV doesn't do wide angle at all.

Or maybe you mean the other canon lens that are now available
like the new 16 manuel? Chris Hurd showed it to me
at ShowBiz Expo. Pretty nice, but is still blown away when compared
to the PS Technik/Cooke lens Canon demoed at the same time.

I guess my main frustration is with my 16X standard and 3X
wide angle video lens. Both are way soft when compared to
my 35mm EV lens, which costs about the same.

Has anyone a test chart to check what resolution the video lens
can resolve? I am betting that none of the "video" lens can produce over
250-300 lines.

So really, imo, there is no cheap alternative (yet) for a PS adapter and
real film glass.

[whiterabbit]

HI sorry just realized that link pointed to all the articles. I was refering to the Fujinon Optex xl lens article modified for the Canon. Mr. Pappas has high praise for this lense also specifically on focus issues..

This has been my biggest gripe. For the longest time I felt as it was my eyes that were going on me.

Also I did not mean to imply that the Fujinon lens was compareable to the mini35 adapter (P+S technik) solution, I was thinking as a substitute for the 16x lens at. I did not see any mention of the extra magnification. Sells for $1,700 US.

If I could afford it I believe I would go for the PS technik myself.

cheers,

JP