|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 20th, 2015, 04:43 PM | #1 |
New Boot
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 9
|
HMI vs. Kino vs. Compact Flourscent for quality of light
I'm trying to get the light quality of tungsten but with a daylight source. This is for an location interview situations where each subject will be in front of camera for about an hour so the heat from tungsten makes it a non-option. My key will be a large 6' softbox with eggcrate.
Can you guys school me as to what makes the best quality of daylight. I know gelling will get me there but I'm also looking to upgrade my gear to daylight balanced. LED's are nice, but I like the look of the others better. I appreciate the vast experience of you folks and your willingness to share. * after a bit more research, my question might need to say, " what 6' softbox will fit daylight source?" seems like the very large ones are only made for strobe kits photographers use.
__________________
Sony EX1R Last edited by Kevin Miller; September 20th, 2015 at 06:15 PM. |
September 22nd, 2015, 12:38 PM | #2 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Raleigh, NC, USA
Posts: 710
|
Re: HMI vs. Kino vs. Compact Flourscent for quality of light
Quote:
Probably the best quality of light for daylight level sources is fluorescent. Tubes with six and seven phosphors can reach a CRI in the mid-high 90s. Look at the Kino Flo True Match bulbs. When driven by the Kino Flo ballasts they deliver a very high quality of light. One thing to note though is that for a lot of uses, a manual white balance under the lights you are using will make up for all kinds of ills from the light's spectra. That's because modern cameras white balance over a number of different axes. All of them do the orange-blue axis, all of them I've ever seen also handle the magenta-green axis. Some of these cameras go as high as 12 different axes. I'm just saying that my 86 CRI Cool Lights CDM lights give me excellent skin tones after a manual white balance. I never use gels, and skin tones are so good that I seldom find any reason to color correct any of my interview footage. |
|
September 22nd, 2015, 12:47 PM | #3 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Raleigh, NC, USA
Posts: 710
|
Re: HMI vs. Kino vs. Compact Flourscent for quality of light
Best bet might be a big diffusion frame like a http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/90984-REG/Westcott_1895_Scrim_Jim_Large_Reflector.html, lit from behind by an HMI-ish source, or several depending on how much light you need on the subject.
|
September 22nd, 2015, 02:02 PM | #4 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,420
|
Re: HMI vs. Kino vs. Compact Flourscent for quality of light
They're big, but I really love using the Kino 4-banks. With a 4' tube that is pretty even out to the ends, I never have thought that I needed to add a 6' softbox. I typically use them horizontally, and carefully set the stand height to achieve the density I want under the subject's eyebrows.
Then there's the available tungsten, daylight, and *greenscreen* bulbs. But they're not going to fit in your car, the case is almost 5' long.
__________________
30 years of pro media production. Vegas user since 1.0. Webcaster since 1997. Freelancer since 2000. College instructor since 2001. |
September 22nd, 2015, 06:10 PM | #5 |
New Boot
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 9
|
Re: HMI vs. Kino vs. Compact Flourscent for quality of light
Thanks guys. The reason for the large box is they want full length with a lot of background into tight crop. I'm leaning toward trying Cool Lights HMI through a large shoot through flat. Ditched the curly cue florescent. May play with the Kino panels and mix in a little hard light.
__________________
Sony EX1R |
| ||||||
|
|