Is video-studio lighting more or less like photographic studio lighting?

sheeep

sheeep

Active member
Ello. First post here.

I'm starting a little bit of a project with a few buddies soon, and I'm gonna try and make this one my most "ambitious" yet. I film with two one chip cameras, and because of their not-so-great low light I'm starting to read into lighting. This way hopefully I can get out of the db+ ranges indoors.

I'm pretty familiar with studio lighting for photography, flashes and strobes and radio slaves and all those goodies. In reading about some basic film lighting techniques, it doesn't seem too different. A lot of diffusion and light boxes.

Wondering if umbrellas are ever used in video lighting. I'm thinking of getting some cheap 500w work lights like a bunch of tutorials have suggested, and using them on my flash stands with either the light reflected off the umbrellas or the light shining through my white umbrellas to make it a psuedo light box.

Just wondering if the similarities are there, or what major differences there are.

BTW, this site has an enormous amount of information, kinda awesome.
 
Digital Video and digital photography are very similar lighting wise, BUT, its not really that simple. Keep in mind, not all sensors are created equal. I'd bet that my D70 ccd has a greater dynamic range, and is also cleaner than your cameras sensors. Also, photography can make use of longer exposures, thus alowing for lower overall light levels. Then there is the issue of how the camera processes the data after the sensor captures it. My D70 throws zero data away, so I get tons of information to work with (12 bit files), where as all mini DV cameras throw away tons of information, and in the process apply there own set of image altering settings. Some cameras are made to crush the blacks right off the bat and you can't change that. In RAW cameras, you can alter that in post, in nice non-raw cameras (Varicam, HVX200, etc), you can at least set how much the camera does on its own. The point I'm making is you need to test your camera. Shoot a gray scale, and note your cameras settings. You need to learn to light for each camera/format, not "video in general". Thats a dangerous road to take...I highly recommend studying how lighting works regardless of the camera or format. Then dive into exposure, how diferent types of sensors actually work, post procesing, etc...

Hope that helps!
 
Hi:

Chris, great advice, I totally agree. I shoot with the HVX as well as with the Nikon D-80 and as a device, the D-80 is much more sensitive and shoots much higher overall quality than the HVX.

Umbrellas are terrible for video unless you want your spill bouncing all over the room. Softboxes are fairly big in still photography and are basically the standard for video if you want to have control of soft light. Not only softboxes, but egg crates to put on the softboxes. Also, with hot lights, you need much more heavy duty and heat resistant softboxes than you do for photography. All of the still shooters think that Photoflex is the bomb for softboxes, whereas in video, Photoflex is considered the low end, most of us use Chimeras, which cost two to three times the amount of the Photoflex gear.

Lighting is lighting but there are definite differences between still and video lighting, at least in most cases. The concepts are basically the same, but the tools and how you get there can be quite different.

Best,

Dan
 
I would say that the "art side" of lighting is almost the same, but there are more restrictions in video. Tecnical, like having enough of it and having it a bit less contrasty, and practical, like taking possible talent and camera movements into account. The light must work with movement, and camera movements must not show lights. Also camera/boom operator movements must not cast shadows on the set.

Also, if you are after a natural effect you need to make things look like they were not lighted at all...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top