buy a video light or two, simple. You can get 500 watt lights for under $100. You can get even cheaper lighting if you go pick up some work lights from home depot. Just make sure to WB them correctly. I dont understand why so many people complain about something thats such an easy fix. Shooting video is the same as shooting photos, you need good light no matter what you use or shoot.
For those so hung up on low light performance
- Thread starter mbell75
- Start date
Maybe some people don't like the look of video light or flash, natural available light is a completely different look and if you have a low light camera it will look beautiful, not to mention you don't have to lug your light around wasting time setting it up, bulbs, wire...and if you are shooting events, blind everybody with the light or change the mood of room by turning on your 500 watts light, making people feel akward if you have a on camera light shooting them versus no light, should I go more.:happy:
Luis Caffesse
Admin
Not to mention that in doc style situations lighting is often not an option.
Absolutely - you need good lighting... but the amount is less and less every generation.
But it's true with any technology that people will always want more.
Look at framerates - shouldn't 60fps be enough for most people?
Yet many are salivating at the Scarlet's propsed 120fps capability.
What about DOF?
We have numerous larger sensor options... but many now refuse to consider anything that isn't full frame.
How about resolution?
1080P isn't enough... now we're talking 3K or more.
What about color space?
We used to be thrilled with the 4:1:1 from DV... now it seems many consider 4:2:2 to be the minimum.
And the same goes for low light performance.
We're always wanting and expecting the next generation of camera to outperform the last.
And why shouldn't they?
All I'm trying to say is that no matter how good technology gets - people will constantly try to push the bar higher.
So yeah - we need good lighting to shoot good images.
But we may not necessarily need much at all... and I'm certain that some day soon we'll be able to do just about anything by simply shaping the light that is available to us naturally.
Just my 2 cents.
Absolutely - you need good lighting... but the amount is less and less every generation.
But it's true with any technology that people will always want more.
Look at framerates - shouldn't 60fps be enough for most people?
Yet many are salivating at the Scarlet's propsed 120fps capability.
What about DOF?
We have numerous larger sensor options... but many now refuse to consider anything that isn't full frame.
How about resolution?
1080P isn't enough... now we're talking 3K or more.
What about color space?
We used to be thrilled with the 4:1:1 from DV... now it seems many consider 4:2:2 to be the minimum.
And the same goes for low light performance.
We're always wanting and expecting the next generation of camera to outperform the last.
And why shouldn't they?
All I'm trying to say is that no matter how good technology gets - people will constantly try to push the bar higher.
So yeah - we need good lighting to shoot good images.
But we may not necessarily need much at all... and I'm certain that some day soon we'll be able to do just about anything by simply shaping the light that is available to us naturally.
Just my 2 cents.
Barry_Green
Moderator
The amount of light may change, but the shape and direction of that light never will. If you want what you're shooting to look GOOD, you will always have to control the light. Available lighting will never look like anything other than camcorder footage, no matter how sensitive your camera may be.
:thumbsup:
Luis Caffesse
Admin
Agreed - which is why I ended my post by saying:
Of course light needs to be shaped - always. I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise.
And shooting with available light takes time and planning, like anything worth while.
All I was trying to say was the people's want for better low light performance is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself.
On another hand, whenever I see a prime time drama or an interview, I check the lights, and more often than not I see the same boring three-point setup with this stupid hair light, and the latter for some reason just drives me bonkers. I look at the set where the subject is being filmed and I don't see any justification for that hair light, there is nowhere it can come from. Immediately the whole scene looks fake and cheesy. I'd rather prefer flat but honest "camcorder footage".
I guess it comes down to art of lightning. Good lightning must not be noticed, then it is effective. Should I say, if you cannot make lightning invisible then don't light at all? (Not that I can).
mbell, I was stupid enough to believe in the "home depot light" tale. I have these lights, they are bright and uncontrollable. To add to them all the features needed for film lights (crate, barn doors, filters, etc) will make them as expensive as proper lights, but much more bulky and hazardous to use. These lights are good only for lightning a work area. I mean, these lights are better than nothing when you simply have to add some light to make things visible, like I was shooting a dance in a big room, these lights worked. But they will not work for anything "artsy".
Bounce my friend, bounce. I dont think anyone would ever point them directly at the subject, at least I hope not haha. You dont need any accessories when bouncing off the wall or better yet, ceiling. Not talking about any dramatic lighting either, just enough light to fill a room to avoid high noise. They do get hot if you are in a small room but thats expected. I have doen plenty of photo and video work with these lights back in the day before I got proper strobes and video lights. It can be done and done cheap.
Bouncing lowers the contrast of the entire scene, you'll still have light spill everywhere, a real problem if you're trying to achieve dramatic lighting. Sure you can use flags and such to help shape the light, but by then your level of monetary investment already outweights the "cheap" nature of the light. Can you get good result with worklight? Sure, if you already have the grip equipments to control it (unlikely if you can't afford proper light in the first place) and is willing to spend the extra time doing it. It's really not about how much light you can get for cheap, it's about whether you can get the results you want with them.
The fact remains is that film lights are expensive for a reason, and that is control, control, control. You simply don't have to spend as much time babysitting the light. I had 3 worklights back when I first started out, they're really useless for anything other than lighting the background, where you don't need to control them as much. I actually had a posting a while back GIVING them away for free and nobody would take them.
Marc Villafan
Well-known member
Thats what I always thought. I've always wanted to buy at least one of them but i'm really apprehensive on the control issue. I was thinking of making a set of barn doors for it but, still unsure.
As you've had experience with them obviously, is it not worth getting one even with a set of barndoors?
I would say no. Even with barndoor those worklights are not focusable to any degree, and they're EXTREMELY poorly built. Two of my fixtures basically fell apart within a year, one of the heads burnt out, the light stand falls apart, the telescoping stand suddenly wouldn't hold the light up anymore etc. They're just not intended to stand up to a production environment and I think it's a waste of money to invest in them.
If anyone is looking for cheap light, look at the Britek stuff, they really are dirt cheap. A 650w fresnel with barndoor will run you something like $90 at Rostronics. Build quality is still poor but at least they're actually made for film application, with all the features that you'd want. I used them for nearly two years and they worked well enough.
If anyone is looking for cheap light, look at the Britek stuff, they really are dirt cheap. A 650w fresnel with barndoor will run you something like $90 at Rostronics. Build quality is still poor but at least they're actually made for film application, with all the features that you'd want. I used them for nearly two years and they worked well enough.