How do you no budget guys light your stuff?

i agree with ryan that middle shot looks like something straight out of The Road. very cinematic. can you tell me what you mean by bouncing the red head OFF a sheet? a regular sheet i.e. white bed sheet or what?

oh and what the heck is the difference between redheads and fresnels in terms of quality of light? Is there any? is it simply that redheads don't have lenses and thus can't be set flood/spot and that's it?
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
chapelgrovefilms, your film would be a perfect candidate for a hypothetical game of "what if?" What if you managed to raise more money for your film - would your film improve. (Though I don't want to play this game without your consent as you would be putting your own work on the line).

Futchibon, i'm not sure you realize that a Lite Panel (the "cheap" light from the picture) cost over $1000. Also what you forget is that Black Swan is a $17mil film... meaning they have money to use the "right tool" for the job, so if they chose to a shot on 7D doesn't mean it's the best camera to shoot feature films on but rather that it's the best camera to shoot that shot on. Unfortunately people will see that picture from making-of and assume that to make a great looking film you only need a 7D and one LitePanel...
Click to expand...

So you didn't read the first article about how lighting has changed over the last 10 years? The simple fact is with today's cameras you can light with kino flos and litepanels and available light, at a fraction of the cost of what you would use 10 years ago. And there are plenty of cheaper options than those brand names, I personally find litepanels and z-finders overpriced when there are cheaper alternatives. And if you DIY, you can get the cost even lower - much lower.

Painting is not exactly a free medium - canvasses, brushes and paints cost about the same as china balls, fluros and DIY kino flos. The digital revolution is democratizing the filmmaking process for everyone.
 
Last edited:
Futchibon said:
So you didn't read the first article about how lighting has changed over the last 10 years? The simple fact is with today's cameras you can light with kino flos and litepanels and available light, at a fraction of the cost of what you would use 10 years ago. And there are plenty of cheaper options than those brand names, I personally find litepanels and z-finders overpriced when their are cheaper alternatives. And if you DIY, you can get the cost even lower.

Painting is not exactly a free medium - canvasses, brushes and paints cost about the same as china balls, fluros and DIY kino flos. The digital revolution is democratizing the filmmaking process for everyone.
Click to expand...
amen my brother.

it is ushering in a new age of bad films from talentless individuals who would have otherwise never been allowed anywhere near a film set. but alas, what an interesting spectacle it all makes
 
I've only been doing this for a while and when I started a few years back it was,

-interlaced full auto no clue no light point and shoot
-super8 you gotta torch that **** for 6 months just aching for it to show up then someone brings up that you have to make it look pretty on top of that so that's another 6 months of hell
-DSLR wow this is way too easy and acceptable way too fast

That was my chronology, so based on no-light-and-clueless to my-god-its-a-waste-of-film-without-3-bulbs to hey i can do both to the point of forgetting and taking it fro granted, I think the ultimate no budgeteer would really save by knowing exactly when to let go.

There are ways to do it with one light. Can't expose? Really really know what you want? Get it in camera and don't even think about touching it after. Have the rig and the wattage for a HUGE greenscreen? Luxuriously light it evenly, ten feet away from your subject.

Knowing when to let go means knowing what is right for what shot. Be slave to the shot's emotional message, and it'll help you know what you want. If you know what you want, you can be extreme with light, which means in some cases, using very little ie just one with no fill and a white paper.

Reflectors are fantastic tools for the no budgeteer, you can really push yourself if that's all you got. I have one hard light these days and two softboxes, and never really learned lighting for film, but it's changing every 6 months now instead of every month.

I learned how to light in art school, for four years of intensive drawing. That's where I go in my brain, and it's useful cause as a no budgeteer, I'm really the only one in charge of my ghetto-ass project, so if I see the storyboard, I'm set. I barely touch what I shoot unless of course the job calls for it. I'll tint the shadows and highlights, but very little to no crushing blacks ever takes place when i shoot dslr.

With super8 I know I need some more light indoors. It's asa40 for cryin out loud. So I don't choose 8 for a no budget project.

I know, or am getting to know when to let go, and that saves me a ton of cash. Breathe, and get the details, and two bulbs, one soft one hard and a reflector are (IMO) just the right amount of less-than-enough to keep you on your feet. That's my kit now. For a dslr, if ISO 640 is ok. I usually shoot f4. My wide open's a 2.8, unless I'm macro focusing with a wide, then I go f2. But I've managed nice exposures with two bulbs at f4 iso 640. it's been enough.

For a client? No. For heavy postwork? No. But when is that no budget? thats stuff you need to keep at iso 100 with pretty gray shadows. It's a dslr its not very good for post work.

Final look on camera? Personal work. All the way.

I will now read the entire contents of this thread and learn some more i hope. I wanted to answer the op's q first. Let's see how much of a noob I still am. :)
 
Homunculus said:
i agree with ryan that middle shot looks like something straight out of The Road. very cinematic. can you tell me what you mean by bouncing the red head OFF a sheet? a regular sheet i.e. white bed sheet or what?

oh and what the heck is the difference between redheads and fresnels in terms of quality of light? Is there any? is it simply that redheads don't have lenses and thus can't be set flood/spot and that's it?
Click to expand...

Lights have many nicknames and they can be confusing. A 'Redhead' is a 1000w tungsten light, but it's an open-face... meaning it does not have a fresnel lens. Open face lights have a bit more output intensity due to the lack of lens and are not as smooth in beam coverage. This means there can be some hot spots, and possibly a filament shadow in the beam center. They cannot spot and flood like a fresnel, and typically (depends how positioned to subject) give a harder shadow. The term 'redhead' can also be used to describe a light around 800w of the same description, but those are more rare. At least in my experience. All Redheads are not so much different from a Par light, expect par bulbs are sealed within their parabolic reflectors, as a Redhead is not. You can change the globe of a redhead within the housing... where a par can, you exchange the one sealed unit. Both are not very flattering directly on a subject, however they throw much further and have comparatively more harsh qualities, making them good for hard shadows, architectural lighting, or shooting through diffusion, silk, muslin, or off of bounce cards and etc. It's a waste of light to use fresnels through diffusion or off of a bounce.

Tungsten bulbs typically run 150w, 300w, 650w, 1k, 2k, 5k, 10k, 20k in camera housings. There are many other wattage's, but not common in my preferred kit.

Other terms to look up would be a blonde, pepper, open-eye, big-eye, par, and etc. I love lighting... love it.

I don't care if cameras are someday super clean at 1000000000iso. I'll ND it down so my lens hits a T/4-5.6 and I'll light away.


PS: I'd need about four ND 1.5 filters to knock a One-Billion ISO camera down to what an Iso 1000 camera would be. Add one ND9 and you have about 100 iso, give or take. Just FYI for the future. :)
 
Last edited:
hey ryan why did you say fresnels are wasted into a bounce or diffusion? I take issue with that as i have nothing but fresnels and i exclusively bounce or diffuse them as they are too harsh to light straightaway
 
Homunculus said:
hey ryan why did you say fresnels are wasted into a bounce or diffusion? I take issue with that as i have nothing but fresnels and i exclusively bounce or diffuse them as they are too harsh to light straightaway
Click to expand...

When shooting a light through heavy diffusion, like muslin, or off of a ceiling, wall or bounce card (beadboard, showcard, foamcore, etc) the fresnel lens is almost a complete waste, in my opinion. The fresnel lens is designed to create a quality of light for the light output. But if you are not using the fresnel lens for it's inherent quality, it's really just turned into a big old glass scrim.

My theory is this:

If I am bouncing light off a large bounce card, going through muslin, or creating a book light (bounced off a bounce card and then through a sheet of diffusion), why use a fresnel? The 'hardish-even' light quality it creates will just turn to soft mush anyhow, and it's now acting against me by reducing the amount of intensity coming from the unit, and it costs more to rent.

Open face lights are good, but this is really why I like par cans. They are dirt cheap to rent (usually much less) and they put out more light per watt than a fresnel, because they don't have a lens. Even though they are both tungsten lights, I'm going to get a hell of a punch from the par cans... and if you know anything about bouncing light or going through heavy diffusion, it really takes your light intensity down! (Unless you are really close to the subject)

Thus, a 1k open face or Par bouncing off a 4x4 bead-board will be just about as soft as a 1k fresnel bouncing off a 4x4 bead-board.... yet the open face or par will output much more light and thus the illumination will be greater. You can always take a light's intensity down, but it's much more difficult to find ways to bring it up!

I hope you see what I mean. Fresnel lenses are quite amazing and a staple of the lighting industry. However their purpose is to create a quality of light within the beam, and if you are not going to use that quality and pervert the beam by diffusing it or bouncing it... what good is the fresnel lens anymore? It's lost it's purpose and is now just eating-up light unnecessarily.

I love thick diffusion, it gives the best soft light, but it needs lots of light and I want all the light I can get, for the least amount of money.

PS: If all you have is fresnels, and you find you need more light when bouncing, try going 'open-eye' which is when you swing the fresnel lens open and go off the bare bulb, or get a small screw driver and remove the three prongs keeping the lens in place and temporarily remove it. I do this all the time to get more punch from my lighting units when they are not being used for their fresnel quality.
 
Last edited:
Patryk_Rebisz said:
chapelgrovefilms, your film would be a perfect candidate for a hypothetical game of "what if?" What if you managed to raise more money for your film - would your film improve. (Though I don't want to play this game without your consent as you would be putting your own work on the line).
Click to expand...

Could more money have improved my film? Sure, probably. But not necessarily. Depends on what the extra money was spent on. That's why I say more money doesn't always mean a better movie -- and vice versa.

There are very few movies, even from Hollywood, that couldn't benefit from more money. But that doesn't mean they aren't good movies just as they are, does it?
 
Ryan, in a way you are incorrect. Let's FIGHT!!!! Open face 1k is equivalent to 650w fresnel. So Fresnel is more powerful because of the lens.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Ryan, in a way you are incorrect. Let's FIGHT!!!! Open face 1k is equivalent to 650w fresnel. So Fresnel is more powerful because of the lens.
Click to expand...


Hahaha, Patryk, I'm down. I knew this day would come.... THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE!!!

jk... but seriously... how do you figure?

How are we in disagreement?

Unless you mean a 650w fresnel has as much output as a 1k open face. I would disagree.
 
Last edited:
Last time i got some free time and setup a bunch of light to compare the output the 1k open shot through 4x4 light grid was giving me the same f-stop as 650w Fresnel (again through light grid) - both lights same distance away from the light meter. As a matter of fact myself i was surprised that Fresnel light "saves" you so much in current draw.
 
^ Hmmm. that goes against my experience. Perhaps the open face having a wider beam angle was spreading more evenly over the diffusion?

I mainly use mole-par 64's for getting my power-per-watt efficiency, but I do use the open-faces in the same manner I described in my post above... when par's aren't available. I used to volunteer over at Mole-Richardson teaching film students how to properly set a light, safety and distro. We would also strike up every light between a 1k baby solarspot -> 20k every class. Every once in awhile, we used to demonstrate a 1k fresnel side by side to a 1k Molepar(64) and an open-face to see the difference. I remember the beam angle was naturally more wide on the open-face, but when brought down to cover the same surface as the fresnel, was more powerful, had more sharp shadows, and a slight filiment shadow in the very center.

It's curious you got that result. Were both on flood, spot?

The fresnel usually has a tighter beam angle at full spot versus open-faces at full spot, thus open-faces sometimes need to be closer to the diffusion or bounce board to 'fill' the surface the same. Perhaps the distance between the lights and the 4x4 light grid was the equalizer and benefited the fresnel? Looking at Arri stats from the new 'true blue fresnels' the 1k TrueBlue Studio Fresnel at full spot is like 8* degrees versus Arri's Openface 1k at 21*. The 650w is advertised at 13*, I think.

I don't have the ability to do any tests to confirm my thoughts, but here are some factory photo-metrics of Mole and Arri lights.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mole 1k Open-Face (no beam angle found):
At 4ft: 7,330fc (Spot), 1,000fc (flood) Lit area in ft: 1.2x1.1 (spot), 3.2x4.2 (flood)
At 6ft: 3,350fc (spot), 450fc (flood) Lit area in ft: 1.8x1.7 (spot), 5.2x7.4 (flood)
At 8ft: 1,900fc (spot), 250fc (flood) Lit area in ft: 2.4x2.3 (spot) 7.0x9.8 (flood)
At 10ft: 1220fc (spot), 160fc (flood) Lit area in ft: 3.0x2.9 (spot), 8.8x12.5 (flood)
At 15ft: 540fc (spot), 70fc (flood) Lit area in ft: 4.5x5.4 (spot), 13.7x19.3 (flood)
At 20ft: 305fc (spot), 40fc (flood) Lit area in ft: 6.0x5.9 (spot), 18.2x25.7 (flood)
Costs: $475

(^ of course they couldn't do photo-metrics to the same scale... doh. FML. 10ft is the least common denominator.)

Mole 1k (4.5") Fresnel Baby Baby(Beam angle of 21*-80*, wider than the TrueBlue Arri by lots):
At 5ft: 3,650fc (spot), 550fc (flood) Lit area in ft (circular beam diameter): 1 (spot), 5.6 (flood)
At 10ft: 980fc (spot), 140 (flood) Lit area in ft (circular beam diameter): 2 (spot), 11.2 (flood)
At 15ft: 450fc (spot), 60 (flood) Lit area in ft (circular beam diameter): 3 (spot), 16.8 (flood)
At 20ft: 250fc (spot), 35 (flood) Lit area in ft (circular beam diameter): 4 (spot), 22.4 (flood)
Costs $750

Mole 1k (6") Fresnel Baby Baby(Beam angle of 15*-58*):
At 5ft: 6,320fc (spot), 700fc (flood) Lit area in ft (circular beam diameter): .8 (or 9.6")(spot), 4.3 (flood)
At 10ft: 1,720fc (spot), 180 (flood) Lit area in ft (circular beam diameter): 1.5 (spot), 8.5 (flood)
At 15ft: 770fc (spot), 80 (flood) Lit area in ft (circular beam diameter): 2.2 (spot), 12.8 (flood)
At 20ft: 440fc (spot), 45 (flood) Lit area in ft (circular beam diameter): 3 (spot), 17.1 (flood)
Costs $715

MolePar Par64 1k (very narrow):
At 5ft: 5,040fc Lit area in ft: 2.1x1.2
At 10ft: 1,260fc Lit area in ft: 4.3x2.5
At 15ft: 580fc Lit area in ft: 6.4x3.7
At 20ft: 315fc Lit area in ft: 8.5x4.9
Costs: $425

Mole Par64 1k (narrow):
At 5ft: 3,600fc Lit area in ft: 2.6x1.4
At 10ft: 900fc Lit area in ft: 5.1x2.8
At 15ft: 400fc Lit area in ft: 7.7x4.2
At 20ft: 225fc Lit area in ft: 10.3x5.6

Mole Par64 1k (medium flood):
At 5ft: 1,350fc Lit area in ft: 5.2x2.2
At 10ft: 340fc Lit area in ft: 10.3x4.3
At 15ft: 150fc Lit area in ft: 15.5x6.5
At 20ft: 85fc Lit area in ft: 20.7x8.7

Mole 650w Tweenie II SolarSpot 4.5" Fresnel (17*-70*)
At 5ft: 2,265fc (spot), 280fc (flood) Lit area in ft (beam diameter): .8 (spot), 5.7 (flood)
At 10ft: 660fc (spot), 78fc (flood) Lit area in ft (beam diameter): 1.4 (spot), 11.3 (flood)
At 15ft: 315fc (spot), 30fc (flood) Lit area in ft (beam diameter): 2.3 (spot), 17.3 (flood)
At 20ft: 180fc (spot), 18fc (flood) Lit area in ft (beam diameter): 3.0 (spot), 22.7 (flood)

ArriLite 1000 Openface (21* spot, 87* flood):
At 5ft: 5,231fc (spot), 429fc (flood) Lit area in ft (Beam diameter): 1.9 (spot), 9.5 (flood)
At 10ft: 1,308fc (spot), 107fc (flood) Lit area in ft (beam diameter): 3.7 (spot), 19 (flood)
At 15ft: 581fc (spot), 48fc (flood) Lit area in ft (beam diameter): 5.6 (spot), 28.5 (flood)
At 20ft: 327fc (spot), 27fc (flood) Lit area in ft (beam diameter): 7.4 (spot), 38 (flood)

Arri TrueBlue T1 1000w 5.9" Fresnel (8* spot, 54* flood)
At 10ft: 1,634fc (spot), 194fc (flood) Lit area in ft (beam diameter): 1.4 (spot), 10 (flood)
At 15ft: 726fc (spot), 86fc (flood) Lit area in ft (beam diameter): 2.1 (spot), 15.3 (flood)
At 20ft: 409fc (spot), 48 (flood) Lit area in ft (beam diameter): 3.5ft (spot, 20.4ft (flood)

Because of the narrow beam I'll include the medium focus beam at 30* for a better look at mid-range.
10ft: 418fc, beam diameter at 5.4 ft.
15ft: 186fc, beam diameter at 8ft
20ft: 105fc, beam diameter at 10.7ft

Arri TrueBlue ST1 Studio 6.9" Fresnel (10* spot, 54* flood)
At 10ft: 1667fc (spot), 201fc (flood) Lit area in ft (beam diameter): 1.7 (spot), 10,2 (flood)
At 15ft: 741fc (spot), 89fc (flood) Lit area in ft (beam diameter): 2.6 (spot), 15.3 (flood)
At 20ft: 417fc (spot), 50fc (flood) Lit area in ft (beam diameter): 3.5 (spot) 20.4 (flood)

Because of the narrow beam I'll include the medium focus beam at 30* for a better look at mid-range.
10ft: 409fc, beam diameter at 5.4 ft.
15ft: 182fc, beam diameter at 8ft
20ft: 102fc, beam diameter at 10.7ft

Arri Plus 650w 4.3" Fresnel (13* spot, 54* flood)
At 5ft: 2,110fc (spot), 430fc (flood) Lit area in ft (beam diameter): 1.1 (spot), 5.1 (flood)
At 10ft: 528fc (spot), 108fc (flood) Lit area in ft (beam diameter): 2.3 (spot), 10.2 (flood)
At 15ft: 234fc (spot), 48fc (flood) Lit area in ft (beam diameter): 3.4 (spot), 15.3 (flood)
At 20ft: 132fc (spot), 27fc (flood) Lit area in ft (beam diameter): 4.6 (spot), 20.4 (flood)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My next post will make sense of all this mumbo-jumbo.
I need a quick beer break.
 
Last edited:
Finding a better way to do this....

please wait. :P

Mole Open Face vs. Mole Fresnel:

Open Face: 10ft: 1,220fc (spot), 160fc (flood) Lit area in ft: 3.0x2.9 (spot), 8.8x12.5 (flood)
Fresnel 4.5": 10ft: 980fc (spot), 140 (flood) Lit area in ft : 2 (spot), 11.2 (flood) (beam diameter)
Fresnel 6":10ft: 1,720fc (spot), 180 (flood) Lit area in ft (circular beam diameter): 1.5 (spot), 8.5 (flood)
650w 4.5":10ft: 660fc (spot), 78fc (flood) Lit area in ft (beam diameter): 1.4 (spot), 11.3 (flood)

Par64's:
Very Narrow: 10ft: 1,260fc Lit area in ft: 4.3x2.5
Narrow: 10ft: 900fc Lit area in ft: 5.1x2.8
Medium Flood: 10ft: 340fc Lit area in ft: 10.3x4.3

The 6" Fresnel was the real surprise. The full spot shocked me at a whopping 1,720fc... but looking at it's beam angle at full spot (15* degrees), produces the 1720fc's within a 1.5 foot diameter. That's about half the diameter (which is 4x less area :P) than the open face spotted beam. Overall, an open face pumps out more light. It's raw power. Of course a fresnel can use it's spotting small beam angles to throw more punch, but it will be in a tighter area. Area for area, the open-face will blast away. For example, if trying to fill, say a 6x6 muslin frame, getting the light ideally positioned for both, should result in a considerable intensity advantage for the open-face.

The Par's look good... but at 10 feet, you can see the lack of spot/flood function gives even the narrow beam, a wide (in comparison) beam angle... even the very narrow was hitting a 4.3x2.5 foot area at 10ft, while the fresnel was hitting a 1.5 foot diameter at the same distance. Looking at the 5ft stats, you can see they can be quite intense... still having an almost equal or greater lit area.

Par64's are punchy little buggers.

Par64 (very narrow):
At 5ft: 5,040fc Lit area in ft: 2.1x1.2
Par64 (narrow):
At 5ft: 3,600fc Lit area in ft: 2.6x1.4
Par 64 (medium flood):
At 5ft: 1,350fc Lit area in ft: 5.2x2.2

Regarding the 650w... it was putting half as many foot-candles into four-times less the area.



Arri Open-Face vs Arri Fresnel

Open-Face: 10ft: 1,308fc (spot), 107fc (flood) Lit area in ft (beam diameter): 3.7 (spot), 19 (flood)
5.9" Fresnel: 10ft: 1,634fc (spot), 194fc (flood) Lit area in ft (beam diameter): 1.4 (spot), 10 (flood)
6.9" Fresnel: 10ft: 1,667fc (spot), 201fc (flood) Lit area in ft (beam diameter): 1.7 (spot), 10,2 (flood)
650w Fresnel: 10ft: 528fc (spot), 108fc (flood) Lit area in ft (beam diameter): 2.3 (spot), 10.2 (flood)

Additional figures given:
5.9" Fresnel: 10ft: 418fc, beam diameter at 5.4 ft.
6.9" Fresnel: 10ft: 409fc, beam diameter at 5.4 ft.

From these figures, we can again see the Fresnel can out-punch the open-face at a distance with its full-spot advantage... but again, this foot candle advantage of the Fresnel is due to the beam angle, as the open-face is putting its power within a much greater area, about 4x the size. (3.7' diameter versus 1.7' diameter). When placed at optimal distances as per both lights fill the same amount of space, the open-face has much more raw power.

++++++++++++++++++++++


With this many numbers being crunched, I'm sure I've made a couple mistakes or typos somewhere.

Merry Christmas!
 
Last edited:
chapelgrovefilms said:
I totally agree. That's exactly what we do -- work with what we have.

And I'm not nearly as good in the leadership or salesmanship depts. as a lot of others I know. It just seems like people are starving for good work here. I hope that doesn't change anytime soon. :)
Click to expand...

Ok, I have to chime in here. I'm from Florida and while I will go out and shoot a freebie every once in a while, I make my living as a cinematographer and find it very insulting to the skilled people you get for your shoots to work for "deferred payment" (which is laughable and insulting in its own way. Why not just buy them each a lottery ticket? Chances are about the same for getting a payday there.) If you hope that you have a bottomless pool of starving talent, then you are knowingly exploiting every single one of those people who walk on to your set and are doing YOU a favor, not the other way around; and you have no intention of stopping. Hell, why would you? I makes more financial sense to skip the paychecks and continue using the talent for next to nothing. I am so tired of hearing about an indie director who is graciuosly allowing me or others to join him in bringing his latest vision to life, like we should be kissing his feet for the opportunity. And I don't buy the line "when I get a real budget, I'm brining you all with me, even you sound guy. " Sorry, but that doesn't happen. Sure you may bring your DP, but if you get offered a $20 million dollar movie, do you think that the bond company will insure your inexperienced DP? Nope. Sure there are director/DP teams that move up together, but come on, how often does it happen?

So I guess what I'm saying is don't kid yourself, or your crew. Be grateful that they showed up and and even more thankful that they came back for the 2nd week of shooting. When you can pay them, pay them; when you can't be up front about it.

...I'm sorry for yelling.

Rant over
 
I don't think there is any need for harshness.

If folks want to work for deferred payment, that's their decision. They are grown-ups and can make their own choices. They should already understand that they are practically betting their time now for a payday later. I've done it and I've been paid, and I've done it and never seen the director again. Either way, I knew what I was getting into and so did everyone else who donated their time. I just did it for the people and experience.

Last shoot I worked, we all worked for free, including two people who were educated in the film industry but also unemployed and the director made it clear that chances of being paid were slim to none but we would get cuts IF something were to ever happen. Everyone just wanted the experience and everyone on set was delightful to work with. I met a lot of good people and new friends which I consider a better payment than cash money.
 
good friends are great and the experience is very helpful but my point is that you should not delude the inexperienced and insult the experienced. Some people pay their bills by doing this and only this and its a struggle. When people start talking about the great crew that they get for nothing because everyone is starving for work, well that don't sit right with me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top