thekreative
Veteran
I've used the Fiilex q1000 and its pretty easy to work with (size) , and has a good punch
What's you favorite Diffusion and Why?
- Thread starter puredrifting
- Start date
I've used the Fiilex q1000 and its pretty easy to work with (size) , and has a good punch
rob norton
Veteran
Sorry jcs, this is not true. Naked s-60 skypanels get pushed through 6x6 frames all the time and would give much softer lighting than the 3x3 panel you linked, even if you haven't evenly filled the diffusion. 4x 2'x8' tile lights can easily fill an 8x8. Also, you could use 4x 3x3s you linked through a 6x6 and it'd be pretty bright and easily fill the diffusion frame.
Did you watch the video? I was pretty impressed with the really even diffusion!
Have a link to a still/video showing the setup you described?
EDIT: I don’t see how the S60 can provide the same even diffusion without losing a lot more light. If you’re talking about LEDs with similar large area as the 3’x3’ example, it’s the same concept/design. I searched for a quantum dot cloth- when something like that is available it won’t need any diffusion. The 3’x3’ example video uses supplied diffuser.
Last edited:
rob norton
Veteran
I was going to dedicate a post to what I've been using lately but this thread is enough of a fit and I can always start a separate thread.
Even an 8x8 lite tile still gets used with diffusion. Matthews came up with this double ear that lets you use two parallel frames while only using two stands (not four). This is a pretty nice "depth eliminator", compared to the space needed to double (triple) diffuse with an HMI. I don't think people should be thinking of which one is the best, they're for different situations and it depends on the needs of the shoot e.g. dimming, bi-colour, mounting overhead, tight space the LED wins. However setting up an HMI can be way faster, will do better in poor weather conditions, could take up less space than a group of rolled up or folded lite tiles, and it may be easier to move a couple of single frames and single light stand than the self-contained lite-tile/8x8 set up.
The lite tile is not cheap so I set out to create my own poor man's version. I own 4 of the Intellytech LC-160 lite cloths. After testing all four lights with an 8x8 frame, I decided it was too big and 6x6 was my sweet spot. I used velcro to attach the lights. You can see they can also be used as a 2x6 strip. The set up takes a while but I don't need to install the softboxes, which take a lot of time. Also, you need to be very organised with your cables, it turns into a complete mess if you're not careful. We committed a milk crate to housing the power supplies, either on top of one upside down or inside the crate.
Huge amount of negative space in the first interview set up, maybe I've been watching too many netflix documentaries? In the second set up you can clearly see the floppy then the corner of the light frame. I was happy to include these vs. a total white wall.
Its debut came recently where I shot some interviews in a tight space. Attached are some frame grabs. Lighting set up is the 6 foot wall o'light, luxli timpani on hair, Arri 575w PAR on the background (these lights are awesome and I'm pretty sure they don't make them anymore). I probably could've gone with 4x4 as diffusion but wanted to test the system. It was really easy having the whole wall as one on the controller then adjusting colour temp and output in seconds with a remote.
rob norton
Veteran
I'm a fan of Peter Hurley (bought his video series for still headshots a few years ago). I noticed the diffuse ring of light in the eyes of the subjects (shooting through the center of 4 light boxes) and ever since find it helpful to examine the specular pattern in the subject's eyes to figure out (at least partially), how the shot was lit. With light (low light loss) diffusion (as with the examples I posted earlier in this thread) the specular source will be apparent (smaller) if not the size of the diffusion material. Thus a metallic bounce umbrella with a diffuser will be a very large specular source vs. shooting through directly (double diffusion helps the shoot-through case).
If using a more light loss diffuser (from your photos your diffusion looks more opaque than the 3'x3' example), you can get a larger specular source/more diffusion (larger more diffuse eye lights, less apparent skin shine, more wrapping when close to subject), but at a cost of less light. The 3'x3' example is similar to your set up, and uses what appears to be low-loss diffusion, puts the diffuser fairly close to the LEDs, and the whole system is pretty compact+low weight. A bit more expensive than Intellytech; perhaps worth it if doing these kinds of shots full time and traveling frequently + limited space. I'd use carbon fiber rods with quick attach/release to improve setup/takedown/travel if using these kinds of lights.
I think we are saying the same thing- my point was smaller panels or point sources vs. light cloths/large-diffusion-sources. In the near future we'll see cloth-like material that emits light (e.g. via quantum dots or similar) which are also the future of TVs (vs. LED, OLED, and QLED).
EDIT: here's Peters work- check out the eye lights in combination with face lighting: https://fstoppers.com/product/peter-hurley-art-behind-headshot
Realize head shots are just a small part of video/film, though to me the most import lighting for medium/close ups.
Last edited: