When I got into cinematography, it slowly morphed from being obsessed about my camera specs (as…all mid range to high end cameras all have good specs now a days)…and I became obsessed with lighting
Luc! Thank you for not talking about the brands or the technical specs of your equipment. Please just show us new an aspiring filmmakers technique so we can show up on a job and feel confident! More content like this!
Someone already said it that moving light further away does not create softer look. But I have to add 1 thing to this: What changes when the light is further away is the the light falloff. This means that light intensity changes much less abruptly with the distance (because of inverse square law). And some people mix this with softness of the light. Light falloff is also quite important to create good look. I tested 30 setups like these and big source close to the talent is not always the best solution for best look. Sometimes moving the source away is good idea to get more even lighting.
It took me a minute to find it… but I finally noticed the difference between the lighting setups: one light makes the zipper look lower than the other light.
Hi Luc, interesting and generally informative as always, so thanks. I'm no expert (but do understand basic physics). As such I seriously doubt that moving a source further back or not, provided it fills the same 1-stop diffuser (4'x4' in your example) should make any difference to the quality of light. I think if the area of spread is 4x4 (ie 16ft sq) from a diffusion screen that any wrap or spread should be theoretically identical. Clearly the intensity will be less (for equal power output) ie lux will be lower if light spread has to travel further (inverse sq law) but in practice it's probably not that simple (because of spill losses etc). IMO a biggish soft box has much to commend it for: a) simplicity / speed of set-up b) only one light stand vs say 2 stands and space for filling a diffusion cloth. I'm thinking your diy 'book light' was best 'cus at 6x6' (ie 36 sq ft) it's 2.25 times the 16sq ft area of your Westcott 4x4' scrim Jim. Over twice the diffusion area at any given (similar) subject to diffusion panel distance will be materially softer. It will also be more than 1 stop dimmer ( ie less than 50% lux) 'cus it's just over twice the area (assuming no interfering spill issues as typically found in a small room - white ceilings etc). My conjecture is that light quality (ie softness) has everything to do with relative size of light source as perceived by subject rather than anything else. Intensity and direction are other (theoretically independent) variables that may also be impacted in practice. Although in a large space (better controlled with less random reflection) additional spill fill won't add much to change things. Also, if light power can be increased to match any fall off in lux by spreading light wider, then there will be no noticeable difference in intensity of light hitting the subject. If forced to use a different aperture (to compensate for an intensity difference) then DOF may give a different look. Also there will be an observed difference in background intensity (unless also adjusting background lighting intensity via separate lights) that will show. It's complicated. Theory is good to know but, I feel it's necessary also to accept that in practice most small sets (with limited lights deployed) will introduce a few practical deviations from 'blind theory's by virtue of spill etc (ie lack of control). Nonetheless this video is helpful and of interest. I personally feel that several smaller powered lights (eg 200-300 W) each with smaller area panels or soft boxes (eg 2x2', or small round domes eg Amaran Mini or iii) can achieve much that a single 4x4' or 6x6' screen, scrim Jim or book light can achieve with a lot less fuss. Anyway that's my thesis as a long term stills photographer now getting into videography.
I'd love for you to do a video where you talk about all the horrible things that have happened on set over the years. Failed memory cards, crashed drones, broken cameras, drunk talent... I'm sure you've seen it all. Thanks 🎉
Luc, great video! This almost feels like being on set with you, really valuable lessons. One comment, if I may: it would be really helpful to let us know how much power each set-up required. A book light would be hard to pull off, I think, if you only have a 100w COB light.
Always enjoy these, Luc. Thanks for taking us along the journey with you. If I can add my two cents to this interpretation: I’m gonna guess that the F22C is cooler than it’s rated. In fact, I’d say the biggest difference is that the light looks cool, and thus less appealing. Additionally, once you started introducing the book light and larger diffusion, you are naturally bouncing light off the walls, introducing even more warmth and softness. Apparent warmth aside, a book light is the gold standard for super soft look with a nice fall off. Would have loved to see an initial setup where you hadn’t clacked off the front window. A “this is what you’d get with natural light” establishing shot. Thanks!
Mark Bone does a modified book light that takes less space where he uses a small softbox shot through a large diffuser to get almost book light results without a huge bounce. Controls light better too.
@@NeonShores yup a book light takes up more room and it takes a lot of time to set up. That means more gear to lug around, too. A one-man band like me uses only one or two or no lights.
That stick is a great way to set up that diffusion. I love to use extending painters poles, they're cheap and easy to find, weigh next to nothing and for a book light they're great!
Tater Jet interviewed the cinematographer who shot 'A Complete Unknown', and his point was with new cameras, one can shoot at 12,900 iso, with virtually no lighting, and get extraordinary results. The clips I saw were...amazing. As far as interviews go, I really prefer natural lighting as the key light, and a small light as a fill. I really like to shoot outdoors, especially if the subject's workspace is outdoors. A friend shot a short doc on Sacramento's greatest risk; that of flooding. He shot it on the banks of the American River, interviewing an expert. It looked like a million bucks. Beats a sit down office interview hands down.
Not everyone is working in CA where the weather cooperates most of the year. There’s a reason Hollywood is where it is. For the rest of us, if we want consistent results year round, indoor lighting is the only option.
@CreativeIsolation I have done both, inside and outside, natural light and artificial. And yes, you make a good point. Sacramento gets over 200 days a year of sun, and since we have a Mediterranean climate, from May until October, we do not get rain, and most of those days are bright and sunny, with virtually no clouds.
How do you deal with eg , the sun going in and out of clouds , start interview in sun , it gets cloudy , starts to rain ? Its ok on your own projects but if you,re hired in as the DP , that wont fly .
Just kind of a silly comment -- just because they're shooting at 12k+ iso doesn't mean the environments and shoot days aren't completely controlled in a way that you can really only achieve with a feature film budget and crew. Those also have extensive hair and makeup. This video is about getting consistent results with QUICK setups and discovering how much effort to put into lighting before there is a diminishing return.
also.... just cranking ISO in modern, real world environments means dealing with modern problems such as mixed temperature artificial lighting, whereas on a fictionalized midcentury set you're dealing with a lot less headaches. ugly headaches.
man, i love this channel. you've been very helpful! I know you have to make your money, but I really hope this channel doesn't turn into another typical "youtube salesmen" like all the others.
Fantastic video! Please more lighting videos, Luc! Also, do I get it right that you outsource the post-production of your UA-cam content to someone else?
Great video man! Love the work! The last lighting style is rather new to me and seems like a lot of work. You are one of my favorite filmmaker out there. I just recently upgraded two 30watt lights from Best Buy to two amaran 300c’s. I think lighting is quite important! It’s how the camera see’s!
One more note. If someone wants to practice cinematography in a radically new way, they should learn to use unreal engine; build their scenes, and figure out how to light and film them. It’s not the same as the real world but it’s damn convenient to practice on. Then you can go and take your virtual shots and try to recreate them in reality.
@frankenstein2735 Actually I am Planning on Buying some Cheap Lights but Later on Currently, My 900 USD is Going towards Camera + Lens + Audio Setup + Tripod
The problem is that the material surface of the doll head doesn't behave like skin behaves. I'm still looking for a solution to practice lighting without using a real human model. Aside from flipping the screen and using myself as the test subject haha@frankenstein2735
Hey, at 19:36 you kind of say something wrong: "theoretically thats going to mean the light travels further which should make it softer". A light source further away will be a harder source. Softness is dictated by the closeness and size of the source in relation to the subject. At 20:23 you can actually see that the bounced light is casting harder subjects on your source. Why? Because you seem to have put the bounce material 2-3feet further from the subject. If the fabric and bounce were the same distance, the bounce will usually give the more pleasing softer image from my experience. With lighting tests, it is critical to remember that just because the light is coming from a fixture, that is not always the source. Whatever is reflecting, or transferring is now the source. So the bounce fabric is the source. Or the sheer fabric is the source. Not the actual led's on the fixture. It is really important to know that distance from source to subject, and size of source in relation to subject is what creates soft light. Closer to subject, and larger in relation to subject = soft. ❤ Hope that helps someone.
Say it out loud ! so much confusion out there about " soft light " its pure physics , only getting softer if it gets bigger, in relation to the subject .I see a lot of videos of people clipping a pop out diff directly onto softbox / domes , being the exact same size as the front diff , and claiming it softens the light , all its doing is knocking down the out put level . Or 8x8 diff frames set up at the other end of the room from the one person interviewee .
@@FatihVideographer Yes , as its making the source ( light , diffusion frame , etc , what ever is the final thing thats letting light through ) larger , in relation to the subject . You can do this , hold a finger of one hand ,in front of the palm of your other hand , hold it 6 feet from any home light , you will see a hard shadow , move your hand closer to the light , the shadow of the finger will get softer .
@@robinprobyn1971 Thanks for your reply! I am still trying to figure out proper lighting :) Wouldn't I get harsh highlights on the subject in this case when the light source is closer to the subject?
@@FatihVideographer well the subject will get brighter as the light is bought closer , you need to ND / stop down / knock down the light level etc . But the actual light will be softer . It's just physics , that you can prove empirically. The sun is huge, but its far away , on a clear day you get hard shadows , a cloudy day , the clouds become the light source , the whole sky is the light , its much bigger than the small disc on a clear day and much closer to us (Earth). This is the exact same principle of putting a small but powerful COB light source , through a large diffusion, the goal being to evenly cover the diff as much as possible. It's why you want to have any sort of diffusion , just out of shot , for interviews , to get max softness , presuming thats the look you want.
how much would you say you were increasing the lights power as you were adding in the diffusion sources? Curious to know what you had the light running at when setting up the booklight.
Thanks for doing this comparison! For my interview setups I bring a 6x6 Magic cloth rag and a telescoping background crossbar so I can t-bone it with the magic cloth and adjust it to be wider or more narrow depending on how much space i have. For quick setups or smaller spaces ive found using a parabolic softbox and walking in the light as close as possible to the subject is still the best option when having to compromise.
Nice work! I liked all of them for different reasons. The book light was the softest, and I think the output of 300D was giving you an edge light all throughout the test, because I didn't notice it with the f22c. Different lights have different throws, and you can't know that unless you test. I tend to do my booklights Shane Hurlbut style, where you put the edges of one side of your setup together, so that you create an opened book shape. I've found that I have an easier time controlling spill that way, and most of the time, I don't have to flag or net the background. Thanks Luc, this was a cool test!
Another great video from Luc! Just one observation: it looks like the key light is on the wrong side when you’re speaking. Perhaps I’m missing the point, but the side you’re talking from should ideally be in a darker shade, not the brighter one.
Well, it took me a year but - since ALL of my shooting is In Studio (Theatre) I’m starting with BLACK! Yes, I could fire up the Theatre lights but they are mostly tungsten so - using them - I’d have to worry about color temperature… That being the case, I bought a collie set of Aputure ‘x’ to match Colour Temps: 2 LS60x 2 LS 300x 2 LS 600x I have a leftover 120d and a projector for the LS60 and sundry smaller Aputures so I can control all using Sidius Link with a couple Godox tubes and a bunch of soft domes, scrims, backdrops, flags and reflectors… I did start with the Intellitech LC-160 light panels but switched to Aputure when it became obvious THAT is what every used and wanted to grip! More than anything else… the Aputure LS600x with the humongous 150 (with diffusion and egg-crate) Dome (5 feet diameter) is the easiest setup and diffusion IF you’ve got the room to deploy! With that sucker I can stand right in front of it and cast no shadow over my Talent keeping my camera rigs between light and Talent!Still kinda amazed by that but it really works well! Haven’t come across any scene being short on gear!
With such handsome subject, all lighting looks fantastic. Well done. For the next video you can explore how skin complexity affects lighting setup. Also how shadows affect Age, Male, Female, mood etc.
Very informational video. Loved the work you put into this and its great to see the differences. I do wish you would have put in a lighter skin subject as a sit down just so that we could see the differences the lighting had on them. I get you were tight on time but maybe in the next video!
I am a fan of motivated lighting, I work with whats there cause that always saves labor, then I add in light where I need it. Nothing more. Spaces, not faces.
For actors moving around a set maybe , but interviews , its all about lighting the face , well lighting it to not look lit , Your just making your own large ,north facing window , in the perfect place that stays the same all day , as if it was there by chance :) . Long doc interviews you need consistency on the Key light. BG can change a bit and no one notices but the face , they will . You cant rely on whats there for that.
The COB 300d was a much warmer source and felt nicer in that setting, skin tones were more natural compared to the panel light. The book light and bounce were the best. The soft box was okay and probably a quick option but no where near as good as the basic book light.
there are some small color shifts being introduced by some of these lights even though they're both high TLCI fixtures. specifically you can notice a green cast on the black sweatshirt and skintones in a few of the frames. but it's not consistent between the same fixtures and could have possibly be an inconsistent tint balance in post...? possibly the diffusion, although unlikely. not sure what's causing that.
Ideal solution for a softer look provided you don't need to protect a wider frame, and that you can get your soft-box dim enough. Both of those might be dealbreakers.
I have to shoot 60 Minutes style programs and I have to set up within 20 minutes. So you learn how to do the most with less. Space, ambient light and time will determine your choices.
Hey, just wanted to say I love your channel, and to ask a question if you have time to answer it. I am trying my hand at making a documentary of my own, and have very limited funds. I own an ok lav mic, and a crappy light. I can either buy a decent key light to use for this project and future ones. Or alternatively I can rent the light, and better audio equipment for a few days for the same price. I'd love to get your opinion on what you think the better option would be. Thanks!!
My God. Do people underestimate skill and lean on solving their problems with cash. I am so guilty of this and only having been into filming for a few months I have already moved past the gear bug. Now, it’s all about practice. If there is a gear shortage for me these days it’s stands, clamps, and generally stuff to stick my lights in places I know they need to go.
Did a documentary for Canal + involving loads of interview on black athletes. My portable booklight setup was a photographic 150cm umbrella and 2x300x. Easier to carry around. On higher end jobs or setup I tends to do a big booklight and add closer to subject a smaller china ball to wrap things up. But after loads of interview, I want to try other type of reflector, to add more spark to darker skin colors. I find that too soft of a light on dark skin to be a bit boring / lifeless. The problem in documentary is still the same : one or two man band, a load of traveling, so options are thins....
@@xxphactor I will try quite the opposite, I want the softnexx of muslin, and ad some sparkler and gray reflections as well. Check out Lous and the yakuza editorial photos, as well as Olan Collardy work. I think he use a spotlight and some frost on top of existing light for this effect.
I would have been curious what it would have looked like to leave the soft boxes of the two units and add the 4x4 or 6x6 diffusion in front of the units or try the book light with the softboxes. Makes me want to do my own testing now. 🙌✨
The biggest issue nowadays with every Softbox for Godox mount is that they are all really bad but cheap. Even the big aperture ones are not really amazing. 15 years ago there were much better but insane expensive ones by the flash manufactures, and they had a different quality. I still have a elinchrom 100 deep octa which makes a light so 3dimensional which none of my several bowens sb can recreate. Also Eggcrates were awful expensive and avaible in different spread grades ... not for the cheap elinchrome ones but for the more premium ones ... sometimes more expensive than a ad600pro nowadays ...
Interview key light for doc,s corps , in this day and age , large LED , Intellytech / Godox etc , small foot print , one stand , easy set up , relatively cheap, have grids . , get it in as close as you can , grid if needed , pop out neg , job done. Bang it through a larger diff frame if your A camera is super wide and have to move the light back . Bouncing / book lights / cove lights , etc , fine, but these days you don't need all that hassle and the time spent setting it up ,extra stands blah blah . It's pretty simple , never been a better time for lighting fixtures , cameras and lenses .
Dark skin is usually easier to light than fair thus more forgiving. The contrasty direkt Cob light is nice looking and pop but it would have been another thing with fair skin. I usually just do a hair/makeup mannequin as model because it leaves the stress out of it and you keep doing it as long as you like without boring the subject.
Book light is softest, but the F22 + 4x4 lighting has more facial highlights while being soft. The book light looks too matte/unnatural in this application to me.
Nice demonstration of highlight control on faces (especially on dark skin) with large source lighting. Regardless of the source, the closer the light and or diffuser, the softer the source. You don’t necessarily need a 6x6 further away (vs 4x4) if you can bring softbox or diffusion panel closer. The big issue not addressed is the natural window light in the background will likely change in intensity which could cause challenges with key light intensity balance. This goes back to the gaffer’s discussion about eliminating unwanted issues before you start recording.
Check out Peter Mokry's book light videos (he's got 2 or 3) but this is one where he breaks down his super efficient goto rig for this and its pretty slick: ua-cam.com/video/SnsuUXPHxt0/v-deo.html
Do you actually realize how actually often you actually use the actually worthless words actual and actually as you’re actually recording your actual video?
Awesome video Luc! I also been working with my trusty old 300d II a lot over the years and I've noticed it has a) developed quite a strong green cast and b) is far off from daylight temp (mine is at like 4400k by now). If mixed with daylight or other sources this sometimes is a real problem. Have you had the same experience? I just noticed when you were comparing the f22C and the 300d setups, the 300d is much warmer. and I assume you didn't adjust the cameras WB. Thanks!
All LED's tend to skew greener as they age, especially COBs. That's why now that we are on G3 LEDs and heading toward G4, it's important to buy LED's that have magenta/green offset controls built in. As they old ones skew greener, there's really not much that can be done to make them more neutral, short of adding some Magenta gels in front of them.
Sorry to hear that. I haven’t had that issue personally but that sounds like a pretty extreme shift. Have you tried to contact aputure? You’re right though, there is a definite difference between the panels and the 300d. Could be because Amaran stuff isn’t quite as accurate? I haven’t tested with a spectrometer though so I can’t say for sure.
@@LucForsyth My bet is that your 300d II is also warmer than daylight temp.I did actually contact them but they say the temp shift lies within their tolerance. Anyways, from now on I'll only buy full RGB lights or ones with the ability to correct G/M. Cheers!
Seriously?! The frame is a mess. I don’t know what you are trying to achieve but this is never going to look good. You don’t seem to have an eye for shooting. Maybe no one told you that what you shoot is usually where a battle is won or lost. A good documentary cinematographer knows what will work and simply problem solves accordingly. This is painful to watch. It’s simply not this complicated. No one would roll with this frame. ??? At the end of the day cinematographers have to exercise their artistic taste. ??? That’s why we do location scouting.
@ firstly I would find a better location. Ok let’s assume the location dude screwed up. Then Secondly for anyone with dark skin they need simplicity in the background. Checkerboard at the very least. The challenge is to give their face more dimensionality variation and interest than the background room otherwise, like here, they are fighting the background. Also what the subject wears is critical. This is a mess. Bland flat no dimensionality or highlight. Regardless of key level lighting the subject is not the issue it’s the room and background and fundamentally the art direction. Always two key sources one for the subject and one for the background as if from a single source and dial them in. Use a daylight slash and spot to help checker board it. If it’s a tight space bounce it back. Use light splash on subject to break up block of clothing. Neg the short side. Control the spill. Use spots and crates. Shape with cutters if necessary. Dude I could go on. At the end of the day you have to have an aesthetic and frankly when I hear this guy and see him I am not convinced that he really does. It’s dull. Hence it’s an incredibly bland approach, some might say sensible, to almost everything he does. Personality is often very underrated when it comes to creativity and being a cinematographer is an opportunity to be creative but so many working camera men simply aren’t. FYI I have shot in the shittiest smallest hotel rooms with literally the lights that were there and no grip gear. I used two lamps and lamp shades. Shot 5 interviews in less than two hours and made each look different and interesting. Use higher iso and light way less. It’s about shape not light. This dude just doesn’t have an eye. You can make an iv work with almost any situation if you have an eye. It’s not always about large direct sources and common sense tells you that the world is already lit pretty well in reality if you can recognise an interesting moment.
When I got into cinematography, it slowly morphed from being obsessed about my camera specs (as…all mid range to high end cameras all have good specs now a days)…and I became obsessed with lighting
Luc! Thank you for not talking about the brands or the technical specs of your equipment. Please just show us new an aspiring filmmakers technique so we can show up on a job and feel confident! More content like this!
Someone already said it that moving light further away does not create softer look.
But I have to add 1 thing to this:
What changes when the light is further away is the the light falloff. This means that light intensity changes much less abruptly with the distance (because of inverse square law). And some people mix this with softness of the light.
Light falloff is also quite important to create good look. I tested 30 setups like these and big source close to the talent is not always the best solution for best look.
Sometimes moving the source away is good idea to get more even lighting.
It took me a minute to find it… but I finally noticed the difference between the lighting setups: one light makes the zipper look lower than the other light.
Hi Luc, interesting and generally informative as always, so thanks. I'm no expert (but do understand basic physics). As such I seriously doubt that moving a source further back or not, provided it fills the same 1-stop diffuser (4'x4' in your example) should make any difference to the quality of light. I think if the area of spread is 4x4 (ie 16ft sq) from a diffusion screen that any wrap or spread should be theoretically identical. Clearly the intensity will be less (for equal power output) ie lux will be lower if light spread has to travel further (inverse sq law) but in practice it's probably not that simple (because of spill losses etc).
IMO a biggish soft box has much to commend it for:
a) simplicity / speed of set-up
b) only one light stand vs say 2 stands and space for filling a diffusion cloth.
I'm thinking your diy 'book light' was best 'cus at 6x6' (ie 36 sq ft) it's 2.25 times the 16sq ft area of your Westcott 4x4' scrim Jim. Over twice the diffusion area at any given (similar) subject to diffusion panel distance will be materially softer. It will also be more than 1 stop dimmer ( ie less than 50% lux) 'cus it's just over twice the area (assuming no interfering spill issues as typically found in a small room - white ceilings etc).
My conjecture is that light quality (ie softness) has everything to do with relative size of light source as perceived by subject rather than anything else. Intensity and direction are other (theoretically independent) variables that may also be impacted in practice. Although in a large space (better controlled with less random reflection) additional spill fill won't add much to change things. Also, if light power can be increased to match any fall off in lux by spreading light wider, then there will be no noticeable difference in intensity of light hitting the subject. If forced to use a different aperture (to compensate for an intensity difference) then DOF may give a different look. Also there will be an observed difference in background intensity (unless also adjusting background lighting intensity via separate lights) that will show. It's complicated. Theory is good to know but, I feel it's necessary also to accept that in practice most small sets (with limited lights deployed) will introduce a few practical deviations from 'blind theory's by virtue of spill etc (ie lack of control).
Nonetheless this video is helpful and of interest. I personally feel that several smaller powered lights (eg 200-300 W) each with smaller area panels or soft boxes (eg 2x2', or small round domes eg Amaran Mini or iii) can achieve much that a single 4x4' or 6x6' screen, scrim Jim or book light can achieve with a lot less fuss.
Anyway that's my thesis as a long term stills photographer now getting into videography.
I'd love for you to do a video where you talk about all the horrible things that have happened on set over the years. Failed memory cards, crashed drones, broken cameras, drunk talent... I'm sure you've seen it all.
Thanks 🎉
Luc, great video! This almost feels like being on set with you, really valuable lessons. One comment, if I may: it would be really helpful to let us know how much power each set-up required. A book light would be hard to pull off, I think, if you only have a 100w COB light.
Always enjoy these, Luc. Thanks for taking us along the journey with you.
If I can add my two cents to this interpretation: I’m gonna guess that the F22C is cooler than it’s rated. In fact, I’d say the biggest difference is that the light looks cool, and thus less appealing.
Additionally, once you started introducing the book light and larger diffusion, you are naturally bouncing light off the walls, introducing even more warmth and softness.
Apparent warmth aside, a book light is the gold standard for super soft look with a nice fall off.
Would have loved to see an initial setup where you hadn’t clacked off the front window. A “this is what you’d get with natural light” establishing shot.
Thanks!
Mark Bone does a modified book light that takes less space where he uses a small softbox shot through a large diffuser to get almost book light results without a huge bounce. Controls light better too.
@@NeonShores yup a book light takes up more room and it takes a lot of time to set up. That means more gear to lug around, too.
A one-man band like me uses only one or two or no lights.
That stick is a great way to set up that diffusion. I love to use extending painters poles, they're cheap and easy to find, weigh next to nothing and for a book light they're great!
great informative video thanks Luc.
Tater Jet interviewed the cinematographer who shot 'A Complete Unknown', and his point was with new cameras, one can shoot at 12,900 iso, with virtually no lighting, and get extraordinary results. The clips I saw were...amazing.
As far as interviews go, I really prefer natural lighting as the key light, and a small light as a fill.
I really like to shoot outdoors, especially if the subject's workspace is outdoors. A friend shot a short doc on Sacramento's greatest risk; that of flooding. He shot it on the banks of the American River, interviewing an expert. It looked like a million bucks. Beats a sit down office interview hands down.
Not everyone is working in CA where the weather cooperates most of the year. There’s a reason Hollywood is where it is. For the rest of us, if we want consistent results year round, indoor lighting is the only option.
@CreativeIsolation I have done both, inside and outside, natural light and artificial.
And yes, you make a good point. Sacramento gets over 200 days a year of sun, and since we have a Mediterranean climate, from May until October, we do not get rain, and most of those days are bright and sunny, with virtually no clouds.
How do you deal with eg , the sun going in and out of clouds , start interview in sun , it gets cloudy , starts to rain ? Its ok on your own projects but if you,re hired in as the DP , that wont fly .
Just kind of a silly comment -- just because they're shooting at 12k+ iso doesn't mean the environments and shoot days aren't completely controlled in a way that you can really only achieve with a feature film budget and crew. Those also have extensive hair and makeup. This video is about getting consistent results with QUICK setups and discovering how much effort to put into lighting before there is a diminishing return.
also.... just cranking ISO in modern, real world environments means dealing with modern problems such as mixed temperature artificial lighting, whereas on a fictionalized midcentury set you're dealing with a lot less headaches. ugly headaches.
man, i love this channel. you've been very helpful! I know you have to make your money, but I really hope this channel doesn't turn into another typical "youtube salesmen" like all the others.
That's nice, especially that last one looked really great.
Fantastic video! Please more lighting videos, Luc! Also, do I get it right that you outsource the post-production of your UA-cam content to someone else?
Great video man! Love the work! The last lighting style is rather new to me and seems like a lot of work. You are one of my favorite filmmaker out there. I just recently upgraded two 30watt lights from Best Buy to two amaran 300c’s. I think lighting is quite important! It’s how the camera see’s!
Video was just right in terms of length and was economical in its explanations, letting the setups speak for themselves. Many thanks. Learning lots.
Great to hear!
One more note. If someone wants to practice cinematography in a radically new way, they should learn to use unreal engine; build their scenes, and figure out how to light and film them. It’s not the same as the real world but it’s damn convenient to practice on. Then you can go and take your virtual shots and try to recreate them in reality.
This is a Great Way to practice for Those of Us on a Budget and will Help to Know where to Put the money
Yes. Interview someone while dinosaurs roam near.
bro just buy a doll head, the kind hair dresser or hat makers use, buy some cheap lights and practice.
@frankenstein2735 Actually I am Planning on Buying some Cheap Lights but Later on Currently, My 900 USD is Going towards Camera + Lens + Audio Setup + Tripod
The problem is that the material surface of the doll head doesn't behave like skin behaves. I'm still looking for a solution to practice lighting without using a real human model. Aside from flipping the screen and using myself as the test subject haha@frankenstein2735
Brilliant video, I learned a great deal in a short time, thank you!
your content is very inspiring! I enjoyed this video!!😍
Hey, at 19:36 you kind of say something wrong: "theoretically thats going to mean the light travels further which should make it softer". A light source further away will be a harder source.
Softness is dictated by the closeness and size of the source in relation to the subject.
At 20:23 you can actually see that the bounced light is casting harder subjects on your source. Why? Because you seem to have put the bounce material 2-3feet further from the subject.
If the fabric and bounce were the same distance, the bounce will usually give the more pleasing softer image from my experience.
With lighting tests, it is critical to remember that just because the light is coming from a fixture, that is not always the source. Whatever is reflecting, or transferring is now the source. So the bounce fabric is the source. Or the sheer fabric is the source. Not the actual led's on the fixture.
It is really important to know that distance from source to subject, and size of source in relation to subject is what creates soft light. Closer to subject, and larger in relation to subject = soft.
❤
Hope that helps someone.
Say it out loud ! so much confusion out there about " soft light " its pure physics , only getting softer if it gets bigger, in relation to the subject .I see a lot of videos of people clipping a pop out diff directly onto softbox / domes , being the exact same size as the front diff , and claiming it softens the light , all its doing is knocking down the out put level . Or 8x8 diff frames set up at the other end of the room from the one person interviewee .
Sorry, I can’t understand; did you just say if the light source is closer to the subject then the lighting gets softer? 😮
@@FatihVideographer Yes , as its making the source ( light , diffusion frame , etc , what ever is the final thing thats letting light through ) larger , in relation to the subject . You can do this , hold a finger of one hand ,in front of the palm of your other hand , hold it 6 feet from any home light , you will see a hard shadow , move your hand closer to the light , the shadow of the finger will get softer .
@@robinprobyn1971 Thanks for your reply! I am still trying to figure out proper lighting :) Wouldn't I get harsh highlights on the subject in this case when the light source is closer to the subject?
@@FatihVideographer well the subject will get brighter as the light is bought closer , you need to ND / stop down / knock down the light level etc . But the actual light will be softer . It's just physics , that you can prove empirically. The sun is huge, but its far away , on a clear day you get hard shadows , a cloudy day , the clouds become the light source , the whole sky is the light , its much bigger than the small disc on a clear day and much closer to us (Earth). This is the exact same principle of putting a small but powerful COB light source , through a large diffusion, the goal being to evenly cover the diff as much as possible. It's why you want to have any sort of diffusion , just out of shot , for interviews , to get max softness , presuming thats the look you want.
how much would you say you were increasing the lights power as you were adding in the diffusion sources? Curious to know what you had the light running at when setting up the booklight.
Thanks for doing this comparison! For my interview setups I bring a 6x6 Magic cloth rag and a telescoping background crossbar so I can t-bone it with the magic cloth and adjust it to be wider or more narrow depending on how much space i have. For quick setups or smaller spaces ive found using a parabolic softbox and walking in the light as close as possible to the subject is still the best option when having to compromise.
LOVE these tests!! So much valuable info
What LUT did you use to grade the footage? Looks beautiful. And thank you for all your effort in these videos!
Nice work! I liked all of them for different reasons. The book light was the softest, and I think the output of 300D was giving you an edge light all throughout the test, because I didn't notice it with the f22c. Different lights have different throws, and you can't know that unless you test.
I tend to do my booklights Shane Hurlbut style, where you put the edges of one side of your setup together, so that you create an opened book shape. I've found that I have an easier time controlling spill that way, and most of the time, I don't have to flag or net the background. Thanks Luc, this was a cool test!
Another great video from Luc! Just one observation: it looks like the key light is on the wrong side when you’re speaking. Perhaps I’m missing the point, but the side you’re talking from should ideally be in a darker shade, not the brighter one.
I was very engaged with this video until 6:54, I had to recover when I saw the all-black Crocs on set! Love it mane!
That’s the first thing you noticed?!?! 🤣
Well, it took me a year but - since ALL of my shooting is In Studio (Theatre) I’m starting with BLACK! Yes, I could fire up the Theatre lights but they are mostly tungsten so - using them - I’d have to worry about color temperature…
That being the case, I bought a collie set of Aputure ‘x’ to match Colour Temps:
2 LS60x
2 LS 300x
2 LS 600x
I have a leftover 120d and a projector for the LS60 and sundry smaller Aputures so I can control all using Sidius Link with a couple Godox tubes and a bunch of soft domes, scrims, backdrops, flags and reflectors…
I did start with the Intellitech LC-160 light panels but switched to Aputure when it became obvious THAT is what every used and wanted to grip!
More than anything else… the Aputure LS600x with the humongous 150 (with diffusion and egg-crate) Dome (5 feet diameter) is the easiest setup and diffusion IF you’ve got the room to deploy! With that sucker I can stand right in front of it and cast no shadow over my Talent keeping my camera rigs between light and Talent!Still kinda amazed by that but it really works well!
Haven’t come across any scene being short on gear!
With such handsome subject, all lighting looks fantastic. Well done. For the next video you can explore how skin complexity affects lighting setup. Also how shadows affect Age, Male, Female, mood etc.
G- for Grace
Very informational video. Loved the work you put into this and its great to see the differences. I do wish you would have put in a lighter skin subject as a sit down just so that we could see the differences the lighting had on them. I get you were tight on time but maybe in the next video!
I am a fan of motivated lighting, I work with whats there cause that always saves labor, then I add in light where I need it. Nothing more. Spaces, not faces.
For actors moving around a set maybe , but interviews , its all about lighting the face , well lighting it to not look lit , Your just making your own large ,north facing window , in the perfect place that stays the same all day , as if it was there by chance :) . Long doc interviews you need consistency on the Key light. BG can change a bit and no one notices but the face , they will . You cant rely on whats there for that.
The COB 300d was a much warmer source and felt nicer in that setting, skin tones were more natural compared to the panel light. The book light and bounce were the best. The soft box was okay and probably a quick option but no where near as good as the basic book light.
there are some small color shifts being introduced by some of these lights even though they're both high TLCI fixtures. specifically you can notice a green cast on the black sweatshirt and skintones in a few of the frames. but it's not consistent between the same fixtures and could have possibly be an inconsistent tint balance in post...? possibly the diffusion, although unlikely. not sure what's causing that.
the last is really the best
Thanks for sharing these tests!
Glad you like them!
Thank you! You have a wonderful chanel😎
Thank you for doing this. I wanted to be there and add a second ring light at a low setting right in front of them just to see 😂
A lot of times on set they literally use painters poles with a Cellini clamp to hold up diffusion or a aluminum pipe if you wanna be fancy with it
Very useful 👍
Love these videos, thank you!
Glad you like them!
Why dont you put the softbox closer?
Ideal solution for a softer look provided you don't need to protect a wider frame, and that you can get your soft-box dim enough. Both of those might be dealbreakers.
I have to shoot 60 Minutes style programs and I have to set up within 20 minutes. So you learn how to do the most with less. Space, ambient light and time will determine your choices.
Hey, just wanted to say I love your channel, and to ask a question if you have time to answer it. I am trying my hand at making a documentary of my own, and have very limited funds. I own an ok lav mic, and a crappy light. I can either buy a decent key light to use for this project and future ones. Or alternatively I can rent the light, and better audio equipment for a few days for the same price. I'd love to get your opinion on what you think the better option would be. Thanks!!
Love this channel.
My God. Do people underestimate skill and lean on solving their problems with cash. I am so guilty of this and only having been into filming for a few months I have already moved past the gear bug. Now, it’s all about practice. If there is a gear shortage for me these days it’s stands, clamps, and generally stuff to stick my lights in places I know they need to go.
Did a documentary for Canal + involving loads of interview on black athletes. My portable booklight setup was a photographic 150cm umbrella and 2x300x. Easier to carry around.
On higher end jobs or setup I tends to do a big booklight and add closer to subject a smaller china ball to wrap things up.
But after loads of interview, I want to try other type of reflector, to add more spark to darker skin colors. I find that too soft of a light on dark skin to be a bit boring / lifeless. The problem in documentary is still the same : one or two man band, a load of traveling, so options are thins....
For dark skin, try adding unbleached muslin inserts to your soft box. It makes the skin about 200k warmer.
@@xxphactor I will try quite the opposite, I want the softnexx of muslin, and ad some sparkler and gray reflections as well. Check out Lous and the yakuza editorial photos, as well as Olan Collardy work. I think he use a spotlight and some frost on top of existing light for this effect.
I would have been curious what it would have looked like to leave the soft boxes of the two units and add the 4x4 or 6x6 diffusion in front of the units or try the book light with the softboxes. Makes me want to do my own testing now. 🙌✨
My favorite is bouncing lights on the ultra bounce and use frost or bleach muslin.
Book light! But the reflection in the mirror becomes much more obvious. Not sure the easiest way to resolve that
The biggest issue nowadays with every Softbox for Godox mount is that they are all really bad but cheap. Even the big aperture ones are not really amazing. 15 years ago there were much better but insane expensive ones by the flash manufactures, and they had a different quality. I still have a elinchrom 100 deep octa which makes a light so 3dimensional which none of my several bowens sb can recreate. Also Eggcrates were awful expensive and avaible in different spread grades ... not for the cheap elinchrome ones but for the more premium ones ... sometimes more expensive than a ad600pro nowadays ...
Chewing gum in the mic. That’s raw and real YouTubin’ right there!
I need this ❤😮
The color difference is what gets me most. The panels are blue er
Interview key light for doc,s corps , in this day and age , large LED , Intellytech / Godox etc , small foot print , one stand , easy set up , relatively cheap, have grids . , get it in as close as you can , grid if needed , pop out neg , job done. Bang it through a larger diff frame if your A camera is super wide and have to move the light back . Bouncing / book lights / cove lights , etc , fine, but these days you don't need all that hassle and the time spent setting it up ,extra stands blah blah . It's pretty simple , never been a better time for lighting fixtures , cameras and lenses .
Dark skin is usually easier to light than fair thus more forgiving. The contrasty direkt Cob light is nice looking and pop but it would have been another thing with fair skin. I usually just do a hair/makeup mannequin as model because it leaves the stress out of it and you keep doing it as long as you like without boring the subject.
I think it's opposite due to black skin reflecting the light, you have to really find a way to diffuse the hot spots.
@@xxphactor Fair skin overexpose easily thus dark skin is easier to balance in my experience.
Yes, more than the camera.
Book light is softest, but the F22 + 4x4 lighting has more facial highlights while being soft. The book light looks too matte/unnatural in this application to me.
Would you expect different results with lighter skin tones?
weird location, really?
Lighting is everything. Anyone who shows up at a set or event with just a gimbal and a camera is lol
Lighting is *half* of everything. The other half is sound.
The book light version look much more natural.
Nice demonstration of highlight control on faces (especially on dark skin) with large source lighting.
Regardless of the source, the closer the light and or diffuser, the softer the source. You don’t necessarily need a 6x6 further away (vs 4x4) if you can bring softbox or diffusion panel closer.
The big issue not addressed is the natural window light in the background will likely change in intensity which could cause challenges with key light intensity balance. This goes back to the gaffer’s discussion about eliminating unwanted issues before you start recording.
Check out Peter Mokry's book light videos (he's got 2 or 3) but this is one where he breaks down his super efficient goto rig for this and its pretty slick: ua-cam.com/video/SnsuUXPHxt0/v-deo.html
Do you actually realize how actually often you actually use the actually worthless words actual and actually as you’re actually recording your actual video?
Awesome video Luc! I also been working with my trusty old 300d II a lot over the years and I've noticed it has a) developed quite a strong green cast and b) is far off from daylight temp (mine is at like 4400k by now). If mixed with daylight or other sources this sometimes is a real problem. Have you had the same experience? I just noticed when you were comparing the f22C and the 300d setups, the 300d is much warmer. and I assume you didn't adjust the cameras WB. Thanks!
All LED's tend to skew greener as they age, especially COBs. That's why now that we are on G3 LEDs and heading toward G4, it's important to buy LED's that have magenta/green offset controls built in. As they old ones skew greener, there's really not much that can be done to make them more neutral, short of adding some Magenta gels in front of them.
Great vid. Super helpful.
Sorry to hear that. I haven’t had that issue personally but that sounds like a pretty extreme shift. Have you tried to contact aputure? You’re right though, there is a definite difference between the panels and the 300d. Could be because Amaran stuff isn’t quite as accurate? I haven’t tested with a spectrometer though so I can’t say for sure.
@@LucForsyth My bet is that your 300d II is also warmer than daylight temp.I did actually contact them but they say the temp shift lies within their tolerance. Anyways, from now on I'll only buy full RGB lights or ones with the ability to correct G/M. Cheers!
Not much difference …until the last one.
they do matter, they do yes they matter, but only a little matter,
Really loose the chewing it s disrespectful
Seriously?! The frame is a mess. I don’t know what you are trying to achieve but this is never going to look good. You don’t seem to have an eye for shooting. Maybe no one told you that what you shoot is usually where a battle is won or lost. A good documentary cinematographer knows what will work and simply problem solves accordingly. This is painful to watch. It’s simply not this complicated. No one would roll with this frame. ??? At the end of the day cinematographers have to exercise their artistic taste. ??? That’s why we do location scouting.
How would you set this up?
@ firstly I would find a better location. Ok let’s assume the location dude screwed up. Then Secondly for anyone with dark skin they need simplicity in the background. Checkerboard at the very least. The challenge is to give their face more dimensionality variation and interest than the background room otherwise, like here, they are fighting the background. Also what the subject wears is critical. This is a mess. Bland flat no dimensionality or highlight. Regardless of key level lighting the subject is not the issue it’s the room and background and fundamentally the art direction. Always two key sources one for the subject and one for the background as if from a single source and dial them in. Use a daylight slash and spot to help checker board it. If it’s a tight space bounce it back. Use light splash on subject to break up block of clothing. Neg the short side. Control the spill. Use spots and crates. Shape with cutters if necessary. Dude I could go on. At the end of the day you have to have an aesthetic and frankly when I hear this guy and see him I am not convinced that he really does. It’s dull. Hence it’s an incredibly bland approach, some might say sensible, to almost everything he does. Personality is often very underrated when it comes to creativity and being a cinematographer is an opportunity to be creative but so many working camera men simply aren’t. FYI I have shot in the shittiest smallest hotel rooms with literally the lights that were there and no grip gear. I used two lamps and lamp shades. Shot 5 interviews in less than two hours and made each look different and interesting. Use higher iso and light way less. It’s about shape not light. This dude just doesn’t have an eye. You can make an iv work with almost any situation if you have an eye. It’s not always about large direct sources and common sense tells you that the world is already lit pretty well in reality if you can recognise an interesting moment.
@@KenFlanagan Thanks for the response.