Hey, film Guys and Gals just wanted to add a note in regards to the use of the frame itself. generally, you would want to have it a little bit higher & angled more than what it was and move the light further back, that way the light Beam would fill the entire frame and this would have created a softer light quality and that would have wrapped more around our talents face more, but would have also reduced light level. When we got on sets I realised I wouldn't have enough lights to do this whilst also no blowing out the windows behind the actor with my iso. So we made a decision to keep the light closer to the frame to achieve correct subject exposure as you can still see that the frame was softer. for me, in this video, it's more about the principle than the exact execution. What lesson can you learn from this (bring more lights).
The Film Guy, I agree with all your points about the differences between a dome (or softbox) and a larger frame of diffusion material. However, as you mention above you would have been better off backing up your light just enough distance to fill the width of the diffusion material. Not only would your subject have softer shadows, they would actually have a little more light falling on them. More surface area filled with light = more light on subject when using fresnel lenses in a wide flood mode. The same is true when bouncing light. Back the light just far enough away from the bounce surface to fill the bounce surface (with the light in flood mode). It is counter intuitive, but if you spot a fresnel light (from the same distance) into diffusion or a bounce board, you will actually get less light (because of the smaller surface area) than if you flood it. Also something to consider, the fresnel attachment on your mono light does create a smoother and slightly wider beam. However, it also cuts down the lux output. Since you had the space in the room, the better solution (for more lux) would be to leave the light "raw" and back it up enough to fill the diffusion from side to side. This would give you more illumination and softness.
Found your fine channel after I bought some Intelitech lights and looked for further knowledge... Your review here is great and very helping since I'm considering this frame for client work. Still the pros are winning, will get it. But first, the LC120 also by Intellitech, because I'm playing guitar in livestreams and despite a great 90cm softbox on a Godox UL-150, the light isn't eavenly spread over the instrument. I need to add another light source from the side to complete the light cast. I'm being picky I know, but I'd like to use the fill light elsewhere in the room, and the 3X1 format on the LC120 is perfect for my scenario. Intellitech has great support and I'm buying from their EU store, very responsive and helping.
@@TheFilmGuyOfficial that I need to ditch my soft boxes whenever possible. Even for photoshoots. I’ve never seen anyone show a proper difference between a large source and a softbox at that distance
How durable do you think this product is? Are all the "joint" connections metal or plastic? I like the quick set up design, but I'm concerned that it may not hold up under heavy use.
@@TheFilmGuyOfficial I just received my Fast Frame and the joints are definitely plastic, not metal. Kind of disappointing, but I will baby it and hope it lasts. Wish I bought a Westcott Scrim Jim cine kit instead.
@@davidp158 sorry mate I thought you were referring to the frame itself! I used it yesterday in wind for about 8 hours! It held up fine! But I would probably add some bunggy straps to support fabric
so weird.I had this frame with a screew over lock that you suggested over the bend. super lightweight, fast to setup … 10 years ago. used it on all shoots. unfortunatly it was stolen and I never found a seller for it again. I bought it from walimex in germany, dirt cheap under 100 euros.
Hey, film Guys and Gals just wanted to add a note in regards to the use of the frame itself.
generally, you would want to have it a little bit higher & angled more than what it was and move the light further back, that way the light Beam would fill the entire frame and this would have created a softer light quality and that would have wrapped more around our talents face more, but would have also reduced light level.
When we got on sets I realised I wouldn't have enough lights to do this whilst also no blowing out the windows behind the actor with my iso. So we made a decision to keep the light closer to the frame to achieve correct subject exposure as you can still see that the frame was softer. for me, in this video, it's more about the principle than the exact execution.
What lesson can you learn from this (bring more lights).
The Film Guy, I agree with all your points about the differences between a dome (or softbox) and a larger frame of diffusion material. However, as you mention above you would have been better off backing up your light just enough distance to fill the width of the diffusion material. Not only would your subject have softer shadows, they would actually have a little more light falling on them. More surface area filled with light = more light on subject when using fresnel lenses in a wide flood mode. The same is true when bouncing light. Back the light just far enough away from the bounce surface to fill the bounce surface (with the light in flood mode). It is counter intuitive, but if you spot a fresnel light (from the same distance) into diffusion or a bounce board, you will actually get less light (because of the smaller surface area) than if you flood it. Also something to consider, the fresnel attachment on your mono light does create a smoother and slightly wider beam. However, it also cuts down the lux output. Since you had the space in the room, the better solution (for more lux) would be to leave the light "raw" and back it up enough to fill the diffusion from side to side. This would give you more illumination and softness.
Yep, I was gonna comment that your softbox is almost as soft as your fastframe because most of the fastframe is not lit.
Found your fine channel after I bought some Intelitech lights and looked for further knowledge... Your review here is great and very helping since I'm considering this frame for client work. Still the pros are winning, will get it. But first, the LC120 also by Intellitech, because I'm playing guitar in livestreams and despite a great 90cm softbox on a Godox UL-150, the light isn't eavenly spread over the instrument. I need to add another light source from the side to complete the light cast. I'm being picky I know, but I'd like to use the fill light elsewhere in the room, and the 3X1 format on the LC120 is perfect for my scenario.
Intellitech has great support and I'm buying from their EU store, very responsive and helping.
Super interesting stuff! I didn't know own about the bigger it is the softer it is. I might have to get one of these frames.
Great review and good points on the size and design. Shame they didn't make it industry standard.
looking good guys!
Thanks Brady, always appreciate your comments here.
@@TheFilmGuyOfficial Just as we all appreciate the content here
Damn bro I always learn something new from your videos
Haha, I'm glad. What did you learn?
@@TheFilmGuyOfficial that I need to ditch my soft boxes whenever possible. Even for photoshoots. I’ve never seen anyone show a proper difference between a large source and a softbox at that distance
@@cammackey depending on the situation sometimes you could possibly even have the softbox going into a frame
Great video, thanks for the fillmaking wisdom.
2:32 Losing frame size benefit by jamming light up close to diffusion...
Yes absolutely, this was an issue of output limitations on the LED.
@@TheFilmGuyOfficial ? i'm suggesting testing compromised by placement. Explain.
@@anonymissed3611 oh, it wouldn't be compromised, having it at the distance we did would actually make it less soft.
So the premise is still true.
Less soft indeed. Hence the comment. Listen to clip's discussion about advantage of size. Pic of use negatingthat was shocking, really.
I dont think you understand what im saying. also the frame was still softer that's a good thing. i didn't say it was negative.. its not.
How durable do you think this product is? Are all the "joint" connections metal or plastic? I like the quick set up design, but I'm concerned that it may not hold up under heavy use.
It's good not great! I wouldn't use it outside in the wind but if for inside stuff. It's metal.
@@TheFilmGuyOfficial I just received my Fast Frame and the joints are definitely plastic, not metal. Kind of disappointing, but I will baby it and hope it lasts. Wish I bought a Westcott Scrim Jim cine kit instead.
@@davidp158 sorry mate I thought you were referring to the frame itself!
I used it yesterday in wind for about 8 hours! It held up fine! But I would probably add some bunggy straps to support fabric
so weird.I had this frame with a screew over lock that you suggested over the bend. super lightweight, fast to setup … 10 years ago. used it on all shoots. unfortunatly it was stolen and I never found a seller for it again. I bought it from walimex in germany, dirt cheap under 100 euros.
Which model from walimex are you talking about? @martin peterdamm
@@Nils_Samp unfortunately, they don't sell it anymore.
great! thanks for the tips!
You are welcome
Im looking for something like this but Why would you choose this before a lastolite rapide?
The only reason is cost. If that's not an issue for you, Get the Lastorite
@@TheFilmGuyOfficial yeah, its basically same price here in sweden, especially if you count that you need to buy a frame for every fabric
Amazing ❤️❤️❤️❤️
I'm glad you like