Good stuff. One critical thing I might add...in the clips from the Mission it was conceivable that what we were seeing in the background was the sun (or my eyes read it that way), albeit at the perfect angle. With your shot, it had the appearance that the sun was in the middle of the trees. I wonder if you have sneaked it up to the top of the window if it would lessen that effect and make it all feel a little more believable.
Great thought - I guess if you don't know how long these interviews usually take (as a normal viewer), you might assume that's the sun. Good thought on getting it up into the sky.
Came here to say exactly this. It might seem ridiculous but you could also put up a blue/white background so it was more believable sky but your suggestion is for sure the easier one.
This comments section is wild. You’re a true pro. Trendy or not this is a cool technique. It’s a clever way to have multiple backlights. I’d love to get funky and try the same thing with different colored lights or even a gobo to get some separated light beams poking through.
haha comment sections are always wild - all in good fun. I also think it looks pretty cool. Going to try it a few different ways in the future. I saw it again in a movie last night. Definitely was meant to be the sun, but definitely was not - looked great though!
Great breakout! I love it! I would probably go slight lower on back (hair light) as it looks slightly unnatural, but it is personal preference. Thank you for a great advice!
Agreed! I almost never use a hair light because I think it usually looks unnatural - but this setup seemed to call for it. Looking at it now, I'd tone it down a touch as well.
Did you use any promist filter or similar on your lens? I was not expecting that window light to do much, but it actually worked great. Just discovered your channel and must say I'm very impressed! Quality content
@@skyscraperphilosopher8476 Yep! Since I had the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 on there, my guess is that I had it speedboosted on the C70 and opened all the way up to f2, maaaaaybe f2.8.
@@CurrenSheldon great! I'm just getting into cinematography and want to recreate a setup like this in Norway. I got a couple Arri 2K tungsten fresnels for cheap and was thinking of using one of them for window light. Do you think this scene here would work if you used warm tungsten light from the window instead of daylight?
13:26 just to be clear, you zoomed to crop but this did NOT create compression. Zooming just changes the angle of view which is what a focal length is all about. Compression only happens if you move the camera (essentially to maintain the size of the subject in the frame - think zolly) and then you’re experiencing the parallax effect that different focal lengths exhibit on the background when the position relative to the subject changes to maintain its size in frame. Without moving the camera, zooming (changing focal length) doesn’t compress anything (making the background appear farther or closer to the subject)
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 🤔- pretty sure changing your focal length, whether by switching out a prime lens OR zooming to a different focal length will change the compression. You've described just cropping in on the sensor or cropping in during post production - which would not change the compression of the lens. But, if zooming doesn't change the compression, that would mean there would be no difference in compression at the wide end to the tele end of a 100-400mm lens, which is definitely not true.
@@CurrenSheldon hmmmm. Yeah I am with you on that one. Compression changes with focal length. That's been my experience. I certainly do not get the same background effect from a 2.8 at 35 than a 2.8 at 85.
Good stuff. One critical thing I might add...in the clips from the Mission it was conceivable that what we were seeing in the background was the sun (or my eyes read it that way), albeit at the perfect angle. With your shot, it had the appearance that the sun was in the middle of the trees. I wonder if you have sneaked it up to the top of the window if it would lessen that effect and make it all feel a little more believable.
I had exactly the same thought
Great thought - I guess if you don't know how long these interviews usually take (as a normal viewer), you might assume that's the sun. Good thought on getting it up into the sky.
Came here to say exactly this. It might seem ridiculous but you could also put up a blue/white background so it was more believable sky but your suggestion is for sure the easier one.
This comments section is wild. You’re a true pro. Trendy or not this is a cool technique. It’s a clever way to have multiple backlights. I’d love to get funky and try the same thing with different colored lights or even a gobo to get some separated light beams poking through.
haha comment sections are always wild - all in good fun. I also think it looks pretty cool. Going to try it a few different ways in the future. I saw it again in a movie last night. Definitely was meant to be the sun, but definitely was not - looked great though!
Great breakout! I love it! I would probably go slight lower on back (hair light) as it looks slightly unnatural, but it is personal preference. Thank you for a great advice!
Agreed! I almost never use a hair light because I think it usually looks unnatural - but this setup seemed to call for it. Looking at it now, I'd tone it down a touch as well.
Just purchased the course.
Thanks so much! Looking forward to seeing you in there.
Does your course have a segment on three camera two people interview set up?
Not yet but I'll. be adding some new content over the winter! That's a good idea and will consider adding it.
Did you use any promist filter or similar on your lens? I was not expecting that window light to do much, but it actually worked great. Just discovered your channel and must say I'm very impressed! Quality content
Thanks for the kind words and thanks for watching! Nope - no pro mist at all, though that may give it an even dreamier look than we have here.
@@CurrenSheldon thanks for reply! One more thing - do you remember roughly what aperture you were at here for the a cam?
@@skyscraperphilosopher8476 Yep! Since I had the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 on there, my guess is that I had it speedboosted on the C70 and opened all the way up to f2, maaaaaybe f2.8.
@@CurrenSheldon great! I'm just getting into cinematography and want to recreate a setup like this in Norway. I got a couple Arri 2K tungsten fresnels for cheap and was thinking of using one of them for window light. Do you think this scene here would work if you used warm tungsten light from the window instead of daylight?
Thanks!
You got it!
your course link is broken!!
Thanks so much! Just updated it: www.currensheldoncinematography.com/
I think it's a little distracting to see the bright light source and a little bit lazy to leave it in. Hopefully it's not a long-lasting trend
I don't totally disagree - I've thought of a couple of other ways to try it out and may do that soon that is more integrated into the set itself.
13:26 just to be clear, you zoomed to crop but this did NOT create compression. Zooming just changes the angle of view which is what a focal length is all about. Compression only happens if you move the camera (essentially to maintain the size of the subject in the frame - think zolly) and then you’re experiencing the parallax effect that different focal lengths exhibit on the background when the position relative to the subject changes to maintain its size in frame. Without moving the camera, zooming (changing focal length) doesn’t compress anything (making the background appear farther or closer to the subject)
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 🤔- pretty sure changing your focal length, whether by switching out a prime lens OR zooming to a different focal length will change the compression. You've described just cropping in on the sensor or cropping in during post production - which would not change the compression of the lens. But, if zooming doesn't change the compression, that would mean there would be no difference in compression at the wide end to the tele end of a 100-400mm lens, which is definitely not true.
@@CurrenSheldon hmmmm. Yeah I am with you on that one. Compression changes with focal length. That's been my experience. I certainly do not get the same background effect from a 2.8 at 35 than a 2.8 at 85.
ua-cam.com/video/_TTXY1Se0eg/v-deo.htmlsi=CX5zTD6Ye5dG389k one example of many explaining this common misconception. This one is pretty good
Final result at end of the video look like fake background
Like a green screen? Interesting...