archived-videos FS100 Low Light

Wow, that was great. Neat lighting, that camera's getting really crisp image.

If you were stateside I'd need to hire you for my feature :idea:
But maybe you could just give me some tips on lighting? :lol:
 
fernando97echeverria said:
Wow, that was great. Neat lighting, that camera's getting really crisp image.

If you were stateside I'd need to hire you for my feature :idea:
But maybe you could just give me some tips on lighting? :lol:
Click to expand...

Learn the rules.. (3-point lighting is important. What is a key, fill, back,hair,rim light, kicker)
Once you know them.

Break them

I am by no means an expert or professional, but i just love to light! Its everything!
 
very well done, the footage looks really Nice and I like what you can do with the FS100. I also liked the lens flare caused by the flashlight beam.
 
This looks great. I want this camera... or maybe a canon c300...
hmm can't afford a t2i better forget it...

thanks for sharing
 
knightly said:
Nicely done... it's shocking how quickly 1600w of light falls off isn't it?
Click to expand...

It sure is, but fall off has, physically speaking, nothing to do with Watts, but with distance between source, subject and backgound :P

(Twice the distance = loosing 75% of the light.
My Math-English isn't really good but there is an inverted square relation between distance and fall off.
If the source-subject distance (=Ds) is 1 meter and source-backgroud (Dbg) is 4 meter, the background gets 1/(4^2) (that's 1/16th) of the amount of light the subjects gets.
With Ds=2 and Dbg=4 the subject still gets 1/(2^2) (=1/4th of the light).
With a Ds closer to Dbg (like 10 vs 12) the fall off between subject and background is much less. (But you'll need far more power to begin with, because the most of the fall off happens before the light hit the subject in this case.)

BTW, it looks really good.
Fall off doesn't bother me at all.

(When you compare it with a rebel or C300: show some rolling shutter stuff as well :) )
 
WalterB said:
It sure is, but fall off has, physically speaking, nothing to do with Watts, but with distance between source, subject and backgound :P
Click to expand...

You are correct. I am very familiar with the inverse square law... on our last set, I used a 2K Mole-Richardson as fill for a scene on an indie shoot. It was the strongest light we had and some of the folks on the set were confused why I wasn't using that as key and filling with other fixtures that were closer to the subjects.

I LOVE the inverse square law, I live it, I used as my dimmer for many years... the physics of light fascinate me.

I was just saying it for the sake of the folks who are often forced to use 3x100 bare bulbs in clamp lights due to budgetary constraints... to compare their reality (which I lived for a long time) to a "Low Light" post from a professional. I still don't own (or have much access to) lights that big... my whole kit is 500w open face lights and lower.

Twice the distance, quarter the light! I chant this to myself as I go to sleep, drives my wife crazy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top