2nd-unit.tv looking good! - Page 5 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > And Now, For Something Completely Different... > The Archives > 2nd Unit Television

2nd Unit Television
Companion discussion forum for the 2nd Unit TV web site.


 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 27th, 2006, 12:32 AM   #61
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Knoxville TN
Posts: 589
Great show, concept, etc.! My only gripe is the lighting (been said I know, but) we have a couple Lite Panels and for what they are, and how we use them, we love them. But to set up an interview using them simply looks so bad, IMHO. Far too blue at 6500K to get a good white balance, and soft to the point of fault. Balance them with some jells and a little better, but then there goes the light values. Just simply not enough light was used, no punch with the Panels. Low light and color all wrong mad it look sick. Please consider using another light kit and offsetting them with maybe some lite panels if you sill want to use them. Or... not?

Good luck to you, good job.
__________________
Our eyes allow us to see the world - The lens allows others to see the world through our eyes.
RED ONE #977
Daniel Patton is offline  
Old June 27th, 2006, 01:08 AM   #62
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burbank
Posts: 1,811
I will happily pay the subscription fee.

Regarding lightingk, etc., I think it will take a little experimenting and practice to get a look that that's right for the computer. What looks good on the monitor in the studio is not necessarily going to look the same compressed and on the computer screen.
Jack Walker is offline  
Old June 27th, 2006, 01:27 AM   #63
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 1,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Patton
Far too blue at 6500K to get a good white balance, and soft to the point of fault.
George's interview was lit with the Daylight Lite Panels indoor. Even with accurate white balance the straight-from-the-camera result was that look that you see in the first cut of episode 1. Please note that Jonathan has not done any color correction. The new cut, after two days of color correction and rendering is much softer and warmer. We shot today some more inserts for episode two and I esplicitly asked for tungsten Lite Panels and Ron @ AbelCine graciously provided the goodies. I can tell you without needing to check the tapes that the results were much better. We also used a Daylight Flood but this time with full CTO gel in front. So, even with WB the daylight Lite Panels are not the right choice indoor. Fortunatly their kits come with the gels and the gels correct the color temperature perfectly.
I almost finished the new cut of episode 1 but the rendering has been going on for a full day (Magic Bullet) and it's still to be completed. Kinda surprised because my G4 Powerbook seems to render MB footage way faster than the dual processor Intel machine I'm using for 2nd Unit editing. We'll seee. Hopefully the night will be enough for Premiere to digest the footage :)
__________________
Paolo http://www.paolociccone.com
Demo Reel
Paolo Ciccone is offline  
Old June 27th, 2006, 01:51 AM   #64
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burbank
Posts: 1,811
I'm no expert, but for me a backlight or other light to separate the figures from the background would help a lot on the computer screen I believe.

I also think moving out from the wall and setting background light on another plane farther back, with some highlights and shadows, to add depth would help the look. (Perhaps no backing at all, just the deep recesses of the studio, light stands, cranes, cameras lurking in the semi-darkness, with some highlights, etc.)

For the interview segments, since the interviewer is not the focus, I would prefer to see a setup that puts him off camera or somewhat off camera, perhaps his back to the camera, or 3/4, or at an oblique angle so that a diagonal points to the person being interviewed.

I think the TV/monitor would be better placed a bit away from the interview and lit (or not lit) separately. If the person being interviewed needs to see the monitor, it should be in a place the person interviewed can look at it without turning, somewhat in front. Another camera could be dedicated to the monitor for shots to show the audience. Highlights/pointers can be put in in post if appropriate.

I think the whole thing should be simple, but with some separation, depth, character, and pleasing diagonal lines. And I'm just talking about the interview segments -- the demonstration segments of course will be dependent on their content.

Again, I'm not an expert, just my thoughts.
Jack Walker is offline  
Old June 27th, 2006, 02:21 AM   #65
Capt. Quirk
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia
Posts: 3,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Ames

In short, 2nd Unit gives you access to people and places you'd never get access to by yourself and we do it all for 1/4 the cost of a monthly, ad-filled magaine.
I like those ads... specially the Varizoom ones. Those girls are hawt! You going to have them on, and show us how to use those stabilisers?
__________________
www.SmokeWagonLeather.us
K. Forman is offline  
Old June 27th, 2006, 02:23 AM   #66
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kingman Arizona
Posts: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Walker
I'm no expert, but for me a backlight or other light to separate the figures from the background would help a lot on the computer screen I believe.

I also think moving out from the wall and setting background light on another plane farther back, with some highlights and shadows, to add depth would help the look. (Perhaps no backing at all, just the deep recesses of the studio, light stands, cranes, cameras lurking in the semi-darkness, with some highlights, etc.)

For the interview segments, since the interviewer is not the focus, I would prefer to see a setup that puts him off camera or somewhat off camera, perhaps his back to the camera, or 3/4, or at an oblique angle so that a diagonal points to the person being interviewed.

I think the TV/monitor would be better placed a bit away from the interview and lit (or not lit) separately. If the person being interviewed needs to see the monitor, it should be in a place the person interviewed can look at it without turning, somewhat in front. Another camera could be dedicated to the monitor for shots to show the audience. Highlights/pointers can be put in in post if appropriate.

I think the whole thing should be simple, but with some separation, depth, character, and pleasing diagonal lines. And I'm just talking about the interview segments -- the demonstration segments of course will be dependent on their content.

Again, I'm not an expert, just my thoughts.
I really like your idea. It reminds me of those interviews where they periodically look at the camera monitor that is focused on the guest. Pretty much like a reality-documentary mix.
Jonathan Nelson is offline  
Old June 27th, 2006, 08:05 AM   #67
2nd Unit TV
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 509
Well, we've got a hot chick coming up for you in Episode 2. Hope you like her. The crew did!
Jonathan Ames is offline  
Old June 27th, 2006, 08:14 AM   #68
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 1,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Walker
For the interview segments, since the interviewer is not the focus, I would prefer to see a setup that puts him off camera or somewhat off camera, perhaps his back to the camera, or 3/4, or at an oblique angle so that a diagonal points to the person being interviewed.
It's already done. My camera was pointed to Jamie but every now and then I framed George from the side and I included a bit of that in the new cut. Still waiting for the final render ... :)
__________________
Paolo http://www.paolociccone.com
Demo Reel
Paolo Ciccone is offline  
Old June 27th, 2006, 08:15 AM   #69
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ - USA
Posts: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paolo Ciccone
because my G4 Powerbook seems to render MB footage way faster than the dual processor Intel machine
If it's not Universal Binary code that could be the case (assuming you're on a Intel Mac).

I do find the idea that 5600k bulbs can't be warmed up with really cool white balancing doesn't make sense to me though. That should work. Also, 5600k indoors should balance pretty well with daylight coming in through any windows, right?

LitePanels always seemed really expensive for the light they were putting out to me. Am I wrong there? I like the idea of building your own Kinos better.

Or just get these - aren't these triple the power for 1/3 the money (without heat and at similar power consumption levels)?
http://www.flolight.com/

Am I missing something?
Joel Aaron is offline  
Old June 27th, 2006, 08:28 AM   #70
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 1,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Aaron
If it's not Universal Binary code that could be the case (assuming you're on a Intel Mac).
It's one hell of an assumption, since my post said G4 Powebook ;)

That is what suprises me. A G4 1.67, essentially a 3 year old machine, can render faster than a dual processor Intel modern machine. I'm sure it's not the CPU, there is something that is not performing as expected.

Quote:
Also, 5600k indoors should balance pretty well with daylight coming in through any windows, right?
Yes, but we didn't have any source of external light, the only other light available was the industrial fluorescent lamps.
Quote:
LitePanels always seemed really expensive for the light they were putting out to me. Am I wrong there? I like the idea of building your own Kinos better.
I just worked with Lite Panels all day yesterday and I tell you, they are something different. There's no comparison with a fluo tube. The LP are really easy to handle, they have a built-in dimmer that doesn't buzz or shift color, the minis throw so much light in a small package, it has to be see to to be believed. At CineGear their booth was constantly crowded, people kept playing with the units, bringing friends to look at the etc.
Way easier and simpler than fluorescent.
__________________
Paolo http://www.paolociccone.com
Demo Reel
Paolo Ciccone is offline  
Old June 27th, 2006, 09:01 AM   #71
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ - USA
Posts: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paolo Ciccone
It's one hell of an assumption, since my post said G4 Powebook ;)
My friends all call me Sherlock
(buffing my nails)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Paolo Ciccone
The minis throw so much light in a small package, it has to be see to to be believed. At CineGear their booth was constantly crowded, people kept playing with the units, bringing friends to look at the etc.
Way easier and simpler than fluorescent.
Hmm... that's interesting. I suppose it would be worth a test, but they sure aren't "indie priced".

Do you have a light meter you can use to test the output? I'd really like to compare with some of my home grown compact flourescent ideas. I'm betting bang per lumen on the litepanel isn't very good in comparison. Might be cool for one DC light, but it might take $6,000 vs. $500 DIY CF to light up a room with them.

Here's another LED alternative:
http://www.ccrane.com/lights/led-lig...ight-bulb.aspx
OR
http://www.swps.com/11-8552-a00.html
Joel Aaron is offline  
Old June 27th, 2006, 09:54 AM   #72
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 1,116
Quote:
I'm betting bang per lumen on the litepanel isn't very good in comparison. Might be cool for one DC light, but it might take $6,000 vs. $500 DIY CF to light up a room with them.
When it comes to pure monetary point I don't argue, I see your point very clearly. It's in the comparison of features that I believe the LP are ahead of other technologies. And the LED technology allows them to create solutions that can't be mathed by other systems. I'm not at liberty to provide more informations but their R&D dept is working on something very cool :)
__________________
Paolo http://www.paolociccone.com
Demo Reel
Paolo Ciccone is offline  
Old June 27th, 2006, 09:59 AM   #73
2nd Unit TV
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 509
I'm going to ask Jaime Emmanuelli, Director of Sales and a partner at LitePanels to answer this. I have a call into him this AM and will post the response as soon as I hear from him.
Jonathan Ames is offline  
Old June 27th, 2006, 10:34 AM   #74
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ - USA
Posts: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Ames
I'm going to ask Jaime Emmanuelli, Director of Sales and a partner at LitePanels to answer this. I have a call into him this AM and will post the response as soon as I hear from him.
Sounds good. I know new high intensity LED's are supposed to be out there. But again, why wouldn't I just buy prebuilt bulbs like those in the links I provided. The Ringlite might be a unique case.

I think rolling your own is going to be both more flexible and less expensive for the indie filmmaker.
Joel Aaron is offline  
Old June 27th, 2006, 10:41 AM   #75
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 219
Jonathan,

It looks like you might have taken offense to what I've said but your response to the statement leads me to believe that you are working on a site that will be as valuable as DVinfo has been for it's members and guests.

I can read the passion you have for this project of yours and truly hope for the best.

I've only made suggestions as to how you might work on other ideas in bringing revenue to support your project.

Recent article in todays Wall Street Journal talks about YouTube and the amount of video viewed on it. Over 60,000 clips are submitted everyday and over 70 million clips are viewed on You Tube. Competition has caused the website My Space to ban You Tube until it's users complained so much that they brought it back, along with their own content streaming program right after.

Besides the competition from such sites as Google, Yahoo, MySpace, etc... You Tube is working on a revenue sharing program with content providers like Google's AdSense.

This is why I was suggesting other venues of income generation.

I know your site is different compared to all these other sites, which is not geared specifically to a niche, but it's something to think about. You'll have less competion for a professionaly produced product, but you'll also start getting competition from larger outfits, once you start gaining media attention.

Now to a different topic, how about doing some interviews with some of the other members and professionals on this site? Say, Chris (founder of DVinfo), DSE (Vegas or VASST), and of course, Jim (seeing Red).
John Kang is offline  
 

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > And Now, For Something Completely Different... > The Archives > 2nd Unit Television

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:15 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network