Fluorescent vs skin tone
 

Hi everyone,

I built a home made lighting kit (see JPGs) I used 3 basic lighting fixtures, they each have 2 48" T8 fluorescent tubes. Basically they're sold to be used in garages (I know I'm not the first one to do this) I have 6-6500K tubes for cold type lighting and 6-3200K tubes for wharm also.

So here's the situation;
From rescent tests I made the cold lighting makes the skin look yellowish, I want to have that regular pink skin look, even in post production with the color correction I'm having a hard time getting it. With the warm lighting tubes the skin turns out ok yet you can still notice a bit of yellow in there.

I have a camera F-DL filter which I tought would fix my problem but it dosent seem to change much, I tested the warm and cold White balance on my camera and can't seem to find the right settings or combination of all this.

Thanks in advance!

Does your camera have a white balance button? Do you have a white card or a white sheet of paper? If yes to these, you should be able to do what you need.

Perrone's post refers to one of the potential problems - a mismatch between the color temp of your cam and the tubes.

Another potential problem, maybe your tubes aren't sufficiently full-spectrum. Exciting the gasses in an flo tube to glow isn't enough to provide good color, the manufacturer also coats the inside of the tube with phosphors that glow (edit: the right phosphors will even out the color rendition). A tube that is good for video will have a relatively high CRI (color rendition index), meaning relatively more full-spectrum light than something sold for the garage.

Most tubes are now a lot better than the days in which most fluorescent lighting was truely heinous even to the eye, but of course the camera is a lot more discriminating.

So, if you're still unhappy with color rendition after the custom white balance that Peronne recommended, you may be shopping for new tubes. Sometimes hard to find the actual CRI info, sometimes easy, but you're probably looking for 85 or better.

Cool-looking fixtures, btw :-)

To add to what Seth already pointed out, the best CRI rating I've seen outside dedicated Kino Flo bulbs was called Sunstick (or something like that) from Lowe's. It had a CRI of 90 and a color temperature of 5000K. They had been $20 for a box of 10, but last time I saw them, the price had jumped to $29. Still a bargain for good lighting.

Ok I managed to get the CRI info and it's at 78.

Take a look at my JPG (taken from post-production) and here's all my setings, tell me if you see something wrong ;

LIGHTING :
6 - T8 48" 6500K 78CRI tubes, horizontal with reflectors right next to the camera (60" from subject)
2 - T8 48" 6500K 78CRI tubes, vertical on the back side of the subject.

CAMERA (HDR-FX1) :
0 gain
F3.1 Iris
60 Shutter Speed
White balance set with a white piece of paper at the subjects exact location

POST-PRODUCTION (vegas) :
+0,15 contrast added
+1,20 saturation added
+0,05 red added (midtones, color balance)
+noise reduction (smart smoother)

Ok forget about the background, would this be acceptable for a information video where the subject talks about a product or a company? thanks in advance!

It's hard to judge the colors because half the frame is clipped.

CRI of 78 is a bit dicey to me. I'd feel a bit uncomfortable working below 85.

Sorry Perrone I should've specifyed that the JPG you saw was just a test and the final product will be in front of a green screen, So never mind the surrounding color what I'm looking for is the Skintone color.

I tought the skintone was a little pale, so I did another one and added saturation (1,30) and took out brightness (-0,10) see my new JPG

For the CRI issue, I'll be on the look out for higher CRI tubes, but for the moment that's what I have.

Can you drop an unprocessed frame grab on my FTP server? The link is in my profile. Just drop it at the root. But don't do a jpg. Do a PNG, or Targa (TGA), or a TIFF if that's all you can do. These JPGs are just to blocky for me to make any reasonable comment about the skin tone.

Done .

the image has a blue/green cast - I would guess partly due to low CRI and partly incorrect white balance.

You cannot accurately determine WB for a 3 dimensional object by measuring the reflection from a piece of card - use a monitor or plug the cam into a laptop and use the scopes in the NLE.

Mailed you back after making a few corrections.

-P

Ok thanks Perrone, I'm looking at your PNG and it looks more lifelike than mine, can you explain what effect did you add to it or send the VEG files in your reply?

Doug, is that what you do everytime you film something? you always have a laptop plugged to your camera? and what program are you using (NLE)?

So the only problem is that you think she's a bit pale? Is she pale in real life? Perhaps all you need is a little warmth, like an 1/8 cto or even a cosmetic pink on the flo (WB first without the gel).

From a quick look on a regular computer monitor, I don't really see a problem with her skin tone. It looks pale, sure, but not unnatural. If the paleness is the only problem, all you really need is what I mentioned above.
Good luck.

~~Dave

Actually the original problem (if you read the very first post) was yellow skintone with the fluorescent lighting.

And she's actually tanned in real life.

I'm having a hard time finding the right settings or should I say the right mix (lighting/camera/post-prod), I'm doing a lot of testing and I can't seem to get that winning combination. Ok I don't have the yellow skintone anymore but I don't have her real skintone either.

Can overlighting the subject ruin everything in post-production? my Iris was open at 3.1 maybe I should've closed it a bit more?

I guess I shoulda saved that .VEG file! :)

Not really an issue, I can do it again, so you can see. Gimme a few minutes, and I'll come pretty close. I am putting my workstations back together tonight, so I am working without a real monitor. Trying to this on a computer monitor with no color reference is brutal.

for an studio interview yes I will use a monitor or a laptop running FCP.

- run and gun I will use the presets and tweak if necessary, Just take a few minutes to match the colors on your EVF/LCD with your output monitor. An EVF screen with your eye up against the eyepiece blocking extraneous light will be more reliable than a flip out lcd.

Perrone Got your VEG file but forgot to mention I only have Vegas 7.

I know you're pretty busy and it's my mistake so if you have time to do it let me know.

Sorry and thanks again!

I guess I will have to do screen shots. I don't have Vegas 7 anywhere.

Ok,

Check the FTP server again. I placed one shot that shows the exposure correction only, one that shows a color correction only, one that shows the combo, and one closeup of the combo.

Wow thanks Perrone,

It's great to see how other people work, here's a stupid question for you, why did you seperate the exposure and the color correction even if they were on the same fx?

And here's another one, people here have been pushing me to work with the color curves fx, for both color correction and exposure, and I'm not doubting them but I tested this fx many times and can't seem to control it enough to get nice results, it's so unprecise (I mean manipulating a curve, instead of numbers) what's your opinion on that? and why didnt you use it?

But to get back to the main subject of this thread (lighting)

Ok so I have to work my white balance on the site and find the right settings in post-production but overall is the lighting method I use acceptable for a presentation type of video (were the subject talks to the camera) or would anyone sugest any changes, keep in mind this is all DIY stuff, so if you propose anything I will probably end up building it myself but that's ok I don't mind if it's really gonna make a difference.

The aesthetics of the lighting are a bit more challenging to be definitive about, now we're getting into conventions, opinions, style, etc.

Per some common TV conventions, you have very flat lighting on her face. A lot of people in TV say "great, you can see everything, no shadows, great lighting". Some people in fashion will say "that's how you light a pretty woman - flat lighting is glamorous".

Some other people will say "so flat, so lacking in dimensionality and depth".

Do you want more dimensionality and sense of depth in your project? The film-y lighting conventions say "yes", but really we're down to artistic/aesthetic choices here.

I'd say that in this scene the 6' wide key is too close to the subject and too low (probably restricted by ceiling height). Too close in that the "wrap" effect of a large source is exagerated - you have as much light on the left side of her face as on the right, with almost no shadows. To low in that the shadows of her nose & etc. are falling almost sideways, not down & sideways.

So I'd shoot with taller ceilings, run that flo light up to about 8', get it further away or mask half of it to make it a smaller source, then check out how the shadows are looking on a monitor. Maybe some fill will be called for, or less masking or closer key, or a reflector for fill. The aim here would be some shadows from her nose and in her eye-sockets, but not deep shadows - there would be detail in the shadows.

It is impossible to evaluate the backlight because of the natural sources in the room. We don't know what's coming off the backlight and what's coming through the windows, but it looks OK in that she is somewhat separated from the background. We don't really see hair highlights, we don't really see rimming light, both of which can also help bring out dimensionality.

In part, I think this is because the backlight is not really placed as you diagrammed, but more to the side. Which, with a large source like this, is further flattening things out. Typically, backlight is created with a more directional source.

Finally, I really don't like the effects of the smart smoother mentioned in your original post. To me it makes her facial contours, especially between her nose and mouth, rather cartoon-ish. Hair detail is very unnatural.

Having said all that, I've seen plenty of corporate video lit flat... "information video where the subject talks about a product or a company". To my way of thinking, flat lighting is just another choice, another aesthetic, but you really should know how to light dramatic, how to light flat, and everything in between.

Donald,

I would try to test these lights in a room without windows and see if you can get a good color out of them.

Your image has a lot of colors going on and removing the windows would take a variable out of the mix.

Also, the long tubes are not the best application for a hair/back light.

If you could find some higher CRI tubes, these lights would be best for lighting the greenscreen since they are long and would provide even light over a large area.

You're welcome. But remember, I did that in 10 minutes without the aid of my monitor which is still out of commision until I get everything hooked back up tonight or tomorrow. So that was a quickie.

I separated the exposure correction from the color correction for two reasons:

1. To make it easier for you to see what I did.

2. Because sometimes when I am doing a bunch of work, I like to turn off certain things I've done, and see the before and after. Like working on her skin tone, or bringing down the brightness of the windows behind her (which I didn't do in this quickie). When you separate things, it's much easier to go back and forth without affecting EVERYTHING so you have more control.

Color curves are delightful for making large corrections in video. If you want to adjust the color in different parts of the spectrum. It can be a fine tool. I just don't fine the need to use them. I prefer to work a different way.

There are many, many ways to get what you want out of your photography or cinematography. But they all start with having an idea of what you WANT, and them trying to get it.

I'm going to attach a copy of my practice piece to this message in a minute. Let me know what you think.

-P

Wow I'm amazed everytime I post a question here, the quality of the answers I get for free is totally amazing for me (even tho I can't really help anyone like you guys are helping me).

PERRONE, those before and after files are really great, first of all the d.o.f. in that shot is very good, what adapter did you have? you have a nice greenish look in that final shot, normally it's added in post production but I noticed it was already there in the before shot, was that done on purpose? If so how did you adjust the White-balance to get that look? her eyes are really something in the final shot wow! also the overall richness of the shot is great in my opinion. Thanx for the double fx tip, that's a great idea but those it add more render time?

TIM, I'm offering my services to companys who need to make videos on their websites. I don't have a studio or anything so I film on location (mostly offices with windows) so that's why I did a test like that, the difference will be a greenscreen behind the subject or an office decor.

SETH, I completly agree with you,
I guess that will be a choice the client will have to make, I will explain the different types of lighting I can offer (after many tests of course) and maybe make a demo with all of them to show exactly what I mean.

In fact it is exactly like my diagram but like you said it needs to be more directional, that's why I'm working on addind some barndoors/reflectors on each sides of those 2 vertical tubes, if you look closely you can see the light reflection on her left cheek and with barndoors it should be more noticeable, even more on her arms if she's wearing short sleeves. The reason It's vertical is because it's not only her head I'm filming but her whole body, also if she's in front of a lit greenscreen it should cancel the green reflection, what do you think?

What If I used 4 tubes instead of 6 for the key lighting and maybe put them vertical instead of horizontal and more to the side? I will do more extensive tests on this subject.

By the way I took that "smart smoother" fx out, I agree with you.

The theory is sound... in practice, trial and error in front of the screen and screen lighting is going to tell the story. The existing back light is more of a sider; usually this has application, but doesn't really help to pop your subject out from the green bg. You will need more of a backlight, or several. Possibly your vertical fixture will work, I've never tried something like that. Moving it to a more traditional backlight position may produce more rim light, or maybe not, I dunno'. But that's what you're looking for to pop out from the background is more rim light.

48" tubes need to be further away for more modeling and dimensionality. At such short distances, going vertical will produce other problems.

4 tubes won't make the source less wide - either further away, or mask some width, or accept flatter lighting (which isn't neccessarily bad).

Firstly, this is not my image. I never intended to post it, just use it for practice with color grading. I use it to work my skills with the color wheels, curves, and other tools. I was wondering if you would notice the different things I did. I am glad you picked up on the eyes.

The green tone in the original photo is because this is a shot from a Viper. The same kind of camera used to film Benjamin Button. The RAW images coming off the camera have that green tone naturally. So the first job is to get the image back to neutral before doing anything else. So what did I do?

1. Correct green tone to neutral.

2. Correct exposure by fixing contrast, and stretching the contrast a bit further than I would for use on TV. I set it up like I might do for film.

3. Set the mood to late afternoon. I usually do this in the highlights, but it has to be subtle.

4. Adjust the mid-tones to get the skin coloration correct.

5. Adjust the dark tones to compliment what you do with the highlights. I often go subtly the opposite way with the darker tones as it gives the highlights a bit more pop. Cool tip I picked up from the guys who graded "The Other Boleyn Girl".

6. I changed her eyes. Her eyes are actually gray. Against the overall green hues in the photo, I felt it would be awesome to give a girl with freckles, blue eyes. They came out really well. I zoomed in pretty tight to make sure the mask was good when doing the color replacement, and it came out pretty nicely.

7. Added "light rays" just a subtle effect to place some warm afternoon light off to the left side of the shot where it would have naturally fallen when this was taken.

8. Darkened the foilage behind her in spots to get her face to pop off the background a bit more.

9. Ordinarily, I would have added just a bit of black frost, but since I was working in Vegas 8.1, I didn't have the plug-ins, so I just left it alone.

And you see the finished result. Total time to get the look, maybe 30-45 minutes.

As to your question, I don't know that it adds more render time but it might. But when I do this kind of work, I'm never in a hurry. Getting a rich palate of colors really add so much to watching video or film, I think it's worth the wait. And ALWAYS grade in 10-bit codecs or better if you have them. I also work in Vegas's 32 bit float mode because I can be a lot more precise. And when I render out, things look the way I expect them to.

-P

Ok here's another test with yet another question, can I mix colors temperature? 6500k and 4000k in this case take a look at the JPGs. I wanted a little more depth in the subject's face like Seth talked about.

Wow Perrone thanks for the details, would you've done masking (eyes) like this if it were a film clip instead of a still?

Today I watched DV Enlightenment by DVcreators and that should help alot, I think I was missing some basic information on lighting.

Watch this short clip and tell me what you think please.
 

Ok so after watching many tutorials on basic and 4 point lighting and reading all your replys on this amazing forum, I did this test/demo, can you tell me what you think?

Ok it's not perfect, there's a small greenscreen "patch" on the left of the screen I could'nt key out.

And the skin tone... God you get to a point you can't see straight and you get lost and forget what skin really looks like, so tell me if it look ok to you.

I also did a lighting plan (see JPG) notice I did'nt use any back light or hair light (I don't have them yet)

Please watch it in HD!!
YouTube - démo intro RSB II

Overall, a very productive test!

1. The shadow at the inside corner of her left eye (between her eye and the bridge of her nose) seems unnatural. Try bringing the fill light closer to the camera, perhaps half the distance, maintaining the current distance to the subject.

2. The patch of screen that isn't keying for you - lighting can fix this, obviously. However, a garbage matte is commonly used in the chromakey software or filter to take care of problems like this. Hopefully, your sw has this function. If not, it is a little more difficult to create another matte by hand that covers just your subject, then fill it with your desired background. Exact steps for a garbage matte vary...

2a. How to get your background evenly lit? A common method is to have the subject step out, turn on the zebras on your camera at perhaps 70 or 80%, then open your iris until you have zebras displayed across most of the screen. The areas where you have no zebras are not lit to the same level as the areas that do display zebras, so, adjust the lighting until you have zebras across the entire screen. Then, have your subject step back in and adjust exposure/iris to her.

3. Can you slow down the movement of your background graphics? To me, they are distracting.

Skin tone seems fine to me.

First thing I noticed is the shot composition.

The vertical framing makes the spokeswoman look squashed down into the frame.

If there's a reason you want a waist up shot - then push in so that she fills more of the frame and her eyes are closer to the upper third framing line.

I kept wondering if she has some hip size problem that combined with the editors unnatural love of the motion graphics in order to force this framing.

And this next comment is both subtle and probably a reflection of the fact that my son is a young teenager so for the past five years or so our house has been awash in young boys - but I could hear his pack of pre-teen boys stopping in the studio and one of the less polite of the pack snarkily commenting to his buddies that that lady on the screen's got smoke rings coming out of her ___.

She's a lovely lady, has a charming accent, a wonderful smile. And certainly doesn't deserve that. So hopefully there will be few to NO teenage boys in the eventual audience.

But I'd probably overreact and change it anyway. Cuz one stray comment from a immature sales guy and from then on the video would probably get shelved.

Sorry, got to go repair my karma now for even bringing all this up.

Haha Bill that last comment put a smile on my face, I wasnt expecting that at all.
The reason I framed it the way I did is because I had already shot another test previously with a head shot and a full body shot and since this is just a test I framed it in between (wast up) You can see my previous test here (watch it in HD) :
YouTube - démo intro RSB

Then I will ask the client to choose between these 3 framed shots.

Seth for the keying problem, I easily fixed it by masking it out.
I use Sony Vegas 7 for the editing, I don't think I have the matte function?

Ok so the background media isnt the best for this situation, it is well noted.

But I'm pretty happy about the skintone overall, tho I agree with Seth that the fill light should be closer to the camera. The only reason I put it there was to hold the 43"diam silver reflector.

Thanks again guys!

A garbage matte can be done in vegas, but the tool is not integrated into Vegas' chromakeyer, it's part of clip pan/crop.

Please see the tutorial in Vol. 3 Issue 3 of Edward Troxel's excellent newsletters regarding the Bezier Mask.

The idea here is to put your clip to be keyed on the top video track, just as you have been. Apply the bezier mask - create nodes LOOSELY around your subject. You don't want her reaching outside of the mask. Following the tutorial, the default mask mode will turn everything outside your mask transparent, which is what you want.

Now, with your background media on a lower track, apply the chromakey filter as you have previously. The filter is now keying only what is inside the garbage matte, what is outside the matte is 100% transparent, allowing background to show through.

If my explanation isn't clear you should probably ask more questions over in the Vegas forum.