Preferred eyelight?

[David Rasberry]

I must say I am very impressed with Lite Panels new 30w LED fresnel. Nice soft round focusable and dimmable beam with the output of a 250w tungsten, but daylight balanced. Played with one of these at Infocomm. Decent output and decent throw. Love to have a dozen of them.

 

[John Brawley]

Does light not follow the law of squares? Are we talking about some other characteristic of light when we say it, "drops off faster than x light?"

I personally don't believe any type of fixture is able to violate the basic laws of physics, but I'm always eager to learn.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

Going back to what I was saying with regard to reflection, the inverse square law only applies for the light to subject distance. Once it hits the subject and is reflected, then everything changes. If the rule still applied, then your exposure would change as camera to subject distance changes, but it doesn't.

Which is why an eyelight doesn't have to be very bright to reflect into an eyeball from a long way away.

jb

 

[Brian F Kobylarz]

Originally posted by John Brawley

Yes but aren't we talking about an eyelight here ?

We don't want to literally light the eyes, we want to reflect a source in the eye itself, using it like a small mirror.

To me this is what an eyesight is, as opposed to fill if you're frontally lighting. You shouldn't really *see* the source light, just a reflection of the source in the highly reflective eye of your subject.

John,
Generally you are correct - creating the sparkle in the eye is not achieved using fill / frontal lighting. In most cases, a bounce off of a 4x4 or other source is what's called for.
I was trying to address Stephen's post that started the thread:

In those instances, what would you use to get a great eyelight without casting a lot of light onto the scene? There is a Micro-Chimera that is 5x7 or so, but it is rectangular. Wouldn't a round eyelight be better? If so, what would you use to do that?

A large bounce or other source might place more light into the scene than what he wanted. Using the shaping capabilities of the Dedolight (meant to mention the iris attachment) or similiar fixtures, you can produce a source for the eye light without adding a lot of lumens - and avoid a rectangular pattern if that is the desired end result. The fixture would be placed far enough away to "see" the source while not adding anything of significance to the lumen levels.

Another idea to consider: Use one of the fiber optic tubes on an ARRI Pocket PAR - it is not designed to throw light a distance, however, the end of the tube could be an excellent source for the reflection. Easy to power off DC to boot. [Edit / Note: I've never used the fiber optic attachment - if anyone else has experience, please add your thoughts!]

Then again, one can always make a custom cookie out of blackwrap for the micro-chimera. That's a simple solution to the rectangle issue. Just place it where it works.
Edit: Just looked back in the thread myself: This approach was mentioned by David Barlow; Post #2.

 

[Michael Hardwick]

Been really using the Lite Panel Mini a lot for this lately - especially for steadicam. Just mount it above the mattebox on a Noga Arm. Usually heavily diffused with anything from unbleached muslin to opal depending on the situation. Hardly ever at full output - just dimmed down enough to put a little sparkle in the eyes. Love that they run on their own battery, and usually just factor it into the cameras overall weight when it comes time to balance.

 

[Leo Ticheli]

Once it hits the subject and is reflected, then everything changes. jb

Are you asserting that a light ray/wave knows to behave differently if it's reflected?

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

 

[Brian F Kobylarz]

Does light not follow the law of squares? Are we talking about some other characteristic of light when we say it, "drops off faster than x light?"

Sorry, when I brought up LED's falling off faster than HMI's or others, it wasn't the physics of a light wave being considered... it was the fixtures.
Factors that influence how the light "throws" include the reflector design and lens. Swap out a reflector on a tungsten fixture or swap out a lens on an HMI PAR - and the "throw" changes. Add the ability to move the filament in relation to the reflector - thus focussing the light.

Since the LED "bulb" is manufactured as a self-enclosed unit, modifying the throw is an engineering challenge. You can't change the reflector behind it or the lens in front - or the relationship between the two.

LED lighting is in it's infancy. There have been major improvements in the past few years, no doubt, many more to come.

And by the way, some of the recent innovations have been outstanding - one example: being able to ramp between different color temps during a shot.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

All light falls off over distance whether it precisely follows the inverse square law. But in terms of reflections, if you are reflecting a bright light in a reflective surface, the actual amount of light hitting the subject can be quite low and yet the subject will look sufficiently exposed.

I lit an entire hallway once by placing a bare vertical Kino tube at the end of the hallway, which got reflected in every tile in the hallway and created a nice backlit sheen... but I'm sure my meter would have told me that there was hardly any light in the hallway.

 

[orre]

An LED with the same output as an HMI par won't go anywhere near the same range as the par. They drop off insanely fast and are really good for detail lighting, but not for lighting whole scenes

But I mean if you have an LED and any kind of other lamp really and put them at the same distance from an objejt and get the same reading at the object the LED wont read less at any distance after the object than the other lamp as long as the have the same kind of softness and size.

I just mean it doesn't really matter what kind of lamp you have from the beginning.
It's not the LED-lamptechnique that makes it fall off faster.

Light is light, right?

I could be wrong, please correct me and explain how the light emmited from a LED-lamp can fall of faster than any other kind of light.

I have thought of this quite alot and talked to other cinematographers about it and would really like to know.

Cheers!.

 

[Leo Ticheli]

It's the "lucky rabbit's foot" effect. We've got a few superstitions that persist, even though we should know better. I still operate as though a wide-angle lens has more DOF than a telephoto; in everyday practice it sort of works that way even if it's wrong. We all know it's really what's included in the frame, the relative sizes and perspective.

I believe the same it true with the "falls off faster" thinking. We know our basic physics, but we compartmentalize that part of our brains.

One of my best friends, a very smart and talented fellow, believes the light is somehow different if you use a 10K instead of a 5K behind a silk, even though both are camera filtered to the same stop. It's crazy; the sensor or film can't possibly know the difference. I think he just likes bigger fixtures. It does look "more professional."

Most of the time our superstitions do no harm, but they can impede our work; time to toss them into the bin.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

 

[David W. Jones]

I don't know if I would call it my preferred eyelight, but I used a black wrapped maglite on a magic arm a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Leo Ticheli]

The new flashlight are amazing. I found myself forced to do an unscheduled interior with no lighting package a while back. To make matters worse, it was the interior of an amusement park dark ride, lit very dimly by only a few effects lights, far below useable level.

I pointed my Surefire at a pop-up reflector and got enough level to do a fairly wide interior. Amazing!

Never leave home without it!

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

 

[Sam Taylor]

I think the ring lights make people look like vampires! the reflection in the eye is round with a black hole in the middle (the hole being the lens the light is wrapped around)...

I agree! I am surprised about how often it is used in music videos. I guess it is a stylish choice, and currently in vogue.

 

[Sam Taylor]

The new flashlight are amazing. I found myself forced to do an unscheduled interior with no lighting package a while back. To make matters worse, it was the interior of an amusement park dark ride, lit very dimly by only a few effects lights, far below useable level.

I pointed my Surefire at a pop-up reflector and got enough level to do a fairly wide interior. Amazing!

Never leave home without it!

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

Hi Leo, Please can you tell me which surefire model you have? Or maybe the lumens output? Thanks.

 

[Leo Ticheli]

Hi Sam,
I think I was carrying my 6P; output is 120 lumens. Surefire and others now have even more powerful lights in very small packages, 200 lumens or more.

You should note that these lights are not suitable for many tasks; they are too bright, have a relatively short battery life, and get very, very hot in a short period of time. I mean burn your hands hot.

You'll probably want either a variable output model or something else for adjusting the camera on a dark set; something like an EMT pen light or Proton. The tactical lights were designed for short duration self-defense.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo