Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Where To Save Money, Still Lenses or Lighting?

J

Jameson Jordan

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Los Angeles
If you had a choice, where would you put the budget: toward cine-glass, or toward more lights/crew?

This PSA warns of 'Brainal Sex' and was shot on Epic-X with two Kinos, Nikon Glass, and much natural light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NfV9M3UCm7Y

I don't fancy myself a DP, but the budget of this Matthew Hussey project called for me to wear the hats of Writer/Director/Editor and DP. Not my favorite combo, but the idea was strong, and so was the elasticity of the r3d files in the color grade.
 
dude. really nice work, man... loved the piece!
And IMHO, I would ALWAYS put more money towards lights/crew:
-cost effective lenses and great lighting can look spectacular...
-expensive lenses may actually make budget lighting, or the lack thereof, even more noticeable.
 
Depends on the situation; the look you want, available light, etc.

IAC, the more critical question is talent. I'd rather have a great gaffer with limited lighting instruments than a pimped out truck with a noob.

IMO, cutting costs in optics is a dangerous path - especially for some situations. That said, you can create stunning imagery with lenses designed for shooting stills, IF, you understand their limitations and plan for them (or are seeking a specific "feel" they have inherently).

Cheers - #19
 
Good points all around. And thank you CK for the kind words on the Brainal project.

Blair, I agree with you on Talent trumping tech. However for a project like above I found myself in a paradoxical situation where I didn't want to bring on my talented DP and Gaffer friends because I knew they'd want to utilize more expensive gear that would be out of budget. So instead of cutting a couple corners, I ended up cutting all of them.

But maybe I can turn this topic into a list of sorts; can we breakdown production value into an order for low budget stuff?... Maybe two lists, one is Crew, one is Equipment:

Crew
1) DP
2) Gaffer
3) 1st AC
4) Key Grip
5) DIT?

Equipment
1) Camera
2) Lights
3) Lenses
4) Dolly
5) Steady-Cam
6) Slider

Or is this way of thinking in objective value non-sensical because projects are too specific?
 
Jameson Jordan said:
Good points all around. And thank you CK for the kind words on the Brainal project.

Blair, I agree with you on Talent trumping tech. However for a project like above I found myself in a paradoxical situation where I didn't want to bring on my talented DP and Gaffer friends because I knew they'd want to utilize more expensive gear that would be out of budget. So instead of cutting a couple corners, I ended up cutting all of them.

But maybe I can turn this topic into a list of sorts; can we breakdown production value into an order for low budget stuff?... Maybe two lists, one is Crew, one is Equipment:

Crew
1) DP
2) Gaffer
3) 1st AC
4) Key Grip
5) DIT?

Equipment
1) Camera
2) Lights
3) Lenses
4) Dolly
5) Steady-Cam
6) Slider

Or is this way of thinking in objective value non-sensical because projects are too specific?
Click to expand...
Projects are too specific usually. All of those crew positions you mentioned can be critical. Great DP + AC who blows focus all of the time = bad footage. Great DP, gaffer, 1st AC, key grip with bad DIT who loses all of your media = blown shoot.

Gear is gear. Great crews get the most out of the gear they have to work with. A great DP with a Canon 7D can do better work than I'll ever do with a RED or other high end camera. However, a great DP with the gear that is a perfect match for the project means an even greater potential for the project. All of it works together to make great work.
 
Yes, as stated here it's all depending on the project. For this specific project that you shared I have no doubt that still lenses would fly with no issues. There is no really advanced focus pulls and the camera work is pretty straight forward. Which is very nice in my book. Cine lenses have their advantages but for normal shoots with not to much focus pulling still lenses are quite handy. To me it's not possible to divide cine lenses from still lenses when it comes to looks, For the same coin you can be sure that you get better still lenses, it's also far more still lenses out there to pick from. So there is vantage still glass that looks really cool and there is really crisp and clear modern canon, nikons and others that cost far less then "cine lenses" that resolve the same image quality in a lab test. Offcourse cine lenses are more sturdy and do not sway when using follow focus equipment etc. But still for the normal day shooting you get pretty far with still glass.... but without good light it's hard to get any where so I would vote for still glass and money saved for light.

All in all I, think your film was really nicely made considering a small crew and all.
 
Post software is improving almost daily to the point where lighting for other than effect is moot... so I'm more concerned about the clarity of my footage. But that doesn't necessarily mean I'll spend a lot of money on cine lens.

My experience with the Epic camera leads me to believe that the camera will make an average lens perform well. I expect Dragon to do that even better... so I'm putting my eggs into the Dragon basket.
 
Last edited:
Elsie N said:
Post software is improving almost daily to the point where lighting for other than effect is moot... the camera will make an average lens perform well
Click to expand...

First off do NOT listen to the above.
It's terrible advice unless you're going to construct the environment digitally or rework the footage in some drastic way which is going to cost you much more in the end than just lighting correctly to start with. It's often that folks who are starting out believe that the camera will do the job of making the picture look good for them, or somehow will give them the ability to craft a good shot in post from any ol image. In general the rule is always; garbage in garbage out...as far as glass goes, average is average, good is good, great is great. A camera isn't going to make a lens perform better just as the lens isn't going to make the tripod any better.

I agree that it depends on the shoot. Knowing what you want to achieve and being able to pre-visualize and / or know your location will help determine your kit and who you need. A few correct tools can go a long way. Good glass is great, but if you have a location that needs or deserves good lighting then the glass won't make a huge difference in the end. Conversely if you have a location that is lit perfectly by the sun at the time of day you'll be shooting and you don't need anything except a small piece of bounce to make a beautiful image, then go for the glass.
 
Last edited:
Lights, optics and other variables can all be defined in individual systems. Some will be optics favoured, other balanced for lighting, or sensor, etc...

Anyway each system will have its own merits, and will fit into different workflows. Can cheap optics and nice light work for you? Sure, but that also means good optics and cheap light may work for someone else.

And its often cheaper to get lighting done right the first time than to "oh we will fix that fundamental part of cinematography later with a computer".
 
The Area 48's are fantastic lights, high CRI remote phosphor panels paired with the efficiency of full output LEDs. Energy savings great enough to run them off bricks at 50% output for over an hour, full blast on block batteries or SuperDuty bricks. Anybody know how much current the double sided Switronix "hot swap" mounts can sustain without over heating or popping fuses?

The other nice thing about low current requirements is there aren't issues with long power runs, even off bog standard household circuits. Check the specs for yourself and do the math, I'm just some guy on the internet. That said, by the numbers my little 45 lb. Honda 2000ei sine wave putt-putt ought to be able to drive 10 of them.

Disclaimer: In the real world, I would test for any potential issues with more than handful of 160W DC transformers sharing a common AC power feed. Hopefully one of the hardcore sparks or engineers can explain the causality, but I know enough to know that not all loads are created equal and I believe the line feedback, if it happens, is referred to as pinging. Definitely something I would make sure was tested during prep so I wouldn't have an ill timed surprise on set ;-)

If you can drive 8, 1K-ish each, and they are excellent at being ganged to play as one big source (make sure grip has or builds a frame that can host 2 or 4 fixtures on one heavy duty stand). Imagine a bank of 4 for key, 1 or 2 for fill, 2 or 3 for rims/kicks/tops/etc.

Cheers - #19
 
Great lighting can be done with inexpensive lights.

Great images can be made with inexpensive glass.

"If you don't take money they can't tell you what to do."
-Bill Cunningham
 
Peter Strietmann said:
Great lighting can be done with inexpensive lights.

Great images can be made with inexpensive glass.

"If you don't take money they can't tell you what to do."
-Bill Cunningham
Click to expand...
..
:iagree:
 
To put this in a different light, a talented filmmaker can wear many hats and do well enough on a project... but can often do far better work by reducing the amount of hats that need to be worn by any one person. Yes, one-man-band work can look stellar, but it sure is nice, if you can afford it, to bring in a couple other talented eyes to help up the game... those extra eyes can help you make "good" equipment" perform like "great" equipment.
Again, just my opinion...
-CK
 
CK Olsen said:
To put this in a different light, a talented filmmaker can wear many hats and do well enough on a project... but can often do far better work by reducing the amount of hats that need to be worn by any one person. Yes, one-man-band work can look stellar, but it sure is nice, if you can afford it, to bring in a couple other talented eyes to help up the game... those extra eyes can help you make "good" equipment" perform like "great" equipment.
Again, just my opinion...
-CK
Click to expand...

:iagree:..
 
The devil is in the details but the choke point is always the glass, so I would begin and end there. Figure out what your glass specific priorities are and work outward from there keeping Peter and CK's great advice in mind. That is how I would approach it. That is generally how I DO approach it, though not always. ;-)
 
Zakaree Sandberg said:
id drop the expensive camera before i dropped glass or lighting..
Click to expand...

I actually assumed some people would have this opinion. But I am curious what camera/glass combo you would have used for the spot under conversation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfV9M3UCm7Y

As mentioned at the top of the thread, this was an Epic-X with Nikon primes... I knew I wanted slow-motion on the beach, and I knew I wanted a 'Wes Andersonian' color-grade. Epic seemed like the logical choice to me; but what would you have used, and combined with what glass?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top