login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > Continuous lighting for video - Why not just... Search   Reply
12last
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 9,727
Santa Ana, California, US


I'm thinking about shooting some beauty video on my D800.

I'm trying to learn why I wouldn't just use my Profoto D4's modeling lights on full, rather than purchasing specialty video lighting?

The modeling lights on full, are absolutely blinding, (it's a 2400 pack). They're like a noonday sun for crying out loud.
Apr 15 13 02:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
intense_puppy
Posts: 862
Brighton, England, United Kingdom


I don't see any reason why not. You have all the modifiers you need already.
I'd just meter the light for your video shutter angle and if you get at least f4 then you're good to go.

The only reason I'd prefer fresnels over modelling lights is they can throw the light a further distance so they work better for moving/wide shots (which is what filmmaking is full of).
Apr 15 13 02:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Good Egg Productions
Posts: 15,061
Orlando, Florida, US


Why not?  Well, for one, you'll melt your model's face.

The further away you can get your lights from the model, the more comfortable she will be.
Apr 15 13 02:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
jdmax
Posts: 110
New York, New York, US


because your modeling light will be 250 watt? 500 watt?  Not very powerful.
You might want to sub in a higher watt bulb but can the head take the heat without melting?
Does it have attachments for the right fireproof softbox designed for video hotlights?
But it is tungsten which is 100% cri so thats about your only bonus
Apr 15 13 02:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 9,727
Santa Ana, California, US


Good Egg Productions wrote:
Why not?  Well, for one, you'll melt your model's face.

The further away you can get your lights from the model, the more comfortable she will be.

Well, I'll be the 1st to admit, I haven't used hotlights for maybe 20 years. But:

1) Why would I light any differently with hot lights than I do with strobes, in terms of specularity and source distance, etc.

2) Why would the fact that I'm using modeling lights vs. dedicated video lights be different in the heat generated. Unless I bought the expensive florescent / hmi or whatever the new rage cool lights are called.

Apr 15 13 02:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
jdmax
Posts: 110
New York, New York, US


because under hotlights your talent sweats bucketloads
Apr 15 13 02:59 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 9,727
Santa Ana, California, US


jdmax wrote:
because your modeling light will be 250 watt? 500 watt?  Not very powerful.
You might want to sub in a higher watt bulb but can the head take the heat without melting?
Does it have attachments for the right fireproof softbox designed for video hotlights?
But it is tungsten which is 100% cri so thats about your only bonus

These are expensive profoto heads, so I'm not going to replace the bulbs with something out of spec.
But you haven't seen the light output of these - it's like the floods I remember as a child for doing 8mm home movies. Now those were HOT.

Apr 15 13 03:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
jdmax
Posts: 110
New York, New York, US


I love the CRI of tungsten but I never ever shoot with them anymore. Nearly all my lighting money is tied up in kino flo and led's and rent the hmi's as needed. Video lighting is waaay expensive and for good reason. But go for it with the modeling lights, you already own them so you have nothing to lose. But I'm pretty sure you will reach there usability limits fast
Apr 15 13 03:04 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
intense_puppy
Posts: 862
Brighton, England, United Kingdom


John Allan wrote:
Well, I'll be the 1st to admit, I haven't used hotlights for maybe 20 years. But:

1) Why would I light any differently with hot lights than I do with strobes, in terms of specularity and source distance, etc.

2) Why would the fact that I'm using llamaing lights vs. dedicated video lights be different in the heat generated. Unless I bought the expensive florescent / hmi or whatever the new rage cool lights are called.

I think the point is that for the same output, you have to get them closer to the llama than fresnels which are designed to be placed further away and spotted in.

Apr 15 13 03:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Leonard Gee Photography
Posts: 16,022
Sacramento, California, US


John Allan wrote:
The modeling lights on full, are absolutely blinding, (it's a 2400 pack). They're like a noonday sun for crying out loud.

No. They are not.

Apr 15 13 04:10 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Good Egg Productions
Posts: 15,061
Orlando, Florida, US


John Allan wrote:

Well, I'll be the 1st to admit, I haven't used hotlights for maybe 20 years. But:

1) Why would I light any differently with hot lights than I do with strobes, in terms of specularity and source distance, etc.

2) Why would the fact that I'm using modeling lights vs. dedicated video lights be different in the heat generated. Unless I bought the expensive florescent / hmi or whatever the new rage cool lights are called.

That's exactly the point.  You DON'T light video the same as you do still photos.  I mean... you CAN, but it's dangerous and uncomfortable to the model.  This is where barndoors and grids really come in handy to shape your light from a distance rather than using your same modifiers for a blast of light milliseconds long.

That said, I've used my 150 watt modeling lights to light video, but I have to really crank up the ISO on the camera.  Usually, I'm using 1000 watt lights with barndoors and it really heats up a room.

Apr 15 13 04:21 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fred Gerhart
Posts: 736
San Antonio, Texas, US


Its simple to put an end to this nonsense. OP simply meter your modeling lights at full power and at the distance you intend your model to be. Then figure out if its enough light to shoot what's needed.

I really can't see the modeling lights getting it done but then again  I do not know your exact setup - number of heads, types of modifiers, etc.
Apr 15 13 04:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 9,727
Santa Ana, California, US


Leonard Gee Photography wrote:

No. They are not.

Ah - yep - they are.

Apr 15 13 04:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Brian Ziff
Posts: 4,105
Los Angeles, California, US


John Allan wrote:

Ah - yep - they are.

You can rent video lights for a day or two and shoot some direct comparisons.  I'm sure once you get into it you'll see a few key differences start to emerge.  You won't get the same versatility and usability (for video) with the modeling lamps on your strobes that you'll get with dedicated continuous lighting.  Or you could find that it totally suits your needs.  There's no right or wrong, but usually when you use the right tool for the job, you learn why it's considered to be the right tool.

Apr 15 13 04:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SayCheeZ!
Posts: 17,692
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


John Allan wrote:
I'm thinking about shooting some beauty video on my D800.

I'm trying to learn why I wouldn't just use my Profoto D4's modeling lights on full, rather than purchasing specialty video lighting?

The modeling lights on full, are absolutely blinding, (it's a 2400 pack). They're like a noonday sun for crying out loud.

Try it.
If it works well for you, keep doing it.

Some people will tell you that you need this kind of light, or that kind of light, or some other kind of light... but if you're already using something that works for you, more power to ya!

Apr 15 13 04:58 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,399
San Francisco, California, US


The other issue is color temperature.  I have daylight balanced HMI's that are 5500K degrees.  I also have Arri's and Mole Richardson's that are 3200K.

Assuming that you have all of your modeling lamps are set to full power and are halogens, then your white balance should be consistent, but you have to be careful that they are all at full power.  If you use a mix of lamp sizes (150w and 250w, for example), the color temperature may not be the same.

You can get by lighting video with almost anything.   A good friend of mine, that's directed 22 movies for NBC, likes to use worklights from home depot.  The rectangles work out well because they feather easily.

The bottom line is that I wouldn't want to light with modeling lamps, for a variety of reasons, but if that is all that you have, I think you can make them work.  If you are attempting to record sound, don't forget the fan noise from the lights.
Apr 15 13 04:58 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,399
San Francisco, California, US


Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
No. They are not.
John Allen wrote:
Ah - yep - they are.

If you want to see blinding, look straight into my Arri Daylight Compact 575 or 1000's.  Either one of those will burn your eyes if you stare right into them and they are not even considered large.

John, I know what you are trying to say, but your lights are extremely low power as compared to any of my professional Frenels.  I am not saying that you can't make them work.  I've used modeling lights in a pinch and I got the video to come out.  Leonard's point is well taken.  Your modeling lights are like candles compared to a frenel.

Apr 15 13 05:09 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 9,727
Santa Ana, California, US


It sounded so good, because I thought I could light beauty exactly how I do for film, but have the light be continuous. But yeah maybe the heat.
I know I could rent Profoto HMI that would work with my modifiers, but then again, I couldn't light the same way I'm used to up close. It would be a bit of a learning process to get the same beauty lighting, from like 10 ft away. For instance, unless I had an 8' dish it would be hard to get the same softness combined with specularity I like.

As I was typing this, I just realized that renting a profoto hmi, combined with my new focusable 8' parabolic, might give me something close. Although no grid.
Apr 15 13 05:17 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,399
San Francisco, California, US


John Allan wrote:
It sounded so good, because I thought I could light beauty exactly how I do for film, but have the light be continuous. But yeah maybe the heat.
I know I could rent Profoto HMI that would work with my modifiers, but then again, I couldn't light the same way I'm used to up close. It would be a bit of a learning process to get the same beauty lighting, from like 10 ft away. For instance, unless I had an 8' dish it would be hard to get the same softness combined with specularity I like.

As I was typing this, I just realized that renting a profoto hmi, combined with my new focusable 8' parabolic, might give me something close. Although no grid.

Just remember that the soft boxes we use with frenels are special "High Temperature" boxes.   That is true whether or not they are daylight.  If you try to put on a regular soft box, you might melt it.

Apr 15 13 05:19 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 9,727
Santa Ana, California, US


GPS Studio Services wrote:

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
No. They are not.

John, I know what you are trying to say, but your lights are extremely low power as compared to any of my professional Frenels.  I am not saying that you can't make them work.  I've used modeling lights in a pinch and I got the video to come out.  Leonard's point is well taken.  Your modeling lights are like candles compared to a frenel.

I'm sure you're right. I don't really have much experience with continuous lights, except par lights 30 years ago when I played in bands.
I was just hoping for a smooth transition from technology (and the use of it), that I know.

Apr 15 13 05:19 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 9,727
Santa Ana, California, US


GPS Studio Services wrote:

Just remember that the soft boxes we use with frenels are special "High Temperature" boxes.   That is true whether or not they are daylight.  If you try to put on a regular soft box, you might melt it.

Oh, that probably applies to an umbrella also. Although there's no softbox front. This focusable parabolic typically has the light inside, so it may be a distance of 3-4 ft from the fabric.

Apr 15 13 05:23 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,399
San Francisco, California, US


GPS Studio Services wrote:
Just remember that the soft boxes we use with frenels are special "High Temperature" boxes.   That is true whether or not they are daylight.  If you try to put on a regular soft box, you might melt it.
John Allan wrote:
Oh, that probably applies to an umbrella also. Although there's no softbox front. This focusable parabolic typically has the light inside, so it may be a distance of 3-4 ft from the fabric.

Yes, but umbrellas are usually a little bit less of a problem.  You don't have the ventilation issue because they are not enclosed.   You can burn one up, but it happens a lot less often than with a soft box.

Apr 15 13 05:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Karl JW Johnston
Posts: 9,313
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


If they work for your needs, who cares what the "best" tool is ? Use the one that works.
Apr 15 13 05:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Ken Marcus Studios
Posts: 8,415
Los Angeles, California, US


Modern Digital Video Equipment requires much less light than video needed even five years ago.

You'd be surprised how little light professional videographers use these days . . .

KM
Apr 15 13 05:37 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,399
San Francisco, California, US


Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Modern Digital Video Equipment requires much less light than video needed even five years ago.

You'd be surprised how little light professional videographers use these days . . .

KM

That is actually true, and I agree with you.  My problem with using llamaing lights are that I don't like the quality of the light, I like the controllability of the frenel, I like the fact that professional lighting is precisely balanced in terms of temperature as well as the fact that they are silent.  Most strobes have fans which interfere with recording sound.

In terms of the quantity of light, the llamaing lights, in many situations may be enough.  It is a lot different than film days when we used 2K's all the time.

Apr 15 13 06:10 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
jdmax
Posts: 110
New York, New York, US


Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Modern Digital Video Equipment requires much less light than video needed even five years ago.

ambient fill

Apr 15 13 08:40 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Smedley Whiplash
Posts: 17,240
Billings, Montana, US


I just bought 7 of these:  (to simulate Playboy style lighting in video)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Studio-20-x-28- … 4d03cfb23d

and then put the 85w (300w equivelent) daylight balanced florescents in them.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/110V-Photo-Dayl … 416dc5eb35

I think I have maybe around $250 out for this setup (using my existing studio stands)


Pros: lightweight, cool, daylight balanced, collapsible in seconds

Cons: not very robust... but that's a good trade for being lightweight & collapsible. The whole kit can fit in a 32in gym duffel.

I also switched out the studio's house lights (ceiling cans) for daylight balanced fluorescent bulbs, which gives me a matching ambient light to the whole room. Because of this, I can choose either matching fluorescent bulbs in the lamps on the set, or put in incandescent bulbs to get a warm look.



I have done video shoots with the modeling lights of AB's successfully, but they really don't put out enough juice to keep the ISO under 1600. With the lights above, I can shoot around 1200iso.

Alas... I've had them a month and haven't used them on a shoot yet.  lol.
Apr 16 13 08:48 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Giacomo Cirrincioni
Posts: 20,902
New York, New York, US


John Allan wrote:
Ah - yep - they are.

Maybe you feel that way because you have no experience on film sets.  But the modeling lamp on that pack is about the smallest light you'll find on set and almost never used to light talent (not bright enough).

Now, having said that, if you can shoot at high iso with that camera, and you're doing beauty style work, sure, you could use it just fine.

If you need to light from distance (think something more narrative) then they won't be powerful enough.

I've been working with litepanels lately (disclaimer, they are a client) and am loving them for this type of work.  Check out the Sola as well as the panels.

http://www.litepanels.com/sola6.php

Apr 16 13 10:45 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Giacomo Cirrincioni
Posts: 20,902
New York, New York, US


Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Modern Digital Video Equipment requires much less light than video needed even five years ago.

You'd be surprised how little light professional videographers use these days . . .

KM

When Sony sent me their F3 I was blown away by the low light capabilities compared to what I had been shooting.  The new F5(55) is even better.  The Alexa still needs more light, but still, nothing beats it (to me).

Apr 16 13 10:46 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MC Photo
Posts: 4,144
New York, New York, US


Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Modern Digital Video Equipment requires much less light than video needed even five years ago.

You'd be surprised how little light professional videographers use these days . . .

KM

Yes, but they are using slower shutter speeds and shorter lenses than you use for beauty.

You'd have to really crank up the ISO to compensate.

Apr 16 13 11:21 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Robert Feliciano
Posts: 485
New York, New York, US


Audio, audio, audio. That's why. The fans will be whirring the entire time. Did you notice that hot lights don't have fans?
The amount of time you waste taking out the background noise in post and money on the special mics you need to pick up only the talent's voice, you may as well buy the right lights. You may just be starting with beauty shots now with music instead of voice. But what happens when a client asks for a video with proper voice or environmental background?
And I agree with everyone else, not enough power. My Acute2 has a 250W modeling lamp. You can get a Lowel with 750W for
Apr 16 13 11:39 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rfordphotos
Posts: 4,609
Antioch, California, US


Smedley Whiplash wrote:
[...]

and then put the 85w (300w equivelent) daylight balanced florescents in them.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/110V-Photo-Dayl … 416dc5eb35

[...]

just an FYI.... I am using the ~same CFL bulbs, 85w, ~5500K

for those who prefer to avoid Ebay, they are available, cheaper, on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0019H … d_i=507846

edit to add:

I dabble in video, just fooling around trying to see ~if~ I can shoot anything I would show to anyone else. I have shot a couple clips for friends that they "directed"--- but nothing commercially oriented.

Initially shot some DSLR vids using the modeling lights on my Speedotrons and my existing modifiers.

If I cranked the iso up- it "worked" if you ignored the sound issue. 4 or 5 heads with fans however sounded pretty horrible.

I basically switched to --cheap-- CFL's in umbrellas using 2 or 3 85 watt bulbs per umbrella, and a cheap camcorder (Sony VG20)-- and get much better results. Not up to commercial standards by any stretch, but enough to learn a bit without a big investment.

Apr 16 13 11:47 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MMDesign
Posts: 18,647
Louisville, Kentucky, US


I just did some training videos with a D800 and it took much more light than I originally anticipated, and that was shooting at 400 ISO at 5.6.
Apr 16 13 12:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
bencook2
Posts: 3,817
Pageland, South Carolina, US


Leonard Gee Photography wrote:

No. They are not.

You win the award for least helpful post of all time.

Seriously.

Apr 16 13 12:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
bencook2
Posts: 3,817
Pageland, South Carolina, US


The good news is your shooting digital... try it out. See if you are getting the result you want.

As well, I think you will find that you can do what you want but your going to run into problems of your modeling lights needed to be too close to your subject to pull back the lens any.

But if you are shooting in tight I think the control you can gain from multiple lower powered lights might actually be a good thing.  I hope you give check back in with your results.
Apr 16 13 12:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 9,727
Santa Ana, California, US


Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Maybe you feel that way because you have no experience on film sets.  But the modeling lamp on that pack is about the smallest light you'll find on set and almost never used to light talent (not bright enough).

Now, having said that, if you can shoot at high iso with that camera, and you're doing beauty style work, sure, you could use it just fine.

If you need to light from distance (think something more narrative) then they won't be powerful enough.

I've been working with litepanels lately (disclaimer, they are a client) and am loving them for this type of work.  Check out the Sola as well as the panels.

http://www.litepanels.com/sola6.php

Yep - you're right never been on a film set. But when I lived in West Hollywood for a couple years, I saw quite a lot of strong lighting through silks on location sets when they were filming (It's hard to navigate around there without tripping over a film production staked out). And yes, modeling lights are not even in the same ballpark as those big lights - no argument. I was making my statement compared to the lighting I'm used to for still photography with strobes. They're really bright.

I used to use light panels quite a lot in the 90s, both in studio and on location.
When subtle long shadow transfer lighting fell out of favor, I for the most part stopped using them in favor of harder light. But I still have them and use them from time to time for fill.

Apr 16 13 12:55 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SKITA Studios
Posts: 1,563
Boston, Massachusetts, US


FWIW, it seems like "average" for video lighting is to use 1K lights for key and 500W for fill.  And it's more like 2.5K for daytime.

A 250W bulb is wayyy to low AFAIK.  I've been meaning to meter it when I have my studio lights set up but I keep forgetting :-P

p.s. the HMI's are a lot more efficient for the same wattage (like 4x) but are $2-3K/head :-(
Apr 16 13 01:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Tim Foster
Posts: 1,749
New York, New York, US


John Allan wrote:
I'm thinking about shooting some beauty video on my D800.

I'm trying to learn why I wouldn't just use my Profoto D4's modeling lights on full, rather than purchasing specialty video lighting?

The modeling lights on full, are absolutely blinding, (it's a 2400 pack). They're like a noonday sun for crying out loud.

No reason, unless you're using a lot of diffusion or need to balance with daylight. I generally don't use more than 2000 watts total for my video work. Also, your modeling lights have better color rendering than HMIs or Kino Flos.

I do disagree with the "brighter than the noonday sun" bit, though. Plug in an 18K HMI and you'll understand bright. That's equivalent to about 250 of your modeling lights.

Apr 16 13 01:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 9,727
Santa Ana, California, US


Robert Feliciano wrote:
Audio, audio, audio. That's why. The fans will be whirring the entire time. Did you notice that hot lights don't have fans?
The amount of time you waste taking out the background noise in post and money on the special mics you need to pick up only the talent's voice, you may as well buy the right lights. You may just be starting with beauty shots now with music instead of voice. But what happens when a client asks for a video with proper voice or environmental background?
And I agree with everyone else, not enough power. My Acute2 has a 250W modeling lamp. You can get a Lowel with 750W for
Apr 16 13 01:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Michael Walker
Posts: 11,957
Costa Mesa, California, US


I do it. I just use the older Photogenics that have no fans. Works fine for soft general lighting. Of course the power is not so much especially when you blast them through diffusers of any kind. But it works. I also use Arris and Lowel DPs and when I have a budget, my favorite lights in the world are Kino Flos (Usually the Diva). At $1K each I can't justify buying them so it's a rental. It's all just light. Not so important how you get it as it is what you do with it. And yes I've used Home Depot Worklights. Spray them black with engine paint and they stuff nicely into small spaces. I LOVE shiny boards for outside.
Apr 16 13 01:45 pm  Link  Quote 
12last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers