Lighting for IMAG - Color temperature

[Esoteric]

Oh, I agree that IF you can have your cake and eat it too (which is the case 90% of the time) then you need to do that. There is no excuse for sloppy work when it can be corrected.

But sometimes the limitations of the camera mean that we can not have our cake and eat it too. A few examples from my experience.....

1. The Magenta/Dark Blue problem - Since a lot of cameras can not distinguish between the two, in order for everything to be "correct" I would have to avoid using that color, which robs the live experience

2. Many camera's have a problem with a dark background and lack of a sufficient level of light. However some songs just have to have that low level front light and that completely dark background (or even worse, the completely black background with a bright, white spot).

3. A light cue with intense front light, a dark background, and strobing lights. Drives camera's crazy. But sometimes it is necessary.

Those are just two off the top of my head. There are times when the video and the live experience will clash. In that case, the live experience MUST win out. Now if you can do both, you should, but if there is a clash, the live experience must win out.

Mike

[tdangelo]

Mike,

This is a good exchange. Please do not take anything here personal. I appreciate your input.

I think all of the effects you describe can be achieved for camera (even a cheap camera) and for the live audience if the LD is willing to live within the constraints of the medium. For example, your example #2 is a really good illustration of my point. Most professional cameras have a dynamic range of about 7-8 stops (meaning that the brightest object in the frame cannot be more than 7-8 stops than the darkest item in the frame). A really expensive professional camera may get you 10-12 stops of dynamic range. Consumer cameras (or consumerish cameras) have a very restrictive dynamic range. If the LD lights a scene with fifteen or sixteen stops of range no video camera manufactured will reproduce it. On the other hand if the LD (per your example) lights with a blacked-out background and a strong white spot as key), but does so staying within the dynamic range of the medium the live audience will still get the effect (back background, white spot key), but so will the camera. So, the issue here in my example is not that a particular camera is good, or bad, cheap or expensive, but rather the ability of the humans to stay within the capabilities of the medium.

If the LD lights for the live audience (without considering the video medium constraints) he will very likely create effects which do not translate well in the camera.

There are many other examples I could bring, regarding the limitations of camera colorimetry, rolling shutter, recording compression, etc., and how they effect potential lighting designs … however the principle remains the same.

Another good analogy that you may or may not be aware of is shooting in 3D. First time producers and directors often look at 3D as being “a costly effect.” Thus, to get their money’s worth they seek to turn the “3D volume” up to TEN no matter what the scene is. After all, if a wide I/O convergence and parallax is good, then a wider I/O convergence and parallax must be better, right? Doing so however can have serious physiological affects on the viewer and detract rather than enhance the performance. On the other hand if the producer and director work within the 3D and physiological limitations, 3D can be enhancing to content and not distract the viewer.

Please forgive the long winded response, but I hope my point was made.

[Esoteric]

I understand and appreciate where you are coming from Tom. It is a good exchange.

I understand what you mean about working within the restraints (I have had many a Video Director come to me and ask me to make changes to cues) of the technology, but sometimes the restraints of the technology are too restraining and thus you have to work for the live audience.

In this example, when you drop the intensity on a light (to get it into the "acceptable" range for video) you get a shift into the warmer side of the spectrum. Now in this mythical design, I don't want an amber spotlight, I want a white spotlight. In addition the effect may (or may not) require the intensity of the light at 100% rather than 50% (but we will ignore this situation for now and assume the light could be run at 50% thus creating the color shift). Now some clients will have the money to hang two different lights (one with a color filter to run at 50% without an amber shift and one to run for normal numbers) but a lot will not.

So I have two choices. Compromise my live design or just live with the video results. For me, in any environment other than a studio, the live design wins out 10 times out of 10.

Like I said, if a compromise can be found, then you need to find one. But there are times that either the live experience or the video is going to suffer. In my line of work, I always choose to give priority to the live performance.

Mike

PS I know you have thought of this, but in case others have not, the compromise can also sometimes come from the Video Director (by framing the shot differently perhaps). For example I had a church that had a problem with the background behind their pastor. They couldn't put anything other than a black curtain right behind him, but they had colored set pieces off to each side. So by simply doing the shot 10 degrees off center from 50 ft back, BAM! instant color and it improved the background lighting level.

[TheReverendDave]

To bring back this thread and color temperature...

I'm currently looking into camera's with CCU control. Our church is in the process of building a new auditorium, and new "studio" cameras will be in the mix for the installation. Ive done some preliminary research into CCU controls and cameras. It seems to me that Sony cameras are really the only option. Panasonic controllers seem limited to their cameras, especially when it comes to white balancing. I've only heard good things about Sony cams and CCU control.

What are your thoughts/opinions? Is Sony the only way to go?

[waynehoskins]

Originally Posted by TheReverendDave

Is Sony the only way to go?

I don't think Sony is the only way to go, but they're a good way to go. Other big-name players are Ikegami and Grass Valley (GVG soaked up old Thomson/BTS). The big names all make excellent cameras, and the major lens manufacturers (Canon, Fujinon) make excellent glass for all of them.

Panasonic, on the other hand, I don't recall making studio cameras. I've used some of their old analog cameras, the F250s, and they were decent but decidedly not as nice as real broadcast studio cameras.

The more recent Thomson cameras are a multi-purpose field/studio configuration: that is, they're fundamentally a field/ENG head that mounts in a studio adapter. I've read sports guys gripe about that, saying the studio/sports configuration isn't as good as a dedicated studio head, but depending on what you're doing, the multi-purpose configuration may be an advantage. Even though the sports guys hate them, I can see why people build trucks with them.