@starstuff i rarely use more than 4 lights. This was done with 2 plastic ball-lights, which are just these cheap white balls of plastic that you stick an incandescent bulb in. They were on either side of the bed about 7 feet apart, and we had them up on wine glasses to get them a little higher, and more even with his head. the back one was pulled out a bit from the wall to get a better angle. You could use small china-balls instead and it'll do the same thing. And I had them on dimmers. (go build a few, like right now...I'm serious. Why are you still reading this? Go make yourself some damn dimmers!!!) I used some double stick tape to stick a 2 foot flo bar on the wall above his head (the hair highlight got cropped in that pic), and there is no fill light

The colors of the sheets, head board, and curtains helps a lot. You can't pull this off with white walls and white sheets. In my opinion white walls are at best; a nuisance, and at worst; the devil. It'll all be covered in the CGT film school - coming very soon.

Really beautiful stuff Shian!

updated reel

Now contains footage from my recent shoots, and some shots have updated grading with release version of CGT. (2011 Reel done with prototype)

Thanks Shian Looking forward to it =)

+1 :)

It's the same with everything though isn't it. Anything can be fixed, it's just a matter of how much money you have to throw at it.

@johnnym Excellent point. The Alexa has an amazing sensor, and costs $80,000 for a body. I can't show you the footage because the project is still in development, but in 2010 I shot a short scene for a proof of concept in available light on the RED M-X @1600 with Zeiss super speeds, and 1600 worked great. But you should have seen how freaked out the producer was that I was even considering going past 800, and not using lights. We did a couple of test shots at 2000 and 3200 in that same light just to see what would we get, and after looking at the footage projected, It was a unanimous decision that we never exceed 1600 on the project. There was noise, mild banding and sensor pattern grids (moire) that would require heavy post processing, and would not fit within the budget (Which by Hollywood standards was low, but it's more money than most of us will make in a lifetime).

There was a lot of discussion amongst my colleagues when the Alexa and the M-X chip first came out about how little noise there was @1600, and with really fast lenses we could shoot things we couldn't shoot before. BUT there are problems - enough so that my old mentor John Lowry was called upon to scrub the grain, moire, and banding in all the 2000 ISO footage from "The Social Network" to make it presentable. And trust me there's NOTHING on the market that even approaches John's methods ( http://www.lowrydigital.com ) If there was, Reliance wouldn't be in business. You could take your footage to Reliance, and you'd spend more than the cost of an Alexa just fixing one scene shot in available light to get that look. So don't take everything you read at face value. There are forces at work behind the scenes that are beyond our meager pocketbooks. Roger Deakins doesn't operate in the same monetary world as the average DSLR shooter. I'm advising you based on your GH2 purchase, and assuming you do not posses the monetary means to shoot Alexa or RED, and pay high 6 figures for post-production.

And we're talking about the Alexa and the M-X, NOT the GH2 - 4K 4:4:4 cameras with high native ISOs vs a 1080 4:2:0 camera with a 320 native ISO. Having shot on all 3, I'm telling you, there is no comparison. I love my GH2, and when used within it's limitations I can get really great looking stuff out of it, but it is simply not in the same class with Alexa and RED, not at 1600, not even close, much less above. And everything I've shot at 1600 I've used GHrain Killer on to ease the noise and mild moire. I've shown you that the GH2 has a limited effective Dynamic Range, and in the film school series I'll show you how to operate within that range, how to think within the limitations in order to have flexibility within that range, BUT you are limited to that range.

I get it, we all love our GH2. It is an AMAZING cameras, and with the hack development, we've learned that the camera is so much more than what people thought it could be. Many of us, myself included, have made the mistake believing it was MORE than it was capable of being. (There's a lot of 5D and 7D users making the same mistakes) But it has limitations. Who knows? Maybe the GH3 will be the camera to smash through the boundaries, maybe the C300 and the Mark III already have (Granted they are pricey). I'm sure someday soon, digital will sense light as well as the human eye, if not better, with no noise or artifacts. But it's not now, and we live and work in the now.

The banding issue can be fixed right now, but it has to be done by an intricate, patented process. And it's about as much fun to do as a root canal. If I could figure out how to do it another way...well I'd be rich. And there are already finer minds than my own that have been working on the problem for years. And before you ask, no, I can't do a tutorial on it... not without being sued. It is a patented process. I've been very careful that everything I've done with CGT not infringe upon those patents. It's very serious business.

But like i said, I'll try to find a way within CGT to reduce the effect, but for now, don't shoot above 1600. -- There's an old joke about the guy who goes to the doctor and says, "My arm hurts when I bend it like this". And the doctor says, "It's not suppose to bend like that. Knock it off."

@shian I'm no expert and i don't know what you'd normally shoot at, but reading through Roger Deakins' forum, i read that he with the Alexa he has the possibility to shoot with just the available light. Doesn't that mean he does sometimes shoot over 1600 ISO? Just thinking out loud here. I would think the Alexa can effortlessly handle that and that digital sensors now far exceed the capabilities of film?

@shian Love that grab. Hopefully when you get time you can show us how you did that one?

@shian sorry to go off topic but is Singularity online? I was watching the BTS on your vimeo but I couldn't see the film itself.

@shian I would bet that the issue exits in every GH2 out there. It's only more evident in some of them. In my case (I have an early 2011 body), it's clearly visible in fairly underexposed scenes above ISO 1600 and in anything above ISO3200 (the ISO limit removal in the hack is useless in most cases because of the issue). Some surfaces make the problem far more evident: walls with midtones, etc. Normally I don't bump into the issue because it's rare that I need that combination of high ISO and underexposure, but I want to shoot a doc in the dark night of my old neighborhood and being able to use higher ISOs and shoot against walls with confidence would be nice. I tried this solution: http://personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/11422#Comment_11422 with some success but only some. That’s why I thought that the power of the GHears combined with your expertise could give us a solution to get rid/minimize the problem but obviously only if you have the time and consider this worth it.

@shian It would be really nice to have a tutorial on using ColorGHear to get rid of the infamous horizontal band: http://personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/36898#Comment_36898

Do you think that we could have something like that in the near future? It's one of the only things about this camera that really bug me.

Thanks!

@shian that frame is beautiful! He's not the same guy from Aaron Sims' Archetype is he?