Making Videos - Gear and Tips?

Hi Gordon, That must be an awesome looking kitchen.

One of the things I learned while studying television camera / studio operations under an adult continuing ed program at one of our colleges, is to get the camera as close in physically as possible, to help it take in as much light as it could. Inverse square law states that for every radius from the subject, there is an exponentially dimmer amount of light entering the camera. At 2r, light is 1/4th as bright, and at 3r, it's 1/9th as bright, ect. Same goes for the light sources to the subject.

My next big goal is to obtain a good switcher for a/b roll editing.

Hi Thomas,
Sorry to jump on an old thread, but I'm new here, and I'm going through trying to pick up as much info as I can (really like your videos, by the way). I have stumbled upon something that I can actually have some constructive input on :) I'm a sometime professional photographer, albeit not a videographer.

The rules you state regarding light fall off and the relationship from the source to the subject are correct... but only if we are considering a point light source. When you are lighting yourself with point sources (such as the builder's lamps mentioned), then the distance between you (the subject) and the light is important, and will fall off just as you were told.

However, when we consider the reflected light coming from the subject (to the camera), there is effectively no single point to consider. In theory, there is a falloff effect as the foreground subject is still a light source, but in practical application (e.g. shooting in a medium sized room up to, say 20ft away) it makes no appreciable difference.

Your shooting distance should be dictated by the effect you are after. Assuming you want to fill the frame with yourself from the theremin up to the top of your head, if you come in too close (setting the lens to its widest) you will promote distortion, to the extent that the straight antenna on the theremin may well look bowed (if at the edge of the frame) due to the inherent effects of a wide-angle lens. Getting in close with a wide angle can give a distorted (unflattering) view of human features as well. Wides are great when you need them... but are generally to be avoided for straight "documentary" type application. There are some theremin performance videos on YouTube that work well with the wide approach.

Getting back about ten feet (if possible) and using a longer setting on the lens will be better for your documentary style. The viewer see a more natural perspective and not be distracted by any distortions. There is no real downside from the lighting point of view.

Maybe bounce the builders lights off a white wall (or sheet) if possible as they can be pretty harsh when used directly. Be careful with anything you use to diffuse them as they can get pretty hot. There are multiple options for home lighting, just be careful about mixing different sources because of the inability of the camera to color correct for (say) mixed natural and tungsten lighting.

Cheers
Peter

Hello Bish. Welcome to TW, and New York.

Sorry I'm a couple of days late seeing your comment.

I see what you're talking about where wide angle settings are concerned. I'll certainly take that, and your lighting info into account on my next vid. I have been giving thought to using reflected light, rather than direct.

Thanks for the info, and the kind words.

If the light is camera mounted, then the light would fall off as the distance between the camera and subject increases.

Good lighting DOES make the difference between a mediocre video and a great one.

One of the reasons I have made few videos is because I find it very time-consuming and I don't really have the equipment to make professional-looking videos.

My (minority) opinion is that a video that presents a piece of music - theremin or otherwise - is better with visuals which complement the music rather than simply illustrating the means of its production.

For an instructional video certainly a professional studio finish adds a degree of credibility, but, were I equipped with a video camera other than the one in my macbook, I doubt I'd point it at me and my theremin much. I'd probably be outside where lighting is less of an issue looking for strong images. :-)

I agree with Gordon 100% for interpretive visuals. Something that is designed to complement or contrast with the music to enhance the overall listener/viewer experience. I find Gordon's visuals totally in keeping with the music he's presenting. I've even started trawling through the archives for footage and trying to get to grips with Final Cut Express (or at least iMovie). I'm finding the whole "Beat Frequency" style very much to my liking.

I have multiple options in my still lighting set-up. Some configurations fit the classic "portrait" requirements, whereas my own personal style is a million miles away from classic portraiture... but horses for courses. If someone wants a portrait... that's what they get (there's always a business for head-shots). I was approaching the issue from the "instructional video" point of view, where nothing should detract from the message or distract the viewer.

I think that if we step away from the instructional side of things, there is plenty of room for the constructive use of imagery. Even "classic" pieces that would (may) sit uneasily atop an interestingly juxtaposed, processed mash-up of archive footage would benefit from appropriate visuals. For want of a better cliche, a solid performance of "The Swan" could benefit from cutting the image of the performer to some tasteful stock of... er, swans :)

I'm off to try some more mash-ups. I'm having fun with the video thing... now, am I going to add the soundtrack to a video, or am I going to add visuals to the music...

:-)

I fear that if I were to play The Swan it would have to be accompanied by visuals resembling the poetry of Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minor_characters_from_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Paula_Nancy_Millstone_Jennings).


(Bish - fwiw, I mostly stretch the clips to fit the audio and do overlays in quicktime pro, then add titles and tweak the levels in iMovie. Most of my footage comes from the Prelinger Archives (which is all public domain) at archive.org.)