ExposureRoom Home
  Log in Sign Up
Shiv's Website
Shiv Kumar
United States
Friends: 69
Focused on : 1
 
       
                                                             

Soft box and Compact Fluorescent Lights for Video

4.674.674.674.674.673votes
April 24, 2008 05:50 PM  Views:578   Favorited:0 Comments:19
Filed Under:  Cinematography, Videography
Tags:  CFL, Compact Fluorescent, Interview Lighting, Soft Box, Soft Light
 

Soft box and Compact Fluorescent Lights for Video

One of the first things I wanted/needed to do when I first started down the route of videography was to do some corporate interviews. This obviously meant that besides buying a good HD video camera (I bought the Canon XH-A1 prosumer HD Video camera) I needed a lot of other paraphernalia such as tripod, microphone and lights.

Lights for Corporate style Interviews

This post focuses on lights required to shoot corporate style interviews. Of course like with everything else one doesn’t just arrive at the answer in the first go and so it took me a few iterations to get it right. During these iterations there was a lot of frustration, time spent and money wasted. So I hope those reading this article and benefit from my experience and get it right the first time. First I bought one of those light kits you see touted by most video/photo light stores (Lowell for example). The kits sounded like they had everything I would need. As it turns out I didn’t know I needed a soft box to make my interviewee look good, especially since most corporate types are not in their teens and so the kit I bought was one that did not include a soft box. I didn’t know I needed one and secondly, those kits cost more than twice that of the one I bought.

So I went back to doing more research. Unfortunately, the more research I did, the more confusing it became and the more costly the whole affair of buying the right lights was turning out to be. And eventually you read about people saying they just went out and bought work lights from Home Depot and got the job done or they built their own soft box using compact fluorescent lights (CFL). Now this may be a solution for what you’re trying to do, but it wasn’t for me and once again, I only found out after having spent the time, money and effort.

Now I’m quite handy provided I have all the tools (which I don’t) and so after buying work lights from Home Depot only to find that they’re only good to light up the background and stuff at best (I’ll explain this in the next section) I started down the route of making my own soft box using CFLs.

Soft Light versus Soft box

During all of this and in speaking with various people I found that people use soft light and soft box interchangeably. Without boring you with light theory, let me just tell you they are not the same! A florescent tube or bulb could be considered a soft light or a work light from home depot with it’s glass sand blasted to give it the diffused look might be considered a soft light, they are NOT a soft box. What you really need is a broad source (of light) and not a point source and a florescent tube/bulb or a work light is a point source. A point source produces hard or stark shadows while a broad source produces nice soft shadows. Further a broad source produces a nice “wrap around” light in that even though your key light is on one side of the subject because the light it broad it tends to wrap around to the other side. Depending on the placement of lights and the look you’re after, you may not need a fill light (or bounce card) when using a broad source of light. So If you want your subjects to look good (soft shadows and fewer wrinkles) on camera you need a broad source of light that is also a soft light. In other words you need is a large soft box.

Researching Compact Fluorescent Lights

The first thing I knew I should do is do some research on CFLs since these bulbs have a (bad) reputation and I wanted to see if it was even possible to get a good light in terms of quality of light using CFL for video. Ask anyone of any forum and you’ll almost always be told not to bother since a CFL that produces good quality light does not exist or can’t match up to incandescent or halogen lights the pros use.

Building your own Soft Box Versus Buying

Before I go into the how to choose your CFL bit I should point out that another aspect of building your own versus buying readymade began to stare me in the face. How do I mount the light? How do I control the height, pan, tilt etc? I quickly realized that building the light (head) itself was the simple part, but getting it to mount and being able to control the height and pan and tilt angles was actually going to be harder. It would mean that I’d have to buy the light stands and somehow rig my light heads to fit on these stands and somehow also control the pan and tilt angles effectively. Last but not least, did I really want to go to a client for an interview shoot using stuff that looks homemade and cheap? No way!

So I decided that I was going to buy a softbox (or two) that used CFLs) rather than trying to make my own. However, I needed to continue with my research on CFLs so that I could understand what the makers of these lights were saying and if needed, I could use other CFL bulbs in their lights.

CFLs and Quality of Light

So let me explain what quality of light means as it pertains to videography and photography. The best source of quality light is our sun. This is so because the light it gives out out covers the whole visible spectrum of light almost evenly. Simply put, when you see things in sunlight you see everything in their natural color and no one color appears more pronounced than the other. At least for human beings sunlight is the standard or point of reference and all other light is measure against it. This quality of light is also measured as Color Rendering Index or CRI. Light bulbs are given a CRI rating between 0-100. An “ideal” incandescent or halogen bulb is considered to have a CRI of 100. So now our point of reference shifts to these kinds of bulbs (also known as blackbody emitters) . So given that incandescent and halogen bulbs have the best quality of light (CRI) it would be pretty hard for a CFL to match a CRI of 100. And here is where all hell breaks loose because of the stigma attached to CFL and florescent tubes. Older florescent lights have 3 major issues.

  1. A very low CRI
  2. On video and Photos they would produce a greenish tinge. This is because the light these tubes produce has a spike in the green frequency and so things look kind of green. These lights also have dips in other light frequencies and so other colors don’t show up as well.
  3. You’d see a flicker in your video due to the shutter speed of your video and the fact that these tube kind of flicker. Something you notice when you look at them.

Now CFLs are a newer technology and so some or all of these issues can be fixed, however the bulbs you typically purchase at Home Depot are NOT the answer (at least not at the time of writing this article). The CRI rating of these bulbs is typically 82. That’s not so good for what we intend to use them for. Some manufacturers call their bulbs “Full Spectrum”. I assume this means close to a CRI of 100 but I’ve never been able to find the CRI rating on the packaging and so I assume this is marketing hype in most cases.

92 CRI CFLs

After doing some searching, I eventually came across NaturalLighting.com. They have a vast array of bulbs and they clearly indicate the CRI and other specs on their bulbs. The ones I bought are These

Steve Kaeser Cool Flo Light Kit

I bought my soft boxes from Steve Kaeser. Specifically, I bought this kit. The kit consist of 2 32x32 inch soft boxes with stands, light heads and bulbs. The bulbs that came with the lights are a bit larger than the regular bulbs including the bulbs I bought, but they fit in the same sized bulb holder (U.S house hold). Their specifications are:

  • 150W light output/42W power consumption
  • 2800 lumens
  • 5100K
  • CRI - don't know
 

Here is a frame grab from a test shot I did with these lights

Comments



Kevin Barbee    April 25, 2008 09:29 PM

This was very informative Shiv, and well written. You get right to the point without me having to read 12 pages. I have avoided learning about lighting, because people just get too deep. I just need some basic knowlege. This really helps me out.

Shiv Kumar    April 26, 2008 12:56 AM

Kevin,

I'm glad you found the article informative. Yes, there is so much to learn and therefore say about lighting and I was in two minds whether to go into detail or keep it to the point :).

Will Mahoney    May 16, 2008 01:13 PM

Good post, Shiv.

I am severely lacking in my lighting ability. Actually, not lacking so much as nonexistant. A good read. Thanks.

Shiv Kumar    May 16, 2008 01:44 PM

Truth be told, the first shoot I attempted was an interview shoot. I had some lights (I bought a lighting kit like every other noob out there) and little did I know that the lights were the cause of a lot my heart ache. I must have redone the shoot about 6 times before I got to where it is (what you see there). I'm still not happy with it (from the way it looks).

If you're planning interview style shoots a softbox is a MUST.

Will Mahoney    May 16, 2008 03:33 PM

Actually, I'm scheduled to head to Chicago to shoot the new offices for my employer's sister company, JC Whitney Automotive. I'll be filming their new location and getting documentary/interview footage for a corporate information video that the Art Director and I are trying to do.

So I'll need to start practicing this style of shooting. Thanks!

Shiv Kumar    May 16, 2008 03:39 PM

Yes, practice and the right set of lights to go with. You should also scout the areas in which you'll shoot the interviews. So if it's an office, you should take a look at it for things such as, where the windows are, does the sun light come in and if so during what times of day. How big the office is? How will you shoot (where's the talent, the camera) and is there space for lights. All that kind of stuff.

Will Mahoney    May 16, 2008 03:45 PM

Shiv,
The offices are huge. It's the whole 30th floor of one of the big high-rises in downtown Chicago. I'm actually really psyched. And the whole floor is enclosed by floor to cieling windows, so I'll have to be extra careful of what is in the background, outside with the other buildings. A dirty, rusty fire escape or banners advertising cheap apartments would not be flattering... :)

Shiv Kumar    May 16, 2008 04:34 PM

Yes, extra careful I would be too. It also means you can't use artificial lights of your own. In offices you typically have florescent light and those lights tend to have a green hue. Mix that light with Sunlight and you’ve probably got a lighting nightmare.
I think you should scout the place one day. Shoot some test footage with at least one person in a location that’s quite likely. Check out how the sun moves with respect to the building and offices. Stuff like that. Come back and check the footage for color issue. Do the windows have shades if you need to shade them because the sun is streaking straight in onto the talent? Take black sheets and white sheets with lots of gaffer tape. Be prepared really. There is a lot more involved than meets the eye.
What about sound? Do you have the right gear to be able to capture good quality audio? Chairs, should have low backs to the extent you don’t see the backrest of the chair. Stuff like that.

Maybe you should shoot in their conference room and change the set for each person.

Will Mahoney    May 19, 2008 07:46 AM

I'm glad that you asked...

Shiv,
I'm glad that you asked about audio. I currently have a wireless lavalier, a Samson Airline UHF. It was not too expensive and has really worked for doing installations and whatnot. I don't have to worry about the talent always "facing" the camera for me to get good audio.
I just hope that the quality is good enough for a "commercial" project. This corporate info DVD is really a big step for me and I need it to go beautifully. I'll get a lot of experience, and score a lot of points with the higher-ups.
I think I'll start doing some mock-interviews over the next few weeks. Wait, why throw away work? I'll do some real interviews with people that I work with. Maybe I can put them up on the company internal network and people can see them. It'd be good practice for me, anyways.

Shiv Kumar    May 19, 2008 08:18 AM

Yes, audio can totally ruin the result. For me even a muffled sound (the kind you normally get with a lav) is bad :). No matter what kind of mic you have (cardioid, omni-directional etc.) you get the best sound when the talent speaks directly into the mic (even if the mike is out of the frame, the mike should face the talent).

If you have time to practice, got for it. Really, there are lots of little things you learn that you can't read about but can only learn through experience. Keep a large distance between the subject and background. 1/3 of the distance between camera and talent and 2/3 of the distance between talent and background.

Will Mahoney    May 19, 2008 08:49 AM

Right. I'll keep the background far enough away to be out of focus so that we concentrate on the person in frame. Which is another thing I'll need to figure out; Framing.

(Wow, actually typing this out is making me think about a lot of stuff that I haven't thought about yet, stuff that never crossed my mind before.)

I'll have to see where to put the person in the frame, how much of them to include in the frame (I'll be relying heavily on the rule of thirds) and what angle to be shooting at. I certainly don't want to be pointing down at them in any way, as if they are unimportant, but I also don't want to angle up at them too much. And do I do a 3/4 view, or have them directly face the camera?

I think that people look off to the side of the camera in documentaries and interviews...

Myself or someone else (producer?) will likely have to sit out of frame and actually ask the questions that prompt the person to talk on camera. Plus, I don't want the subject actually talking to the camera, right? I want them talking to someone off camera, just to the side of the camera.

Oftentimes I see interviews where we can see the person from two different angles. But I only have one camera. I can shoot the pic in 1080, but the final copy will likely be in SD. So I can pull different SD framing options out of the much larger HD picture, but that won't change the overall angle. I can jump "closer" for different framing (close-up vs. chest-to-forhead), but the angle will still be the same.

Should I do the interviews twice and just cut between the two different angles? This seems like it would be choppy and wouldn't match up too well (they won't likely answer the same exact way.)

Now, I do have another camera, but it's just a cheap single chip Canon DV camera. I could have this little guy set up at a different angle and cut to that footage from time to time, but it will in no way match what is coming out of the A1. Maybe I could still use it, but make it obvious that it's a different camera with a different angle. I can tweak the footage to be black and white, or have an artistic, but appropriate, twist of the colors. Ooh, the offices are supposed to be very "lively and energetic," and purple... :) Maybe I can do a color pass and just leave the purple in the picture, rendering everything else black and white.

You've got me thinking about a lot of grea things, Shiv. I thank you. We might see a blog post on this soon.

Shiv Kumar    May 19, 2008 09:28 AM

Will,

I don't think you need to shoot twice or use two cameras. In fact you don't need to hear the interviewer at all. The answers should help the viewer understand the basic question.

If you look at the videos I have you'll get an idea of the kind of framing, angle, composition and where the talent needs to look (slightly off camera). I did a lot of reading/research and stuff myself :).

The interviewer's role is important as well. Besides asking the right questions, the interviewer must provide the interviewee with visual feedback. Show interest in what the interviewee is saying (even though she may already know the stuff). Essentially partake in the "conversation" an an interested party hearing it for the very first time. This is key to a successful interview.

Will Mahoney    May 19, 2008 09:43 AM

Definitely! I'll need the interviewer to really engage the subject and get some good answers and feedback out of them.

Is it recommended for me to always stay behind the camera, watching the footage and audio levels? Yes, ideally I would have a dedicated sound person, but I'm not there yet and can't pay anyone for this.

Or can I set up the frame, lock down the tripod, and just sit next to the camera and do the interview myself?

Shiv Kumar    May 19, 2008 10:00 AM

Use headphone to monitor sound (once you've adjusted the level). In an ideal world, yes you should be behind the camera monitoring visuals. But in the videos you see (besides the one with me in it) I sat next to the camera as the interviewer. Since I know the frame I'd keep an eye out for things that either appear in frame (that shouldn't) or if I found the subject moved forwards or back I'd check for focus and stuff. So it's possible play all 3 roles (camera man, sound man and interviewer) as one :)

Will Mahoney    May 19, 2008 10:06 AM

That's how I'm running right now, lean and mean. Just me, myself, and I. I'm excited, Shiv, and you're helping me greatly. I appreciate it.

Shiv Kumar    May 19, 2008 10:24 AM

Glad to be of help Will,

I went through all of this recently so I know exactly how you're feeling :).

Will Mahoney    May 19, 2008 10:26 AM

I appreciate it.

Big time!

Joe Shaw    June 20, 2008 10:45 AM

Shiv, I'm trying to track down some of this equipment in the UK. Not easy it seems. DO you think these bulbs could be the same type as yours?

http://www.reptile-products.co.uk/Repti_Glo_20_Compact_26w.htm

Seems odd, but look like it might be...

Any ideas of where to get the softboxes in the UK? Are they a specific make?

Good post by the way. I love the way that interview looks.

Shiv Kumar    June 20, 2008 11:05 AM

Joe,
The blubs (from their specs) seem to be perfect. They have a high CRI of 98 they claim, if that's the case they are excellent. I've noticed too that these bulbs are typically used for the purposes that site mentions. So the bulbs seem right in terms of quality of light.

The soft boxes themselves, yes they are a specific make (the ones I use) but there are other manufacturers making similar soft boxes here in the US. I remember seeing them recently (a few months ago). But I don't know about who or where, outside the US.

I guess with shipping and VAT, buying them from the US is out huh?

Yes, I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of light too. I heard so much negative stuff about fluorescent lights (of course most of it was to do with the old tubes and the rest to do with the cheap compact fluorescent bulbs) and was very skeptical about buying them, but once I did my first test I knew I had a winner. I have regular hot lights and was having a hack of time making things look good with them :).



Leave a comment
Data Entry Error
First Name:  Last Name: 
Title:
Comment:  Required Information 
   Required Information Indicates Required Information

Menus

Theme

Privacy Policy  |  Terms Of Service  |  Contact Us  |  Support  |  Help/FAQs  |  News