I could tell with the B front door it was cheap setup but once he started moving it had a great backlight and I questioned if I had guessed correctly, quickly answered by the lack of light beams through haze. Love seeing what can be done with cheap stuff- no excuses! Go film!
My guess before i find out is A was pro, B was cheap. The lighting just seemed more controlled in the A shot, even though it was very dark (super dark scenes seem to be a trend right now)
Yo!! I started watching you guys like 11 years ago when I first got interested in filmmaking and was making stuff in the backyard with friends, yesterday we pulled up one of your videos in my film class!! Film Riot Forever!
I like the first part from the low budget one better and the second part from the pro version. This is why I've alway loved Film Riot, you've taught me that both budget worlds work well and you can even mix them.
The thing that definitely gave it away for me was the scene prior to the one Ryan mentions with the window. When I saw Justin walk in to the other room the powerful light from the window that was cast on the floor giving both light and dark shadows at the same time. In the DIY version that has disappeared. As a low budget filmmaker myself I´ve studied how the big players think. But one thing that fascinates me more is that on the rehearsal Justin walks like he´s carrying a gun in his hands. I wonder what the original idea for this scene was?
The expensive and the low budget kits both did an amazing job. It is noticeable, but if you only had a low budget the low budget set up used properly like this doesn't take you out of the film. It's adds a little bit of a grungy feel. However I do prefer the high budget look on the second shot
PLEASE, do more of these type of videos. I miss the budget stuff. Would love to see you guys do a cheap gear with a Cell phone video. Definitely taking it to a full no budget plus everyone who keeps complaining about cameras would have nothing to say aha
IT is surprisingly similar, crazy how good the DP is, THe way I knew A was the most expensive was not at 11:53 but as soon as you turn the camera from the first location to the box on the floor. The first one looked so great with the harsh shadows, but the second one did not have the direction. I don't say it looks bad, but I really loved the light from sequence A. But I agree that first half of the sequence, B looks a bit better :-)
Nice going back to your low budget / no budget roots. I love seeing the high end stuff as well but I'm still at the "can lights, parchement papaer and shower curtains" stage. LOL
Rye should have held the lights fans down so the existing water doesn't get to electrics XD love episode and waiting all together for the big shot. Ryan maturing and still so humble
I'm a gaffer and do everything on the cheap. It isn't about the gear but how you control the light and shape the scene. But I have lost jobs because a lot of productions want "brand" gear. It isn't the gear so much but what you can do with it.
One big theme of this episode that wasn’t necessarily talked about is that obscurity plays a huge role in whether gear is noticeable. I was setting up an in-studio shot and switched from a pro light to a cheaper soft box with some DIY rigging and saw an immediate downgrade with those two shots back to back, but in this case, we are talking about a movie scene! there’s a story that we’re paying more attention to than the visuals, and literally, the only reason we even had the opportunity to make a distinction is because you played them back to back. A lot of mistakes are swallowed up in the filmmaking experience, and may even end up looking intentional. Also, I really love your closing sentiments with this episode, I feel like it’s a lot more accurate than saying gear doesn’t matter. It just shouldn’t be the only thing that matters. Loved this episode!
So, yes I watched the total video, but I did guess "A" had the higher budget because of the light fall-off on the opening scene light on that showed the word "house". That was the first thing I noticed about your control of the lighting in these two scenes. Scene one just looked to have had more control keeping me focused on the character with enough of a hint to the background to keep me interested in the action. Great job as usual and a lot of work on both scenes and the breakdown.
Looking at this comparison from my many years of photography, I do really see the talent of the gaffer. There are indeed problems with the cheap lighting, especially with the lack of light control (kinda the main thing that gave it away), but looking at this really brings us all back to our roots, it reminds us of where we came from and that films don't always have to be high-budget productions. Obviously, the pro shoot is more "trendy", with how life is portrayed in hollywood these days, and its in the pro shoot that we see just how much power is needed when we want to add effects like flagging the light, etc. those little battery powered led panels are simply not gonna be powerful enough. All in all, this video was really great, really shows the skill needed to overcome these issues live in production!
I can't stand the trendy cinematography today. It's all dark, hazy. And then you have bright lights with high contrast. And it just destroys all the color and visuals of the actor.
I could tell at 1:53 that Scene B was the cheap version because of the way the overhead light interacts with Justin as he walks under it. The light just feels way more harsh on his forehead and less hazy in the background; which felt like a result of budget limitations
Overall the budget sequence was flatter, with less depth from the lighting. However the big advantage with pro gear is convenience. You have quicker set ups and a smoother work flow. Having used pro gear and some DIY stuff. It simple takes more time and slows down production. Definitely feeds creativity. But things are simply easier with pro gear.
Great video as usual. I'm currently in pre-production for my short film. Mine will certainly be on the cheap side, and my DP had just cancelled. So I'll be having to wing it without. You're video proves once again that limited means and gear should not get in the way of creativity.
Great video as always. There was one do it yourself solution that you overlooked.. when you were trying to get the exterior lighting to match the 1200 LED.. I would've gone for one or two mirrors to balance or double bounce sunlight, through that window to cast a patterns on the floor.. as you said, you had sunlight not overcast at that point. You could also have stretched some black screen material over the open door in your first shot to cut the exterior light by a stop or two.
I´ve been gaffering some short films in the pst years with low budget gear, and yes, it´s really fascinating what you can do thinking out of the box. and a couple months ago, i just film and produce my own short film in Noir style. really nice using a 1000watts fresnel, and 2 Led 660 rgb. thats all, and im preety pleased how it turns out. thnks for this graat video 🤘
Right when B started i thought "this is over exposed", as well as the difference in the big room light spill. Other than that, i'm not sure i would have really noticed any difference. The problem becomes "what an amazing DP can do with cheap gear and a camera shooting 10bit raw"
Good concept for a video. I would love to see an expensive vs cheap camera used as well though, I mean most DIY people won't have a 3600 dollar camera and 200 in lighting, they will have an inexpensive camera as well.
I feel like the pro vs cheap argument is kinda invalid with the technology we have access to nowadays. If you really know what you’re doing, you could have almost matched it shot for shot, the only catch being unlimited time. A better comparison would be timing how long it takes you to film a sequence with pro gear, then how long it’ll take you to match it shot for shot with the cheap gear. For example with the shot through the window, with pro gear, you throw up a 1200D or equivalent, and you’re ready to go whenever for as long as you need. But with non pro gear, you’ll have to wait for the sun to come around to that side of the building, which would mean you have to shoot that shot at a very specific time, within a very specific window (pun intended lol). The reason why people pay for pro gear isn’t always to do with the quality of light, but the ability to get the look you’re after in a quick, safe and reliable way. On a big production, you’ll save wayyyyy more money by hiring pro gear, and getting everything you need in 1 day, vs saving money with cheap gear, but needing 2-3 days to get everything.
I could detect the cheap setup but I do think they are fairly close, other than more mood in the pro ver Better lighting specially after the second shot Things like the fog machine helped a lottt, And a bit more sharpnes and less noise in general. I do think the director did an amazing job to make them similar and it works good enough that i would say it only made it 20% better
Typing this before I know which is which. I much preferred A. When he passes by the window and the rays of light come in at 1:13 👌 It also felt more atmospheric and gloomy. One thing about both though is the music was FAR too loud. I would turn it down and focus on heavy breathing and distinctive squeaky metal sounds and stuff. Curious to see which was high budget!!
I got an A as well; why? The wall to the left of the door in B was unusually brown compared to A (color grading mistake?). I did miss the window light issue in the mid-scene. I have an R5 and love it! I'd have an R5C, too, but for no IBIS and no Nds (like my BMCPP6K pro does have). Nice video! Love this sort of thing too; how to do stuff with gear one (like us neophytes) can afford. More of these please? 🙏🏻
Fantastic video. Really shows you the difference in the good and the bad. Thank you! I really need that Flash running effect you promised! I'm working on a film and i need some guidance!
You know a 400 watt fogger is around 50 bucks and a bottle of fluid is around 10. You still could have used a fog machine over arousal cans of whatever it was you sprayed. In an enclosed room a 400 watt fogger works pretty well. Although they are not as good outside.
I LOVE my R5 not the C but the sensor stab for photography is a huge advantage --- and it HAS CLOG2 out to Ninja v+ PRRAW if I needed extended 8k or to get past the time limit -- I use r5 for a B cam with current 1.81 firmware with high heat tolerance it doe NOT overheat on me My point is BOTH r5 cameras are amazing - Even if you get the reg R5 ---mainly I use as B cam to my RED Gemini has a VERY different look though as there's a "depth" a richness so to speak or lack of a better word there...
My guess is A is the expensive version and B is the cheap version. You can tell mostly by the lighting. The hard directional lighting and flagging really give it away. B has some great shots but some seem to lack the lighting depth of the A. Well let’s see if I am right.
Only thing I'm not keen on is how advanced the R5C is. Wish you had downgraded to a standard R5 or R6. Because alot of filmmakers on a budget probably wouldn't be able to afford a 5Rc. I'm very satisfied with my Canon R7's 4K quality. Although I lack alot of the R5c's pro video capabilities.
I gotta say that god rays or not, the overall exposure and contrast in version A worked better overall. In the high budget version the ambient level in the first shot started too low, and then was too hot on the floor by the end. (That 1200D needed flagged on the bottom.)
Awesome Video!! Loving the Canon R5C, curious though if your exposing with false colour or waveform and whether your exposing for skin tone, shadows or peak brightness? I assume the shadows as C-Log3 has more dynamic range in the highlights?
The "cheap" camera is almost $5,000 new... that doesn't seem very budget at all. I figured it would be something in the 1k or 2k range, I would definitely expect cinema quality from a 5k camera. This seems more like a comparison between mid/high budget and big feature film budget, not low budget vs high. Great video still, just a little confusing.
Would be curious to know, between all of the sub 5K Cameras (we can give the extra 99 for this one..) which would you recommend? between Sony, BM, Canon, and even more, there are so many options with so many features, its hard to check them all out haha. Do it for us!
for a review on the camera i am kinda still not sure what it can do, like it is a photography and film camera so most of the time that means it cant film for so long and the photography quality is also not very good, but there was nothing said about this.
I thought the cheap version was the expensive version. But, I wish you didn't feel obligated to use name brand lighting gear for the cheaper shot, you could have found some 60w cob lights or light panels that had stronger output than what you used.
Hey Ryan, My name is Dylan Nolan and I produce video for the news channel this comment is coming from. I've been watching you for many years and I wanted to thank you for your part in making "Write, Shoot, Edit, Repeat" my livelihood. Keep killing it and inspiring the next generation.
It would've been more impressive had the camera been a Canon M50 or EOS-M with Magic Lantern or something. Then you can really have a cheap vs expensive shootout.
i prefer version B for the fact that those "sun beams" from the 1200D look fake, since real sun beams are parallel. These on the other hand spread out, because the light source is so close. With these sun beams one wnats the light source as far back as possible.
I convinced myself the first was the cheap version. Honestly it was less the lighting and more the camera movement. I figured the cheap gear also included tripod and the beginning of the camera movement in A had a bit of jolt compared to the second.
I preferred how B looked. The image seemed cleared, sharper, as if the lights had more reach onto the person's face. The A scene was too dark and thought it was because of the low reach of cheap lights (had tons of problems exactly because of this in the past).
![Hunxho - Ball Forever [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nki9ZTF9Uls/mqdefault.jpg)
I really like the episodes where you show how to make diy gear that can approximate the performance/looks of pro gear!
I could tell with the B front door it was cheap setup but once he started moving it had a great backlight and I questioned if I had guessed correctly, quickly answered by the lack of light beams through haze. Love seeing what can be done with cheap stuff- no excuses! Go film!
My guess before i find out is A was pro, B was cheap. The lighting just seemed more controlled in the A shot, even though it was very dark (super dark scenes seem to be a trend right now)
I *really* liked the cheap version. It has problems, but some great moments too.
I really liked the low budget one as well.
Yo!! I started watching you guys like 11 years ago when I first got interested in filmmaking and was making stuff in the backyard with friends, yesterday we pulled up one of your videos in my film class!! Film Riot Forever!
I preferred the cheap look because it was more realistic. The expensive shot you liked screamed "you're watching a movie!" to me.
Ah film riot, always reinforcing my love of filmmaking and helping me not make excuses ❤
We are currently producing our first feature film... on a low budget... And this information gives us confidence for what is to come... Thank you!
I like the first part from the low budget one better and the second part from the pro version. This is why I've alway loved Film Riot, you've taught me that both budget worlds work well and you can even mix them.
The thing that definitely gave it away for me was the scene prior to the one Ryan mentions with the window. When I saw Justin walk in to the other room the powerful light from the window that was cast on the floor giving both light and dark shadows at the same time. In the DIY version that has disappeared. As a low budget filmmaker myself I´ve studied how the big players think. But one thing that fascinates me more is that on the rehearsal Justin walks like he´s carrying a gun in his hands. I wonder what the original idea for this scene was?
He wanted a gun and they gave him tube socks and a hospital gown. Poor guy
The expensive and the low budget kits both did an amazing job. It is noticeable, but if you only had a low budget the low budget set up used properly like this doesn't take you out of the film. It's adds a little bit of a grungy feel. However I do prefer the high budget look on the second shot
PLEASE, do more of these type of videos. I miss the budget stuff. Would love to see you guys do a cheap gear with a Cell phone video. Definitely taking it to a full no budget plus everyone who keeps complaining about cameras would have nothing to say aha
IT is surprisingly similar, crazy how good the DP is, THe way I knew A was the most expensive was not at 11:53 but as soon as you turn the camera from the first location to the box on the floor. The first one looked so great with the harsh shadows, but the second one did not have the direction. I don't say it looks bad, but I really loved the light from sequence A. But I agree that first half of the sequence, B looks a bit better :-)
Nice going back to your low budget / no budget roots. I love seeing the high end stuff as well but I'm still at the "can lights, parchement papaer and shower curtains" stage. LOL
JESUS ESTÁ VOLTANDO!!!
I actually initially guessed the second was the pro and preferred that one. Interesting results...
shoutout to justin for always being willing to jump into any shoots and give it all his effort
This thumbnail gives me flashbacks to the old days! keep it up!🔥
This is fun. Love the rules allowing for creativity and problem solving
Rye should have held the lights fans down so the existing water doesn't get to electrics XD love episode and waiting all together for the big shot. Ryan maturing and still so humble
I'm a gaffer and do everything on the cheap. It isn't about the gear but how you control the light and shape the scene.
But I have lost jobs because a lot of productions want "brand" gear. It isn't the gear so much but what you can do with it.
One big theme of this episode that wasn’t necessarily talked about is that obscurity plays a huge role in whether gear is noticeable. I was setting up an in-studio shot and switched from a pro light to a cheaper soft box with some DIY rigging and saw an immediate downgrade with those two shots back to back, but in this case, we are talking about a movie scene! there’s a story that we’re paying more attention to than the visuals, and literally, the only reason we even had the opportunity to make a distinction is because you played them back to back. A lot of mistakes are swallowed up in the filmmaking experience, and may even end up looking intentional.
Also, I really love your closing sentiments with this episode, I feel like it’s a lot more accurate than saying gear doesn’t matter. It just shouldn’t be the only thing that matters. Loved this episode!
So, yes I watched the total video, but I did guess "A" had the higher budget because of the light fall-off on the opening scene light on that showed the word "house". That was the first thing I noticed about your control of the lighting in these two scenes. Scene one just looked to have had more control keeping me focused on the character with enough of a hint to the background to keep me interested in the action. Great job as usual and a lot of work on both scenes and the breakdown.
Looking at this comparison from my many years of photography, I do really see the talent of the gaffer. There are indeed problems with the cheap lighting, especially with the lack of light control (kinda the main thing that gave it away), but looking at this really brings us all back to our roots, it reminds us of where we came from and that films don't always have to be high-budget productions. Obviously, the pro shoot is more "trendy", with how life is portrayed in hollywood these days, and its in the pro shoot that we see just how much power is needed when we want to add effects like flagging the light, etc. those little battery powered led panels are simply not gonna be powerful enough. All in all, this video was really great, really shows the skill needed to overcome these issues live in production!
I can't stand the trendy cinematography today. It's all dark, hazy. And then you have bright lights with high contrast. And it just destroys all the color and visuals of the actor.
@@valueofnothing2487fair enough
That Canon R5 is impressive. Im curious how Canon got around Red's patent on raw codecs. Good to see that in new camera bodies 🤘
It's the talent, not the gear. And boy are you talented!
Been a fan since Revision 3 days. Love that you guys are still out here making amazing content. Thank you!!!
This is why I follow this channel! Thank you!
I could tell at 1:53 that Scene B was the cheap version because of the way the overhead light interacts with Justin as he walks under it. The light just feels way more harsh on his forehead and less hazy in the background; which felt like a result of budget limitations
Overall the budget sequence was flatter, with less depth from the lighting. However the big advantage with pro gear is convenience. You have quicker set ups and a smoother work flow. Having used pro gear and some DIY stuff. It simple takes more time and slows down production. Definitely feeds creativity. But things are simply easier with pro gear.
This was great! The real question though is whether that light caught in the rain is okay...
Great video as usual. I'm currently in pre-production for my short film. Mine will certainly be on the cheap side, and my DP had just cancelled. So I'll be having to wing it without. You're video proves once again that limited means and gear should not get in the way of creativity.
My favorite motto:” a lack of resources requires a surplus of creativity”
Another Film Riot classic. LOVE IT!!
Best video in a long time. And a great lesson in if you don't have money, time can help. Great video, thanks.
Great video as always. There was one do it yourself solution that you overlooked.. when you were trying to get the exterior lighting to match the 1200 LED.. I would've gone for one or two mirrors to balance or double bounce sunlight, through that window to cast a patterns on the floor.. as you said, you had sunlight not overcast at that point.
You could also have stretched some black screen material over the open door in your first shot to cut the exterior light by a stop or two.
I´ve been gaffering some short films in the pst years with low budget gear, and yes, it´s really fascinating what you can do thinking out of the box. and a couple months ago, i just film and produce my own short film in Noir style. really nice using a 1000watts fresnel, and 2 Led 660 rgb. thats all, and im preety pleased how it turns out.
thnks for this graat video 🤘
Right when B started i thought "this is over exposed", as well as the difference in the big room light spill. Other than that, i'm not sure i would have really noticed any difference.
The problem becomes "what an amazing DP can do with cheap gear and a camera shooting 10bit raw"
Great video as always!! It's good to see you all encouraging filmmakers to not let gear stop them from executing on their creative vision!
This looks like a great start to a feature project that could be done El Mariachi style.
Good concept for a video. I would love to see an expensive vs cheap camera used as well though, I mean most DIY people won't have a 3600 dollar camera and 200 in lighting, they will have an inexpensive camera as well.
But really what pulls it all together is an engaging story
graet video as always!
I feel like the pro vs cheap argument is kinda invalid with the technology we have access to nowadays.
If you really know what you’re doing, you could have almost matched it shot for shot, the only catch being unlimited time.
A better comparison would be timing how long it takes you to film a sequence with pro gear, then how long it’ll take you to match it shot for shot with the cheap gear.
For example with the shot through the window, with pro gear, you throw up a 1200D or equivalent, and you’re ready to go whenever for as long as you need.
But with non pro gear, you’ll have to wait for the sun to come around to that side of the building, which would mean you have to shoot that shot at a very specific time, within a very specific window (pun intended lol).
The reason why people pay for pro gear isn’t always to do with the quality of light, but the ability to get the look you’re after in a quick, safe and reliable way.
On a big production, you’ll save wayyyyy more money by hiring pro gear, and getting everything you need in 1 day, vs saving money with cheap gear, but needing 2-3 days to get everything.
I kinda like the strong silhouette of the window frame on the cheap shot better? 👀
One of the problem with the rays of light is that they showed that the light source was close. Sunlight is more parallel looking.
I could detect the cheap setup but
I do think they are fairly close, other than more mood in the pro ver
Better lighting specially after the second shot
Things like the fog machine helped a lottt,
And a bit more sharpnes and less noise in general.
I do think the director did an amazing job to make them similar and it works good enough that i would say it only made it 20% better
Typing this before I know which is which. I much preferred A. When he passes by the window and the rays of light come in at 1:13 👌 It also felt more atmospheric and gloomy. One thing about both though is the music was FAR too loud. I would turn it down and focus on heavy breathing and distinctive squeaky metal sounds and stuff. Curious to see which was high budget!!
The cheap version feels more grounded and that's what I think fits the scene a bit more
What I wanna know is how did you find a place like that to shoot? Guessing a rental?
How does the camera "have internal stabilization but no IBIS?" (10:27)
I got an A as well; why? The wall to the left of the door in B was unusually brown compared to A (color grading mistake?). I did miss the window light issue in the mid-scene. I have an R5 and love it! I'd have an R5C, too, but for no IBIS and no Nds (like my BMCPP6K pro does have). Nice video! Love this sort of thing too; how to do stuff with gear one (like us neophytes) can afford. More of these please? 🙏🏻
I understand you guy’s are trying to promote the camera but it should’ve been called cheap lighting vs expensive lighting by a pro dp. Both look good.
What were you exposing your highlights at on the waveform or were you using false colour?
Fantastic video. Really shows you the difference in the good and the bad. Thank you!
I really need that Flash running effect you promised! I'm working on a film and i need some guidance!
You know a 400 watt fogger is around 50 bucks and a bottle of fluid is around 10. You still could have used a fog machine over arousal cans of whatever it was you sprayed. In an enclosed room a 400 watt fogger works pretty well. Although they are not as good outside.
I LOVE my R5 not the C but the sensor stab for photography is a huge advantage --- and it HAS CLOG2 out to Ninja v+ PRRAW if I needed extended 8k or to get past the time limit -- I use r5 for a B cam with current 1.81 firmware with high heat tolerance it doe NOT overheat on me My point is BOTH r5 cameras are amazing - Even if you get the reg R5 ---mainly I use as B cam to my RED Gemini has a VERY different look though as there's a "depth" a richness so to speak or lack of a better word there...
My guess is A is the expensive version and B is the cheap version. You can tell mostly by the lighting. The hard directional lighting and flagging really give it away. B has some great shots but some seem to lack the lighting depth of the A. Well let’s see if I am right.
Looks like I was right. Next time you should incorporate a cheap camera and lens setup vs an expensive camera and lens setup.
Only thing I'm not keen on is how advanced the R5C is. Wish you had downgraded to a standard R5 or R6. Because alot of filmmakers on a budget probably wouldn't be able to afford a 5Rc.
I'm very satisfied with my Canon R7's 4K quality. Although I lack alot of the R5c's pro video capabilities.
I gotta say that god rays or not, the overall exposure and contrast in version A worked better overall. In the high budget version the ambient level in the first shot started too low, and then was too hot on the floor by the end. (That 1200D needed flagged on the bottom.)
Awesome Video!! Loving the Canon R5C, curious though if your exposing with false colour or waveform and whether your exposing for skin tone, shadows or peak brightness? I assume the shadows as C-Log3 has more dynamic range in the highlights?
Question, can i get genetally good scenes with a go pro and cheap lighting adjustments?
damn how old is emily now, seeing her just shows that i've really been here a long time and i'm getting old lol. content is still top notch though.
The "cheap" camera is almost $5,000 new... that doesn't seem very budget at all. I figured it would be something in the 1k or 2k range, I would definitely expect cinema quality from a 5k camera. This seems more like a comparison between mid/high budget and big feature film budget, not low budget vs high. Great video still, just a little confusing.
Would be curious to know, between all of the sub 5K Cameras (we can give the extra 99 for this one..) which would you recommend? between Sony, BM, Canon, and even more, there are so many options with so many features, its hard to check them all out haha. Do it for us!
for a review on the camera i am kinda still not sure what it can do, like it is a photography and film camera so most of the time that means it cant film for so long and the photography quality is also not very good, but there was nothing said about this.
Great video. Quick question, can you achieve those god rays with a 600d or does it need to be something as powerful as the 1200d?
Is your 1200d ok!!? did it survive the rain? I need to know! 😆
There are fog/smoke machines for well under $100. I've had one for years and it's still going.
I thought B looked better
Love this!!
You really had my man walk through a puddle for this
I thought the cheap version was the expensive version.
But, I wish you didn't feel obligated to use name brand lighting gear for the cheaper shot, you could have found some 60w cob lights or light panels that had stronger output than what you used.
Pretty good shots for that low budget.
These shots get a hard R rating for that one second when he steps in water with socks on..
what abot using pulverizers or dry ice?
I learned a lot!
Wouldn't work lights be bright enough to light the room and stay way below 100 bucks?
Hey Ryan, My name is Dylan Nolan and I produce video for the news channel this comment is coming from. I've been watching you for many years and I wanted to thank you for your part in making "Write, Shoot, Edit, Repeat" my livelihood. Keep killing it and inspiring the next generation.
It would've been more impressive had the camera been a Canon M50 or EOS-M with Magic Lantern or something. Then you can really have a cheap vs expensive shootout.
Should’ve used an older canon like a 60 D or a T3 i something that you can get for a couple hundred dollars versus the expensive gear
why not use a mirror to light up the second space
i prefer version B for the fact that those "sun beams" from the 1200D look fake, since real sun beams are parallel. These on the other hand spread out, because the light source is so close. With these sun beams one wnats the light source as far back as possible.
A is pro, B is cheap. The shadows on the floor give it away
The scene looks inspired by the Indian film 'No Smoking'😊❤
Watching that 1200D get rained on hurt... but I couldn't help but laugh in horror.
And now Daniel's budget for every film is 30 bucks.
Finally back to shooting……
You didn't give it away it was clear on that shot. But regardless you could use it and it looks great.
lol @ first view I liked the second version more :D
Because of the choice in color grading, they both loo a little DIY
Pro saves time usually and less fiddling
dmx stage lights
That time remaining change to 287 minutes from 28 minutes in Raw. 😅
How much was the hospital gown? 😝
Under $100. hahaha
JESUS TE AMA ❤!
You said no one was harmed in this video, except your wallet with that light getting rained on. I hope that thing still works. Ugh that would suck.
I convinced myself the first was the cheap version. Honestly it was less the lighting and more the camera movement. I figured the cheap gear also included tripod and the beginning of the camera movement in A had a bit of jolt compared to the second.
I preferred how B looked. The image seemed cleared, sharper, as if the lights had more reach onto the person's face. The A scene was too dark and thought it was because of the low reach of cheap lights (had tons of problems exactly because of this in the past).
One day is one day
Just forgot to say that it's a $6k camera, still a great video a always tho
Just wait until you find out how much renting a RED or Arri for a week of shooting cost.