Jump to content




Photo

251 Vs Opal frost difussion's


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Matias Nicolas

Matias Nicolas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina

Posted 23 October 2015 - 08:57 AM

If you have to compare this 2 diffusions: 215 vs opal frost, which I think they diffuse the shadow very similar, what would be the difference in the quality of light throught it?


  • 0




#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 October 2015 - 09:22 AM

215 is Half Tough Spun -- did you mean 251? 216?

 

If you mean 251, then Opal is lighter than that.


  • 0

#3 Matias Nicolas

Matias Nicolas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina

Posted 23 October 2015 - 09:58 AM

and what does the "opal" does to the light vs a normal difussion?


  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 October 2015 - 01:38 PM

Opal is just thinner and lighter so it diffuses less than a heavier material.  It's almost like a frosted shower curtain effect, similar also to a 1/2 Soft Frost.

 

Opal tends to rattle in a breeze though, it is not as soft and flexible plastic material as 1/2 Soft Frost and it is not as rigid as a heavier plastic diffuser.


  • 0

#5 JD Hartman

JD Hartman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1491 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Edison, N.J. U.S.A.

Posted 24 October 2015 - 08:24 AM

Comparison of some of the common diffusion gels:


  • 0

#6 Mark Kenfield

Mark Kenfield
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 712 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 25 October 2015 - 07:56 AM

Comparison of some of the common diffusion gels:

 

Argh! What a waste :( the particular framing they chose for that (and the distance of the diffusion from the subject it looks like) makes it damn near impossible to judge the actual shadow qualities of each particular diffusion.

 

Could have been such a great reference video if done right.


  • 0

#7 timHealy

timHealy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1232 posts
  • Other
  • New York

Posted 25 October 2015 - 09:53 AM

I agree with Mark. While well intended I thought they should have used the same size sheets of diffusion in front of that 2k for accuracy. Also noting what happens when the diffusion is a foot away or 4 feet away from the light. Or something like that.

 

But one thing that I find interesting though. If you put a beautiful woman (or man) in front of any light, he or she will always look great anytime whether it be a match stick or a soft sun. 

 

Best

 

Tim


Edited by timHealy, 25 October 2015 - 09:54 AM.

  • 0

#8 JD Hartman

JD Hartman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1491 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Edison, N.J. U.S.A.

Posted 25 October 2015 - 10:49 AM

Hate to use this tired phrase, "It is what is is."  Someone took the time to set his up and attempt to help people less learned out.  Sorry if you view it as a total fail.


  • 0

#9 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 October 2015 - 02:07 PM

Almost what would be more informative (and boring) would be to throw a 2D shadow on a white wall from a black cut-out shape lit by a lamp with different degrees of diffusion on a 4x4 frame.

Trouble with a face is that some are rounder and smoother than others - for example, a hard light on a baby's face almost looks like a soft light.
  • 0

#10 timHealy

timHealy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1232 posts
  • Other
  • New York

Posted 25 October 2015 - 04:20 PM

"Sorry if you view it as a total fail"

 

​I don't think I said that. That would be a little dramatic. But in some shots they used approx. a 4x4 piece of diffusion and there are others where they used what looked like a normal sheet or scrap of diffusion. W all know when a light goes through diffusion, the diffusion becomes the source. The hardness/softness changes and so does the wrap around the subject depending how translucent or opaque the gel is. They easily could have kept the diffusion the same size for a true comparison at the distances they established. I don't think that is too much to ask.

 

 

"Trouble with a face is that some are rounder and smoother than others - for example, a hard light on a baby's face almost looks like a soft light"

 

And a large soft light from far enough away could look hard. Just saying.

 

best

 

Tim


  • 0

#11 Ulysse Tassin

Ulysse Tassin

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • France

Posted 26 October 2015 - 04:39 AM

Hi,

Don McVey from London did a pretty extensive test of every lee diffusion filters: http://donmcveydop.com/lee-filters/

It may help you. As David Mullen said, when you compare 251 to Opal Frost, same light loss but a lighter diffusion for Opal Frost.

Hope it helps.

 

Ulysse.


  • 0

#12 Mark Kenfield

Mark Kenfield
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 712 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 26 October 2015 - 08:34 AM

Hi,

Don McVey from London did a pretty extensive test of every lee diffusion filters: http://donmcveydop.com/lee-filters/

It may help you. As David Mullen said, when you compare 251 to Opal Frost, same light loss but a lighter diffusion for Opal Frost.

Hope it helps.

 

Ulysse.

 

Don's test is excellent, and the comparison gallery he set up is a tremendous resource. I have it permanently bookmarked on both my computer and my phone - and would recommend that everyone interested in such things do the same.


  • 1

#13 Dennis Hingsberg

Dennis Hingsberg
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Toronto

Posted 28 October 2015 - 06:52 AM

I also agree with others, the steampunk set video doesn't really go a long way of showing the nature in variety of shadows created by various diffusion materials. In fact I'm quite sure the camera was on the exact same axis as the light itself, except the light was raised.  

 

Overall just too hard to see any shadow qualities, speaking for myself anyway.

 

 

Mark that Don McVey link is pretty good on the other hand, thanks for sharing.


Edited by Dennis Hingsberg, 28 October 2015 - 06:54 AM.

  • 0

#14 Dennis Hingsberg

Dennis Hingsberg
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Toronto

Posted 28 October 2015 - 07:22 AM

Here's one I had bookmarked:

 

www.vimeo.com/39856572

 


Edited by Dennis Hingsberg, 28 October 2015 - 07:23 AM.

  • 0


The Slider

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Visual Products

CineLab

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Zylight

Paralinx LLC

Pro 8mm

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Zylight

Pro 8mm

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

CineTape

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets