Video lighting challenge

Garry Edwards · 22 Mar 2016

So, we've produced a series of 4 video adverts, with a lot more to follow.
Video (and 360 photography) is a medium that's growing rapidly for product photography and we're now learning how to do it.
Part of the challenge is of course on the video side, we're addressing that with up to 4 DSLR cameras in use, and a tilt shift lens, and another challenge is on the editing side.
But the biggest single problem is with the lighting, which is my area, and I tackle it in exactly the same way as if I was shooting stills, using strip softboxes both above and below to create diffused specular highlights in the right places, and skimming a honeycombed standard reflector where needed to reveal texture and to catch hard to see areas.
That doesn't sound particuarly easy, but in these video ads, the subject and it's lighting was all static and it was the camera that did the moving around, so not as hard as it looks.
Moving the camera created its own challenges, not all of which have been resolved perfectly (yet) but basically we just used the highest available frame rate, which we were able to do because we use powerful lighting. Even so, we struggled a bit to get enough light, but fortunately we were aiming for very limited depth of field (and used the tilt shift lens "backwards" to create even less depth of field (thanks for your help with the physics Mr. Scheimpflug)

We were encouraged a bit by watching a video made by a competitor (after we made ours) where they used brilliant editing but their lighting was crap

Which is funny as they are selling lighting...

Anyway, here's one of ours.

Suggestions for improvements are very welcome

Phil V · 23 Mar 2016

It looks nice Garry, but the music needs a revisit. It's pants and then it stops abruptly.

RBaker · 23 Mar 2016

Phil V said:
It looks nice Garry, but the music needs a revisit. It's pants and then it stops abruptly.

To paraphrase Basil Fawlty: "Pants? That's Erik Satie - Erik Satie's second Gymnopedie pants"
I found it impossible to take in all the text with a single viewing. If the video could be doubled in length, it would be easier to read: if it's restricted to 35 seconds, I might think about removing some of it.
As Phil has already pointed out, the music, which is excellent (Phil must have dodgy ears) does end rather abruptly.

Garry Edwards · 23 Mar 2016

I'm not happy with the music either, the idea was to compose music specifically for each video and to then edit the video to suit the music, but there was a delay in getting the music finished - something that will be re-visited.
Length was pretty much fixed, these are just adverts and there is a limit to how long people will spend watching them. The text was a big job in itself, it's in 3 dimensions and there is just too much info to show to actually make it readable in one viewing.

My main interest here was the lighting, trying to get lighting in a video that meets the standard of still photography.
In the past, I've lit quite a lot of TV adverts, where every 1/10th second counts and where the lighting has to be spot on - these are very slow and very expensive shoots, using the skills and equipment that's used in big budget movies. Looking around at our own small industry, it's pretty much impossible to find a video production team at an affordable price that can actually do lighting, which is why we're doing it in house.

An anecdote here - we used a small video production company to produce videos of a few location shoots, and they did a very professional job. Then they did another video of a studio shoot, they turned up without any lighting at all (fortunately I had plenty) and I was told that lighting wasn't needed, there was enough light coming through the windows. I pointed out that we were about to close the window blinds, now where would they like us to put the lights? The answer was "anywhere, as long as it doesn't get in the way"...

st599 · 23 Mar 2016

Frame rate and shutter speed don't match so you're getting a lot of motion judder.

There's too much text to be read in the time it's on screen.

I'd have one less flash if you want to get it shown anywhere.

Garry Edwards · 23 Mar 2016

st599 said:
Frame rate and shutter speed don't match so you're getting a lot of motion judder.

There's too much text to be read in the time it's on screen.

I'd have one less flash if you want to get it shown anywhere.

This feedback is very helpful, thanks.

I identified the problem with the frame rate, and increased it to the maximum - are you saying that the shutter speed needs to be changed too?
Why do you feel that there is one flash too many?

st599 · 24 Mar 2016

Garry Edwards said:
This feedback is very helpful, thanks.

I identified the problem with the frame rate, and increased it to the maximum - are you saying that the shutter speed needs to be changed too?
Why do you feel that there is one flash too many?

For each frame rate, there's a trade off between motion blur and stuttering motion - which is adjusted using the shutter speed. If you're shooting with mains lighting in Europe, then you need an integer multiple of 25 fps. It's normal to set the shutter at 50% of the frame rate to get a good blend of blur and stuttering (aka 180 degree shutter) which for 50 fps would be 1/100. You can go away from this, but the video will either blur or stutter (Saving Private Ryan used a 45 degree shutter to make the images of D-Day very visually jarring to increase viewer disorientation)

3 flashes is Ofcom's lower limit for causing an epileptic seizure - if you want it shown anywhere other than YouTube, it would probably fail the review.

Cistron · 24 Mar 2016

Garry Edwards said:
Length was pretty much fixed, these are just adverts and there is a limit to how long people will spend watching them.

I think it's a misconception that therefore the whole spot has to be short. If people are engaged with the product, they will watch it all the way through.

Btw. what's the target of these videos, or where will they be shown? It's just that the video is not showing my anything that I couldn't find out from looking at the 360° images. You are showing me a product and features (which is boring) rather than what I can do with it. You might want to have a talk with your marketing manager, because this appears to be money sunk for no reason.

Garry Edwards · 24 Mar 2016

st599 said:
For each frame rate, there's a trade off between motion blur and stuttering motion - which is adjusted using the shutter speed. If you're shooting with mains lighting in Europe, then you need an integer multiple of 25 fps. It's normal to set the shutter at 50% of the frame rate to get a good blend of blur and stuttering (aka 180 degree shutter) which for 50 fps would be 1/100. You can go away from this, but the video will either blur or stutter (Saving Private Ryan used a 45 degree shutter to make the images of D-Day very visually jarring to increase viewer disorientation)

Thanks. Obvious when you think about it

Now that I know the problem, there are possible solutions, and the obvious one is to stop using the LED lighting, even though it's a massive advantage to be able to fit it with any modifiers. I will need to do some tests, but it seems to me that our Fluorescent lights will help with this, as they have a powder coating that acts as a buffer between pulses, effectively making them a true continuous light. But we probably need to get a better camera too, with a wider range of frame rates. Like everything else in photography, the solutions seem to lie in having a technical understanding of the challenges.

st599 said:
3 flashes is Ofcom's lower limit for causing an epileptic seizure - if you want it shown anywhere other than YouTube, it would probably fail the review.

Againl something I didn't know. We do have someone here who has epilepsy, she was asked about it and didn't see a problem.

Cistron said:
I think it's a misconception that therefore the whole spot has to be short. If people are engaged with the product, they will watch it all the way through.

Btw. what's the target of these videos, or where will they be shown? It's just that the video is not showing my anything that I couldn't find out from looking at the 360° images. You are showing me a product and features (which is boring) rather than what I can do with it. You might want to have a talk with your marketing manager, because this appears to be money sunk for no reason.

I like the 360's, 360 photography is very popular with items such as shoes, mobile phones etc but everyone seems to be using an automated process that relies on hardware, software and flat lighting, rather than knowledge, care and people. We've put a lot of thought into it and I think that our 360's work well for us - but as a medium, they have their limitations. I can't go into detail here, for obvious reasons, but although the 360 images do an adequate job on our own webpage, the software uses JS, which means that we can't embed 360's into a lot of sites, so the obvious solution to this limitation is video.
We haven't spent a lot of money on this, a few bits of video gear such as a slider, a dolly and a mini jib, none of which is expensive. Other than that, it's just the time of someone who fits the editing in around other work.

st599 · 24 Mar 2016

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/broadcast/guidance/831193/section2.pdf Lists the exact requirements re: epilepsy.