Comparing a Book Light Key to a CRLS Key. 

Exactly my thought. Even then, the CRLS is definitely still harder than the booklight, which is certainly evident along his neckline. I don't hate the look, but perceived source area is key, so if you want soft, a 50cm source is always going to offer more of a hurdle. If the space is conduce though, I think the CRLS definitely offers a nice conservative setup.

Good point about the light spill adding to the colors of the room.

The eye light is very nice with CRLS

You can achieve exactly the same thing with a white poly board. Paying a ridiculous amount of money for something like CRLS is totally ludicrous! (Especially the #4)

@@RemDCRLS isn’t for everyone just like a White Poly Board isn’t for everyone. Different tools, different workflows, and different preferences.

@@DANAMIONLINE we need a poly board in the Comparison next time :D

This is what Ive been saying on a few platforms recently , there is some mojo going on about book lights with the bros,s , but they are not a magic "cinematic " bullet . Size to subject is the only rule . These larger LED Mat lights are for the win . Hugely quicker and more efficient .

@@robinprobyn1971100% agreed.

@@robinprobyn1971 That Godox + magic cloth had a really good look. Put in a little negative fill and I’m sold.

@@MarcosElMalo2 Yes ,soft key and neg for the win.

Use one bounced into my ceiling for the light and heat in the winter haha

I think the same - also sold most of my tungsten lights, just have a few PAR-cans lying around. did a test a few weeks ago, just used a CRLS #2 and #3 (50x50) with a spot PAR, the light quality was great!

In a more detailed test I could have shown with and without spill. Another time.

I think John Roche has demo’d that on his Gaffer Salon channel and Lightbridge has demos galore. It could have certainly come in handy here!

​@@meetthegafferdo you think the snap bridge is worth the pricetag?

exactly ! I loved the look of the crls #4 ( I have one as well) but the great thing about that look is also the bounce you get with lighting the whole ambience as well, makes it really natural. CRLS for inside locations, where you can bounce the light around, it's the best use case for sure ! But in a bigger place, or if you don't have wall to bounce, i think the booklight is a better option.

Price is relative to a lot of variables. Until you feel ready to put your money down for a well made, all-in-one tool you could just use a 6x6 or 4x4 ultrabounce behind the CRLS; and depending on how you want to incorporate the spill, use the black or white side. 🙂

You could certainly give that a try, but putting that combo through magic cloth would probably not get you what you want in terms of output and would probably defeat the purpose of CRLS.

That is logical, but would be good to check out with a test. I could have been more particular with how I illuminated the #4, but just set it and went for it given the time I had.

This comment is everything. Thanks for the time and effort but man this is a mistake.

Some have responded that they like what the spill added to the scene. There are a lot of choices to be made out there and there doesn’t have to be only one right way🙂

I think what’s problematic is saying that a 50x50cm reflector provides that same “soft, wrappy feel” as you put it as a 6x6 book light. That can't be true if they are at the same distance to the subject. It’s close in this example because half the light is bouncing off the low, white ceiling in addition to the panel. I pointed it out because people like me who are interested in learning more about lighting and CRLS could be misled by the (title of the) video. It looks great, but your findings are not transferable to other locations.

I see what you’re saying. I don’t think I’m misleading anyone or presenting this as a clinical side by side. It’s a real world set up that compares another way of using the tools we have at hand. Instead of a white ceiling you could use the new SnapBridge or an ultrabounce. CRLS is not necessarily paint by number, it’s also looking for the serendipity of reflected light.

LOL

For starters, it would be interesting to see the difference between the reflector systems. In my first attempts to incorporate CRLS, I concentrated on using them as background hits. Once in a while they were the perfect tool to use when a lightweight reflector was easier to rig than a traditional light fixture. But I think it’s a combination of DP and crew buy in, familiarity and experience, and maybe having a little extra time to play that all help ease their use into your natural lighting habits. I’m not there yet, so I feel your growing pains🙂

I think for the use of CRLS, a spotlight mount is a very handy attachment if you want to work clean and without spill light

What’s not good is my own operator skills and focus. Between turning the camera on and off and sitting back in and not checking. Too many hats.

I believe the Sekonic C800 is your best option at the moment. Also check out the app Cine Meter II if you have an iPhone.

The bane of my existence! Such a loser.

@@meetthegafferwell handled

In some instances tungsten is demonstrably cheaper, especially if you are on a stage and have access to the greater power needs that often go along with larger tungsten fixtures. Tungsten presents a very pleasing look, and is still preferred by some who have the means to choose it regardless of use case.

You should be able to go right into the junior receiver of the turtle base with the junior pin of the 600D. Just take out the tie down knob/bolt that you would use to attach to a baby pin. There may be some funky c+/turtle base that does not accept a junior pin, but normally this would be a standard procedure. Happy turtling!

@@meetthegaffer thank you!

6x6 is a nice size on talent in tighter spaces, but 8x and 12x are better for windows.

Thanks Luke!

Agree on the shadow quality and the source's size to subject size. The use shown by Luke here might be more like a special use case for crls/lightstream. In my experience where mirrors really shine at is when you need hard light on talent moving around in a given space. As the virtual light source becomes really far away actors can move quite a bit without the immediate change in brightness, compared to a spot light directly pointed at them. Mounting your lights at the bottom of a stand pointed upwards into a mirror, is quite a neat little safety thing too and makes moving things around a bit easier as well. Not to speak of having to light through a window from the outside, when you're not on the ground floor... hanging a mirror out the window is a lot easier than a 2k 😁

It’s a fence a lot of us are on. I have found myself in the middle of cinereflect numbers too, but I see now how the new tools from DoP Choice that combines a white or black backstop with a CRLS surface could come in handy. I’ve been resistant to the CRLS wave, but I’m coming around to it, pushing myself to be more open to the possibilities and seeing it more as an additive update to how we would put Hampshire frost on 1x1 mirrors or used cracked mirrors. The price and care & maintenance are certainly barriers to entry, but not insurmountable. We may not all be able to use large truss rigs outside windows, but we can downscale those applications to our smaller sets when a DP asks or we are looking for ways to push our reflective lighting experience. Check out this episode and it’s companion: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ivmvKXKHFHs.htmlsi=R5xNlhoMQurmwLqV

@@lyrgh "As the virtual light source becomes really far away actors can move quite a bit without the immediate change in brightness, compared to a spot light directly pointed at them" --> using CRLS for one year by myself, I have to say that "virtual light source" and "double the distance with one reflector" think is just true if you are using the #0 or #1 or every mirror. when the reflector is becoming more and more diffuse (#2, #3) the distance factor gets smaller and smaller, till #4 - the reflector becomes a new light source - like every bounce card. its a tool you use for a certain effect like every other tool, its not a swiss-army-knife of great light. often do you light the talent directly in the face with a hard light? I did it myself for a very small interview room, using #3 next to the talent as a very dramatic light and it worked great ;)

what I like about CRLS is the philosophy behind it, how to mimic the natural light with primary and secondary light sources, bounces and so on. its like a new way how to light / how to get a certain effect and also be open and surprised by some "happy little accidents". I use it for one year now, and im still learning, using it more and more and I move away from the setups of many different light sources (like on a standard 3-point light interview to have an example we can talk about) more into a way of "what light I want to mimic? ok it comes through this window, would bounce on the wall / floor and makes this part of the room brighter" - for me, the results I like look more natural lit. of course you can do this results with every shiny material / bounce card / mirror you build for yourself. the CRLS is getting into a professional level, so if used in big sets, if one reflector breaks, or you need another three pieces, you just go and buy / rent them - they all have the same quality.

@@noBfilm Absolutely, the diffused ones can be ok for a bit of fill when you're working with very limited space or difficult rigging situations, the bigger ones can be made to work for close ups, the smaller ones can be neat for a product shot. But every bounce is as good as it gets and gets that job done, I guess... If talent needs to play a space and not just stand at a mark, for me it's the #0 where it's at. Faking the sun, that's where I find the use of mirrors really interesting. Say for the scene Luke set up here, clrs #0 for the background (sunlight coming through the window) could come in handy.

That’s the intriguing part of CRLS… a #4 is basically a metal white card, so unlike a mirror I don’t think the inverse square law comes into play, but the look has a certain quality to it that I like. Knowing the range and utility of the tools available is helpful because potential collaborators may have different aesthetics than our own.

you are right, but one major thing that they do as well its in the same use case where Luke used in this video, by bouncing it around the ambient for a general fill light and just adding the crls #4 for an extra puch+ambience closer up to the subject, making it more natural. But i was using in this scene, i would probably also add a number 2 and 3, in smaller sizes, maybe like a 25cm and 15cm to enhance the rest of the scene, maybe by adding a splash of light in the background or a hard light at him, so the great advantage in my opinion as well is using a a couple more mirrors in the scence. One other option you could also do it by using the new snapbridge system and place the source light further and then the snapbridge closer to you subject so it could be even softer than the booklight system The crls system is pretty awesome but i dont use in every job, but when i use it, i'm happy to have it nearby

@@meetthegafferwhy wouldn’t the inverse square law apply to CRLs? That’s one thing I still don’t understand. A lot of results I’ve seen with these mirrors whilst sure, it doesn’t look like ‘coming from a light’ sourcey, it still looks lit and rather harsh as well when used directly as a key.

@NicolasWaldvogel The inverse square law does absolutely apply to most grades of CRLS, but I doubt there is much going on with the #4. The inverse square law is more applicable to mirrors or near mirrors.

@NicolasWaldvogel I agree, a lot of examples tend to be more moody settings. But that doesn’t have to be the case at all; I imagine it does a better job of showing off what the reflector(s) are doing if there is more contrast in the scene.

That’s one of the selling points of CRLS, that the reflectors are not spilly, and the new SnapBridge reversible unit could be an effective tool in this instance.

@@meetthegaffer I think I overlooked the fact that you can use different levels of diffusion with the variety of CRLS reflectors. But I would still like to see a comparison of spill and softness of say a #3 reflector(lightstream says its is 50 degrees), to a Mat light of equal size with a 50 degree grid. One advantage of CRLS would be the lack of multiple shadows for example.

​@@nshea3286 the CRLS is an awesome tool to use, but it's not the best option on all use cases, that's for sure ! I have one kit as well and i don't use it every single work that i do, but in certain times, for me, it can be the best option for sure. I mostly like to use my kit for indoor work and bouncing it around in the room and adding some splashes of light in a very natural way. With one and tree mirrors, i can do a back light, an ambience light and a 'spot light' somewhere in the scene. It's not necessarily faster, but i have a lot of control with the different sizes an diffusion. But if im in a place that i dont really want ambience (or i can't) i would just use another light, like a panel or a something else. As far as diffusion goes, it's kinda tricky because it's relative to the size of the light relative to your subject so the diffusion system, mostly helps you choose how much spill you will have on your scene with the different numbers. One great thing about the system is that you can work round the inverse square law rule because you can throw light from a further place and use a mirror closer to your subject to have a more diffused look for example, even though you are using a smaller source of light, it's closer to your subject. It's also a great system to use with moving subjects because the souce of light is further than it is in reality so you have a much more natural light falloff, which with a panel light, it ill be much more noticeable and less natural

longroadcreative.ca/

Thank You!

Long Road Creative longroadcreative.ca/

It is a large bounce, but quite a ways back. We could say it’s a very poor man’s version of the SnapBridge🙂