Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Newsshooter

Matt Porwoll's Ultimate Diffusion & Bounce Test

Recommended Posts

Here at Newsshooter we review a lot of lights. Using the Sekonic C700 spectrometer, we can finitely benchmark and compare the lights against one another based on their brightness (Lux), colour accuracy and Kelvin colour temperature. We have also reviewed products which shape and modify the light including softboxes and reflector systems.

Ultra Bounce w Diffusion 1024x503

In an interview scenario, you are more than likely going to bounce or diffuse your light so you get nice soft light onto your subject so how do you know which technique to use, let alone which material to use as your diffuser or bounce source?

Award-winning cinematographer Matt Porwoll (Cartel Land, The Trade) recently decided to conduct an in-depth test comparing various diffusion and bounce materials and has compiled these results in the Ultimate Diffusion & Bounce Test.

More about Matt Porwoll
Matt Porwoll is an Emmy® award-winning cinematographer based in New York. His work has screened theatrically, appeared on TV networks such as Showtime, HBO, CNN, A&E, and PBS, as well as online outlets including Vogue, Glamour, Wired, Teen Vogue and W Magazine. Porwoll recently served as the series cinematographer on Showtime’s The Trade, a 5-part documentary series about the opioid epidemic. The feature documentary Cartel Land, which Matt shot and co-produced, won Best Cinematography awards at the 2015 Sundance Film Festival, 2016 Cinema Eye Honors and 2016 Primetime Emmys. The film was also nominated for an Academy Award® for Best Documentary Feature.

Porwoll has served as an additional cinematographer on numerous other films including City of Ghosts and Escape Fire: The Fight to Rescue American Healthcare, directed by Academy Award®-nominated director Matthew Heineman, HBO’s Emmy®-nominated By the People: The Election of Barack Obama, and HBO’s Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1, which won the 2015 Academy Award® for Best Documentary Short.

In addition to working as a cinematographer, Matt enjoys sharing the technical side of the craft as well. Whether its covering topics such as cameras, lenses and lighting on his blog or collaborating with manufacturers about working with their equipment, teaching and sharing his experiences has been a rewarding complement to his work.

www.mattporwoll.com

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Popular Topics

  • New Posts

    • It's a bit like the difference between say RGB and Adobe RGB (kind of) or JPG vs RAW, as there's more information available. It really depends on whether it's necessary for your work. My preference, whether it comes to video or photography, is to record at the highest possible/practical rates to allow for the best post-processing (you never really know when you're going to need it). It requires more storage space, but that to me is a worthwhile tradeoff. Once information is lost, you never get it back. A graphic example: https://i.rtings.com/images/chroma-subsampling/subsampling.png  
    • Thanks. That's very helpful because a C300 II and a 4:4:4-capable recorder is high on my list of candidates. 
    • Thanks so much and yeah will do, and I try to search first also. 😉
    • What are people's general views on gimbals? I have a love/hate relationship with gimbals (I own two relatively lightweight ones) and, in the few years that I've owned them, I simply cannot get to like them. I've tried a cheap Glidecam clone and just hated it, as balancing it was always like trying to get a drunken wife into a car (been there, done that). The gimbals work fine, but they simply can't hold my run & gun rig that weighs 4.3 kg. There are of course gimbals that can hold that weight and newer ones that can do that without having to break down the rig for full movement, but you then end up with a huge weight to carry around (and I'm able to carry some fairly hefty weight). For the sort of work that I was doing before COVID, I was using an Easyrig clone to support a very heavy rig, but I subsequently reduced the weight to a nice 4.3kg and did away with the support (wandering around some places looking like a Ghost Buster started to wear thin). But there are times when I want to move about with the rig and get reasonably stable footage, which kind of points to a gimbal of some sort. Recently I did some testing with a counterweight system, by attaching my monopod to my rig, with the monopod extending horizontally from the rear of the camera (aligned with the lens). The results from the monopod experiment were actually quite surprising, giving an almost gimbal like movement with a bit of stabiliser added in post. Noting that I can't Ninja walk (more like Bobba Fett sitting on my shoulders) the results looked little different to shots using another camera on one of the gimbals. This could be an option with some practice. Gimbals are all the rage at the moment, but are they really an ideal option for documentary style work, which is my main aim? Has anyone come up with a portable solution that doesn't involve a gimbal?  
    • Do check requirements of any festivals you plan to submit to, as well as DCP specs. Many may be fine with whatever format, but some may be fussy. You may find capturing in 16:9 (but framing for 2.35:1) and then editing for 2.35:1 a safer option, so, if necessary, you can re-edit for 16:9 later down the line if required (may involve re-doing some “pan and scan”, but with the vertical alignment). Unless of course you’re shooting anamorphic, then you can’t do this and will need to crop your master heavily to create a 16:9 version. Also consider that, if theatrical release is intended, it’s unlikely to be 16:9, but rather DCI 4K or DCI 2K (1.89). So, if you can shoot in one of those formats instead of UHD/HD, then do! The few pixels of extra width will help you anyway if you’re going for a wider look, and will mean slightly less cropping of the height is needed (you’ll need to work out the correct crop to cut a 2.35:1 portion out of 4096x2160 or 2048x1080). Agree that creative intent is a part of choosing what to do here.  
×
×
  • Create New...