Prefer 1. Option 2 is decent but too much blurt. I suggest keep several deep and soft focus background for variety. Still good idea but most of us do not have budget for this avg project.
1:17 one might say that the office shot looks more real, since there is a real reception next to her but that could‘ve just as easily been placed in front of a TV. Imo they are both indistinguishable. Especially taking into account that we already know which one is which. Well done. I‘ll give it a try. Thanks for the inspiration
We purchased a Samsung Frame 85 inch with a non-reflective screen for a photo shoot using an iPhone 15 pro max. Results were incredible. We're now experimenting using the TV for UGC and EGC - no need for a green screen.
Curious whether the blurred background was blurred background was artificially blurred or made in camera with same lens/settings? Initially it seems too blurred for those distances and level of blur for objects with be too consistent if done artificially
I think the "blurred background" was simply because they were using an 85mm full frame f/1.4 lens wide open, and the background was far enough behind the on-screen talent that it was blurred out.
@@marinrealestatephotography yes I understand how bokeh works. My question was if it was made with that camera/ lens combination with the focus point where the subject would be or it was shot in-focused and blurred in post. Knowing how the blur is generated could help create an even more believable image on screen because blurred effects aren’t as accurate as bokeh made by a lens (in camera)
We use a 150" ALR screen and rely on flagging and egg crates to control the light, effectively preventing any spill onto the screen. This setup works very well overall, but certain scenarios can make it a bit challenging to maintain precise light control.
It's a great solution to make a set. I recommend it for starter creators or quick set designers for interview. But one permanent problem is, it will work only when you take static shots. If you move the camera on a dolly/slider, you will see angles being distorted in a weird way.
Rear projection is such a well-established practice and yet, it rarely looks real, mostly due to lighting and camera height. If those two variables do not match perfectly, the illusion is unconvincing. In the case of Epic's attempt, I think the added layer of wide aperture adds to the confusion, for the sole reason that such a blurred background lacks characteristics found in natural lens bokeh. However, on a budget, which most of us are on, rear projection works, and I think this video gives some great tips.
My only quibble is that the background is too far out of focus. I couldn't tell what it was the subject was supposed to be in front of. It definitely looks better at f5 with the sharp image. I'd like to see it at f2 with the sharp image.
I think I would prefer somewhere in between wide open and stopped down for the tv. plant in the foreground, or some kind of foreground element. Maybe it's because it looks like the camera is at maybe an f4 even though it's wide open just because of the distance the camera is to you so I'm seeing that and then what looks like 1.8 for the background (TV) so it reads as a little off in the depth perspective. It would be really cool to have scenes set up so that when you change the background (TV), it also changes the lights. Go from polished lobby interior, to campfire setting, to living room. have props for foreground and background elements on rollers to roll in and out as needed. this is more of me just fleshing ideas out and less of an actual comment lol! I imagine the corporate clients really like the clean wide open bokeh though, to me theres just not a lot of depth once you get past you (the subject). Hopefully this doesn't come off disrespectful, this channel is awesome! Keep up the great work!
I like the shot where the background is not as blurred. There is sight softness, and that's just enough to suggest an f2.8 aperture to my eyes. The lighting on you works with the background in a realistic manner. So, I'd go with the one with the sharper BG.
exactly, and it looks uniformly out of focus, because its focused on a flat image. I think they would get a better result by taking the photo of the location out of focus in the way they would need it to be in the final shot, and using that. And that way the desk in the near ground isn't out of focus. I think this is why the wide depth of field setup looks fake, is because in the image of the office the desk is blurrier than the far ground. which doesn't make sense. it makes the setup look like split dioptre but it can't be, the objects are too far from the camera and too close together.
I’m not sure if this use case has a lot of benefits over a green screen. Sure you have to light it but that’s not exactly difficult these days. I feel buying a big enough TV and positioning it just right is way more limiting than a green screen which can be much larger. This makes more sense for the ILM Volume where the talent is immersed and can see the environment they are in. Even using the TV as a green screen while neat is very small to work with and only works for an interview. It’s a very neat concept but a lot of effort and cost without a ton of gain over a green screen.
Just another comment guys. We shot our Christmas hamper catalogue using the Samsung TV. Just like you guys, we used lighting above the set - worked great. For a magical effect we also wrapped 2000 fairy lights on the boom arms of two C-Stands to capture subtle sparkles and effects on the wine bottles, glasses and other shiny objects like foil-wrapped products. Your idea of an IKEA rising desk is bloody genius. We used an office desk to mount our TV. We then created a false floor using cardboard boxes wrapped in duct tape to hide the TV stand and Samsung logo. Finally we purchased granite floor tiles to place the products on. In post-production, we used Adobe lightroom AI effects to hide the seams of the tiles. I hope I explained this okay and it helps to inspire you. Oh you also need an ND to stop any TV flicker.
Two "funny" things that happend while using a TV as a fake window in my Studio: 1. During a shot the screensaver of the TV ruined everything 😂😂 2. An other shot was destroyed because the "Smart" TV starts telling me that it can´t recognize my voice (why that damn thing need voice recognition?) Ok after all the real challenge and next step would be to achive a parallax effect if the camera is moved. If the source comes from a PC or Mac there must be a way
The "faker" version looks good too. No reflections from the TV, you(the subject) looks to be properly lit to light YOU and not everything else), everything comes together and it actually looks more uniformed than the typical camera club wide open to the oblivion look. You don't have to have every single thing blown completely to outer space. I see a ton of documentaries, movies, interviews on Netflix and many other channels and they stop down pretty good so there's visual element of actual human space but without placing the subject in a blurred... whatever. I like it. Whatever "natural bokeh" means I have absolutely no idea but you are closing mindsets here. It looks totally realistic and having the absolute right lighting within the same realistic background, you will have the same exact look.
I use (taken from one of your earlier videos) the three TVs in a vertical configuration method. Works great. 100 inch TVs are finally becoming more affordable--better solution and probably more cost effective once you figure in the stands and splitter for the 3 TV method.
The on location one looks better imo. The dof just seems off to me, maybe it's because I know. And I think the 3-tv setup looks on par to the real location. Was the subject able to step out further from the wall with more TV?
I use a powerful projector to be able to make wider angles and add movement, angles and a second camera! for the "gray" problem I do my best to block the light but if necessary a small magicmask to darken the blacks and that's it! TV is great but transporting a 100" in a car is complicated
isn't there a Genlock issue between the camera and display that needs resolved - just watched a whole program about the big volumes used on like the Mandalorian and they brought that up...
I think you got great results with the TV, but it is hard to compete with the real location. I do think there is a tad too much blur on the fake background. I actually like the sharp background (2:39). What do I know? I subscribed. Clearly, I am not very bright.
It looks great, but you’re limited to that one shot. There’s not exactly a B-cam angle. I think using TVs as set pieces is an efficient and cool though. It’s like a super budget version of the unreal engine 5 stuff they used to shoot the Mandalorian.
It looks good my issue is that the blur on the tv feels off. If that can be addressed, then that is really cool My two cents is that the tv should be blurred by the camera and not on the tv. This would mean the subject will be very far from the tv tho, so you’ll need a big tv but maybe a projector could work?
Of course one can add more dimension with a selective blur to parts of the image in the tv, according to the depth of depicted objects, and not shoot at f/1.4 so it doesn't turn in a big blurred mess.
@@EpicLightMedia not quite, of course its an exaggeration. Yet since you have all this intricate setup to drive the image live through Resolve or PS and correct visually on the spot, there is no need to obliterate any shape or form from the image with blur from a super wide open lens aperture, as you can have better control and fine tuning through the program.
I think if you added more depth (like the desk in the real location) it would add a lot. Otherwise it feels a bit…uncanny. I doubt laypeople would comprehend (or care) however
The problem (I think) is the "blur stacking" that happens. The lens blur from your studio shot will blur out any bokeh you had in the original plate so everything becomes mushy
The bokeh is too intense for my taste. I wonder what it would be like if you had the background fairly clear and then the camera set to f1.2? But as @x300ish said, a second angle is necessary for many interviews I don't see how that would work with this setup.
I'm not sure if you're just joking and its actually the TV aswell, but the interview of the lady at 1:04 looks much better. But regardless the tv backgrond has no fall off of focual depth. It just looks fake.
Can this work on dramatic narrative shot where the scene is a bid moody? Just to save money on actual location :) Thanks I unsubscribed and then re subscribed ahahahahahah
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | Survival Stage วันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FVFT-PFwU80/mqdefault.jpg)
I kinda liked the stopped down version but the lighting mismatch was more apparent.
Prefer 1. Option 2 is decent but too much blurt. I suggest keep several deep and soft focus background for variety. Still good idea but most of us do not have budget for this avg project.
1:17 one might say that the office shot looks more real, since there is a real reception next to her but that could‘ve just as easily been placed in front of a TV. Imo they are both indistinguishable. Especially taking into account that we already know which one is which. Well done. I‘ll give it a try.
Thanks for the inspiration
I recently started using a TV for stop-motion animation and it works wonderfully!
We purchased a Samsung Frame 85 inch with a non-reflective screen for a photo shoot using an iPhone 15 pro max. Results were incredible. We're now experimenting using the TV for UGC and EGC - no need for a green screen.
Damn. Where can I see the results?
Curious whether the blurred background was blurred background was artificially blurred or made in camera with same lens/settings? Initially it seems too blurred for those distances and level of blur for objects with be too consistent if done artificially
I think the "blurred background" was simply because they were using an 85mm full frame f/1.4 lens wide open, and the background was far enough behind the on-screen talent that it was blurred out.
@@marinrealestatephotography yes I understand how bokeh works. My question was if it was made with that camera/ lens combination with the focus point where the subject would be or it was shot in-focused and blurred in post. Knowing how the blur is generated could help create an even more believable image on screen because blurred effects aren’t as accurate as bokeh made by a lens (in camera)
We use a 150" ALR screen and rely on flagging and egg crates to control the light, effectively preventing any spill onto the screen. This setup works very well overall, but certain scenarios can make it a bit challenging to maintain precise light control.
It's a great solution to make a set. I recommend it for starter creators or quick set designers for interview. But one permanent problem is, it will work only when you take static shots. If you move the camera on a dolly/slider, you will see angles being distorted in a weird way.
I couldn’t tell the difference ✌️ but what do you do if you need a second angle?
We’ve shot with two cameras before and the tv is big enough for a side angle
@ would love to see that. Couldn’t imagine getting much of a side angle
Am I the only sucker who did the 3 tv set up a few months ago now watching this?
Rear projection is such a well-established practice and yet, it rarely looks real, mostly due to lighting and camera height. If those two variables do not match perfectly, the illusion is unconvincing. In the case of Epic's attempt, I think the added layer of wide aperture adds to the confusion, for the sole reason that such a blurred background lacks characteristics found in natural lens bokeh. However, on a budget, which most of us are on, rear projection works, and I think this video gives some great tips.
My only quibble is that the background is too far out of focus. I couldn't tell what it was the subject was supposed to be in front of. It definitely looks better at f5 with the sharp image. I'd like to see it at f2 with the sharp image.
I think I would prefer somewhere in between wide open and stopped down for the tv. plant in the foreground, or some kind of foreground element. Maybe it's because it looks like the camera is at maybe an f4 even though it's wide open just because of the distance the camera is to you so I'm seeing that and then what looks like 1.8 for the background (TV) so it reads as a little off in the depth perspective. It would be really cool to have scenes set up so that when you change the background (TV), it also changes the lights. Go from polished lobby interior, to campfire setting, to living room. have props for foreground and background elements on rollers to roll in and out as needed. this is more of me just fleshing ideas out and less of an actual comment lol! I imagine the corporate clients really like the clean wide open bokeh though, to me theres just not a lot of depth once you get past you (the subject). Hopefully this doesn't come off disrespectful, this channel is awesome! Keep up the great work!
I like the shot where the background is not as blurred. There is sight softness, and that's just enough to suggest an f2.8 aperture to my eyes. The lighting on you works with the background in a realistic manner. So, I'd go with the one with the sharper BG.
Awesome ❤❤❤❤
So many changes
The background looks too out of focus. It didn't look that bad when the lady was at the office and you filmed her.
exactly, and it looks uniformly out of focus, because its focused on a flat image. I think they would get a better result by taking the photo of the location out of focus in the way they would need it to be in the final shot, and using that. And that way the desk in the near ground isn't out of focus. I think this is why the wide depth of field setup looks fake, is because in the image of the office the desk is blurrier than the far ground. which doesn't make sense. it makes the setup look like split dioptre but it can't be, the objects are too far from the camera and too close together.
I agree 100000% it looks bad
I’m not sure if this use case has a lot of benefits over a green screen. Sure you have to light it but that’s not exactly difficult these days. I feel buying a big enough TV and positioning it just right is way more limiting than a green screen which can be much larger.
This makes more sense for the ILM Volume where the talent is immersed and can see the environment they are in.
Even using the TV as a green screen while neat is very small to work with and only works for an interview.
It’s a very neat concept but a lot of effort and cost without a ton of gain over a green screen.
Just another comment guys. We shot our Christmas hamper catalogue using the Samsung TV. Just like you guys, we used lighting above the set - worked great. For a magical effect we also wrapped 2000 fairy lights on the boom arms of two C-Stands to capture subtle sparkles and effects on the wine bottles, glasses and other shiny objects like foil-wrapped products. Your idea of an IKEA rising desk is bloody genius. We used an office desk to mount our TV. We then created a false floor using cardboard boxes wrapped in duct tape to hide the TV stand and Samsung logo. Finally we purchased granite floor tiles to place the products on. In post-production, we used Adobe lightroom AI effects to hide the seams of the tiles. I hope I explained this okay and it helps to inspire you. Oh you also need an ND to stop any TV flicker.
Amazing!!!
whats the company, and are the shots public yet?
Two "funny" things that happend while using a TV as a fake window in my Studio:
1. During a shot the screensaver of the TV ruined everything 😂😂
2. An other shot was destroyed because the "Smart" TV starts telling me that it can´t recognize my voice (why that damn thing need voice recognition?)
Ok after all the real challenge and next step would be to achive a parallax effect if the camera is moved. If the source comes from a PC or Mac there must be a way
The "faker" version looks good too. No reflections from the TV, you(the subject) looks to be properly lit to light YOU and not everything else), everything comes together and it actually looks more uniformed than the typical camera club wide open to the oblivion look. You don't have to have every single thing blown completely to outer space. I see a ton of documentaries, movies, interviews on Netflix and many other channels and they stop down pretty good so there's visual element of actual human space but without placing the subject in a blurred... whatever. I like it. Whatever "natural bokeh" means I have absolutely no idea but you are closing mindsets here. It looks totally realistic and having the absolute right lighting within the same realistic background, you will have the same exact look.
Epic Light Media is just that - epic light(ing) 😀 Great video but didn’t subscribe 🤫
I use (taken from one of your earlier videos) the three TVs in a vertical configuration method. Works great. 100 inch TVs are finally becoming more affordable--better solution and probably more cost effective once you figure in the stands and splitter for the 3 TV method.
Those shots are close and both look great. That plant on the table making the space of the interviewee into 3d space sells the real shot.
The on location one looks better imo. The dof just seems off to me, maybe it's because I know. And I think the 3-tv setup looks on par to the real location. Was the subject able to step out further from the wall with more TV?
I use a powerful projector to be able to make wider angles and add movement, angles and a second camera! for the "gray" problem I do my best to block the light but if necessary a small magicmask to darken the blacks and that's it!
TV is great but transporting a 100" in a car is complicated
Need that new Mega 12 💪🏻💪🏻
isn't there a Genlock issue between the camera and display that needs resolved - just watched a whole program about the big volumes used on like the Mandalorian and they brought that up...
I think you got great results with the TV, but it is hard to compete with the real location. I do think there is a tad too much blur on the fake background. I actually like the sharp background (2:39). What do I know? I subscribed. Clearly, I am not very bright.
It looks great, but you’re limited to that one shot. There’s not exactly a B-cam angle. I think using TVs as set pieces is an efficient and cool though. It’s like a super budget version of the unreal engine 5 stuff they used to shoot the Mandalorian.
It looks good my issue is that the blur on the tv feels off. If that can be addressed, then that is really cool
My two cents is that the tv should be blurred by the camera and not on the tv. This would mean the subject will be very far from the tv tho, so you’ll need a big tv but maybe a projector could work?
Gonna try that with my kids youtube channel. Good excuse to buy a 100" TV. How far is the TV from the subject?
I rebel. I've subscribed 156 times.
Of course one can add more dimension with a selective blur to parts of the image in the tv, according to the depth of depicted objects, and not shoot at f/1.4 so it doesn't turn in a big blurred mess.
Sounds like me made a big blurry mess haha
@@EpicLightMedia not quite, of course its an exaggeration.
Yet since you have all this intricate setup to drive the image live through Resolve or PS and correct visually on the spot, there is no need to obliterate any shape or form from the image with blur from a super wide open lens aperture, as you can have better control and fine tuning through the program.
I think if you added more depth (like the desk in the real location) it would add a lot. Otherwise it feels a bit…uncanny. I doubt laypeople would comprehend (or care) however
I wonder how the in-focus background would look with a shift lens
What size TV did you use?
I think I would have got a plate with the 85mm and pulled it out of focus, I think you would have nicer DOF. Looks like just a blur effect slapped on.
Nope we filmed it out of focus that is not an effect
The problem (I think) is the "blur stacking" that happens. The lens blur from your studio shot will blur out any bokeh you had in the original plate so everything becomes mushy
@@EpicLightMedia Dang, something looks off. Lol
That TV shot is just way too blurry.
What do you do for a second camera angle?
One thing is missing from your shots "eye-catching light ".😊
The bokeh is too intense for my taste. I wonder what it would be like if you had the background fairly clear and then the camera set to f1.2? But as @x300ish said, a second angle is necessary for many interviews I don't see how that would work with this setup.
Just cost me 2 grand. Thanks a lot pal!
Brand of that tubelight?
"No description has been added to this video." Brave
I ve been here since the first video. Not going to lie would of been easier to subscribe.
Hahahaha!!!!!!
The real one looks better but I'm waiting for the follow up video where you reveal it's also a screen lol
I'm not sure if you're just joking and its actually the TV aswell, but the interview of the lady at 1:04 looks much better. But regardless the tv backgrond has no fall off of focual depth. It just looks fake.
0:04 did your intro said "unsubscribe now"?????🤣
Yep
@@EpicLightMedia 🤣
Why not just greenscreen from the beginning and not carry a 100inch tv around ?
The real shot outside of the girl looked better IMO… but that’s just me!
The shot on the tv is too blurry to not feel fake. Also there's something with the light that makes it obvious it's not on site.
About 20-25% too much bokeh imho. It’s straining my eyes… possibly due to not having enough focus rolloff on the subject
How big is the TV though?
Can this work on dramatic narrative shot where the scene is a bid moody? Just to save money on actual location :) Thanks I unsubscribed and then re subscribed ahahahahahah
Instead of having to use such a wide open lens, couldn’t you just blur the image on the TV to the desired amount?
Don't kid yourself, it looks fake any way.
Oh wow how exactly?
I shall not subscribe but use a tv
Second!
First!