Video Tipps for Nixie Clocks...

[SWISSNIXIE - Jonathan F.]

Hi Folks


I have built my first complete nixie clock and mostly done the V1.0 Code :) Since the features of a clock are hard to show in pictures or text, i wanted to make a video of the clock.  My clock looks like this http://swissnixie.com/projects/SUNIX-S/SUNIX_S_ARTICLE.jpg

Sadly i have more luck with making decent pictures of tubes than making a video. Most of my videos came either too bright (nixie tubes where very yellow to white in color) or too dark (tubes look fine, case and background are very dark).

Does someone has usefull ideas, tipps,tricks about shooting videos of nixie clocks? I'm having a CANON 5D that can shoot video.


Any help is welcome! :))

[robin bussell]

Maybe you need to look into HDR video?

This page:
https://photography.tutsplus.com/tutorials/what-is-hdr-video-3-ways-to-create-high-dynamic-range-video--cms-25884

Mentions some success with custom canon firmware from here:

http://www.magiclantern.fm/

And a tutorial here:
http://cgi.tutsplus.com/tutorials/a-simple-way-to-shoot-hdr-video-footage-using-magic-lantern--ae-20993

However I'm just a google pilot as far as this is concerned so good luck!

Cheers,
Robin.





> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "neonixie-l" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to neonixie-l+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:neonixie-l+...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to neoni...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:neoni...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/neonixie-l/a1187784-6d30-4ec1-accd-89beed44aacb%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/neonixie-l/a1187784-6d30-4ec1-accd-89beed44aacb%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[John Rehwinkel]

>
> Sadly i have more luck with making decent pictures of tubes than making a video. Most of my videos came either too bright (nixie tubes where very yellow to white in color) or too dark (tubes look fine, case and background are very dark).
>

This is a fairly simple problem with a fairly simple solution: the issue is that the nixie tubes are brighter than the case and background. The solution is to make the case and background brighter, which you can do by putting more light on them. Set them near a window, or aim a desk lamp at them. Adjust the brightness (how close and how bright the light source is) until there's a nice balance between the tubes and the case.

- John

[NeonJohn]

On 04/11/2017 01:31 PM, robin bussell wrote:

>> Does someone has usefull ideas, tipps,tricks about shooting videos of
>> nixie clocks? I'm having a CANON 5D that can shoot video.
>>
>>
>> Any help is welcome! :))
>>
>
> Maybe you need to look into HDR video?

No need for all of that. Regular photorgrapher's techniques from the
film days work just fine. The advantage digital has over film is the
sensor has much more latitude than most films. I've done some HDR and
it always looks just a little bit "off".

For photographing objects that give off light, the rule of thumb is to
set the general illumination level to 1 to 2 f/stops less than that for
the light given off by the object.

This requires a light source with at least 2 heads and a way to vary the
output. This implies an accurate, high quality incident light meter.
This is the time to spend some money on a brand name like Minolta.
ChiCom knockoffs are out there but the ones I've tried are pure crap.

One thing to be aware of with used light meters is mercury batteries.
Most all the high quality meters used the mercury cell power source as
the voltage reference. Perfectly acceptable practice - accurate enough
for the application and no power was consumed when the meter was off.

Thanks to NannyGov, those batteries are no longer available. I was
getting them from Canada for awhile but I don't see any of my usual
sources listing them. Probably available from China.

Other chemistry batteries will physically fit but will not work
electrically because the voltage is not stable. Adapters are available
that contain voltage regulators but they have the disadvantage of
consuming power all the time.

I mention this because the old meters (that look like the new ones) show
up on sleazebay from time to time. Inquire of the seller if the meter
needs mercury batteries. If they do, run like hell the other way.

If you can live without a digital display, this is a classic meter
that's been around for decades. I have one and it's a workhorse.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/63333-REG/Wein_950_020_WP_1000_Deluxe_Meter.html

I don't recommend B&H Photo. Straight retail prices and the worst
customer service I've ever experienced. But a good place to browse.

Here is the beginning of all their listings. Have a defibrillator handy :-)

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/light-meters-accessories/ci/21923/N/4025915107


Light sources.

Now we have a good exposure meter. Next comes the light source. This
usually involves a LOT of light. The light source needs to be variable
but it also needs to maintain a constant color temperature. There are
several methods of achieving that.

Traditionally product photography (really any studio photography) uses
Strobotron studio strobes. Each power supply can operate up to 4 flash
heads and the power supply has a half and full power switch. Between
the switch and plugging in un-needed strobe heads placed in boxes or
something similar to absorb the light, there are enough combinations to
get the exposure spot-on.

Strobotrons are kinda out of style so power supplies and heads go fairly
cheaply on sleazebay. The light source is essentially a point source
(harsh shadows) so you'll want diffusers of one type or another. I use
umbrella diffusers. The head points away from the target and toward the
umbrella. Mine are half-silvered which reflects more light than the
pure white ones.

I usually put a head on the floor pointed up toward the ceiling with
lots of splash on the backdrop. Totally eliminates shadows.

Before the strobotrons, I used a homemade light source that consisted of
several tripod-mounted 500 watt quartz-halogen work lights. The trick
to getting a LOT of light AND the correct color temperature is to
operate the lamps on 240 volts.

At 240 volts, the light is sunlight white. Unfortunately they produce a
LOT of heat.

The lamps cannot be turned on to 240 VAC directly. Pops the bulb every
time. The trick is to bring it up and arrange the scene on 120 and
switch to 240 just before you take the shot.

I set up a cheap 120/240 autotransformer and contactor and attached a
photographer's shutter pendant so that all I had to do was push the
button a second before the shot.

Even running for maybe 5 seconds at a time the quartz got hot enough to
melt and bulge out between the filament supports. So if you go this
route, minimize the time on 240.

I drilled lots of ventilation holes in the housing but it still gets
VERY hot. Caution is advised.

The major advantage is that you can see the scene's actual composition
before taking the photo.

The latest technology and what I use now is LED lighting panels. Here's
B&H's selection.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/LED-Light-Sources/ci/12248/N/3988592074

I have 3 chicom knockoffs of these.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1219692-REG/dracast_drsp_500b_led500_silver_series_bi_color.html

And the soft boxes that are used instead of umbrellas for diffuse light.
The dual color is handy when you want to give your photo a vintage or
romantic look.

If you don't need battery power, this is a nice little set.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1160240-REG/savage_led60k_savage_500w_led_studio.html

And a slightly more expensive model that uses light boxes instead of
umbrellas.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1259245-REG/savage_led_sb_led_portrait_kit.html


CFL lighting

Large near-sunlight balanced CFLs are available and are an excellent
light source. By large I mean

http://www.neon-john.com/Misc/Big_assed_compact_fluorescent_lamp.htm

They'll screw into a standard reflector socket like used to warm
chicklets just after hatching. I noticed last week that Tractor Supply
had them for $12

My favorite lamp vendor went out of business and despite over an hour of
google-fu, could not find another vendor of the 105 watt, 6500 deg K
color temperature, 86 CRI lamp.

I did find these.

http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/55w_umbrella_822_prd1.htm

250 watts equiv should be enough.

A couple of these, the fixtures and a light box is a good cheap setup.
Here is an article about me using those original lamps to illuminate my lab.

http://www.neon-john.com/Lighting/Shop_lighting/shop_lighting_index.htm


Last Friday I went and got myself married. Attached is a photo of a
plant that some guests brought to the reception. Shot under my shop
lights with no correction at all. I did manually color balance my
camera to the lamps' color temperature.


Another option, nice for people on a budget and those not desiring to
create special lighting effects is the light box.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Shooting-Tables/ci/1409/N/4037060765&sts=cat

I'm experimenting with one of these right now.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082596-REG/polaroid_plpsled_pro_table_top_photo.html

The disadvantage of a light box with built-in illumination is that the
area of uniform lighting is significantly smaller than the box. The
above box is 20" wide but it doesn't do a good job on anything more than
a foot on any dimension.

For shooting outdoors or if you already have lighting, a plain shooting
tent is available. I got one off sleazebay that opens up to about 4 ft
to a side, yet twists back down to a package barely an inch thick.


Something else you'll probably need is some neutral density filter
material. There will likely be a lot of light floating around, perhaps
too much for a low cost point'n'shoot to handle. The neutral density
material reduces the designated amount of light without changing the
color balance. If you have an SLR (and a few P'n'S cameras), you can
get filters that screw on. For every one else, simply buy sheets or
"gels" of the plastic and hold it in front of the lens.

Photographic gels are usually specified by the number of f/stops
absorbed. I suggest 1, 2 and 4. That way you can build up to 7 f/stops
of attenuation which is practically black.

One last comment. Color balance. Pretty much no light source except
the sun in a clear blue sky has a color temperature of 6200 deg K and a
CRI (color rendering index) of 100. Some, such as the one that I'm
experimenting with come close.

With film it REALLY mattered. Not so much with digital cameras. Even
the cheapest ones have automatic color balance which does a fair job of
correcting, say, incandescent light.

Better cameras will have presets that one can select.

The best ones (and my little $100 Canon PowerShot SX150iX is included)
have manual white balance. In this mode one sets the camera to white
balance and then shoots the scene. It doesn't take a photo but it does
set the color balance to daylight. Set the camera back to regular
operation and take your photos. You'll be amazed at what MWB can do.

The only time I had mine fail, and I knew it would, was when I tried to
take a photo under low pressure sodium lighting. LPS is monochromatic
which means there just isn't any light anywhere else in the spectrum for
the camera to work with.

Hope this helps

John


--
John DeArmond
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
http://www.tnduction.com <-- THE source for induction heaters
http://www.neon-john.com <-- email from here
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- Best damned Blog on the net
PGP key: wwwkeys.pgp.net: BCB68D77

[gregebert]

I encountered problems with light reflecting off the nixies, and it also washed-out the glow, so I thought the solution was to photograph in low-light. Attempting low-light photography led to annoying reflections of light from adjacent tubes. The picture I use for my icon from my big clock looks horrible, but the clock itself looks amazing. After several different exposure settings and lighting conditions I was not able to get a 'perfect shot'. I concluded I would need to use photoshop, etc to get something acceptable.

[John Rehwinkel]

I encountered problems with light reflecting off the nixies, and it also washed-out the glow, so I thought the solution was to photograph in low-light.

Light reflections you can improve by using polarizers.  Sometimes light boxes and diffusers aren't the way to go (you get bigger reflections that way), it depends on the look you're after.

Attempting low-light photography led to annoying reflections of light from adjacent tubes.

It's a balancing act (polarizers will help here too, but not as much).

The picture I use for my icon from my big clock looks horrible, but the clock itself looks amazing. After several different exposure settings and lighting conditions I was not able to get a 'perfect shot'. I concluded I would need to use photoshop, etc to get something acceptable.

You may have to build a composite photo to get it to look just right.  That's how they got the Enterprise to look so good in Star Trek (before they went to CGI): they'd do a model pass in normal light, then a highlight pass in the dark to get the accent lights (and sometimes a few other passes for certain details), then combine them.  My sweetie worked at a photo lab for years doing product photography, including hard-to-photograph things like circuit boards and glassware.  If you like, I can ask her for suggestions, but I doubt she's worked with nixies before (I could fire up a nixie project for her to play with, I suppose).

- John

[NeonJohn]

On 04/11/2017 06:14 PM, gregebert wrote:
> I encountered problems with light reflecting off the nixies, and it also
> washed-out the glow, so I thought the solution was to photograph in
> low-light. Attempting low-light photography led to annoying reflections of

> light from adjacent tubes. The picture I use for my icon from my big clock*
> looks* horrible, but the clock itself looks amazing. After several

> different exposure settings and lighting conditions I was not able to get a
> 'perfect shot'. I concluded I would need to use photoshop, etc to get
> something acceptable.

This is the pro solution

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Dulling-Spray-11-Ounces/24419272?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=1453&adid=22222222227025898045&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=52337137695&wl4=pla-79434469695&wl5=21160&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=112550049&wl11=online&wl12=24419272&wl13=&veh=sem

This is an aerosol spray that applies a slightly dulling coating to the
object. It doesn't completely dry and is easily wiped off with a cloth
afterwards or for inaccessible places, blown off with an air hose.

A second option is to use a polarizing filter. If you plan on using
your auto-focus then a less effective circular polarized filter must be
used. If you can manually focus then a linear polarized filter will
provide a much greater extinction ratio (ratio of light passed to light
blocked).

Glare is always polarized. You might find a circular filter does an
adequate job. If not, focus is achieved and then a linear polarized
filter is held in front of the lens and rotated until the glare disappears.

Hand-holding the filter can be done but becomes tedious if many photos
are to be shot. I haven't found a ready-made holder for point and shoot
cameras so I made my own.

It's very simple - a length of aluminum flat stock drilled and tapped
for 1/4-20 on one end. This goes between the tripod and camera and
generally requires an extended tripod bolt.

The other end is bent up 90 deg and trimmed until it just barely
disappears from the camera's image. It should almost touch the lens
when the lens is fully extended.

Here's the trick. Choose a filter diameter large enough to cover the
whole image when zoomed in and out. Then buy a haze filter of the same
diameter. That's about the cheapest thing you can get in that diameter.

Break the glass out of the haze filter. What's left is a ring with the
proper male and female threads. This ring is epoxied to the aluminum
after the stock is curved with a dremel tool to fit the OD of the haze
filter.

Now simply thread the polarizing filter into the mount and it's done.
You can rotate the filter on its threads to see if the effects change.

One final comment. I may be old-fashioned but anything that can be
fixed in a photo editor is a mistake made by the photographer. I'm not
talking about the high end stuff such as slenderizing a model's arms or
giving her bigger boobs. I'm talking about stuff that pre-digital would
be considered bad technique.

Get it right in the original exposure and photo editing won't be
necessary except for cropping.

[Roddy Scott]

  NeonJohn wrote:

One final comment.  I may be old-fashioned but anything that can be 
fixed in a photo editor is a mistake made by the photographer.

I agree 100%! 

Too many so called 'photographs' are the result of hours of manipulation and do not reflect photography skills but rather computer skills.

The only thing I do to mine is crop them.

In regards to the issue of the topic, I would think that bracket photographing is an easy way to fix an image if you shoot in RAW then you could layer 2 shots together to get a better result but then again that is manipulation :-)

[JohnK]

Well, the programs just make dodging, burning, fading, silver mask jobs etc easier.

Nothing wrong with using all the tools - there are some subjects that can't be photographed well enough no matter what the photographer's skills.

Just because air-brushing was overused doesn't outlaw it.

 

Face it - even use of a polariser IS cheating.

 

Actually, it all comes back to the specification for the print/photograph. What did the customer require?

 

John K

[PS. both glad and sad not to be splashing around anymore]

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "neonixie-l" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to neonixie-l+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to neoni...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/neonixie-l/be1eff1f-9967-4ce1-ac29-c4b8d1a498a4%40googlegroups.com.