Whats the minimum space needed for a cyclorama?

[peter_macejka]

<p>Hi everyone, please give me your opinions on the following studio set up.<br>

<br />I'm considering renting a small studio space, and am unsure if its enough space for my needs. The space is 3m (9ft) wide by 6m (18ft) long by 3.6m (11ft) high. I would like to turn the space into a cyclorama, having the full width of the studio (both corners) curved and come out about 4m (also curved).<br>

I was thinking of lighting it from the top, hanging strobe flashes like the Bowens Gemini 200's from a scafolding tube suspended bolted into the concrete ceiling. <br />My main lights would be run either from the same scafolding or from 2 additional scafolding tubes running in the middle of the room. I was also considering running a couple of linear bearing plates with a spigot base plate attached to them to allow me to move the main lights without having to undo super clamps.<br>

I plan on shooting fashion, portraits (still & dancers in motion) and some product shots.<br>

Do you think this is a workable space and set up?<br>

Thanks for your help,<br>

Peter</p>

 

[lornesunley]

<p>That is a fairly narrow room ... especially for trying to do dancers in motion</p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>9 feet wide is way too narrow to do full height portraits, much less dancers. I just moved my studio out of a 9 foot wide room for that very reason (full height portraits, not dancers). Even with the lights mounted on the ceiling.<br>

<Chas><br /><br /></p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>I had 14x24 ft, and found dancers a challenge.</p>

<p>And the lights were on a Manfrotto Sky Track system, lateral rails running under longitudinal rails, so you could glide lights on both axises. One axis (tube and sled) would drive me up the wall. I'd rather use light stands.</p>

[peter_macejka]

<p>Thanks for your insights.<br>

Charles, do you think full length portraits are possible considering the width would be a cyclorama, not just a roll of background paper?<br>

If not, could you clarify the reasons you found it impossible?<br>

thanks</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>How about shooting them on the seamless then knocking them out and dropping them onto a plain bg or, for that matter, anything you want. Or just extending the bg in post. Zack Arias has an on line tutorial for that.</p>

[michaelmowery]

<p>It sounds like you are looking for the answer that you want to hear. "Yes, you can do it with that 9ft wide space" lol.<br /> I guess this is your first space and you probably got a good deal on it and you are excited to get in and set up your lighting that you have spent hours drawing on paper. Believe me I have done the same thing.<br /> You got some real life answers here and I would take there advice and wait and find a bigger place if this is the main bulk of work that you will do. If you said I only do still life shots, table top shots and some people portraits with some small families then I would say yes but ditch the cyclorama. I have never seen a cycle less than 24 feet wide.<br /> I assume when you say your space if 9ft wide it means before the cycle. The cycle will eat a couple of feet on either side. Don't forget your subjects will be away from the back wall a good 8 to 10 feet with the curve of the cycle and therefore you will begin the see the side walls of your studio. You will now be only 9 or 10 feet away from your subject. Can you begin to see your limitations? Good luck</p>

[peter_macejka]

<p>Thanks Michael,<br>

That's the explanation I was looking for. Yes, I was really hoping it would work because of a good deal. Big studios are probably out of my price range, and I was hoping to have a permanent space rather than setting up and packing up every time I hire a space.<br />The search continues. :)</p>

<p> </p>