Are these new "amazing low light" cameras hurting the importance of cinematography?

D

dtjohns1

Well-known member
Are these new "amazing low light" cameras hurting the importance of cinematography?

Ever since sample footage of the 1DX and the C300 shooting at extreme ISOs of up to 20,000 or something crazy like that has been popping up I've seen people getting excited saying "Wow we can now use our cell phones as key lights now!" or "This will get rid of a reason to use lights!" Is it just me or does this make me sad that more and more people are downplaying true cinematography and postioning of your key light, mood set by your lighting, contrast ratios, color temperature, and the millions of other things that lighting brings to the table that all of a sudden gets thrown out the window just because your camera can see in the dark better than the human eye can? No wonder we get a billion threads a year about attaining the sacred "film look" no one respects the true work it takes to getting a nice image. It's just "Hey I can get a good exposure at 20,000 ISO and I have a shallow dof lets make Heat the Sequel!"
 
There's benefit to having a more sensitive camera, in that it lets you use a lower-power package. But more sensitivity does nothing about the things you describe -- the need for shaping of the light, and placement of the light, the color of the light, the ratio of the light, and everything else.

With the AF100 at ISO 3200 I can get pretty decent exposure off of a single candle. So as far as I'm concerned, that's soooo much more than necessary. Going to 20,000 ISO -- well, that might be helpful if you're trying to shoot "Paranormal Activity 4" or wildlife by moonlight or some other new creative endeavor, but it really won't do anything for conventional cinematography.

Shooting without lights will become possible. But it'll also be ugly, so the value of doing so ... well, that remains to be seen.
 
Barry_Green said:
There's benefit to having a more sensitive camera, in that it lets you use a lower-power package. But more sensitivity does nothing about the things you describe -- the need for shaping of the light, and placement of the light, the color of the light, the ratio of the light, and everything else.

With the AF100 at ISO 3200 I can get pretty decent exposure off of a single candle. So as far as I'm concerned, that's soooo much more than necessary. Going to 20,000 ISO -- well, that might be helpful if you're trying to shoot "Paranormal Activity 4" or wildlife by moonlight or some other new creative endeavor, but it really won't do anything for conventional cinematography.

Shooting without lights will become possible. But it'll also be ugly, so the value of doing so ... well, that remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. These cameras will be great for documentary work or something that is supposed to have a found footage, amateur feel but for the most part i'm sure most people are going to try and get "film look" out of these cameras at these crazy isos with no lighting. The funny thing is if people spent that same $14-20,000 on lighting, grip equipment, and educational tools on cinematography that they would spend upgrading from an AF-101 to a C300 or Scarlet they probably would be a lot happier. Lighting equipment and lenses can carry on forever but being happy having a Scarlet-X now turns into being unhappy that you don't have the Scarlet-Z tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
Yep, give Gordon Willis a 25 year old hi-8 camera and a grip truck and his footage will look better than every single person on this forums footage shot with a Arri Alexa.
 
While films like the following never made it to 'mainstream/street', they, along with a host of similar 'experimenters', and those willing to 'go on location' gave the final coup de grace to 'the way things were done' in Hollywood.


I see the same potential that 16mm Bolexes did for the 60's... relative to the current set of 'digital' solutions. I checked a little while ago... for $300 one could buy a used Bolex (wind up...) in 1970 or so... in current 2011 dollars that's about $1700, which is right in the 'ballpark' of current Canons or a 'fully loaded' GH-2... and look ma... no crank for the precision swiss clockworks...
 
High iso cameras have done one thing... they created a whole new enemy. Ambient fill. I spend all my friggin time knocking down ambient fill. Annoying. With F3 and log, base sensitivity is ISO1600... that's 0dB.... I'm Spending half the day turning off every light, to be able to take advantage of the smaller cheaper light package.... NOTHING IS FOR FREE.
 
TimurCivan said:
High iso cameras have done one thing... they created a whole new enemy. Ambient fill. I spend all my friggin time knocking down ambient fill. Annoying. With F3 and log, base sensitivity is ISO1600... that's 0dB.... I'm Spending half the day turning off every light, to be able to take advantage of the smaller cheaper light package.... NOTHING IS FOR FREE.
Click to expand...

+1
 
I personally dislike the sensitivity in newer cameras. I agree that it's a pain to knock down the light especially in lower budget indie situations where you want to move as fast as possible. My old 35mm Adapter setup actually greatly benefitted me in that it seemed to strike a perfect balance of need for natural light and fill. I've yet to recreate that situation with any newer camera. I know I should learn the other method it's just so annoying to me LOL.

In response to the threads original question, yes I think that no lighting has unfortunately become the new "lighting" for a lot of indie folks and that's just foolish and isn't helping us at all.
 
It took me a while to adjust my lighting style/workflow to the F3/FS100.
I use more reflectors, bounce boards or even plain writing paper sheets to fill, where I used a Kino before, for example.

It was a bit confusing at the beginning, but once you got it, it´s easy.

Shooting without lighting is the biggest disservice you can do to your film.
Doing that, would take away one of the most creative and effective tools in your arsenal.

Frank
 
"Shooting without lighting is the biggest disservice you can do to your film.

Yep, yet we see videos posted on here every day shot that way. DSLR requires even MORE attention to lighting yet people haver somehow gotten this ridiculous idea it means you don't need them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top