Dark Knight BTS lighting setup...

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

hahaha great post, where is this place exactly?

Re: Avenger's 'Schwarma' restaurant... I'm only posting this information, for the 'cinematic edification' of those who can visit the site and see the 'as is lighting' conditions...

Here's the Yelp URL.

http://www.yelp.com/biz/elat-burger-los-angeles

 

[starcentral]

you can see a "soft light" on a stick in BTS for Gone in 60 seconds, in particular one of the scenes in the barn where Nick is walking around.

In fact moving lights with actors is not as uncommon as we are all led to believe, when you watch films just watch for shadows that move with the actors...

 

[Ian-T]

With all the talk of how much light was used and in looking at the BTS snapshot I'm amazed at how dark the final scene turned out to be (in comparison).

 

[David G. Smith]

Yes. I am betting that because of the inverse square law, and the quality of the light (soft), the required wattage needed to light a space that big is huge. It may very well not be 18k's bouncing into muslin, but it could be large helium airstars, or several space lights (x6 1k nooks or similar)

Either way, in order to get a T/4. T/2.8 exposure in a room that large, and the lighting that soft, power is required. I'd say at least 4k HMI's in an airstar or boucing into something. 18k's are not out of the question, either, especially if they are shooting into muslin and back through more diffusion. With ISO/ASA values so high these days (500, 800, etc) 18ks are typically only found on large night exteriors or when the light is being forced through bounce diffusion setups, such as the afforementioned popular 'book light' where as light is shot into a bounce of sorts and then diffused again...

The chinaball, however, can be much less powerful and still shine a discernable backlight upon the key talent, because it is only a couple feet away. It's also likely not a 65w household light in there either, as most people on DVXuser would associate china lanters as using. I'm thinking 20x that at least. I could be wrong, but my assessment is what you would more likely found. If I am wrong it is the exception.

What I do know is that the future of lighting will be the same it is now, but scaled down in power requirements.... that is unless competeing with the sun on day exteriors.

-ryan

Yeah, I was kind of being factious about the 18Ks rather than specific. I just know that it is a lot more light than I am probably going to work with anytime soon.

 

[ErikTande]

One of my 'problems' with American Cinematographer is that for the most part they don't have an 'excrutiatingly detailed' shot, where one is given the lighting falling on a scene, and the lights that are used...

Maybe not every issue, but at least a couple of times a year.

Not being able to get on a 'real' set... with a light meter... sort of limits one to guessing how things went.

When I use to do a lot of architectural shots, and read "American Architecture" avidly, while they did not have a photo detail section, because I had a reasonable set of 'pro' flash lights, I could approximate what the lighting situation was...

But I don't have access to 18K HMI's on a cherry picker... or the like... in fact I couldn't even go above 1.5K with my 'house wiring'...

However, I can do some estimations of the following:

The 'big budget shot'...

The 'NoLo Budget shot'...

The place is in LA, and the second shot is 'lit' purely from the window and street bounce lighting...

The 'pro' lighting put something into the 'very dark background', who knows maybe even shot at night, and used lights on the cast. But basically lots of lights to make sure there was 1) separation between the cast in dark outfits, and the 'hotter' background, 2) background did not go into the black pit... since there was a cleaning woman there for 'atmosphere'...

The camera angle of the pro shot was such that if they had lights on rails in the back, they were out of the frame.

So my guess is the pro lights had a big light for the table surrounded by the talent. and another in the back to fill that 'hole'. Additional bounce to fill in the lower portions of the talent sitting with their backs to the camera.

What movie is the second screenshot from? Was it made before or after Avengers? I'm confused on what's going on here : P





*EDIT* Nevermind, it's from Birdemic 2, being made after Avengers.

 

[Ian-T]

I like how they blocked out the Coca-Cola sign on the fountain drink machine.

EDIT: It seems like the Avengers shot has the camera angle view a bit higher on the actors than the lower budget shot. Maybe that was to conceal the extra lighting they probably had in the background above the maid (which is why it's so much brighter than the other photo). Just enough to keep it out of the shot. Just guessing.

 

[legrevedotcom]

The chinaball, however, can be much less powerful and still shine a discernable backlight upon the key talent, because it is only a couple feet away. It's also likely not a 65w household light in there either, as most people on DVXuser would associate china lanters as using. I'm thinking 20x that at least. I could be wrong, but my assessment is what you would more likely found. If I am wrong it is the exception.

-ryan

20x you say? Can a China handle that much? Or is that simply because one would need to get an edition which is treated with fire retardant? I bought a couple of 3 foot lanterns, and some lamps equiv. to 475w tungsten, but ofcourse that is no where near the 1300w you suggest.

 

[DDirector]

20x you say? Can a China handle that much? Or is that simply because one would need to get an edition which is treated with fire retardant? I bought a couple of 3 foot lanterns, and some lamps equiv. to 475w tungsten, but ofcourse that is no where near the 1300w you suggest.

Cant you use those chimera lanterns? Ive used some that were 1,500w if I recall correctly.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

20x you say? Can a China handle that much? Or is that simply because one would need to get an edition which is treated with fire retardant? I bought a couple of 3 foot lanterns, and some lamps equiv. to 475w tungsten, but ofcourse that is no where near the 1300w you suggest.

I should have been more clear. I was referring to output not literal wattage.

Professional pancake lanterns, china lanterns, and likewise industry lighting products are unlike cheap disposable paper or silk china lanterns we buy at filmtools or other places. They are more robust and fire retardant. It is not uncommon for a joker-bug bulb or other HMI bottle to be dropped inside. Because of the nature of HMI bulbs, a 400w HMI bulb output is comparable to 1.2k-1.8k of a tungsten bulb.

Of course, we all push limits. I've seen 1k-1.5k tungsten lanterns, but I have to say with the heat to light ratio, it's been a very hot endevour. I've gotten those edison Y-splitters from Home Depot and have put four 250w tungsten bulbs into one large china ball. So that is 1k of burning hot tungsten in one paper lantern from Filmtools. That is pushing it, as paper lanterns are fire hazards at that kind of heat. That said, I could likely have gotten more in something a bit bigger and more flame retardent. This is why HMI's are so great. When at the same power consumption, you get 3x-4x more light output.

 

[legrevedotcom]

Excellent info... thank you. Ryan... would it be better to use clear bulbs instead of frosted in a China? I mean, the china is already supplying a good amount of softening.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

If the chinaball/lantern's diffusion is thick enough to start, the frosted bulb won't be further softening the light but rather just reducing it. I'd personally go clear bulbs to gain more output.

The same goes for bounce lighting and/or diffusion lighting. PAR lights, open face lights, and other lighting units can often put out more punch than fresnel lights of equal wattage. The reason Fresnel lenses are in a light to begin with is to create that very nice quality of light fresnel lenses give. But if bouncing a light into muslin, beadboard, showcard, or ultra bounce, you'll find you are loosing the advantage a fresnel lens gives. Now, because of how it is being used, the fresnel lens is simply restricting the light output. This is why if I'm bouncing a light off muslin and/or through a diffusion frame, I use a PAR64 can. It will give more punch per watt into my diffusion.

Now this is not so much true if I were shooting a light through really weak diffusion. A very hard/harsh light, such as a PAR64 firestarter will have a different quality of light than a Fresnel of similar wattage when pushed through the same piece of very light diffusion, say opal. So I only advocate abandoning quality for quantity when the diffusion is strong enough to not reveal the difference in quality.

 

[David G. Smith]

One of my 'problems' with American Cinematographer is that for the most part they don't have an 'excrutiatingly detailed' shot, where one is given the lighting falling on a scene, and the lights that are used...

Maybe not every issue, but at least a couple of times a year.

Not being able to get on a 'real' set... with a light meter... sort of limits one to guessing how things went.

When I use to do a lot of architectural shots, and read "American Architecture" avidly, while they did not have a photo detail section, because I had a reasonable set of 'pro' flash lights, I could approximate what the lighting situation was...

But I don't have access to 18K HMI's on a cherry picker... or the like... in fact I couldn't even go above 1.5K with my 'house wiring'...

However, I can do some estimations of the following:

The 'big budget shot'...

The 'NoLo Budget shot'...

The place is in LA, and the second shot is 'lit' purely from the window and street bounce lighting...

The 'pro' lighting put something into the 'very dark background', who knows maybe even shot at night, and used lights on the cast. But basically lots of lights to make sure there was 1) separation between the cast in dark outfits, and the 'hotter' background, 2) background did not go into the black pit... since there was a cleaning woman there for 'atmosphere'...

The camera angle of the pro shot was such that if they had lights on rails in the back, they were out of the frame.

So my guess is the pro lights had a big light for the table surrounded by the talent. and another in the back to fill that 'hole'. Additional bounce to fill in the lower portions of the talent sitting with their backs to the camera.

Well, the big budget shoot was probably shot on a stage and I would be really hard pressed to comment on exactly how that was lit, but my guess is that it was probably not lit with any one fixture that is outlandishly large, but, like you said, with multiple carefully placed and skillfully controlled conventional fixtures.

The low budget shot could have been lit way better than that, even uber low budget. A $100, or less, trip to Home Depot, or other big box hardware store, could have made the lighting in that much better. For my two cents, I would have done something about the dark back area and cut some of the light on the actors coming from camera left; you know... basic cinematography stuff. That is my biggest frustration with a lot of low budget films that I see. Just because your light sensitive wiz bang camera will make an image in available light doesn't mean that it is good image.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Well, the big budget shoot was probably shot on a stage and I would be really hard pressed to comment on exactly how that was lit, but my guess is that it was probably not lit with any one fixture that is outlandishly large, but, like you said, with multiple carefully placed and skillfully controlled conventional fixtures.

The low budget shot could have been lit way better than that, even uber low budget. A $100, or less, trip to Home Depot, or other big box hardware store, could have made the lighting in that much better. For my two cents, I would have done something about the dark back area and cut some of the light on the actors coming from camera left; you know... basic cinematography stuff. That is my biggest frustration with a lot of low budget films that I see. Just because your light sensitive wiz bang camera will make an image in available light doesn't mean that it is good image.

lol. Look closely. It's undoubtedly the same location.

 

[kylevant]

Now when I see this in the cinema I'm going to be throwing popcorn on everyone, shouting "china ball!"

About a week ago I finally put together a set of these. Believe it or not, but previously I couldn't find the lanterns anywhere in my town. Now, suddenly they're in every shop!?

I should have been more clear. I was referring to output not literal wattage.

Professional pancake lanterns, china lanterns, and likewise industry lighting products are unlike cheap disposable paper or silk china lanterns we buy at filmtools or other places. They are more robust and fire retardant. It is not uncommon for a joker-bug bulb or other HMI bottle to be dropped inside. Because of the nature of HMI bulbs, a 400w HMI bulb output is comparable to 1.2k-1.8k of a tungsten bulb.

Of course, we all push limits. I've seen 1k-1.5k tungsten lanterns, but I have to say with the heat to light ratio, it's been a very hot endevour. I've gotten those edison Y-splitters from Home Depot and have put four 250w tungsten bulbs into one large china ball. So that is 1k of burning hot tungsten in one paper lantern from Filmtools. That is pushing it, as paper lanterns are fire hazards at that kind of heat. That said, I could likely have gotten more in something a bit bigger and more flame retardent. This is why HMI's are so great. When at the same power consumption, you get 3x-4x more light output.

Wow, and I thought I was hardcore throwing two 200w tungsten bulbs into one. Turning it on, I thought it was going to spontaneously combust. Left it on for an hour and it didn't get much hotter.

That is my biggest frustration with a lot of low budget films that I see. Just because your light sensitive wiz bang camera will make an image in available light doesn't mean that it is good image.

I agree. One time we were going to shoot outside in a parking lot. The overhead street lights were quite powerful but very harsh. Anyway, I was trying to arrange power and someone said that surely I don't need more light with the camera I'm using. Well, yes... and no. Technically, I don't need extra light. Creatively, it's a must!!

lol. Look closely. It's undoubtedly the same location.

Yep. Down to the covering of the coke dispenser.

 

[David G. Smith]

lol. Look closely. It's undoubtedly the same location.

I am more inclined to think that the production designer eats at the joint in the low budget shot 2 or 3 times a month and then recreated it on a stage... but this would not be the first time that I have been wrong... Duh!!

Though I got to say, that reinforces my assertion that if are shooting low budget fictional narrative, you need a lot more versatile lights than you may have originally thought.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

lol. Look closely. It's undoubtedly the same location.

That's sort of why I chose those two examples. It is very difficult analyzing a 'big budget' set... was it banks of 18K's... or a set of big blimps... but in this case those in LA can go to the location, then check out what the "Avengers" clip lighting was, and see how a 'guerrilla' shoot was... and see more clearly what could have been done for the big bux... well at least I think so...

In one of the recent AC magazines, there's the lighting layout for the "Avengers"... There's all so some shots of the some of the greenscreen setups, that have a row of 'big lights' from the ceiling... The power needed seems like it would light a small town for a week... I still would have liked to have had some indication of the amount of light falling on the talent...

 

[sonofaresiii]

I should have been more clear. I was referring to output not literal wattage.

Professional pancake lanterns, china lanterns, and likewise industry lighting products are unlike cheap disposable paper or silk china lanterns we buy at filmtools or other places. They are more robust and fire retardant. It is not uncommon for a joker-bug bulb or other HMI bottle to be dropped inside. Because of the nature of HMI bulbs, a 400w HMI bulb output is comparable to 1.2k-1.8k of a tungsten bulb.

Of course, we all push limits. I've seen 1k-1.5k tungsten lanterns, but I have to say with the heat to light ratio, it's been a very hot endevour. I've gotten those edison Y-splitters from Home Depot and have put four 250w tungsten bulbs into one large china ball. So that is 1k of burning hot tungsten in one paper lantern from Filmtools. That is pushing it, as paper lanterns are fire hazards at that kind of heat. That said, I could likely have gotten more in something a bit bigger and more flame retardent. This is why HMI's are so great. When at the same power consumption, you get 3x-4x more light output.

You're right, but let's keep in mind that ball is five feet or less from the actors... and I don't see Anne Hathaway or Christian Bale wearing sunglasses so I'm skeptical on it being anything close to an HMI bulb. If it was just behind one actor, that'd be a different story, but since they're facing each other we can assume the light had to be low enough that it wouldn't blind either of the actors.

 

[sonofaresiii]

That's sort of why I chose those two examples. It is very difficult analyzing a 'big budget' set... was it banks of 18K's... or a set of big blimps... but in this case those in LA can go to the location, then check out what the "Avengers" clip lighting was, and see how a 'guerrilla' shoot was... and see more clearly what could have been done for the big bux... well at least I think so...

In one of the recent AC magazines, there's the lighting layout for the "Avengers"... There's all so some shots of the some of the greenscreen setups, that have a row of 'big lights' from the ceiling... The power needed seems like it would light a small town for a week... I still would have liked to have had some indication of the amount of light falling on the talent...

The comparison is cool, but I don't think it really works as a "big budget v. low budget" lighting example, as most would agree even on a low budget the bottom picture could have been lit better. It looks much more like they just walked in during business hours and had someone shoot it with available light... not having really lit it. (as someone pointed out, the low budget guys didn't even cover the Coca-Cola sign, probably because they weren't allowed to) So, cool comparison, bad example.

 

[sonofaresiii]

p.s. those last two comments came off way douchier than I intended... read them again, but pretend I'm not a pretentious asshole

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

The comparison is cool, but I don't think it really works as a "big budget v. low budget" lighting example, as most would agree even on a low budget the bottom picture could have been lit better. It looks much more like they just walked in during business hours and had someone shoot it with available light... not having really lit it. (as someone pointed out, the low budget guys didn't even cover the Coca-Cola sign, probably because they weren't allowed to) So, cool comparison, bad example.

I think I'm going to do a series of 'locations as they are' vs. 'as seen in the movies'... I'm sure someone has done this to some extent, but perhaps for my own edification... take shots of the 'as is location', then conjecture what a 'big budget' production has done.

In my example there was set dressing differences, as well as lighting differences. I'm sure the 'Birdemic 2' teaser 'Avenger' homage was shot 'guerrilla' style, 15 minutes, even with owner permission... I think there could have been a couple of things done differently to improve the situation... but that's history...

Another example would be the Bradbury Building in Downtown Los Angeles. I've shot 4x5 stills in the early 70's there... I don't know if I still have them, but there are a number of films that have used that location. The building does have a very large central glass roof, which allows for a lot of light, but for night shots, it's pretty dark...

The idea would be 'given a budget production's lighting', what could a no-lo budget do, if they had '1 hour/30 minutes/15 minutes' to set up, shoot, and getout...

Then there's Union Station...

The other place I've been meaning to check out is the locations that were used for "In Time"(2011), which has a lot of 'street lighting'. When I asked on Roger Deakins site, whether the lighting was 'real' or 'heavily augmented', he indicated the natural lighting is very limited, so almost everything in the film is 'additional lighting', with color correction to give it that 'industria' Sodium light look.

The Wife and I did something like this a few years back looking for remaining examples of Art Deco architecture... with a GPS device it makes going to specific known locations... 'child's play'...