Digital Lighting

[dvxhutch]

I work in Sydney and in the last few years I've noticed a real change in workflow with regards to working with DPs. I'd be interested to find out the thoughts of DPs out there.

Basically it involves the use of digital lighting in productions more and more each year. It used to be the case where DPs and myself would not really spend much time together, but now the DP is becoming so much more involved with post.

We can speed up our shooting schedule by 50%, by lighting the scene in a fairly bland, yet well lit, way by simple means. Sometimes as simple as bouncing 2 lights off the ceiling. The result is very flat, but evenly lit.

We then add all the lighting digitally using Apple's COLOR, AFTER EFFECTS and/or MOTION. The results are amazing, and not half as time consuming as you'd think. We might add one extra colorist for a couple of days to just do digital lighting, and that's heaps cheaper than the money we save on all the extra crew shooting at a slower rate.

The reason I ask is I've just watched the DIGITAL GRADING section on disc 4 of THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING EXTENDED edition, and they seem to do a similar thing - albeit in even more detail and time.

I was wondering if any DPs would like to comment, especially on their relationship with editors/colorists. People are often asking on this forum how to light with work lights and such. Trying to use them is ridiculously hard. But by bouncing them off the ceiling, getting a nice overall (yet flat) look, and then doing all the lighting in post, you can achieve great results. PREMIERE also has a LIGHTING effects, although I haven't tried it.

Any comments?

 

[emretufekci]

I try to do a combination of both lighting vanilla and painting with light mostly depending on the camera system I have available.

If I am working with decent budget and I can hire a Genesis, Viper...etc I tend to light more in detail because:

1- With such cameras it means I have a large budget and can afford a large crew. That means more time and people to light.
2- The latitude of the camera allows for dynamics.
3- DIT on location gives me a pretty good idea of what I can do in post in a non destructive way since we would be working in a filmstream or panalog mode.

If my budget is shorter but can still afford a F900, varicam, HPX3000...etc

1-I try not to paint in camera as it is destructive.
2-I try not to light flat as the cameras performance is still amazing, given good lighting.
3- The amount you can extend the cameras range in post is still quite significant.

If I am working with a micro budget:

hpx-500, hvx200...etc

1- Flat even lighting, bounce of the ceiling. Small crews...
2- Shoot vanilla in camera, no tampering with settings. Usually very fast tempo.
3- Do all grading, color timing in post. Cheaper.

This process is evolving for me as well. Who knows I might come back and contradict myself in a few years.

Cheers,

 

[dvxhutch]

Thanks for the great reply, very informative.

If I am working with a micro budget:

hpx-500, hvx200...etc

1- Flat even lighting, bounce of the ceiling. Small crews...
2- Shoot vanilla in camera, no tampering with settings. Usually very fast tempo.
3- Do all grading, color timing in post.

I think this could be valuable to a lot of DVXUSER members, who don't know a lot about lighting or don't have the money for nice equipment. Considering the low prices of COLOR and AFTER EFFECTS, most low-budget filmmakers can get there hands on them and I think would be amazed at how good the results can be and how much easier it can make shooting.

Does anyone else shoot this way?

PS videocopilot.net have some great tutorials on using AE for lighting. Andrew Kramer makes it look so easy!

 

[emretufekci]

Here are a few samples for flat lighting and post work.

This was a relatively low budget shoot so it was a 5 man crew:

DoP/Focus Puller: Me
Director
Soundman
Dolly Grip
Cameraman

We could budget out for a nice JL Fisher Dolly(called in a favor) but the client did not have enough money for a high end camera. We opted out for a HVX200 with and 35mm adapter+zeiss primes. I was on a remote follow focus so I could be next to the director on a panasonic 17" monitor.

The locations were ER/ICU/NICU/POST op so there was no way we could lock of areas, we had to work around their schedules.

We lit with a small lighting package of Rifa Lights and bounced most the light straight of the ceiling. In post we re-lit certain areas and painted other places out. Color timing was done in After effects. We got tracking data from mocha.


PLEASE NOTE: The images are coming from a REC709 color space so they look 1 -1/2 stops under exposed. I was too lazy to correct it.

 

[GageFX]

I will follow this thread with interest. See where it goes. I am a professional photographer; I've been shooting fulltime for a decade. For me and most photographers and DPs, lighting is paramount. It is our job. A monkey can push a shutter release, it's the lighting that makes the image. (And 20 other important aspects, but lighting is paramount.) So from this frame of mind, I cannot disagree more with what you are saying. That said, I'm always open to hearing/learning something new.


The one point I will comment on is this:

I think this could be valuable to a lot of DVXUSER members, who don't know a lot about lighting or don't have the money for nice equipment. Considering the low prices of COLOR and AFTER EFFECTS, most low-budget filmmakers can get there hands on them and I think would be amazed at how good the results can be and how much easier it can make shooting.

I just dont see how if someone can light with an actual light, how they are going to be able to digitally recreate it. I can light a person or scene with my eyes closed, and I am also very proficient with AE, and I've been using Photoshop everyday for almost 15 years. There is nothing easy than creating realistic lighting in a scene. Basic compensation for brightening/darkening different areas is one thing, but actually lighting a scene is not easy. Especially for someone that doesnt know how to light.

But that's my take. I'm eager to hear more.

 

[Jeff Anderson]

I follow this with quite a bit of interest as well. I'm just now getting good at actually lighting things (still have a ways to go, but at least now I feel like I know what I'm actually doing). Any good places to learn how to light in AE or is this just a try some things and see what works? I'm mainly wanting to learn how to do this for corporate interviews where many times I just dont have the time to properly light something. I'd of course prefer to light something properly, but this shooting flat and bouncing some light off the ceiling and playing with it in AE would really help me out every once in a while.

Also eager to hear more...

 

[Qzar]

I think there is a big distinction between color correction and digital lighting. I've seen a lot of stuff on this subject and I have never seen it do anything spectacular without very good lighting to begin with. Once I was watching a demo of some digital lighting work being done on Lustre and while it did improve the scene a lot, it was nothing you couldn't achieve in regular chemical based color timing.

I've seen a lot of behind the scenes footage of Andrew Lesnie at work and the reality is it doesn't make it any easier than actually spending time to light things. He does things the way he does them because he doesn't have much of a choice, there is so much effects work being done that you can't have a lot of pre-post lighting. I would kill myself if I had to rotoscope a bunch of chiaroscuro shots. However shooting the way he does requires thousands of watts of carefully placed lights in order to get good results. I wouldn't call it easy or straightfoward and I have never seen it give any decent looking results on a low budget. Frankly i'm quite skeptical you could digitally light a narrative film in after effects with any more ease than you could on set.

 

[emretufekci]

I couldnt agree more with you Gage FX. The "lighting" skills DoP's is what separates the men from the boys. It also keeps people employed, which is a much more important topic. I would much rather have a crew of 200 on a large production then a 5 man, rag tag team where you are trying to cut corners for cost and sacrifice quality.

A lot of "permalancers" we hire depend on us for income and I try to make sure we employ the right amount of people for the job.

As far as how to light scenes in post is actually fairly complicated process. Creating light dark spots and contrast is not too hard. We have people with high end compositing skills that can take 3D or planar tracking information, isolate subjects and background to create very realistic ligthing conditions. Sometimes we have gone as far as replacing and recreating the background all together.

This is done under the supervision of a fulltime colorist who is a very valuable asset.

Even with all this said you really need to know what you are doing in post. Garbage in garbage out still applies. We have had a lot of stuff brought to our studios that we just turn away because there really is nothing that can be done.

But again, we only apply the point the light at the ceiling process only if we are limited in budget or location.

Here is a very nice video sample from Stargate digital and their examples of digital backlot. Not a pure digital lighting sample but a combination of many skills. Just for your enjoyment.

http://www.studiodaily.com/main/searchlist/6503.html

 

[Jeff Anderson]

wow that video was pretty impressive Emre, thanks for sharing. Thanks for explaining a little more about what goes into your digital lighting process. Sounds like more than I want to bite off right now as far as actually using it for paying work, but I may do some experimenting with it just for fun. For now I'll just stick with my real lights and just start setting them up faster

 

[GageFX]

Great info Emre, thanks. I dont have time to fully read/watch everything on that link, but I will get to it tonight.

I've seen a lot of behind the scenes footage of Andrew Lesnie at work and the reality is it doesn't make it any easier than actually spending time to light things.

I dont know who Andrew Lesnie is and am not familiar with his work, but regarding the last part of that sentence, it doesnt take any longer to light something WELL as it does to light it bad. You can hange lights in the "right" place with the "right" modifiers or in the "wrong" place with the "wrong" modifiers. It takes the same amount of time. And to be clear, I use "right" and "wrong" in quotes because I dont presume to say any lighting is right or wrong, but to light flat because it's easier is just being lazy. It's lazier, not easier.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Basically it involves the use of digital lighting in productions more and more each year. It used to be the case where DPs and myself would not really spend much time together, but now the DP is becoming so much more involved with post.

What?! Despite my disagreement on relying on post grading to make a film (should be used to improve or polish a film, not light it), this description of the post grader/ DP relationship is great due to my understanding that this is the opposite of what is really going on. I hear more and more about production companies/ studios not wanting to pay the DP more money to stay through the color grading phase.

Read "Keeping a Vision Consistent" by Todd Longwell. This is an article written for the American Cinematographer Authoring Images Part III supplement.

Find the online edition here: http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/ac/ac-authoringimages0308/index.php

We can speed up our shooting schedule by 50%, by lighting the scene in a fairly bland, yet well lit, way by simple means. Sometimes as simple as bouncing 2 lights off the ceiling. The result is very flat, but evenly lit.

We then add all the lighting digitally using Apple's COLOR, AFTER EFFECTS and/or MOTION. The results are amazing, and not half as time consuming as you'd think. We might add one extra colorist for a couple of days to just do digital lighting, and that's heaps cheaper than the money we save on all the extra crew shooting at a slower rate.

All I have to say about this is that it is just horrible, unless you want that soft 'flat' look! This is no way to shoot a film, no way to treat peoples jobs, and they are still going to pay Reese Witherspoon 15 million dollars to play a dumb lawyer.

The reason I ask is I've just watched the DIGITAL GRADING section on disc 4 of THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING EXTENDED edition, and they seem to do a similar thing - albeit in even more detail and time.

I was wondering if any DPs would like to comment, especially on their relationship with editors/colorists. People are often asking on this forum how to light with work lights and such. Trying to use them is ridiculously hard. But by bouncing them off the ceiling, getting a nice overall (yet flat) look, and then doing all the lighting in post, you can achieve great results. PREMIERE also has a LIGHTING effects, although I haven't tried it.

Any comments?

It is not as simple as throwing light off the ceiling. This would require someone to take a ridiculous amount of time to key frame moving elements in the frame and etc. I've done some power windows in Color and other programs, and unless the camera is locked down, only minor corrections can be used without noticing the artificial fingerprint of the filmmaker.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

If you didn't explore the Amer.Cinematographer link above just listen to these two quotes I pulled from the text:

(the increase of vsfx capabilities are...)... creating new challenges for cinematographers and production designers, who labor over thier images and designs for months during prep and production but are often off the payroll by the time post rolls around.

"You agonize, you sweat blood, and you try to make something that's unique and visceral for the audience, then you kind of put your baby in the banana leaf and send it downriver, hoping it will survive," says Transformers production designer Jeff Mann, "[Production] can do whatever they want with whatever I create and their ears can be just as open to people in post as they were to me in the process of production. Anything can happen."

To hear Janusz Kaminski tell it, the situation is even worse for cinematographers. "[They say]. 'Just make sure it's in focus and we'll get a really good telecine guy who'll make the images look good," says the cameraman, who has shot all of Steven Spielburg's movies since Schindler's List (1993).

The article continues on how to improve this situation. It's a good read. Link is in my previous post.

 

[Qzar]

Great info Emre, thanks. I dont have time to fully read/watch everything on that link, but I will get to it tonight.




I dont know who Andrew Lesnie is and am not familiar with his work, but regarding the last part of that sentence, it doesnt take any longer to light something WELL as it does to light it bad. You can hange lights in the "right" place with the "right" modifiers or in the "wrong" place with the "wrong" modifiers. It takes the same amount of time. And to be clear, I use "right" and "wrong" in quotes because I dont presume to say any lighting is right or wrong, but to light flat because it's easier is just being lazy. It's lazier, not easier.

Andrew Lesnie is a cinematographer credited with movies like Lord of the Rings, King Kong, and I am Legend. His greatest skill is lighting green screen sets and visual effects driven shots. Pretty much what I am saying is he's not lighting things badly, on the contrary things are being well lit, but evenly lit and crystal clear for visual effects work. A lot of people might say that doing a lot of the lighting in post makes it easier to light during production but I am saying its quite the opposite.

On the set of King Kong, Lesnie had to use several thousand watts of light to light some of his sets evenly so they could be VFXed. I saw an intervew with his gaffer and the logistics of it were quite a nightmare. In the case of large productions sometimes depending so much on post work makes things a lot more difficult during production.

 

[FBAS]

I don't know, but if you're working on a smaller scale, then I think it's still more easy to light properly and leave less work to post. Maybe that's only my point of view because I love lighting and most of the post process is a mystery to me. But I think as an independent filmmaker with a small crew you will very rarely get your hands on someone who can do an amazing job in post - because if someone can do a really amazing job in post he is probably employed with Arri or similar enterprises (speaking for Germany) and doesn't have time to grade indy film projects. Not mentioning that this person charges a few thousand bucks a day if you want to hire him or her.

 

[gi-jones]

You should always do the best possible when shooting. Leaving things to post will usually get poor results, so unless you really know what you're doing don't even think that far ahead. Make sure that what you get in the can will make a great movie on it's own. Post is for fixing problems, of which we all have plenty due to lack of time, money and skills.

However I love doing post work, and it is no doubt an important part of the process. But good material always gets the best end result.

@hvxdutch: Which videocopilot tuts are you referring to? I couldn't seem to find anything matching you description.

 

[FBAS]

Post is for fixing problems, of which we all have plenty due to lack of time, money and skills.

Well, you can't generally say "post is for fixing problems". That's just not true. In the ideal case there are no problems with the footage, but you still need some post because you can't grade in camera, you can't chroma key in camera (well, some cameras can, but that has limited use).
No camera can give you the exact look that you want - except if you want the standard look from a certain type of camera (but who wants that?). Post is not a repair shop for broken footage!

 

[GageFX]

Ryan: David Mullen, ASC was also saying that it is an issue for him as THEY want him to be around for grading, and HE wants to be around for grading, but they generally dont pay anything for it. He said it is hard when you want to be there to make sure your image looks good, but spending full days for 3 weeks in a grading suite for no pay, it makes it difficult. When you think about the fact that everyone in there is making full pay - even the guys bringing coffee in - but you are sitting there unpaid, it's a bit off. If I come across the exact quote again, I'll quote it or link it.


Cool about Andrew. And regarding this:

Pretty much what I am saying is he's not lighting things badly,

I tried to explain my "right" and "wrong" in quotes. Not saying he lights wrong, as he obviously lights RIGHT for what he's lighting for. I'm with you on what you are saying.

...but you still need some post because you can't grade in camera...

Look in the DVX forum and you'll find thread after thread about how to set the camera to shoot with a "SAW" look or a "Bourne" look, or whatever. There are plenty of people trying to do all this in camera, crushing their blacks into oblivion when they should be shooting as flat as possible for the most flexibility and quality in post.

However, that "shooting flat", in my opinion, does not extend to lighting.

 

[dvxhutch]

To hear Janusz Kaminski tell it, the situation is even worse for cinematographers. "[They say]. 'Just make sure it's in focus and we'll get a really good telecine guy who'll make the images look good," says the cameraman, who has shot all of Steven Spielburg's movies since Schindler's List (1993).

Interesting article, Ryan. Especially hearing Kaminski say that, which is almost the polar opposite of what Lesnie was saying.

At the end of the article, Kaminski says how on INDY4 he didn't bother taking 2 extra hours to light a scene as well as he could, because he knew they could fix it in post. That's kind of what I'm trying to say.

Qzar, I disagree that Lesnie needs those lights for post work - he needs them primarily because KING KONG and LOTR are 2 of the biggest movie projects of all time, and the sets are often huge.

But take ZODIAC as a case in point. David Fincher said that for 10 weeks straight he didn't use a SINGLE "flim light". He used chimera lanterns, for the most part. This is what we use primarily too. It gives us nice, full even light, which we have far more control over in post.

Anyone who says you will always be able to see the "filmaker's fingerprints" in animating digital lighting hasn't worked with the right people.

Light, as oppossed to say, cave trolls, is a real phenomenon that can be rendered as accurately as real light. Yes, it can take a lot of time in complex shots. But it can take no time at all if you lock off your shots, which account for about 60% of our workflow. For the rest, we used to employ animators, but now just about all colorists I know in the last few years have learnt how to animate light, as we use it so much.

Thanks for all the informative - and passionate - replies. I could discuss this subject for hours, as I'm so excited about it. I don't see it as taking anything away from the Dp - I see it as being able to help the DP attain his or her vision.

PS - in terms of

this is no way to treat peoples jobs

I couldn't agree more. By reducing our shooting time, we can take on more projects, employ more people, and do more interesting work.

And leave Reese Witherspoon out of it! She's a sweetheart and she's suffered enough!

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

At the end of the article, Kaminski says how on INDY4 he didn't bother taking 2 extra hours to light a scene as well as he could, because he knew they could fix it in post. That's kind of what I'm trying to say.

Yes. Kaminski had to compromise his 'on set' lighting in order to allow a complex stunt to have the required time needed. He felt the shot would not have happened that day had he not given in. We have all had to compromise something in our films for lack of money, time, or etc. I find this the exception to a rather unpleasant future scenario of film making.

Qzar, I disagree that Lesnie needs those lights for post work - he needs them primarily because KING KONG and LOTR are 2 of the biggest movie projects of all time, and the sets are often huge.

I agree with you... I think?! Lesnie, in my opinion, can not be completely categorized as he had earlier. I think we can all agree that had anyone else shot those films (King Kong, LOTR), they would have definitely needed a great amount of post grading and CG effects. Shooting LOTR without extensive post work is not what we are arguing, it is simply that type of movie.

As a Directors of Photography, I think it is our shared opinion that these films are also the exception to what is the main concern made clear already. Give Andrew Lesnie, a slightly LESS CGI intensive film, I Am Legend, and you will see him lighting an entire scene with only flash lights and bounce boards, shooting wide open on 1000 asa film, 2-3 stops underexposed!!! If he had really been the 'post lighting' DP, as describe earlier, I think he would have shot 'safe' and darkened in post.

LINK To Article

To end my long winded speech on Mr. Lesnie, I would also like to say that I Am Legend, is a heavily CG based film. So my argument isn't 100% sound, but I hope this means something.

EXAMPLE

But take ZODIAC as a case in point. David Fincher said that for 10 weeks straight he didn't use a SINGLE "film light". He used chimera lanterns, for the most part. This is what we use primarily too. It gives us nice, full even light, which we have far more control over in post.

But what was he GOING for? I think we need to remind ourselves there is a BIG difference if you want to have soft even lighting because that is the best look for the film, or if you are shooting 'clean' to hand it off in post.

Thank you for the example on David Fincher, this coupled with the recent Cinematography thread about 'Days of Heaven' , proves you do not need to shoot with 10 grip trucks of 'conventional Hollywood' equipment to achieve a desired look. As many of us are not shooting on the scale of Lesnie, Kaminski, or Savides, we know creative alternatives exist.

I apologize for not being familiar with the Zodiac film, but from going on what you previously stated: What we have to ask ourselves is if David Fincher and Harris Savides (DP) were using soft lighting to achieve their desired look. If so, they made a creative decision and used an arguably borderline unconventional lighting instrument for a film of that size. On the other hand, if they shot with a low contrast ratio for the purpose of grading primarily in post, then an important piece of film making tradition and magic has died for the producers dollar. And as stated earlier there are exceptions to my opinion of 'wrong'.

Anyone who says you will always be able to see the "filmmaker's fingerprints" in animating digital lighting hasn't worked with the right people.

Haha! Yes. Again you are right, but this was (unfortunately) from my personal experience grading films in post. I do not have access to the industries best, or a budget to do so. I am sure ANY film, given talented personal, the right price, and enough time can rotoscope power windows all day.

Light, as opposed to say, cave trolls, is a real phenomenon that can be rendered as accurately as real light. Yes, it can take a lot of time in complex shots. But it can take no time at all if you lock off your shots, which account for about 60% of our workflow. For the rest, we used to employ animators, but now just about all colorists I know in the last few years have learnt how to animate light, as we use it so much.

This is only scary because of how easily it can be abused by those with motives outside of making the best film possible.

I don't see it as taking anything away from the Dp - I see it as being able to help the DP attain his or her vision.

Neither do I! The digital intermediate has been embraced my many professional cinematographers who use it to further 'dial in' a desired look. Even trained professionals, like Kaminski, can step away from a shot, ( in interest for the benefit of the film), and to know that he can get what he wants in post is a great safety net and positive film making tool at his disposal.

Ironically to demonstrate the negative side of this debate, Kaminski has said it best so far,

"Just make sure it's in focus and we'll get a really good telecine guy who'll make the images look good."

If this does not illustrate how fragile and vulnerable this method of lighting can be abused, then I don't know what will...

Thankfully at the time of this conversation, this argument is just a possibility regarding the future of cinematography, not a current issue. But if this 'policy' of shooting conservative and 'safe' continues to increase among filmmakers, then I would hope the IATSE Local 600 can push for Directors of photography to stay on the payroll in post, something not guaranteed to cinematographers unless arranged previously.

I will leave you with this borderline inappropriate satire of Martin Niemoller's classic poem about German intellectuals who stood by as the Nazi party took power:

When the Producers came for the puppeteers,
I remained silent;
I was not a puppeteer.

When they locked up the matte painters,
I remained silent;
I was not a matte painter.

When they came for the optical effects cameramen ,
I did not speak out;
I was not an optical effects cameraman.

When they came for the cinematographers,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a cinematographer.

When they came for me, a color grader or CG artist,
there was no one left to speak out.


Now, in the future, they will animate CGI effects and color grade films overseas in Korea... down the hall from where Family Guy, Sponge Bob, and the Simpsons are animated. Producers just saved time on set and money in post! Horray! Now where is Keanu Reeves? I have a 15 million dollar check to give him for his steller performance in The Matrix 5...

'I kid, I kid'! All in good fun of course, please don't spur an outsourcing debate!

P.S. Thanks for the good comments so far, and Keanu Reeves has now taken Reese Witherspoon's place on the chopping block, being spared by dvxhutch.

-rpo

 

[TimurCivan]

Oh jesus christ.... I cant believe what im hearing.......


I am a STRONG advocate of getting the look in camera. Film or Digital. There is NOTHING you can do in post that will look as natural, or beautiful as actually LIGHTING A SET!!!!!!!!

OR atleast using natural light to its fullest.....

you canot Create this in post with two lights on a ceiling.... Sorry