Exposing for lots of shadows...

[jwing]

Sorry if this seems like a silly question... But I'm a big fan of lots of shadows, a la Film Noir or Gordon Willis. Obviously, all of those guys shot on film, which has a much greater latitude, but I was wondering what the practice is for getting those deep shadows? As it is, on my HVX, shadows turn to a mess of noise dancing all around, without any gain added. I want beautiful, black shadows.

So what I've heard so far is, you have to raise the ambience and make the shadows brighter, into grays? Then, in post, you would deepen them down to blacks? If I'm going for a high-contrast ratio, where let's say I have perfectly exposed highlights and deep shadows, would I actually expose everything a little more flat and bring up the contrast in post? That seems a little silly to me, and as though it would be more difficult to control. Shouldn't we light a scene how we want it to look?

This seems to be what they did for Transporter 2, as the way Stu shows it on his blog: http://prolost.com/blog/2007/7/11/color-makes-the-movie.html (So is this practice of overexposing the shadows actually quite normal?)

Here is a nice reference image I found online:

So if I were to film this, how would I get those blacks on the face and in the shadows to look clean?

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

That technique is done on digital formats by *some* people. It's great if you have full control of your craft/lighting because overexposing the shadow areas, means you will most likely be over exposing your other areas (if you don't have complete control) just a bit, and you must watch out for accidentally sacrificing your highlights for the shadows, ala blowing them out bringing the shadows up.

They don't really do that in film as much, although there are advantages and disadvantages to similar processes such as underexposing or overexposing and then pushing or pulling the film in development.

Many films undergo DI's these days, but as for those noir films or the prince of darkness, Gordon Willis, they exposed their films for their timing light and processed a certain way. That's it.

From that link:

One of the lovely accidental insights provided by the "deleted scenes" found on many DVDs is a little window into what a movie looks like in its unfinished form. Often these extras are dumped directly from an Avid, where they have temp sound, no music, and usually a one-light telecine transfer. In other words, little or no color correction.

This may be very true for the Transporter 2 Dvd (and some modern heavy DI films).... but is not necessarily true for other DVD's. Most deleted scene footage I have seen suffers in quality because it was based off of a poor quality scan of the negative... most likely the low-res quick and dirties used to edit.

His referral to a one-light telecine transfer is a bit misguided... as most likely almost all professional films prior to the last ten years (okay, maybe longer ) have been all shot and photo-chemically released mainly off of a one-light determined by the DP. The DP's developing technique and printing decisions is really all they had to do the CC back in the complete photo-chemical process days. His (the blog writer's) comments most likely ring true for advantageous modern day digitals but not those old films you are admiring (Willis). Point being, these film DP's do it on the negative and get their one light print and that is more or less the film. If you see garbage images on the deleted scenes from a movie that isn't a heavy DI... then it isn't because the DP didn't CC... most likely it is simply a rough scan used for editing purposes and isn't a proper scan of the much more attractive film negative.

Go back and look at film negatives all done on photo-chemical processing from 30-40 years ago... many will make your jaw drop.



As for the original intent of this post.... yes, some people who are fighting digital noise, do that technique and I have in the past.

As how to get clean blacks otherwise: (sorry it's going to be a bit obvious in suggestions)

1) Shoot at the camera sensor's naturally rated color temperature.
2) Do NOT use gain
3) You *could* slightly crush blacks or do what you mentioned earlier
4) Pick the right camera... do tests. Some cams are just horrible with noise or low light. It's a fact.

This is a digital problem more so then a film, so you are right to realize that there should be extra care taken with digital.

 

[Davdo]

So if I were to film this, how would I get those blacks on the face and in the shadows to look clean?

Use bigger lights. A lot of folks are shooting video with smaller lights so they can stay more open and get shallower depth of field. This practice, however, tends to lead to milkier shadows. To get darker shadows, you need to increase the contrast range of your image. Use a more powerful light for your key and when you expose for it, your shadows come down and get blacker.

I know you asked about the post-production solution, but I just wanted to throw it out there that you can do it in-camera if you prefer.

Good luck.

~~Dave

 

[jwing]

Use bigger lights. A lot of folks are shooting video with smaller lights so they can stay more open and get shallower depth of field. This practice, however, tends to lead to milkier shadows. To get darker shadows, you need to increase the contrast range of your image. Use a more powerful light for your key and when you expose for it, your shadows come down and get blacker.

I know you asked about the post-production solution, but I just wanted to throw it out there that you can do it in-camera if you prefer.

Good luck.

~~Dave

Right, and that's sort of my problem, because I am trying to shoot higher f-stops, up to f/5.6-8, but it's just looking like a dirty ol mess of noisy dots in the shadows. At f/1.8, it can look okay with my lights, but there's not enough focus for my needs sometimes and it can be even a bit too bright for my taste.

The biggest light I have is a 1k open face. It's pretty bright, but I'm considering picking up at 2k junior at some point. But even so, what I am trying to say here is that the shadows look noisy no matter what, even if I were to do them in camera. With no gain, and plenty of light, the shadowy areas are picking up all these dancing dots--especially blue dancing dots...?!

1) Shoot at the camera sensor's naturally rated color temperature.
2) Do NOT use gain

That technique is done on digital formats by *some* people. It's great if you have full control of your craft/lighting because overexposing the shadow areas, means you will most likely be over exposing your other areas (if you don't have complete control) just a bit, and you must watch out for accidentally sacrificing your highlights for the shadows, ala blowing them out bringing the shadows up.

Precisely what I'm wary of even trying this. I hate overexposing, but I hate these noisy dots too.

As how to get clean blacks otherwise: (sorry it's going to be a bit obvious in suggestions)

1) Shoot at the camera sensor's naturally rated color temperature.
2) Do NOT use gain

As for #1, how do I figure out what its naturally rated color temp is? I'm shooting on the HVX200A.

As for #2, even when I don't use gain, I still see tons of noisy dots in the darkness. Is that normal?


Anyway, thanks for all the insight. Useful stuff!

 

[Davdo]

That's odd and, I dare say, not normal. Check your scene settings, particularly the Master Ped. Lower it if it's not low already. Start with at least -3 and work your way down.

Hope that helps.

 

[PerroneFord]

Modern film may have more latitude than our HD cams, but the stuff that Noir was shot on certainly didn't. The fact is, if you want noise free footage, you are going to have to record it that way.

Let's assume that you want key that is 5 stops brighter than your shadow. You can either let the shadows fall off into nothing which brings in a bunch of noise, or you can raise the shadow to a noise-free level and then light your key 5 stops above that. Set your aperature to hold the highlights, and then see what you get...

And shoot tests. You may be surprised what you can get away with.

 

[David G. Smith]

Modern film may have more latitude than our HD cams, but the stuff that Noir was shot on certainly didn't. The fact is, if you want noise free footage, you are going to have to record it that way.

Let's assume that you want key that is 5 stops brighter than your shadow. You can either let the shadows fall off into nothing which brings in a bunch of noise, or you can raise the shadow to a noise-free level and then light your key 5 stops above that. Set your aperature to hold the highlights, and then see what you get...

And shoot tests. You may be surprised what you can get away with.

That is terrific advice. Keeping the noise out of the shadows AND keeping the highlights from clipping is going to be tricky. PerroneFord gave some other great advice, on another thread, about using a light meter for lighting control that would be very helpful to look up.

I would just add that you may want to still adjust the gamma/contrast in post to help get what you want. Test the sh*t out of that!

My absolute favorite Noir lighting has to Roger Deakins' work on "The Man Who Wasn't There". I was blown away, and went back and watched it at the movies 3 times. It is my understanding that he shot the flick on color negative stock, and achieved the silky smooth B&W by making an internegative on high contrast B&W stock that is used for graphics art/title work. His lab worked out photo-chemical techniques to adjust the gamma of that stock to work to Deakins’ specs. God, what Balls!!

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

My absolute favorite Noir lighting has to Roger Deakins' work on "The Man Who Wasn't There". I was blown away, and went back and watched it at the movies 3 times. It is my understanding that he shot the flick on color negative stock, and achieved the silky smooth B&W by making an internegative on high contrast B&W stock that is used for graphics art/title work. His lab worked out photo-chemical techniques to adjust the gamma of that stock to work to Deakins’ specs. God, what Balls!!

He is certainly the man considering his hands were tied by the studios. You probably know this, but WB had made a deal with the foreign distributors that the film would be in color.... so Roger had to not only shoot the film for black and white but protect the image for color release. The film was shot on color negative for that reason...

The work Beverly Wood (i believe it was her) did with Roger to find the right density for B&W was quite the feat. That high contrast title stock worked amazingly well. That film is indeed the best example of modern day BnW photography with the possible exception of Elswits "Goodnight and GoodLuck".

Sadly, some young child in Singapore is watching The Man Who Wasn't There in color. Poor bastards can't catch a break, huh?

 

[David G. Smith]

He is certainly the man considering his hands were tied by the studios. You probably know this, but WB had made a deal with the foreign distributors that the film would be in color.... so Roger had to not only shoot the film for black and white but protect the image for color release. The film was shot on color negative for that reason...

The work Beverly Wood (i believe it was her) did with Roger to find the right density for B&W was quite the feat. That high contrast title stock worked amazingly well. That film is indeed the best example of modern day BnW photography with the possible exception of Elswits "Goodnight and GoodLuck".

Sadly, some young child in Singapore is watching The Man Who Wasn't There in color. Poor bastards can't catch a break, huh?

Oh yeah, I had heard that he had to shoot color for international release, what a shame. I would like to catch an import DVD version of it and color and just to watch. I am sorry I missed "Good Night and Good Luck" in the thearters, but it did look very good on DVD. I have actually been disappointed with the some of the big budget B&W films I had seen in recent memory. I saw a restored print of "Raging Bull" and was disappointed (the grain was distrubing and noted that the blacks fell off with very little detail). I read an article where Michael Chapman related that he had lots of trouble with his first lab and had to change half way through shooting.

I also remember being disappointed with "Schendler's List" for some of the same reasons. When I saw "The Man Who Wasn't There", I just loved it for how silky smooth the images were and really replicated the look of studio pics from the forties and fifites.

 

[PerroneFord]

What did you guys think of http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005793/Phil Meheux's work in Casino Royale? Which was actually shot on B&W. Talk about ballsy... Shooting real B&W for a franchise that size... No going back to the safety net there!

Some days, I really love this stuff...

 

[David G. Smith]

What did you guys think of http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005793/Phil Meheux's work in Casino Royale? Which was actually shot on B&W. Talk about ballsy... Shooting real B&W for a franchise that size... No going back to the safety net there!

Some days, I really love this stuff...

I forgot about that.. it looked good. I figured he shot color and took out the color in the DI. Nice.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Oh yeah, I had heard that he had to shoot color for international release, what a shame. I would like to catch an import DVD version of it and color and just to watch. I am sorry I missed "Good Night and Good Luck" in the thearters, but it did look very good on DVD. I have actually been disappointed with the some of the big budget B&W films I had seen in recent memory. I saw a restored print of "Raging Bull" and was disappointed (the grain was disturbing and noted that the blacks fell off with very little detail). I read an article where Michael Chapman related that he had lots of trouble with his first lab and had to change half way through shooting.

I also remember being disappointed with "Schendler's List" for some of the same reasons. When I saw "The Man Who Wasn't There", I just loved it for how silky smooth the images were and really replicated the look of studio pics from the forties and fifites.

I guess you favor the color to BnW approach of a cleaner more latitude bnw.

The Man Who Wasn't There and GoodNight and Good Luck were both shot on color stock and turned B&W in DI/Print. The other films you mentioned (Schindler and Raging) were actually shot on true B&W negative stocks (kodak 5222 and 5231). The thing is, Kodak has not released a new b&w negative stock since the 1960's. 22 and 31 have gone under some improvements but nothing substantial. They are still much more grainy and contrasty (less latitude) then their modern color negative counterparts (vision 2 & 3).

It's really sad... and kodak, with all it's problems, will most likely never release another black and white negative stock. This is why more and more b&w films are being shot on color negative. The DP's can achieve contrasty look with lighting... if they don't like grain, the 5222 and 5231 is just not appetizing. I wrote a letter to Kodak asking them why they have not released a new b&w negative stock in the last 50 years, this was their reply:

http://www.ryanpatrickohara.com/MISC/KodakReply.pdf

As you see, there have been improvements on the manufacturing and etc of the film, but they have not tried to improve the film as of tighter grain structures and latitude as they have with the color negatives. Sad stuff for Black and white... in fact most film labs, if not all but two, do not have the know how or experience to develope true BnW stocks.

A dead art.

 

[David G. Smith]

Wow, nice little spin job that Kodak rep did there. At least they responded back, which is worth points, I guess.

Yes, it is sad that B&W motion picture photography is almost a dying art. I guess I do like the look of the modern color negative stocks shot for B&W. The increased latitude, cleaner (less grainy) images are appealing to me. I think that you hit the nail on the head and the the deterioration of the B&W film infrastructure is the culprit.

All the above being said, I do think that "Raging Bull" and "Schindler's List" are masterpieces of filmmaking and "The Man Who Wasn't There" and "Goodnight and Good Luck", while very good films, not so much mastpieces. So, my preference for a specific look, or the strengths of a specific stock is really kind of like, "Pickin' gnat sh*t out of pepper", ya know?

When we get back to the original post, and getting the high contrast, clean B&W look out of a digital video camera, wow... that is a, as we say down south, "A tough row to hoe!" Exposing for the shadows so that noise is reduced, keeping the highlights from clipping, and monkeying with gamma/contrast in post may be the way to go.

 

[jwing]

That's odd and, I dare say, not normal. Check your scene settings, particularly the Master Ped. Lower it if it's not low already. Start with at least -3 and work your way down.

Hope that helps.

I'll definitely give that a shot. I haven't checked those settings.

Modern film may have more latitude than our HD cams, but the stuff that Noir was shot on certainly didn't. The fact is, if you want noise free footage, you are going to have to record it that way.

Let's assume that you want key that is 5 stops brighter than your shadow. You can either let the shadows fall off into nothing which brings in a bunch of noise, or you can raise the shadow to a noise-free level and then light your key 5 stops above that. Set your aperature to hold the highlights, and then see what you get...

And shoot tests. You may be surprised what you can get away with.

Thanks for the advice. That's very useful! I'll try that too.

In better news, I actually checked out some footage from a recent test shoot, and the crazy dancing dots aren't nearly as bad on my computer or TV as they were on the field monitor. In fact, they are quite manageable and subtle. They are there, but it's not as dirty as I thought they would be.

Now, then, it might be my monitor. I'm using a Manhattan LCD with the 1:1 pixel ratio and component inputs. I've tried calibrating it, but I can't get it to exactly where I want it. It usually appears pretty noisy. The same footage I described above was way noisier on the monitor than when I imported it into final cut. Could it be my brightness/contrast? I've been playing with the color bars, but I can't seem to get it just right... But I guess it's good to know that the footage itself isn't so bad.

Any suggestions there?

Oh, and by the way, I couldn't agree any more over The Man Who Wasn't There. When I saw it in theaters, I remember gushing over the cinematography, the gorgeous B&W, and my girlfriend just shrugged her shoulders. Deakins is definitely one of my favorite modern cinematographers.

 

[RyanT]

I thought you were pretty right on in your first idea. Just keep an eye on your waveform, as that's what's going to be there for you through the thick and thin. If you set up your 1k open face light, lighting your talent, and you decide you want more contrast, so you bring in some negative fill. Then you check your waveform monitor and find that your shadows are creating a thick line at the bottom of your waveform, or basically, becoming digital noise...In that case, take the negative out, maybe swap it out for a bounce. Just make sure that you keep an eye on your waveform and keep everything within safe limits.

You don't have to overexpose your highlights at all with this, because you're not changing how you expose that open faced 1k, you're just adding more fill sometimes to compensate for the little dynamic range of digital cameras.

That's odd and, I dare say, not normal. Check your scene settings, particularly the Master Ped. Lower it if it's not low already. Start with at least -3 and work your way down.

I actually like working with the master pedestal more up than down, as I can always crush the blacks later. If anything, it will help me salvage some detail in the shadows instead of just crushing it before it gets on the card. I know people are doing this on the 5D mkII as well, working with the contrast all the way up, as it gives the camera a bit more dynamic range...Similar idea.

Also, last thing. Is your monitor calibrated? Or your TV? That can change things a lot in terms of noise and contrast...

 

[Scott Lovejoy]

Modern film may have more latitude than our HD cams, but the stuff that Noir was shot on certainly didn't. The fact is, if you want noise free footage, you are going to have to record it that way.

Let's assume that you want key that is 5 stops brighter than your shadow. You can either let the shadows fall off into nothing which brings in a bunch of noise, or you can raise the shadow to a noise-free level and then light your key 5 stops above that. Set your aperature to hold the highlights, and then see what you get...

And shoot tests. You may be surprised what you can get away with.

This also depends on sensor. For practice a group of us picked photographs to recreate the lighting for, and then shoot on a DVX. One of us used a picture of Anna Paquin that over-exposed her skin to make her even paler, while the background fell off into blackness. The noise in the blackness wasn't as surprising as what happened to the white skin as we started to over-expose (by 1+ stops): her skin started to have an orange tinge. I know, this is a DVX, but some sensors have big problems with latitude pretty quickly.



To the OP: Remember that one of the things shadows are based on is size of the light source in relation to the subject. A 350 can get give you really strong, really defined shadows as you move it away from your subject, the same is true if you put it right in their face (melting skin in the process). Don't fall into a trap of larger light = stronger shadows.