Film school cinematography project

Finnegan

Finnegan

Well-known member
Hey everyone. So I started film school this past week, and our first cinematography project is about lighting and mood. My group's task is to find a painting that communicates on some level character, mood, and tone. Then, we recreate it using a digital medium - in this case, a dv-cam. So, the painting I chose was this:

Girlwindow.jpg


I chose it because when I look at it from a filmic standpoint, I wonder who the girl is, what she is thinking about, and other things of the like. From a cinematography standpoint, it looks relatively simple but I'm worried its deceptive. Which is why I come here for advice and thoughts.

As far as I can tell, there is one light source in the painting - the sun. I am pretty sure I can recreate this source using a 1k fresnel, because even though its supposed to be the sun it doesn't really cast any blue-ish tones on the floor or her body. The only part that looks a little blue is the left side of the white cloth (which I originally thought was a shirt but now looks like a blanket) on the back of the chair. So, if i light the floor and the front of her body using a 1k or two 650s, how could I get that blue-ish tone on the shirt without making the rest of the image cold? I thought using a separate light for that part of the shirt that looks blue, but I am not sure I could do it without casting the same light on her right arm. What do you guys think?

I mean, obviously this project is designed for us (the student) to play with light and really get to know how it works and how to manipulate it. But asking opinions and learning from pros isn't ever bad, right? :D
 
Finnegan said:
Hey everyone. So I started film school this past week, and our first cinematography project is about lighting and mood. My group's task is to find a painting that communicates on some level character, mood, and tone. Then, we recreate it using a digital medium - in this case, a dv-cam. So, the painting I chose was this:

Girlwindow.jpg


I chose it because when I look at it from a filmic standpoint, I wonder who the girl is, what she is thinking about, and other things of the like. From a cinematography standpoint, it looks relatively simple but I'm worried its deceptive. Which is why I come here for advice and thoughts.
Click to expand...


Personally I'd wonder where her clothes are...

But in terms of painting and translation into 'film', aka DV-film... the painting seems to have a lot of yellow, and because the painter can put what they want, where they want, they can add the complementary 'blue' color.

If you wanted to mimic that, I'd recommend filtering the light or getting a 'yellowish' light. Then with a second light, and bluish filter, add the fill.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Personally I'd wonder where her clothes are...

But in terms of painting and translation into 'film', aka DV-film... the painting seems to have a lot of yellow, and because the painter can put what they want, where they want, they can add the complementary 'blue' color.

If you wanted to mimic that, I'd recommend filtering the light or getting a 'yellowish' light. Then with a second light, and bluish filter, add the fill.
Click to expand...

No matter her clothes (I appreciate the non-clothes :) ), the human skin tone is a wonderful medium within to work.

I'm not necessarily speaking for this painting, but you'll soon realize that many painters take lighting for granted.... rather, they stretch limitations. Most classical, or expressionist paintings will cheat lights sources or shadows in ways that 'real life' lighting can not accomplish without serious lighting modification and molding. Either way, this is a typical lighting assignment and a fun one.

In your situation, I'd simply say that the key light is more white on the actresses skin then the floor, so I'd try to keep that yellow gel only for the floor.... while the fill light is rather strong. The fill light is deceptive only because skin tones look rather normal bu the shirt has a blueish tone.

I think you have a great painting and I wish you the best. Find a good looking girl and have fun.... after all that is what the 'biz is all about.
 
Hm, interesting assignment. I ask if you could PM me the assignments you get in that cinematography class so I can try it on my own. Hone my skills, you know. :)
What do you say?
Of course you obviously don't have to. But i'd truly appreciate it.
 
I go to the Los Angeles Film School. I know, I know. There's a handful of reviews on the internet and even posts on these boards criticizing it. But to be perfectly honest, I find the entire experience there really, really helpful. I could elaborate through PM or email.
 
You get out of film school what you put into it. Irregardless of whatever reviews or critiques may be found online. If you feel like you're getting your money's worth then you are. Take advantage of the resources the film school gives you and soak it all up.

That being said,
I would say if you can get your hands on it experiment with a Source 4 its a very controllable light that would throw perfect shadows for the blind pattern. At the same time the artist added quite a bit of diffused fill for the subject.

I'd suggest you remember to look at not just the color of the light, but the quality of it.
 
Well, the project went relatively well. It wasn't perfect and I had a bit of trouble filling the back of the shirt with a blue color. The shadows are also a little harsh since I ended up blasting a 2k through a doorway, where we rigged up a set of shades with some small nails and 10-lbs fishing line. I'll post the screens when I get the project back from my professors.

As for Los Angeles Film School: the facilities are amazing. For the time I'm there, I get full access to lighting and grip equipment, a wide range of film and HD cams, multiple Avid Nitrous and Final Cut Pro studios each with around 30-40 terminals, and two enormous sound stages one of which was designed by the production designer of Monk with a $1.4 million dollar budget. John Hora, ASC, is my cinematography professor. It's a pretty great and immersive experience.
 
We looked into Monet, but ultimately decided that half of the "Monet" aesthetic is the texture of the paint. He traditionally uses very, very thick paints and huge brush strokes. I am not skilled enough to recreate that at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top