How they do that...

[petelms]

Hi.

I have always been wondering how do they do that blueish night feeling to those great movies? This is a frame capture from the great beginning of the Passion Of The Christ.

Do they have blue gels on the lights? Is this done with white balance? Or is this done in post production? Do they have some filter on the camera? It looks so cool. I want to know how they do it.

Educate me, please. :beer:

Thanks. :beer:

 

[HorseFilms]

There are a few ways to do this. Here are a couple:

1. CTB gels on tungsten lights.

2. Using HMIs or other daylight-balanced light sources while white balancing to 3200K.

3. Coloring in post. (my least favorite)

You'll also notice that they used artificial fog here to give the scene some atmosphere.

 

[petelms]

Yep! Thanks, HorseMan! Damn, I can´t wait for the HVX to test this kind of stuff!!! :beer:

Yeah! They have used quite some fog there! :cheesy: I think the beginning of that Passion Of The Christ is very cool, starting from the moon and going down to Olive Garden...very well done. :happy:

 

[pmark23]

4. CTB filter on lens.

This is how we used to shoot night scenes during the day on Super-8.

 

[Gopher_Greene]

The passion was shot on film so the in camera technique is a little different then video. The best thing to do is soot some teas footage and see what you like, the possibilites are as mentioned above. Shoot it clean, color it in post. Manipulate your white balance. Gel the lights or filter glass in front oof the lens.

 

[RyanT]

3. Coloring in post. (my least favorite)

Why do you dislike this option? I would think you would have the most control over it this way...maybe I'm missing something though as I've never even tried to do something like that.

 

[HorseFilms]

Why do you dislike this option? I would think you would have the most control over it this way...maybe I'm missing something though as I've never even tried to do something like that.

I like to see exactly what it's going to look like while I'm on set. There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing it in post.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

some DP's feel coloring in post looks more "forced" than waht you can get in Camera -- probably because it completely evenely applies color based on a set of variables -- this light value = this much blue, this other lighte value = that much blue, what have you

Nancy Schrieber (sp?) the DP for Novemeber, which must of us know won the cinematography award at sundance last year with the DVX100 (not a), did all of her coloring in camera (I by think by manipulating the white balance - though maybe it was with the color settings). The film had 3 or 4 sections that had a distint color, one was yellow, one was blue, etc.

In post they had to move some of the scenes around to tweak the narrative and she was dispointed that some post coloring had to be done to keep the conceptual way they were using color consistent.

BUT........................

She's talking about a super high level of craft that I can scarecly discern let alone emmulate

soooo....

I shoot clean with lots of light, white balanced the best I can on set and do any coloring in post, like tons of other people.

there is however - theoretically - an argument for doing it in camera.

 

[bLueButterfLy]

Some DP don't have control in the editing room. So they do everything on set to see exactly the kind of look they're aiming for.

 

[Matthew B. Moore]

Some times it works better to light everything as straight white as possible so you have freedom to mess with it in post.

I believe that if the image is shot right to begin with, then your job is done. It is the job of a good DP to give you that. (the other side of the coin is coming) However, after doing this movie thing for so long, I started to link good photography and good post for that "kick ass" look. "Yes, the photography is great, but look at what happens when I drop the blacks a little in post."

As for filtration. I tend toward using colored gels and stay away from ctb on the camera. I like to pull in other colors with white light in the field of blue. I just dig lots of color.

The DP should always be allowed to do Color Correction with the editor or colorist. It's still his/her image, right down to the finished edit. If, however, they are shooting footage to be sent off, there is no time for supervison, so the image must be as close to perfect as it can be with notes from the shooter.

 

[Rush]

I regards to the lighting technique originally used on that movie pic, I'd bet that it was a Lighting Balloon with an HMI (if outdoors) or a large chimera on HMI (if studio). I second coloring on set as close to what you want, since filtration and adjustment of White balance is more acceptable than color correcting compressed DV, HDV, or DVCPRO footage, unless it's being done in an uncompressed color space. You just have to make sure that the camera is displaying the exact colors you are shooting, so it comes down to having a professional calibrated monitor, or a powerbook with scopes. But I also agree that if you're not sure of the how you will cut the film, and what shot will follow what, then it's best to get the correct exposure, don't clip the whites or over/underlight faces, shoot with clean WB, then color correct later. I'm with Horse on that one, my least favorite.

What happens is, the post correction will wash over the whole frame, rather than highlight certain details like faces, unless you are looking to do hours of motion-matting and rendering. To get a night feel with an actor in the foreground facing camera, for instance, it is usually best to light the background behind him with blue light, give the actor a blue rim light, then light his face with white light (3200 or 5500, depending on WB setting).

You just can't achieve that in post without a lot of effort, and making a travelling matte and adjusting it frame by frame. It is so much easier to just do it in the field and be done with it.