How to light this scene?

morgan_moore said:
I dont see the need for a WDR camera.. if your lighting ratios are right then the DR will fit the camera.

Just sometimes it is hard to get those ratios without the right lighting package :)

S
Click to expand...

I agree with you 99% of the time, however, my point was that in this situation, where the bounce from the shirts illuminates the girls faces (as CharlesPapert noted), you need wide dynamic range in order to capture both the detail in the shirt and the faces. There is no balancing of ratios when you are talking about a single light source. As I suggested, a medium to strong low-con filter might do the trick with a less than "Alexa" quality camera.

The low-con filter might also be causing the halation that people are noticing.

There are many situations, such as bright sunlit exteriors, where proper contrast is difficult to maintain. Exposing for either highlights or shadows will leave the other severely under or over exposed. Tiffen Low Contrast filters create a small amount of "localized" flare near highlight areas within the image. This reduces contrast by lightening nearby shadow areas, leaving highlights almost unchanged. Tiffen Soft Contrast filters include a light absorbing element in the filter which, without exposure compensation, will reduce contrast by also darkening highlights. Use this latter filter when lighter shadows are not desired. In both cases, the mild flare produced from bright highlights is sometimes used as a lighting effect.

Another, more recently developed type of filter reduces contrast without any localized flare. The Tiffen Ultra Contrast filter series uses the surrounding ambient light, not just light in the image area, to evenly lighten shadows throughout. Use it where contrast control is needed without any other effect on sharpness or highlight flare being apparent.

Source:
http://www.tiffen.com/camera_filters.htm
 
Wow, that text was written a while back--referring to Ultra-Cons as "recently developed"! I've owned a set of UC's for at least 20 years, they were part of my "filmlook" toolkit with the Digibetas and early HD cameras. And coincidentally--up for sale (set of four: 2,3,4,5 for $300 the set ($236/ea new)!
 
Thanks, but I will be using the black pro-mist filters normally. If they are not available, I will probably try the net stocking over the lens. And see what look that gives. What about the camera. I have c100, 5D III and 6D avaiable, but the deadline is tight and we do not have a lot of time in post. So RAW on 5DIII and 6D is not really an option. So I was thinking about using the C100 combined with zeiss compact primes(only downside of the c100 vs the 5Diii is that is not full frame, and the highlights look hard edged which I can fix with filter or net stocking). Good idea, or would you guys suggest something else?
 
Black promist will give you more bloom on the highlights than what is demonstrated in the sample still. A net would be closer, but I would recommend it behind the lens vs in front. My choice would be either the Black Diffusion FX 1 or Glimmerglass 1/2 for that look.

I haven't used the 5DMKIII and have only done a bit with the C100...but I wouldn't see why the full-frame vs Super35 sensor should be a factor. The vast majority of what you see on TV or movies is shot with an S35 sensor, so...
 
CharlesPapert said:
Black promist will give you more bloom on the highlights than what is demonstrated in the sample still. A net would be closer, but I would recommend it behind the lens vs in front. My choice would be either the Black Diffusion FX 1 or Glimmerglass 1/2 for that look.

I haven't used the 5DMKIII and have only done a bit with the C100...but I wouldn't see why the full-frame vs Super35 sensor should be a factor. The vast majority of what you see on TV or movies is shot with an S35 sensor, so...
Click to expand...
Thanks, yeah dont get me wrong, I almost never use Full frame camera's. It all depends on the lens. I like shallow depth of field. So on my GH4 is use the nokton voightlanders 0.95. But could work around it, only wished the compact primes would be 1.4 instead of T2.1 :) But I will live. Yeah as a hobbyist buying all those filters is quite pricey, finding them for renting is quite hard over here. So I doubt I will able to get my hands on glimmerglass or the black diffusion FX1. But thanks for the tips, when I see them in a used marked in Europe for a good price. I might add them to my inventory.
 
Personally I would indeed use the sun and work the schedule based on that, adding fill as needed but no lights at all outside the window. Because the sun is free and that fits my budget better than all other alternatives. It also helps that I'm in Madrid, where right now we have a clear blue sky with not a single cloud on sight - and it's easy to predict that it will be like this for most of the next 6 months.
 
Yeah depending on the location and the weather we can also use the sun. But we get the lights for free(student film), so the lights are not really a problem.
 
markfpv said:
I found it interesting that no one thus far suggested it could be actual sunlight coming thru an actual window out of frame on the right side....and somehow controlled or broken up.... and then a nice, large Eco-Punch type bounce fill from left of camera to help fill in ambient space and bring up ratio
Click to expand...
It's an unlikely scenario. There are probably only a handful of cinematographers who can have so much influence on the schedule that a day interior can be shot with natural sunlight coming through a window at the exact right angle. Is it possible that it wasn't by design, that they did a rehearsal and realized it didn't really need to be lit? Sure, that happens sometimes, but it's not something you can count on happening by any means. If you want to go into a scene knowing you'll achieve this sort of lighting, you're much better off creating it artificially most of the time.

Regarding the fill light - I just don't see any evidence of it. Look at the girl's eyes, the only light hitting her face is reflected off the other girl's clothes. And on a side note, even if there were a fill, it's unlikely that it would be an Eco-Punch. Despite what one might gather from reading this forum (particularly the lighting gear section), tungsten, HMI's and Kino Flo's still dominate every set lighting package. I'm starting to see more and more LED's, but aside from Celebs and more recently litemats, they're typically only used in specialty applications (eco punch, briteshot, and similar fixtures are REALLY heavy for how much light they put out, and come in a large and heavy road case). I'm not saying it's not possible or that it's the "wrong" light to use, but it's definitely not what most gaffers would call for if a large fill light is needed.
 
egproductions said:
I agree with you 99% of the time, however, my point was that in this situation, where the bounce from the shirts illuminates the girls faces (as CharlesPapert noted), you need wide dynamic range in order to capture both the detail in the shirt and the faces. There is no balancing of ratios when you are talking about a single light source. As I suggested, a medium to strong low-con filter might do the trick with a less than "Alexa" quality camera.
Click to expand...


I have been thinking about this response.

So we have a set up..

Lightsource A (the 'sunny bit') illuminates Target A that then Reflects light onto Target B, targets A and B are also illuminated by Lightsource B (a soft fill light)

With a single source A the DR is defined as the illuminance levels between targets A and B are set by reflective nature of target A

If you then add source B can one 'play' with the ratios on Target A and Target B..

Hmm.. im not sure.

S
 
It helps not to get too mathematical about this.

Adding fill to a scene does indeed help reduce contrast, but there are so many variables involved in what that fill is--size, position, quality--that it starts to get academic very quickly. If you strip a scenario down to a completely dark stage, a bald subject and a hard key from one side, you can add fill from a variety of directions starting from opposite the key light, coming around past the camera and end up next to the key light (try that some time: a hard key surrounded by a big soft source, it's a good one). Back to this setup: a fill opposing the key light won't get far into the girls faces because of their hair and will serve to flatten the rest of the values. A better place would be a large soft fill from behind camera, which will primarily serve to flatten contrast (the trick is to dial the exposure down accordingly, so that the shadows read the same but the highlights are reduced). But even that is not a cure-all because different planes will pick up that fill in different ways.

If one is going for a naturalistic look like this, it's important to keep fill from being a source in its own right. Best not to think about it in the traditional 3-point lighting sort of way. Consider how soft and pretty the uplight return is on the girls faces, as a result of the light scattering across multiple planes. A 1x1 coming from the same direction would not deliver this kind of light. An open face or par bouncing off the floor or the back wall is much nicer. Often if I bounce against a wall I'll add a t-bone of diffusion in front of it, something like a large book light.
 
Did anyone comment on the haze mentioned in the first post? I don't see any. Haze would leave visible light tracks - exactly what this setup doesn't need.
 
Yeah There isnt some haze in this shot. But I think I will try it out, If I need to get some of the windows in the image(and when it is overexposing, it will roll off more) as I will not probably be duplicating this shot exactly but I liked the overal feel of it(the Warmth, So I might wonna create some overexposed area's in my shots, to make the audience believe it is really good weather, allthough the weather is quite cold). As I will also be shooting a similar setup in a bath tub. The haze will create a more natural feel to it I think similar to some bath steam that is rising.
 
As great as "atmosphere" (what we generally call haze or smoke on set) can be, maintaining the density of it can be a real pain, and you run the risk of having the levels go up and down within a scene. Within reason you can help this in the grade by adjusting the lift. It really is an art to get an overall level of atmos and maintain it.
 
Hey guys,

So I checked the locations we are able to film at.
Original inspiration.
qobptt.jpg


These are the 4 bedrooms we are able to shoot in.
Room1: it is quite big, the terrace is quite small so maybe we could fit a HMI in there not sure. But we would need to place a bed over there and decorate the place.
aljih2.jpg


The second room: The room itself is maybe too small, but it looks similar. Not possible for an HMI as there is no terrace and we do not have 6 meter light tripod.
qmym4p.jpg


The third room: it is quite spacious, Not possible for an HMI as there is no terrace and we do not have 6 meter light tripod.
15hbbb8.jpg



The fourth room: Possible for HMI(as it has a terrace, not too big, main problem with the room is that everything is white.
sp85cl.jpg



Which one would you go for? Tips/suggestions welcome!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top