Low-budget, DIY lighting

S

scipceva

Member
I'll be shooting a micro-budget feature-length movie soon and am looking for a very inexpensive lighting solution for indoor scenes. I am more concerned with shooting quickly than perfecting the lighting. I received a recommendation that I should just get a couple flourescent construction lights at a hardware store and use those rather than worry about a 3-point set up, but this rec was given in passing and I was wondering if anyone had more detailed advice for my DIY project...?
 
There are two (basic) elements to a great image.

1) Point the camera at something worth looking at.

2) Light it well.

Unfortunately, both of those tend to be jettisoned on micro-budget films. I would advise not taking that advice and making an effort to light well -- which means you need controllable light, placed well.
 
You want detailed advise, detail your needs... remember high speed, low cost and high quality are the things we all strive for, but we only can get two out of the three and honestly it sounds like you choose fast and cheap and are willing to let quality go... not the way I would do it.
 
Let's say I'm willing to compromise on quality -- i.e. I don't need the best lighting in the world -- but I do want to use some lighting. What is a good DIY/beginner lighting system?
 
There is no good beginner/diy lighting system.

A good lighting system is
a. controllable (scrims, barndoors, silks and filters)
b. colorbalanced (so your color temp stays the same)
c. Has nice soft light ability
d. has hardlight ability with no strange hotspots
e. is bright enough to work with your camera setup (shooting with a 35mm adaptor eats your light)
f. reliable

britek, diy, work lights all fail in these needs one way or another. If you spend time with them you may get excellent results, but its not at all like working with pro lights... you have to adapt to every shot with a cobbled lighting kit.

If your knowledge is lacking and you want to light quickly and "good enough", I think the advise you got about florosents is correct. Easy to light with, flat even light... but do some research before you buy the ballasts and tubes... otherwise you will have horrible flicker throughout the film... also check out coollights... probably more than you wanted to spend, but they are a good value and you could sell them at the films completion.

I gotta ask though, why bother making a low budget feature that isn't even trying to get high quality? Low budget productions are my world and I can tell you now that there is a glut of ugly crappy lit films and they don't stand out. Standards are needed in Independent productions cause some will be comprimised by your budget. Low budget always shows in one way or another... don't help it along by giving up on standards before you shoot.
 
First of all, Christopher, thank you for your detailed reply.

To answer your question about why I'm even bothering if quality isn't my priority, I should first clarify that what I really meant to say was that technical quality (specifically, lighting) isn't my priority. The relevancy of this distinction is rooted in my film-making-and-marketing philosophy. You see, I really consider myself a writer more than a cinematographer. I got into cinematography because I decided the I could better market my vision if I had an example of it off paper and on screen. I shot my first short recently, which is in submission to festivals presently -- you can view a trailer/intro at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kNCSS2aZzk -- and while I'm proud of the work, I'm really more interested in feature-length story-telling. Hence, my current project is a low-budget, feature-length film.

I'm hoping audiences will be forgiving of technical shortcomings if impressed by story, acting, production design, and humor (I'm a comedy writer). I'm aiming for some festival selections with this feature and am not particularly concerned with return-on-investment (at least in monetary terms). I have a great script, access to talent, my own equipment (dvx100b along with good tripod system and shotgun mic) and a little cash available for self-financing production. We'll be shooting pretty guerilla, which I did with relative ease with the short. Perhaps my audience forgiveness assumption is off, but the only way to prove or dissaprove a theory is to test it and, with so little financial risk, I figure, 'why not?'

I hope this helps give you an idea of my thinking. If you have any more wisdom to share, I'd love to hear it.
 
Well, you live in New York City. If your story and acting and production value can be of high quality I'm sure you could find a talented, hungry D.P. (possibly a student who could maybe use school lights) who sees the value in your project and would work for the possibilty of deferment and food. Why don't you direct and bring some else on to help with your remaining weak point (the lighting). Most directors don't shoot, and if they don't have a passion for it, they shouldn't... they should direct.
 
I might do exactly that (bring on an ADP for lighting -- I already have a DP, someone who's great with framing). I only posted about lighting because I was hoping it was something I could figure out on my own. I'm of the opinion that crew size and production complexity correlate positively and I want to be nimble, so I'm trying to keep crew size to a mininum. Looks like I might need to add another body though if I decide natural lighting is unacceptable.

Thanks for the input.

PS - I checked out the Living Arrangements trailer and really liked the camera work. Great job.
 
Framing is a skill for sure, but if your DP ain't lighting, your DP ain't a DP.
Thanks for the kind words. Living Arrangements was shot for the most part with the actors, myself and the director (who would often hold the boom pole as well) Occasionally we had the writer available to help and a few days random friends would help, so I understand using a small crew, and prefer it myself in a low budget situation... the thing is that your crew has to be that much more diverse in their skills. I think an ideal core crew for a micro budget is 3 people (director/PA, DP/ PA and a sound guy/PA, notice how they are all PAs, thats cause you don't have money to pay a good one or time and energy to train someone) if you have time to burn. 4 or 5 (add a boom op/PA and a AD/Ass. Camera/PA) if you want to move really fast.

One more piece of advise about lighting, A big foam white core board is about the best bang for your buck you will get for lighting. 10 bucks gets a quality reflector which if your indoor scenes happen near a window in daytime can provide all the fill you need. You can even past tin foil on the other side for a differents look.
 
If you really want to DIY it, you can get away with some $10 clamp lights from your local hardware store. If I recall correctly, Robert Rodriguez used these type of lights on El Mariachi. The funny thing is, when he messed up the lighting, i.e. didn't use a fill properly or whatever, critics called it "artistic".

Just make sure you get the right lightbulbs. I can't recall which ones they are off of the top of my head.

Full spectrum, sounds right, but someone with some better knowledge could correct me here.
 
You can use worklights. You need to work with them and understand them, but you can certainly use them. It won't kill your film. An incorrect use of them will. Just as the incorrect use of a "pro-light" can ruin a film.

Don't let limitations hold you back. Think around it, be innovative.
 
what would be the best light kit to get on this site? http://www.skaeser.com

They have some PBL light kits with 2 x 500watt bulbs that you can have both on or just one on at a time. They also MX Lights that you can adjust the brightness with the turn of a knob. And they have Britek lights which according to seejay in this thread, suck. Oh and they also have flurescent lighting kits.

All of these lighting kits are cheap and seem decent, does anyone know if they're any good? Which light would be the best?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top