GH2 Need Help! Which Picture Looks More Filmic?

[J.F.R.]

who says the guy is sleeping? maybe he's hungover and being lectured by his wife.
hell, maybe he IS sleeping and the whole piece is about a guy who's afraid of the dark.
how does any of what you said apply to the OP's question? i've seen tons of "films" where a room is evenly washed like this.

im going to agree with most of the folks and say its hard to judge "cinematic" from a still frame.
the flat look is more en vogue currently. especially with the dslr jockeys. most would say the contrast of the lower one looks more "video"

it all depends on the look you're wanting.

99% going with he's sleeping and nothing with what you posted.
Thanks for reading my comment though and selective quoting......

At the End what makes something cinematic to me visually is lighting, period.

 

[c3hammer]

Anyone care to do a lighting lesson on this one? What type and where would you put the lighting to make this one more "filmic" considering this is a GH2 and delivers a rather contrasty image to start with? Many of us newbies see these threads and read it needs to be lit correctly or better, but there's never any specifics to guide the way and really learn from. Any specifics would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Gary Huff]

Anyone care to do a lighting lesson on this one? What type and where would you put the lighting to make this one more "filmic" considering this is a GH2 and delivers a rather contrasty image to start with?

The problem is that you're asking the wrong question. It should be more specific, i.e. how should I light this scene given the specific circumstances of a guy sleeping on a couch at night in a comedy. There are literally a infinite number of ways to light a scene, all of which depend on the genre, the mood, the character, the circumstances, ect. ect. ect.

And what is meant by "filmic"? You can make film look like video and vice versa, and a lot of high budget Hollywood films aren't even shot on film anymore, so does that request still stand?

I've gotten incredibly nice images out of GH2, and I've seen productions that have such a harsh video look that I wouldn't even know how to duplicate it.

 

[Tolin]

Anyone care to do a lighting lesson on this one? What type and where would you put the lighting to make this one more "filmic" considering this is a GH2 and delivers a rather contrasty image to start with? Many of us newbies see these threads and read it needs to be lit correctly or better, but there's never any specifics to guide the way and really learn from. Any specifics would be greatly appreciated.

There is a difference between picture contrast and contrast in lighting. What contrast is basically is the difference in luminance / color that makes an image distinguishable. So say that you want to light an extremely high contrast scene; You could light the background several stops under until it's almost black and then light the foreground so bright it's close to clipping. This means you have a huge contrast in terms of light to dark ratio. This type of extreme high contrast lighting is meant only as an example, most of the time you'll want your subject correctly exposed. A more common high contrast situation is when the subject is standing in front of a bright window and appears merely as a dark silhouette. Here you have the dark (subject) against the bright (window) which creates a contrasty image, as opposed to a scene where everything is lit flat with no dark areas, no bright areas, only flat on exposure.

Picture contrast (Im making that term up so I doubt it's actually refered to as picture contrast) basically takes the image captured and boosts the dark and bright areas to distinguish them. So it brightens up the bright areas and darkens the dark areas -- However, if you've lit an image flat there wont be a real difference in contrast to begin with, and hence you'll only be boosting black parts (such as clothes, pupils etc) and white parts (clothes, walls etc). The contrast will be evenly distributed and not add any real depth to the image, only crush details.

 

[J.F.R.]

There is a difference between picture contrast and contrast in lighting. What contrast is basically is the difference in luminance / color that makes an image distinguishable. So say that you want to light an extremely high contrast scene; You could light the background several stops under until it's almost black and then light the foreground so bright it's close to clipping. This means you have a huge contrast in terms of light to dark ratio. This type of extreme high contrast lighting is meant only as an example, most of the time you'll want your subject correctly exposed. A more common high contrast situation is when the subject is standing in front of a bright window and appears merely as a dark silhouette. Here you have the dark (subject) against the bright (window) which creates a contrasty image, as opposed to a scene where everything is lit flat with no dark areas, no bright areas, only flat on exposure.

Picture contrast (Im making that term up so I doubt it's actually refered to as picture contrast) basically takes the image captured and boosts the dark and bright areas to distinguish them. So it brightens up the bright areas and darkens the dark areas -- However, if you've lit an image flat there wont be a real difference in contrast to begin with, and hence you'll only be boosting black parts (such as clothes, pupils etc) and white parts (clothes, walls etc). The contrast will be evenly distributed and not add any real depth to the image, only crush details.

Excellent Post, I read the ICG (International Cinematographers Guild) Magazine which is an excellent source for understanding how Cinematographers achieve many looks you see in Tv/Movie films/shows.

They specially talk how they light scenes, lenses used, etc. Basically though is a nut shell it's about creating pocket of lights and understanding what certain lenses at focal lengths do to an image. An excellent read and I would suggest any and everyone to pick a copy up

http://www.icgmagazine.com/wordpress/

 

[producer]

Here is a version (one of hundreds possible):