Now that we don't need lights... How are you lighting?

[David G. Smith]

In the exchange between Peter Berger and David Smith in Post #25, I have to agree with Perter Berger that the difference in light levels between interiors and exteriors is still outside the contrast range of the new sensors and so nothing has changed in that regard. You still either have to gel windows or pump up the interior with large HMIs. The BTS videos for the film "13:59" shot with a pre-production C300 in Post #29 confirms this fact. IMO, the opening scenes of "13:59" that take place on the bus look horrible. Sure there is sufficient natural daylight to get an exposure but the lighting is flat – the close-ups have no modeling. In addition, the windows are overexposed (at least 3-4 stops I would guess) to the point of being totally blown out. Given how over exposed the windows of the bus are on an overcast day (note the wet pavement when they get off the bus), the only way you could hold detail in them on a sunny day is by either gelling the windows with ND9 (probably not an option here) or pump up the interior with an HMI. While you probably wouldn’t need a 6k Par on the bus, given the wide framing of the shots, you would need something fairly large rigged outside the bus. If you stuck to cross cutting single head shots of the leads you might be able to get away with a battery operated Joker 400, but to light the juxtaposition of the two lead characters in a single shot, I would think you would need something larger than a 1200 given the distance between them and the fact it would have to be rigged outside the bus windows. Peter Berger’s recommendation of the new Arri M40 seems about right to me. Of course you would have to bottom chop it with heavy diffusion so that you don’t over expose the guy in the foreground while trying to reach the girls in the back ground. And as Peter Berger pointed out above, there are ways of powering large HMIs on a portable generator that could be mounted to the bus or towed behind it. Lighting the interior of the bus would not only hold detail in the windows but also build some contrast in what is now a pretty flatly lit scene IMO. David Miles

I didn't think that our discussion about lighting and windows was a discussion of "Ether or" in using lighting control and supplemental light, but kind of a disagreement on the extent of the augmentation, especially the quantity of the supplemental lighting needed. I absolutely agree that this is totally dependent on the specific factors that you face in each individual situation. I just think that in a lot of bread and butter daylight interiors the new cameras make life a whole light easier. Especially in stuff I am looking at here in the upper Midwest.

The lighting on the street car in "13:59" is not the greatest. However, it is hard to make judgements on the creative judgements of others. I am of the opinion that with a camera like the C300, they could have done some things different to make that look a lot better. This is Monday morning quarter backing, of course, but I wonder how the images would have looked if they would have brought the exposure on the windows down and just added a little bit of supplemental lighting? Your suggestions for lighting were excellent. Thanks.

That is kind of where I am now testing out my FS100 for a project I have coming up this spring. We all know to stay away from blown out highlights and overexposure... but what I am finding is that I am just as afraid to trust the bottom end. Really it is getting to know and manipulate the bottom end. To me, I think that is the secret to squeezing the most out of the range of the sensor. We see so many posts about how the highlights on X camera look like sh*t... but we don't hear many people talking about how the bottom end looks. I find that interesting.

 

[Grug]

The one overriding thought that keeps running through my head as I shoot more and more digital footage, is that 'bounced' light always seems to bring the best out of digital cameras.

Whether it's because the softer light simply reduces digital artefacts that would make things worse otherwise (blown highlights, harsh looking transitions of tone/colour) or otherwise. Reflected light sources just seem to pull out the best in digital images to my eyes.

 

[David G. Smith]

The one overriding thought that keeps running through my head as I shoot more and more digital footage, is that 'bounced' light always seems to bring the best out of digital cameras.

Whether it's because the softer light simply reduces digital artefacts that would make things worse otherwise (blown highlights, harsh looking transitions of tone/colour) or otherwise. Reflected light sources just seem to pull out the best in digital images to my eyes.

I agree. Softer light looks better to my eye also. I think it just more pleasing light.

 

[Zephyrnoid]

With your permission, I'd like to draw on this quote for future classes in lighting. Thanks for putting it like a pro would.
for what it's worth, the wide dynamic range of the latest sensors coupled with amazing low light sensitivity does open up huge avenues for ... low light photography in true available light.
Now, with the studio background that i have, the temptation to supplement existing ambient is strong.
As of 5 years now i've been researching the LED options for reasons already known to all. What makes the high sensitivity, wide DR sensors so interesting is that we no longer need huge HMI's, generators or energy burning incans to create the supplemental lighting. Indeed, I carry a kit with a dozen LED flashlights that have been modified to suite my purposes.
I shall shoot a demo film soon and i must tell you, LED+high ISO sensors = Heaven for low ambient light supplemental illumination.
We'll still have the problems that the sun poses on a clear sky day but HDR Video is also combating that to an extent.
One thing is for sure, Incans are dead and fluorescent lights are nearly dead, HMI's/HID will still linger a little while longer.

IMO:
In film natural light is usually the enemy because you can't control it. You can't control a cloud moving in front of the sun, you can't control the sun moving across the sky, and I need take 5 of the 4th setup for this scene to look basically just like take 3 of the 1st setup. That's why at a commercial shoot I was on recently that had FIVE 12K HMIs blasting a barn and 25' silks flying everywhere at 2:00 in the afternoon on a sunny day. Because they needed it to look the same at 2:00 as it had looked at 11:00 and it would at 4:00. It's not like a still where you have nice light, you take a shot, and you're done. You can capture great natural light moments in film, but it requires a lot of luck and/or a lot of budget to pay people to sit around until the light is just what you want.

 

[Bern Caughey]

One thing is for sure, Incans are dead and fluorescent lights are nearly dead, HMI's/HID will still linger a little while longer.

Ad nauseum...

http://www.oscars.org/science-technology/council/projects/ssl/index.html

 

[nothing]

One thing is for sure, Incans are dead and fluorescent lights are nearly dead, HMI's/HID will still linger a little while longer.

I could not disagree more. I (and many of the ASC members I work with regularly) still prefer to light with tungsten whenever possible, the quality of light (continuous spectrum) is superior to everything but sunlight.

 

[KurtF]

http://www.fxguide.com/fxpodcasts/Skyline/

The Brothers Strause, directors of "Skyline" talk about owning the tools of production, in this case the Red Digital Cinema camera and lenses. They mention that the new Arri LED Fresnels had a major impact on the production. The lower power consumption meant they could light real sets with less heavy cabling, had quicker set ups, cooler environment (less heat from the lamps), and generally made the production run smoother.

I suspect the new LEP Fresnels will have the same advantages. Too bad they aren't more widely available.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

I could not disagree more. I (and many of the ASC members I work with regularly) still prefer to light with tungsten whenever possible, the quality of light (continuous spectrum) is superior to everything but sunlight.

I agree. Softer light looks better to my eye also. I think it just more pleasing light.

I only use soft light when we don't have the time or the gear to light it "right".

 

[David G. Smith]

I only use soft light when we don't have the time or the gear to light it "right".

Define, "Light it right". Soft light is hard to control and takes a bit of effort to shape. Getting soft light right is not easy, IMHO, but it beats lighting with direct lighting in a lot of situations (Most situations probably).

 

[David G. Smith]

I only use soft light when we don't have the time or the gear to light it "right".

Define, "Light it right". Soft light is hard to control and takes a bit of effort to shape. Getting soft light right is not easy, IMHO, but it beats lighting with direct lighting in a lot of situations (Most situations probably).

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

Define, "Light it right". Soft light is hard to control and takes a bit of effort to shape. Getting soft light right is not easy, IMHO, but it beats lighting with direct lighting in a lot of situations (Most situations probably).

Soft light tends (IMO) to look flat and not especially "cinematic". As a component of the setup it has it's place for sure, but soft light as the dominant light, as I said, looks very flat to my eyes.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

I could not disagree more. I (and many of the ASC members I work with regularly) still prefer to light with tungsten whenever possible, the quality of light (continuous spectrum) is superior to everything but sunlight.

Yep. LED, Flouro, etc... are what you use when there is no other choice because of power situation. Hot lights uber alles.

 

[Josh Bass]

Soft light tends (IMO) to look flat and not especially "cinematic". As a component of the setup it has it's place for sure, but soft light as the dominant light, as I said, looks very flat to my eyes.

I dont mean to sound like a dick, so if i do, i apologize, but youre out of your gourd. Soft light is gorgeous and generally preferable to hard lighting unless youre going for a few very specific things (fire, moonlight, direct sun, noir style, some kind of horror mood, etc.) Look at almostb anything in tv. What are people usually keyed with? Some kind of soft light. I would even venture to say many times hard light is what you resort to when you cant do soft light correctly. I also think youre confusing soft light and flat light. They are not the same thing. Its all about directionality...soft light directly from the lens axis : flat (although this can with the right controls produce very glossy "high fashion" - looking results). Soft light on your subject from 90 degrees away from the camera axis with no fill? Very dramatic indeed.

 

[David G. Smith]

KurtF has hit upon one of the big advances in independent production that IMO is commonly overlooked, namely the recent advances made by Arri in lighting. As KurtF points out, the new Arri L7 LED Fresnel is of particular benefit in location production because it has an output comparable to a 575W HMI but only draws 1.98A at 120V (220W.) When it comes to operating lights on portable gas generators, the greater efficiency of the Arri L7 is only half the story. The other half is the fact that the Arri L7 is Power Factor Corrected (PFC.) The power supply used in the Arri L7 has a Power Factor of .91 (compared to the .54 of Litepanel 1x1s), making it a near linear load. As a result, the Arri L7 uses power more efficiently, minimizes return current, and generates virtually no line noise. Where, it is as much the Harmonic Noise that non-PFC HMI, Fluorescent, and other LED power supplies kick back into the power stream, as it is their higher Apparent Power, that limits the total number of them that can be reliably operated on conventional generators; the efficiency and near unity Power Factor of the Arri L7 means that you can operate more of them on portable gas generators (use this link for details.) For instance, you can operate only four 575W HMIs on a 6500W portable generator, where you can operate 27 of the Arri L7 (each with an output comparable to a 575W HMI) on one of those enhanced 7500W Honda EU6500is portable generators.

Another new light from Arri that is going to have a big impact I think on indie production is the new Power Factor Corrected M40 Arrimax lens less HMI Par. With 30% more output than a 4K Par, the M40 has an output close to that of a 6k Par making it a great source for daylight fill. And with a “hard” light quality similar to that of a Fresnel, the M40 can replace a 12kw Fresnel as a hard window source for day interiors. A light with this kind of capability that can be operated on one of those enhanced 7500W Honda EU6500is portable generators or standard wall outlets is certain to have a big impact for the better.

Without a doubt, the greater output, with reduced power consumption and particularly line noise, that Arri achieves with these heads offers location productions a great cost benefit: not having to rent a movie blimped tow generator, with all of its’ hidden costs, in order to obtain decent production values with Digital SLRs. Until recently, to power HMI lights over 1.2kw or Quartz lights over 2kw required a large diesel movie generator. Movie generators are not only expensive to rent, but they come with hidden costs that usually break the budget of independently funded DSLR projects. Movie generators require special tow equipment not found on Ryder or Penske rental trucks. For that reason, movie generators require that you rent a more expensive grip truck from a rental house in order to tow them. Rental companies will not send out a grip truck without a company driver - further adding to the expense of renting a movie generator (driver rates typically run about $400/10hrs with overtime after 10hr). While these new lights are more expensive to buy or rent, the ability to operate them on small portable generators and common wall outlets translates into a tremendous cost savings in large generators, cable, and man power to set it all up.

David Miles

Wow, thanks David. We are in a time of great changes in the technology of moving image production. As a student of motion picture history, I know that changes in technology have greatly changed the types of movies produced and how the movies look, for the better, mostly. I just hope that this current wave of changes leads to an equivalent advancement of moving pictures storytelling as did past technology changes did in their day.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

I dont mean to sound like a dick, so if i do, i apologize, but youre out of your gourd. Soft light is gorgeous and generally preferable to hard lighting unless youre going for a few very specific things (fire, moonlight, direct sun, noir style, some kind of horror mood, etc.) Look at almostb anything in tv. What are people usually keyed with? Some kind of soft light. I would even venture to say many times hard light is what you resort to when you cant do soft light correctly. I also think youre confusing soft light and flat light. They are not the same thing. Its all about directionality...soft light directly from the lens axis : flat (although this can with the right controls produce very glossy "high fashion" - looking results). Soft light on your subject from 90 degrees away from the camera axis with no fill? Very dramatic indeed.

It's an aesthetic, and you are welcome to yours, I just don't share it. I like hard, directional, pooled light. Perfect, even, diffused light looks (as you noted) like a sitcom. As I said, it has a place. I certainly diffuse and bounce light, especially for fill, but the key is 99.9999% of the time a hard directional light.

 

[David G. Smith]

It's an aesthetic, and you are welcome to yours, I just don't share it. I like hard, directional, pooled light. Perfect, even, diffused light looks (as you noted) like a sitcom. As I said, it has a place. I certainly diffuse and bounce light, especially for fill, but the key is 99.9999% of the time a hard directional light.

I agree that to each there own. As a preference, I like softer lights, shaped and controlled, of course, but that is not appropriate for every shoot. Most of the long form fictional narrative work I have done has been very low budget horror films and the like. While I prefer softer lighting, I have still chosen to use much harder lights as they were more appropriate to many of the scenes I have had to shoot. The directors I have worked with have also liked things much more contrasty then I would normally prefer and that is cool... they are the boss. On those kinds of projects, uber guerrilla horror, my go to lights are a kit full of small 650 watt open faced quartz lights (I have about 15KW worth of them). I love the little suckers. You can use them as very a hard point light source or flip them around and bounce them off of some foam core or shoot them through an umbrella or other diffusion and get a great soft light out of them. Very handy little lights.