Sundance short- how was this lit?

looks like a broad, soft source, maybe some type of kino or led, and then i think they just let the practicals do whatever. actually isn't anything to strive for in my opinion... in fact, nothing about this short was really something to strive for. this is what they're letting into sundance?
 
Thanks , that's what I figured. What would you have done? Two sources pointing in from the direction of the practicals? I wouldnt know where to put 'em.
 
newb lighting.JPG


so yeah this is how my beginner brain thinks- I have an Omni and a Pro-Light so I would've done this slick diagram, slapped some silks on em, and then gone insane trying to make the staging and camera angles and lighting angles all work together but hey whatever. notice how my camera angles are now pointing into the lights. Anyways, a clue, please?
 
That lighting is actually pretty poorly done. It doesn't even look like the lighting is coming from the practicals on set. It looks too lit.

Just have small lights with a lot of fall off coming off camera but as close to the direction of the light source as possible. Simple as that. Sometimes we take liberties a bit. However always match the type of light and the fall off. This short just blasted the room.
 
nycineaste said:
View attachment 52412


so yeah this is how my beginner brain thinks- I have an Omni and a Pro-Light so I would've done this slick diagram, slapped some silks on em, and then gone insane trying to make the staging and camera angles and lighting angles all work together but hey whatever. notice how my camera angles are now pointing into the lights. Anyways, a clue, please?
Click to expand...

With those lights? Probably doing the same thing they did in the video is your best bet. You're not going to get a lot of control from those lights, so get them soft and shoot for a proper exposure without double shadows, keep it off the walls as much as you can.

If it was me, with just those two lights? I'd have faked a window, had a hard light coming in from it and letting shadows cover most of the scene, maybe throw a blue gel on there. But then, I fully believe you can have a scene of mostly shadows and still have it play. Hell, I think it makes it better.

Then when she stands and starts to go to the other room, I'd maybe have her turn on a light in there and blast a light out from the "bathroom" to add another dynamic to the scene. That's when you can start playing with bounce boards and fill light in addition to the hard blue moonlight coming in for backlight.
Then I'd still just let the practicals do whatever. There's not enough room and you don't have enough materials to start screwing around trying to fake lighting a scene from practicals.
 
I agree it ain't great lighting, but that said, it is a comedy and can afford to be somewhat flatly lit, and it looks believable to anyone who watches it that isn't into cinematography. They seem lit from whatever ambient light/fill would be bouncing around room from the practicals, the big soft source just allowing the camera to see what the eye would. Not any more phony/contrived than lighting them from an imaginary blue moon, though I would try moonlight first over this.

Also like you says, lighting from the practicals' directions would be tough in this situation. Does anyone think you'd be able to sneak in lights here? What are we talking about here - 150 watt in a scoop with some frost? (I have that). I'm just playing devil's advocate to learn.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
Yeah, MUST have gotten in on the "content" because the cinematography is amateurish garbage.
Click to expand...

Yeah but that's what bugs me even more. The whole thing is just a set-up for a lesbian joke. That's the content that blew them away enough to get in to sundance? Did this really play at sundance or is someone screwing with us?
This whole thing looks like it was made by an amateur who just bought a used camera and just graduated from UCB, wanting to record one of his skits.
 
Not thrilled about the lighting. ( stray shadows and overall blue-ish tone does not feel natural )

It looks like they let the practicals do there thing, then mixed in dimmed down ceiling bounce, along with some soft side fill lights.
 
Man you guys are harsh.
It looks to me like the thing that was most important to the people making this is the performance.
Its a hard thing to do but sometimes making the best short you can means not lighting and tweaking every shot.

the bigger bummer for me here is the lack of production design.
I've shot in that house, with that same girl and both are great.
 
Matty_g said:
Man you guys are harsh.
It looks to me like the thing that was most important to the people making this is the performance.
Its a hard thing to do but sometimes making the best short you can means not lighting and tweaking every shot.

the bigger bummer for me here is the lack of production design.
I've shot in that house, with that same girl and both are great.
Click to expand...

The problem for me was the story... that story has been well trodden... a 'comedy' gag that requires 3-4 minutes to get to the punch line... well, to me is a fail...

As for the obligatory lighting question...

Looks like large softboxes, or bounced light on the wall or corner, depending.

The light did not appear to be 'motivated' all that much.

And what hot chick has her undies and top on during such proceedings... or have things radically changed since I was young...
 
And what is up with the disappearing light in the bathroom? There is a light in the bathroom on early shots, but it disappears latter. Not a lighting example to emulate.
 
Here's Tom and Nicole, lit by fill, in a bedroom with practicals. The blue moonlight adds alot of interest, but it's essentially the same principle as the sundance short, is it not? The fill emulates whatever ambient light is filling the room from the practicals (or maybe it is, actually, the light from the practicals).

Im's just sayin'...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C49W6Flk6D0


I'm interested in practical (no pun intended), real-life, nuts-and-bolts solutions to lighting two moving actors in a room where the light is motivated by on-screen table lamps. Using what I have, now- 500W Omni, 200W ProLight, and 400W scoop with an umbrella. If there's a believable solution out there, I want it in my bag of tricks, even if it's not ideal, while I learn better ways.
 
Last edited:
The practicals rarely act as key in this scene. They are mostly doing some kicker like job, rimming and modeling. The key often matches one of them directionally though. You can also see the top front light on Nicole while she is standing - both from the shadows on her neck and in the occasional spec highlight on the forehead.
"Lit by fill" sounds awkward. Well, every light "lights". But "fill" is a functional term for a contrast control light. A soft light doesn't mean fill.

You don't need to light two moving actors. In fact, this scene never had two moving actors lit. Only Nicole was occasionally moving. You may sometimes get away with lighting a space, but with a limited lighting package you will often need to light a setup, then relight for the next. Anyway, even your lights can get you far with some clever bounce and good practicals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top