WB to simulate moonlight?

I

Indyreel

Well-known member
I have a 1K Tungsten light that I want to use to simulate moonlight, while filming with a GH1.

A DVX member in another forum suggested that I skip CTB gels to keep the light intensity, and instead WB to the Tungsten light, thus causing the light to appear as white. I assume I will be able to then add a slight blue tint in post.

My question; Will this technique give a professional final product with the GH1? One that will stand up to color grading in post, and be usable for a feature film?

My fear is to film my night scenes like this and later discover that I have blown it, by using the wrong technique for the GH1.
 
Use the Custom (manual) white balance, but just put a half CTO lighting gel in front of the lens, while you set it.
 
Why wouldn't you just go out and do some test shots? Sounds to me that instead of shooting for the "feature film" should be shooting to get the technique down first. It's not like any film will be waisted doing it. Also I recommend getting some books that touch on the subject of shooting night for day and day for night.
 
Indyreel said:
I have a 1K Tungsten light that I want to use to simulate moonlight, while filming with a GH1.

A DVX member in another forum suggested that I skip CTB gels to keep the light intensity, and instead WB to the Tungsten light, thus causing the light to appear as white. I assume I will be able to then add a slight blue tint in post.

My question; Will this technique give a professional final product with the GH1? One that will stand up to color grading in post, and be usable for a feature film?

My fear is to film my night scenes like this and later discover that I have blown it, by using the wrong technique for the GH1.
Click to expand...

the gh1 is just a tool like any other camera. the problem is learning lighting techniques. run over to cinematgraphy.com or check out the lighting section thread.
 
Car3o said:
run over to cinematgraphy.com or check out the lighting section thread.
Click to expand...
...and risk to be vilified for asking such a question ... why didn't you go to a film school, why didn't you spend 20 years in the industry, how dare you shoot with such a camera....

I just tried to be helpful.

;-)
 
Are you guys kidding me!!!

"Sounds to me that instead of shooting for the "feature film" should be shooting to get the technique down first."

"the problem is learning lighting techniques. run over to cinematgraphy.com or check out the lighting section thread."

"On the other hand, if you embark to shoot a feature film and this is a major problem... one wonders... "

Did you even read my question?

"Will this technique give a professional final product with the GH1? One that will stand up to color grading in post, and be usable for a feature film?

My fear is to film my night scenes like this and later discover that I have blown it, by using the wrong technique for the GH1. "

I am sincerely insulted. How presumtious to read into my question and answer like that!
 
Is the light your only source? Then there's no reason not to use white balance. If you're mixing the tungsten light (simulating moonlight) with other lights that need to have a certain color temperature and white balancing for tungsten ****s that up (in your opinion as an artist) then use a gel...but if all your lights are meant to have the same diegetic source (the moon) and they're all the same color temperature (all tungsten lights I think you said) then yeah, white balance.
 
Ben_B said:
Is the light your only source? Then there's no reason not to use white balance. If you're mixing the tungsten light (simulating moonlight) with other lights that need to have a certain color temperature and white balancing for tungsten poo poos that up (in your opinion as an artist) then use a gel...but if all your lights are meant to have the same diegetic source (the moon) and they're all the same color temperature (all tungsten lights I think you said) then yeah, white balance.
Click to expand...


Now that's the type of succinct answer I was hoping for. Thank you.

Ben, I am using only tungsten lights for a specific scene and believe this technique will work, but given the quirks with the GH1, I am concerned that the final outcome may not be condusive to post color grading, or that it may in some way effect the final picture.

In your experience are these concerns warrented or am I good to go with this technique?
 
What color grading are you needing to do?

If you want white light from the lights the white balance will take care of that.

The GH1 is generally known for being pretty weak for post color grading but I've gotten a fair amount of mileage out of it in post....but I don't think anything you do differently is gonna effect it.

The best advice I can give is make sure you're happy with the way the image looks on camera...if you want white make sure you white balance it to get that, that'll be better than doing it in post.

But no, white balancing the footage vs using a gel won't make anything better/worse in post.

Maybe consider having more than 1k worth of light and also do some tests...this was shot in a pitch black night on the side of a forested mountain on the HVX with maybe 4,000-5,000 or so watts worth of lights (A crappy 1k that bounces of itself in a diffusing way, three 650 watt open faced Arris, maybe a Tota [800 watts], and the two 500 watt work lamps in the frame) but yes the GH1 has much better low light performance than the HVX...but maybe not 4,000 extra watts worth, and yeah, that frame's still pretty black (which is good cause the production is a neo noir...not sure what you're shooting.)

screenshot20090903at917.png
 
Last edited:
I have just made a suggestion to use a very simple technique to shift the colour balance of you key light in camera without adding extra filtration.
It is a technique used by many cinematographers when shooting video when one wants to shift the white balance and enter in the colour grading stage with an image closer to your final outcome and minimal corrections, especially when working with 4:2:0 of heavily compressed material.

For your info and if you still want to take some advice, this is what I use to take the white balance out of the neutral zone:

1256267932.jpg


I am sorry if you feel offended, if my comment was little bit glib, but I am referring to a very old technique or better said a trick of the trade.
 
Last edited:
Indyreel said:
Are you guys kidding me!!!

"Sounds to me that instead of shooting for the "feature film" should be shooting to get the technique down first."

"the problem is learning lighting techniques. run over to cinematgraphy.com or check out the lighting section thread."

"On the other hand, if you embark to shoot a feature film and this is a major problem... one wonders... "

Did you even read my question?

"Will this technique give a professional final product with the GH1? One that will stand up to color grading in post, and be usable for a feature film?

My fear is to film my night scenes like this and later discover that I have blown it, by using the wrong technique for the GH1. "

I am sincerely insulted. How presumtious to read into my question and answer like that!
Click to expand...

Ummm yeah. So do you have a GH1 or are you wanting to know this before you get one?
 
Also you should understand that just throwing a light into a scene and setting white balance doesn't mean you are going to get a moonlit scene. There are many things to consider, and TRY, to get the effect which is why I suggested you get some books that go into the subject in detail. I highly doubt you are going to get enough info about the technique in a forum compared to what a book and first hand experience will teach you. So my point was not to wait until you are actually shooting a feature and just go by what you read on a forum because you are probably not going to get what you desired. Instead you should go out before and practice until you feel it is right then do it on the actual feature set.
 
a few things to note when going for a night look.

1) if its just moonlit, remember the source is a hard source, and there is no fill from the bright sky, so much heavier in contrast as opposed to during the day

So a strong key is ... the key. And a good strong back light for separation.

I took your grab and just did some simple curve adjustment, doesnt look half bad. Just missing a nice backlight.

Here it is:

nightlook.jpg
 
Hehe PaPa I don't see the image and also I believe that was Ben_B's shot.

Well I looked up Indyreels other post about the subject and he is wanting to have moonlight shine through factory windows. And Indyreel this would have been important to include in your original question you know. If this is going to be your only light source then I would think setting the WB and adjusting the tint in post would get a quick look. If there are going to be other light sources then I think the lights shining through the windows should have gels on them and go that approach. Personally I would just go with the Gels for any light coming through windows and not mess with the tint. You could retain some color on the actors better this way I think. http://www.filmtools.com/31-lee-s183.html

And next time you should not be so sensitive in getting your feelings hurt and try clarifying your question a little more. Just a thought.
 
pix2pixels said:
...and risk to be vilified for asking such a question ... why didn't you go to a film school, why didn't you spend 20 years in the industry, how dare you shoot with such a camera....

I just tried to be helpful.

;-)
Click to expand...


dude....nevermind. you're special i see. so i'll leave you alone.
 
PaPa said:
a few things to note when going for a night look.

1) if its just moonlit, remember the source is a hard source, and there is no fill from the bright sky, so much heavier in contrast as opposed to during the day

So a strong key is ... the key. And a good strong back light for separation.

I took your grab and just did some simple curve adjustment, doesnt look half bad. Just missing a nice backlight.
Click to expand...

That scene is not meant to be moonlit, I think you're missing the point of the diegesis. It's lit by "car headlights" which is where most of the backlight is coming from (look at the hair) in fact theres a 650 watt light right behind the actors, obscured by them. The front light doesn't have a clear diegetic source but is pretty well cheated because the fact that they're standing in a swath of light from the headlights sort of makes you think that they should be lit...as the film is progressing you don't really question the diegesis and this is one of my favorite shots. This film is a noir so heavily utilizes low-key lighting...note the shadows on her face, etc.

I poste this shot as an example for the OP on how bright a night scene would get with certain amounts of light because he had mentioned he was using a 1k tungsten light...my point was that if he just had one it would likely not be enough light for many situations, but I believe he mentioned since then that he had 4.
 
Here's what I'm not understanding? Why the obsession with Blue?

Moonlight has a color temperature of 4100k, vs 5000-6500k for daylight....therefore it should be warmer (in typical language where blue is cold), not that cold daylight blue...and if moonlight was actually bright enough to light a scene by, and you white balanced for it (which you would do) it would appear white anyway....so seriously...what's with everyone talking about blue?!

Put some lights up, white balance for them...the end. What matters is that you light the scene in a believable way so that the diegetic source is moonlight and that it makes sense for the audience. The light should be white unless you're creatively wanting something else....but I don't see why blue would be what you want...moonlight is warmer than daylight, and you'd be white balancing anyway....shouldn't you want your scene to be white....

If you're doing a white scene than the only point gels have is if you're using different kinds of lights with different color temperatures...but you're not....so just throw your lights up in a believable way, white balance it, and shoot it...tweak in post if you want, but why go for blue? Is blue the look of the film? Are you doing it in post for other scenes? If so do it in post for this one.
 
Ben_B said:
Here's what I'm not understanding? Why the obsession with Blue?

Moonlight has a color temperature of 4100k, vs 5000-6500k for daylight....therefore it should be warmer (in typical language where blue is cold), not that cold daylight blue...and if moonlight was actually bright enough to light a scene by, and you white balanced for it (which you would do) it would appear white anyway....so seriously...what's with everyone talking about blue?!

Put some lights up, white balance for them...the end. What matters is that you light the scene in a believable way so that the diegetic source is moonlight and that it makes sense for the audience. The light should be white unless you're creatively wanting something else....but I don't see why blue would be what you want...moonlight is warmer than daylight, and you'd be white balancing anyway....shouldn't you want your scene to be white....

If you're doing a white scene than the only point gels have is if you're using different kinds of lights with different color temperatures...but you're not....so just throw your lights up in a believable way, white balance it, and shoot it...tweak in post if you want, but why go for blue? Is blue the look of the film? Are you doing it in post for other scenes? If so do it in post for this one.
Click to expand...

I can't agree here. In film school back in the day we shot a test with this in mind. The issue is we think of moonlight with a blue tint to it because the other lights around us are warmer when we see the light. Technically yes, moon light isn't that color, however filmmaking is in the business of manipulation and when we watched a true representation of moonlight vs a theatrical representation it was more clear to the audience that it was in fact moon light and not some outside light. Now I'm sure over the course of the years a realistic setting may become more desirable and understood on the screen but I'd be surprised if it happened in the course of 6 years. And in the end it is after all about the artistic decision to do such a thing. If it is the desire to make something authentic and not so much theatrical then by all means go for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top