Filming with natural light

Alex Lindblom · May 31, 2004

Hi I have been reading these forms for quite a while. But now felt is was time for my first post. We are planning to shoot our first feature in jul ? aug. I have shoot several short in 16 mm before. So anyway, now to my questions.

The movie is set outdoors so we are planning to shoot it as far as possible with natural light, so with this in mind what do you recommend for?

1.Film stock which one is best suited for these kinds of conditions?

2.Lenses, I was Think about a Agenieux 17-102 mm because I love using the zoom lenses since my 16 mm days. But maybe I should go for faster primes to squeeze some more light in there.

3.Pale Rider, I have a vague memory that it was shoot completely in natural light, but maybe I am completely wrong here.

Alex.

Fredrik Backar FSF · May 31, 2004

Don´t know about Pale rider.. But Unforgiven certainly used as much natural light as possible being highly influensed by Sven Nykvist.

Try for the Kodak 250D. Great film wich also lets you shoot a little longer into the evening.

If you like your Angenieux then go for it, but I would probably also bring some faster primes if you end up in a lighting tight spot... wide, normal, tele to have a bit of choice.

Polarizer is a great tool in the open air...

If you have very little budget then shiny-boards reflecting sun through diffusionframes are very nice and simple. Polyboards + black and soft silver are always helpful.

If a little more budget (and more people...) Then bring some larger frames with a variety of say: silks, black stop, griffolyn, chequered, and silver.

Hope I´m of some help :)

Cheers!!

Mitch Gross · May 31, 2004

Pale Rider used mostly natural light or emulate natural light, which is a very different thing. The film crew also made full use of silks, reflectors and other instruments to adjust and control the natural light.

The 17-102 is a great lens, but be forewarned that it is a huge and mighty beast, both bigger and heavier than most 16mm cameras! Some manufactures have even resorted to adding a handle to it. Using a lens such as this makes for a very different type of shooting style.

Bob Hayes · June 11, 2004

Natural light is a blast. Don?t be turned off from shooting interiors with natural light. There are plenty of inside spaces that at the right time of day are light to perfection.

GeorgeSelinsky · June 11, 2004

I shoot a lot of 500 asa Vision and I do film with natural light. As a matter of fact when I'm doing my speed checks I open the lens sometimes and just let the natural light roll in, just to see what it looks like. Far better than some DV camera that's for sure.

The one problem is that even with 500 asa stock you end up with a wide open lens in many instances. Pushing increases contrast which usually messes things up in natural light. The silver fill card is probably the single most indispensible tool you can have when going natural. Cheap as hell and very effective sometimes.

The only other problem I can say is that natural light, if we're talking sun, moves and changes according to the rotation of the earth and the clouds. That can cause serious continuity problems sometimes, so if you want to do several angles of coverage you can end up in big trouble.

- G.

Phil Rhodes · June 11, 2004

Hi,

I am becoming more and more convinced that the conventional assumption of video cameras being around 400ASA is entirely incorrect. I recently shot a whole load of stills and video on the same set, and while the video was happy at F2.8 or F4, the stills were struggling for a 1/15 exposure at 2.8. This is on 1600ASA stock with 80A filter; effective ASA therefore about 400 (correct me if I'm wrong) and as we saw in those shots I posted, it could have done with an extra stop or two.

I believe I mentioned this once before, on a night exterior in Amsterdam. Okay, I could open up to F1.3 and the stills guy could only get to 2.8, but he was still marking rolls "push 2" and asking people to hold very still. They sounded like exposures of 1/30 or under.

This isn't anything to do with "shadow rendering" or anything like that. It seems like my video camera, which is entirely run of the mill, has a useful sensitivity of well over 1000ASA. I question the conventional wisdom.

Phil

Sam Wells · June 12, 2004

Phil if you've read my posts elsewhere you'll know I question that wisdom also.

For me, video camera EI is a function of the s/n ratio you (and your post chain) are willing to accept.

I don't entirely like the concept of ASA or EI for video cameras, but it "sticks"

-Sam

Tenolian Bell · July 10, 2004

This isn't anything to do with "shadow rendering" or anything like that. It seems like my video camera, which is entirely run of the mill, has a useful sensitivity of well over 1000ASA. I question the conventional wisdom.

I also agree with you. But I only notice this affect under certain conditions, and it doesn't work under other conditions.

Such as when the sun is going down and an actor is near the window towards the end magic hour. When there is just barely any sun left. There is a beautiful soft glow on the actors face.

When looking at their face with the naked eye there doesn't really appear to be enough light to really illuminate their face the way it appears on the video monitor. At that moment 500 ASA film would be screaming for light, you probably would need to push to a 1000 on super speeds to get a good exposure. But the scene looks perfect on video.

My caveat is that video is not so good during the middle of the day when broad bright sunlight is flowing through the window with the actor standing next to it.

To my experience video is also not so good when you want to shoot naturally with the actor near a practical source. A situation where the pactical source is illuminating the entire frame, and the practical source is in the frame.

Phil Rhodes · July 10, 2004

Hi,

Well yes, you can still end up with a dynamic range of ten stops before hard clip even if it's blastingly fast. The sunset situation has the source out of frame; if you tried to bounce the sunset back into someone (with a hard mirror so you weren't losing much) you'd expect the sunset itself, over the actor's shoulder, to be blown out.

Phil