Lighting Kit Choises continued

bibleland · September 10, 2004

I bought an Arri kit with 750watts being the most output followed by 650 and 500. I shoot Kodachrome super-8 40asa and I remember years ago when using my Dads 1000watt sungun there were no insecurities about having enough light from one or two of those. With all 4 lights and trying to fill a 20x30 foot room I wished I had one of those monsters. I barely got what I wanted. Do I need a 1000 watt arri to compliment my 5 lite kit (750 to 150 watts)?

Alvin Pingol · September 10, 2004

You should ask yourself that question, not us!

If you're shooting material that allows you to place lights close to your subject(s), then no, you probably wouldn't need a 1K.

However, you mentioned that you could barely light a 20x30 room with what you have. And of course, you are shooting 40ASA film, so in that case, then yes you might want a 1K in your kit!

Basically what I'm saying is that you should ask yourself what type of material you will be shooting. If you must use a lot of lighting on wide shots, a 1K will certainly help you. However, if fully-lit wide shots are not so common in whatever it is you shoot, and "barely got what you wanted" is good enough for you, you can live without it.

Michael Nash · September 10, 2004

40 ASA is pretty darned slow for any kind of indoor filming, so yes you're going to need as much light as you can get. I can't imagine trying to shoot that slow with anything LESS than a 1K, but that's me!

I wonder though -- why would you want to shoot with such slow film and have such hard, harsh light (and barely enough of it, at that). Is it worth having ugly lighting just to have a tighter grained image? (I'm not insulting your lighting, I just know what you can expect from those lights at that ASA). I mean, if you switch to a faster stock (and you can get any ASA negative you want in Super 8) you could get a better exposure with the lights you already have. I understand that grain is a real issue in Super 8 film, but 40 ASA seems a little slow for indoors.

Allen Achterberg · September 10, 2004

I am having a similar Problem, Im not very experienced DP'ing yet, been doin the AC thing so Im sort of getting the Hang of it. Im still in highschool., and I am shooting a night scene on 16mm (Kodaks Vision 200T) without any really wide shots, all the shots will be fairly close or Med. I have the SR2 package with an Anginuez 2.8 zoom lens. as for lights I've got ONE 2K fresnel, 2 550's and one 350. I fear I may not have enough light for the ASA im shooting. I got the film for free (400') and the camera for free. Same with the lights, im only paying telecine and processing. I am telling the DP I usually work with that I will be able to pull it off (He is gaffing for me) and he seems a bit worried. I do not intend to light up the whole area...I want a lot of shadows, a lot of blacks. the 2k will be used for moonlight so that will most likely become my backlight as well, do you think I will be ok if I shoot MED and Close the whole time? please help me soon Im shooting in a week, I know its short notice but theres nothing I can do at this point...my inexperience will teach me through this im sure. thanks, Allen

John Pytlak RIP · September 10, 2004

That's why Kodak makes a full range of films, of different exposure indices (EI), color balances (tungsten/daylight) and "looks":

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...0.1.4.4.4&lc=en

Allen Achterberg · September 11, 2004

If I had the money to snag me some Kodak 500T i would, without a doubt. So I guess I will just get the Balls shoot it, then hope for the best, I've been working on my lighting situation all week and Im pretty damned sure I shall be ok.

bibleland · September 11, 2004

[QUOTE] wonder though -- why would you want to shoot with such slow film and have such hard, harsh light (and barely enough of it, at that). Is it worth having ugly lighting just to have a tighter grained image?

I'm not sure what you mean about harsh light. Please explain. If I had 6000 total watts on a subject properly exposed and diffused how is this harsh? I guess as apposed to 500 watts diffused with 500 asa film which would be subtle? Harsh like in the Technicolor days when they used so much light to fill a scene? Harsh in that I can see everything in the room as apposed to the dark and difficult scenes that are hard to make out what is going on in the way they shoot for motion pictures today?