Overexposing Mini Lights on Film

[Micah Ellars]

I am shooting miniatures and scale model sets in a short that I am working on. We are shooting s16mm. I am having some doubts about overexposing the miniature lights ( LEDs, halogens, grain of wheat, and fiberoptic ). The one thing that CAN NOT happen is to be able to see that our lights on our models are just that, lights on models. I need them to be overexposed so they sort of look like a flare, that way they will appear to be larger and brighter.

 

Some of the ships will be moving so I can't really add flares in post. Is there any way to be sure I cause the little lights to be overexposed and still get some decent detail with the rest of the set? I am going for a hight contrast look. dark blacks and blurry lights. I am shooting on a K3, so if lenses are going to be recomended please keep that in mind. Right now I don't know what film stock I am going to use(because of this little problem). I haven't shot them on film yet. They look great on digital ( not that that helps ).

 

I need the lights to be overexposed slightly ( so they appear to be balls of light )

 

I need some level of detail for the other objects that are in focus.

 

I need to be ble to get the models on focus just a foot away from the camera.

 

Thanks in Advance,

 

Micah

[Guest fstop]

You need the depth so light everything for f.34 but overexpose to f.22, NEVER compromise the depth. Also use Paul Wilson's filtration or a weeny bit of halation trick (and I mean like an 8th black promist or something similar): use a star filter to fake flare- check out the model boats from the climax of Tomorrow Never Dies, particularly the floodlight shots and his use of smoke in those sequences- it's all incredibly simple.

 

While LEDS and fibre optic are needlessly tricky, little bits of 3M are worth experimenting with.

Edited December 4, 2004 by fstop

[Wendell_Greene]

Are you finishing to print or telecine?

[Micah Ellars]

Are you finishing to print or telecine?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am finishing on Telecine. Why do you ask Windell???

 

Oh and Thanks FStop for the advice, I think I am going to try to get a Pro Mist filter.

Edited December 5, 2004 by Film_Questions

[Chris Keth]

I need to be ble to get the models on focus just a foot away from the camera.

 

Thanks in Advance,

 

Micah

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What lens(es) do you have for the K3? It'd be awfully tricky to do this with the one that comes stock.

[Wendell_Greene]

I am finishing on Telecine.  Why do you ask Wendell???

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because you'll have far more control in telecine gauging and adding the amount of diffusion you will need to add to the gate[if any at all ] than you would if you shoot with a promist or similar filter on the lens of the K-3 [which isn't the best glass in the world].

 

BTW, I could be wrong, but I don't believe the aperture on the K-3 closes down to more than f22, which isn't really the best part of the lens to be shooting since you're you'll likely have to deal problems like barrel distortion, pin cushioning, etc.

Edited December 10, 2004 by Wendell_Greene

[Micah Ellars]

Because you'll have far more control in telecine gauging and adding the amount of diffusion you will need to add to the gate[if any at all ] than you would if you shoot with a promist or similar filter on the lens of the K-3 [which isn't the best glass in the world].

 

BTW, I could be wrong, but I don't believe the aperture on the K-3 closes down to more than f22, which isn't really the best part of the lens to be shooting since you're  you'll likely have to deal problems like barrel distortion, pin cushioning, etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you think that I would be better of blurring the lights in post? Also I am not going to be using the stock lens it sucks. The thing that worries me most is that the lower your go past f22 the lights become less and less dominant although you get greater depth. Can just the lights from the models themselves be bright enough to show up much lower than f22? What is the reccomended aperture for this type of work? If you could please explain to me how I can get the overexposed look in telecine or anthing else please fill me in.

 

Thanks everyone for your time, keep the comments rolling please,

 

Micah

Edited December 10, 2004 by Film_Questions

[Wendell_Greene]

If I'm understanding you're original post correctly, you're using some small lights on the models and also in the background of the shot, perhaps as a star field? And then you're using other lights to key the models? And you want the lights on the model [as well as the star field] to have a slight glow or halation?

 

You may want to consult the chart in the American Cinematographers Manual that will help you calculate how best to photograph your minituares based on: [1] the speed/fps of your camera (with the K-3 the highest frame rate is 48 fps] [2] the speed of the model ( the speed you want it to look like vs how fast you'll need to move your model when filming. If the model isn't moving then you don't have to worry about this) and then [3] depending on the scale of your models and all of the aforementioned, you can calculate the exposure factor (the amount of overexposure: 2x, 4x, etc)

 

My main point in asking about whether your endgame was telecine or print was that if you shot with a promist filter on your lens, you would affect the ENTIRE frame, and you don't want things to go softer in what is already a soft format. However, if you shoot with your lens clean of any filtration, you could add blur or halation to specific areas of the frames or objects like light sourced in telecine.

 

Often times smoke or some other type of aerial diffusion is add to the set to give the scene with the miniatures a more realistic, natural look. The DP will shoot through some sort of material like the lace of a bridal veil that is stretched out tightly and lit separately.

 

IMO have a daunting task ahead of you, especially given the format and equipment at your disposal, but please don't take that as me discouraging you from moving forward, but as always is the case, shoot tests.

 

I hope this helped in some small way and perhaps someone far more knowledgable and experienced in the area of shooting miniatures will be able to answer your questions more fully.

[Micah Ellars]

Thanks Wendell,

 

I appreciate your reply you have been most helful. I was already planning on smoking the models to soften them and add the atmosphere assumed with objects of that size. I will check the manuel on lighting and frame rate. Do you not feel that this could be pulled off with a K3? If not please let me know.

 

I am shooting scale model sets that are to be keyed in as well as moving model vehicles inside those sets. If you could give me more details on how to blur lights in telecine I would appreciate it. I have also considered compositing a blur over the lights although I would prefere not to. Can you blur moving lights as well in Telecine? Thanks again,

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I think once you start considering layered effects to enhance model work, you're probably going to be into a compositing bay.

 

Phil

[Guest fstop]

This sort of stuff was done for decades (hyper-convincingly) in-camera through smoke, diffusion and filtration, but I am not familiar with the equipment Film_Questions is using like Wendell is and Wendell raises a few issues I failed to overlook that perhaps mean looking for alternative solutions.

 

I think once Film_Questions has finally done his got his model shot in the can and it looks great it'd be appreciated if he/she could drop an image along with a technical dissection here for a Q and A.

[Laurent Andrieux]

.  The thing that worries me most is that the lower your go past f22 the lights become less and less dominant although you get greater depth.  Can just the lights from the models themselves be bright enough to show up much lower than f22?  What is the reccomended aperture for this type of work? 

 

Micah

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Look, you said you wanted to shoot this aperture because of depth (meaning you wanted a lot of), and I think you're right. If your lens is really ugly, it might be clever not to work that closed. But...

 

...What I know about shooting models : You need small sources, as small as the model is. I sued it was what you plan to do and I think that's clever.

 

But what "sizing" (enlargment ratio) are you going to work with ? If you want something close to 1:1, you'll need a long way beetween lens and film, causing ligth to be less on the film (it's a Lambert law) and a very short depth of field.

 

What everybody notices working with models is that using small sources and long distance beetween lens and film is that you need to work quite open !

 

The fact also is that sources being close to models, you can't use very powerfull light (not a 1000 or 2 kw Fresnel 1' or 2' away) as to manage your models and sets.

 

What stock are you gonna work with ? HS ?

 

>EDIT : Another point I'm just thinking of. Working with small aprture may cause a contrast loss as you mentionned, with a poor lens, but I've noticed that what sometimes makes a model look a model is that contrast on object is sometimes too strong. It's looks "lighted" mostly in the highlights. I've always found that low keylight and a bit crappy image (that you get with flare, promist, diffusion, smoke anyway) looks always better. It's a bit like you don't have the haze you should have if real distance was longer, for instance. So I would say "don't over light it" !

 

It's a bit like if for still photograpy, didactical films, that use macro, being so aware and concerned of getting contrast , that people are used to see this king of image when close shots. If it's not contrast it's like from far, wide angle....

Edited December 11, 2004 by laurent.a

[Micah Ellars]

Thanks,

 

I understand that you need small light sources for models. I am working in 1:48 scale and I am planning on lighting the models with ... the models. The specific set I am working on now is an industrial loading bay in the future. There will be many working lights in this industrial setting and the vehicles that land in this bay will be visible by their own lights. I am going for a high contrast look in lighting

(think film noir). This I believe will also help mask the size of the models as well as give me the desired aesthetics. Since I am planning on all the scale model lights being dominant as light sources I think shooting wide open and using a faster film stock would be a good idea. Another problem with the lighting is that I am mist likely going to have to shoot 48fps. Shooting this fast will take more light and I am just hoping that the small halogen and LED lights will be bright enough. Another problem is that I am wanting to shoot s16mm and I realize that it is a good idea to slightly over expose s16mm a half stop or so. I will defenatly be smoking the set and I am still considering using the pro mist filter unless anyone else knows a better way to ensure that my lights are soft looking so their true form (miniature bulbs and LED's) is not revealed. In this specific scense the scale models are largely subdominant and in the background.

 

I will do some experiments shooting wide open. I am still unsure of what lens to use on this production. The teaser I am working on will most likely be shot on a k3 and I am probably going to either purchase or rent a decent lens for it. Also if the teaser goes well I will be able to rent a nicer camera package and improve the quality of the film, but if I can pull it off on the K3 first it would be great.

 

If anyone else has any suggestions I would greatly appreciate it,

Also I will defenatly send some stills for everyone to see when it has been shot.

Thanks,

 

Micah

[Laurent Andrieux]

I often notice that practical lights in the frame often look too bright with models.

 

It would be a pity not having enough depth of field for this.

 

Mind that a contrast look and the use of smoke + BPM is a bit contradictionary... I guess you 'll be using very very soft smoke...

[Micah Ellars]

I often notice that practical lights in the frame often look too bright with models.

 

It would be a pity not having enough depth of field for this.

 

Mind that a contrast look and the use of smoke + BPM is a bit contradictionary... I guess you 'll be using very very soft smoke...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So basically your telling me not to go with the high contrast look if I go smoke or filter?

 

I am really hoping that the lights seem bright enough, I know what you mean about the fact that they could be too bright. Depth of feild is something to be desired, but I also don't want the lights to not appear to look like little model lights I need them to bleed over and be slightly blurry (or overexposed looking). I suppose I could wash the set with a very soft light as well as using the model lights, then there would be significantly less contrast. I want to add smoke for two reasons:

1) The scene itself is supposed to appear to be smoggy.

2) The smoke would help add the atmosphere between the forground and the background, making the models look like their hundreds of feet away instead of a couple feet away(due to the illusion of a humid atmostphere, the smoke)

 

I don't have to use a filter I am just going over my options and ideas. Perhaps the smoke will be enough to get the look I want.

 

If anyone knows an effective way of acheiving any of this please let me know?

Is it possible for me to acheive a good depth of field and still make the model lights work?

[Laurent Andrieux]

So basically your telling me not to go with the high contrast look if I go smoke or filter?

 

Not exactly. I just mean that smoke, BPM... do reduce contrast.

 

I begin to think that, actually, what you want is a foggy look, for wich I think smoke is a good idea. Its a bit a pain to control because You heve to match from shot to shot, but it's basically a matter of time.

 

A foggy look and contrast beetween low and highlights.

 

The smoke, BPM... reduce contrast by "powering up" the low lights (even if BPM do it less than smoke or white promist)

 

I also think that if your practicle lights are strong it might be good, but maybe better if the strongest ones are not in focus... Then you may getr the blurry look you're into.

 

If practicle lights are in focus, they wont stand so well the eventual overexposure and it will give a fake look.

 

Another point : It seems to be a night scene. I figure out that, basically, before eventually wash the set with any ambient light, the image would be full of black areas so you are on a good basis about contrat. The thing is, black may be a bit dominant in the image, so you may feel like "filling in" the set. I guess it's a good idea since I guess people you work for want to see the model...

 

This fill-in could or not be justifieed by a sort of "moon like" source ? It's not a ambient but more like punctual source. May be a diffused Fresnelthat could come from an angle accordingly to your researched contrast.

 

So I would consider controlling contrast thru this "fill-in" amount and direction, diffusion, azimut...

 

That would be for low lights.

 

Then I would do spotmeter based work for highlights. I suggest the practical model lights should be dimmable, and that you should dispose of small bits of CTO, CTB, + green and -green, diffusions, neutral density all at all grades to control them.

 

With a light smoke you'd get most of the effect you're looking for, and I think we're done, for the basis ? What would anybody think ? It would be great to have David's advice on this... ?

Edited December 12, 2004 by laurent.a

[Micah Ellars]

Thanks again Laurent,

 

It would be great to get David Mullen's advice or anyone else with experience filming miniatures. This seems to be an extremely techincal topic.

 

Anyone else have any input or experienced POV's?

 

Thanks again,

 

Micah