shoot 7245 50D Indoor

January 25, 2005

Hi folks;

anyone has the experience shoot 7245 with 80a in studio set ?now the only film i have is 50D which is a day light film be used on 5600k EXT shooting, but the buget dont let me buy any extra film ,so i am here for pros suggetsion about lighting Tech ,what kinda of light do i need for banlance ,the studio has all lvl HMI, FRESNEL, KINO FLOW,SOFT,ETC.and the scene would be a sucide ending scence .(want it looks dark and heavy).

Brett B · January 25, 2005

If you are not doing a DI then you will want to light using HMI and daylight balanced Kino Flo fixtures. You can also use tungsten lighting if you put CTB on the fixtures. You are going to need to use a large amount of light or push the film a stop or two. Because the film stock is fine grained you will have the room to push the film a stop or two. Best of luck.

Riku Naskali · January 26, 2005

Well, I was an special effects assistant on a commercial they shot on 50D inside. I can't remember how many 4kW PAR's they brought in, some of them without lenses, but there were something like 25 of them.

David Mullen ASC · January 27, 2005

You don't have the budget to buy something faster than 50D, but you have the budget to light sets for that slow-speed of a stock???

Forget the 80A -- that's like 12 ASA. You'd be lighting with tungsten 20K's and 10K's only... not to mention roasting your actors. Light with HMI's.

The gaffer on my second feature did "Pulp Fiction" right after that and that was all shot on 50D. He used twelve 12K HMI's to light that diner scene that opens and closes the movie. Uma Thurman's white house at night was lit inside by bouncing 4K HMI PAR's off of a ceiling covered in aluminum foil. I actually squinted when I looked at the lit set.

andrewbuchanan · January 27, 2005

I was going to mention the squint factor too... I tried this once on a small project and I had so much light in the room that everybody looked like Clint Eastwood - which is not such a bad thing this year... but in general that much light can be pretty hard on the actors. If you chose to go with EXR inside, the 100 is 95% as nice as the 50 and gives you a little extra light to play with. Also, watch out for filters, because you'll lose some light with the 80 and even more if you drop a couple of additional filters in.

That being said, 50 looks AMAZING indoors when all is lit properly.

Adam Frisch FSF · January 27, 2005

Depends entirely on your lighting style. For some reason people allow themselves to underexpose, be moody and more night-ish on 500ASA film, but they can't do the same mentally on 50ASA? Let's face it, it's only 3 stops difference between 500 and 50 and you probably want to be pretty close to wide open on 16mm to get some nice d.o.f fall-off anyway. It's not THAT much light that's needed. Lighting to T1.4 on 50ASA isn't like the end of the world.

Dirk DeJonghe · January 27, 2005

Of the whole Kodak negative range, I think 7245 is the one with the least tolerance for underexposure. In bright sunny conditions, no better stock can be found. I can show you helicopter shots in the high Alps, amazing detail in the sunlit snow, yet shadows look neutral and not blocked.

Interior with tungsten lighting? Forget it! Waste of money on good stock.

Dan Salzmann · January 27, 2005

I agree 100% with Adam Frisch. It is all a question of lighting ratios. Why not 7245 for a moody interior? Look at all the classic films that were shot with 50ASA for interiors.

What I don't like is using 7218 in blasting sunlight with all the constantly changing 85ND's

plus straight ND's and still not being able to open up for DOF fall-off.

Then again the grainy day exterior thing does have a look that is good for some things.