Video vs. film lighting

[Marc Shepherd]

Question:

 

I've been told that if you want your video to have more of a (man-oh-man I hate this phrase!!!) "film-look" then you need to light your outdoor scene to give a more flat appearance. I've also been told that you should shoot on cloudy days.

 

While most of my experience is shooting for TV news and doc's, and therefore have no experience in film, I'm finding that advice hard to believe!

 

What do you all think.....

 

Regards

[Rik Andino]

I agree with you--I find it hard to believe as well

 

I've seen alot of video shot on cloudy days

& I've seen alot of video shot on sunny days

 

The sunny days look alot better than the cloudy ones

(And this is true for film as well)

Strong Sunlight gives more contrast the colors are more vibrant

And there just a less of the flat look...

 

I dunno how this translate when you transfer video to film

Because I've rarely seen this done...

But I suspect the sunny days will still look better than the cloudy ones.

 

 

Sunny days rule in film, video, or real life--that's my opinion.

 

But since nothing in life is a sure thing--do a test just to be sure.

[pkbissen]

i think what you're saying is you what a more shallow depth of field. stick some ND filters in front of the lens and this will knock down your DOF to give you more of a "film look."

 

and there is nothing wrong with overcast days. ratcatcher, morvern callar, and clockwork orange have some gorgeous cinematography in overcast weather. it just depends on the mood you're going for.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Overcast weather provides a low-contrast image, promoting technically excellent video pictures. The problem is that it's very flat and boring and frequently very cool, but also very bright, so you need truly gigantic equipment to overcome it.

 

Magic hour in overcast can be a very interesting time to shoot as you have the world's greatest softbox in a state where you can reasonably add artificial light, but it lasts mere minutes. Give me sunshine any day. The concept of video images having to always be perfectly filled and low-contrast is outmoded anyway.

 

Phil

[Marc Shepherd]

I figure if you shoot video on on overcast day and light your subject correctly, throw on some filters (boy is that vague!) then I'd think you could still get some decent images.

 

thanks

[Rolfe Klement]

Possibly the comment was made around how video does not handle highlight information as well as film (unless your video camera has a cine gamma curve function - and even then...)

 

This might come from an old very vague rule of thumb which would be to underexpose for video - so you don't lose video detail in the highlights and to overexpose for film so you have at least something on the negative.

 

Basically it comes down to the dynamic range of the camera (video has less and film has more {film can "see" into highlights better - but only in TK or with other adjustments})

 

So if you have clouds or sun and all else is equal you will have less dynamic range in the cloud shot (not much but less) because it is overcast and video possibly might be better able to handle it - but never as good as film

 

note - this would only work if you had the budget for post (either video>video or film>video telecine or some other adjustment)

 

thanks

 

Rolfe

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

The thing with overcast skies is that the exposure situation is counter-intuitive. If you're shooting something on the ground, you're exposing for the diffuse skylight which isn't nearly as bright on the subject as it is if you're seeing the cloud directly. It's all too easy to end up with a correctly-exposed subject and a blank peak-white sky behind it. Some of the most underexposed video I've ever shot is in that situation, just so as to retain detail in the clouds - the noise is worth it, anything is worth it to avoid the burnt-out sky. Blue sky is actually quite dark by comparison (you're seeing outer space, with a thin layer of slightly-reflective atmosphere in front of it), and of course polarisers work on blue sky while they do absolutely nothing to cloud.

 

Phil

[Marc Shepherd]

Thanks to all for the information. Some real meat in those statements for me to mull over. Lots to learn....I have lots to learn.

 

Marc S

[Michael Morlan]

I might offer that if you are exposing your scene for the the straight-line portion of the film or video medium, aside from differing latitudes and colorimetry between the formats, you essentially light the same way. Kodak's 5279 has about 10-stops latitude along the straight-line. Similarly, the JVC GY-DV500 has 10-stops from nip to clip.

 

Film begins to exceed video (at this point in time, anyway) because one can continue to push exposure into the knee and the toe for special effects and asethetic results. Video doesn't have this capability unless built-in gamma curves steal some of the default straight-line portion of the chips and artificially give them a film-characteristic rolloff, thus losing latitude in the straight-line portion.

 

I have gotten very good results with video on a sunny day...as long as I was placing the sunlight key over talent shoulders and bouncing light back into their faces. Exactly what I would do with film.

 

Michael

[John Pytlak RIP]

... the JVC GY-DV500 has 10-stops from nip to clip.

Michael

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Really? :rolleyes:

[Guest AliasMoze]

Shooting progressive frames is probably the best thing for a "film look" on video. Aside from that, I find the advice about flat lighting easy to believe but not entirely correct.

 

First, flat lighting is flat, and flat is not the desired effect professionals get from soft lighting and reflectors and such. This is the same mistake new portrait photographers make - "I need flat lighting to look professional" - as if the pro photos look pro because they're flat. But a cursory look at good photography shows that good work can (and often does) have extreme contrast. We all know this. Contrast and light quality are seperate components.

 

What the advice is getting at is the latitude of video vs. film. I don't know, take a nice 24p video camera onto an outdoor film shoot, wait for them to set up a shot, and roll some video. I'll bet the footage will look good (assuming the dp's setup is good).

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I would never tell anyone to light video flat. Flat light is what you get on overcast days and while you get technically nice pictures which make a vectorscope happy, it doesn't look anything.

 

Phil

[Thomas Worth]

With video, I have never found shooting under overcast conditions to be an advantage, exposure-wise. This seems more like an aesthetic choice rather than a technical one. I have shot under a bright sky (camera pointed right at the sky), and have had spectacular results. Same with overcast. Refer to these still frames, shot with an XL1s (PAL) at 25p (frame mode):

 

Sunny Sky:

 

Overcast Sky:

[Jonathan Spear]

Nice shots Thomas!

 

B)