Xmen & Resident Evil Style of Lighting

[Mark Allen]

I was trying to describe the lighting style of movies like Xmen / X2 and Resident Evil which (while very different movies) share a pretty high chroma, sharp/crisp feel - but there is something else. It isn't soft lighting, it isn't hard light - I'm imagining it's created by many light lights exactly placed. But I really don't know - it doesn't feel naturalistic either. If I were to throw out a term I might use High Gloss Studio Photography - but I might be stealing that - so what is this style actually called and is there some common techniques used to create it?

[andrewbuchanan]

I would call this style "over-produced". BUT in technical respects, looks like whole lot of kinos (or some other flourescent sources) were used on most of the sets and some very, very expensive lenses. That's all that looked special to me. These types of films have massive lighting packages and weeks of time to rig things on the sets. This is not a look I would attempt to try and capture on a shoe string budget.

[David Mullen ASC]

A lot of that look is large soft sources coming from the sides and as back kickers, creating a sheen on everything.

[Mark Allen]

Interesting that you are both pointing to soft lighting. I think this is where I was being thrown because it FELT like hard lighting - but did not have the ugly over keyed sections that hard lighting can have at times. Perhaps it is the lenses giving that crispness which is where the hard feel was coming from.

 

I appreciate the input.

[joshwatson]

and you must take into consideration the digital tweaking that takes place on every frame. but yes soft lighting and digital edge enhancement maybe? heheh

 

look at what these butts do

 

http://www.efilm.com/home.php

[Michael Morlan]

look at what these butts do

 

http://www.efilm.com/home.php

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Josh, that seems kind of harsh. I'd love to work with EFilm and, as a cinematographer, have the freedom to make adjustments in post. While the "fix it in post" mentality has somewhat eroded the authority of the cinematographer on the set, we also have an opportunity to evoke our craft and art after the film is in the can.

Edited April 4, 2005 by mmorlan62

[Adam White]

One of the biggest downsides of the digital evolution is the mentality of producers where they believe they can hurry the lighting on any given scene and "fix it in post"

 

I have had examples on this at all levels and it realy can undermine the DoP's position. Hmm... a good topic to discuss in future....shoot-to-post etiquete....

 

regards

 

Adam

[David Rinck]

One of the biggest downsides of the digital evolution is the mentality of producers where they believe they can hurry the lighting on any given scene and "fix it in post"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That attitude faded away in audio production and I think it is a fad that will fade away in cinematography too.

 

When the first digital reverbs/compressors/eqs came out they were the rage and the same 'fix-it-in-post' mentality reigned supreme.

 

Now, most good producers ... though digital tools are still part of their palette, they pay attention to the room sound/signal chain with the same attention it had before.

[David Mullen ASC]

Also, I've had the opposite happen -- producers and directors seeing a big picture on the HD monitor on the set and asking me to fix problems that I was just planning on ignoring because it wasn't worth the time it would take to fix, some insignificant thing in the image that wasn't going to be seen long enough in the final edit anyway. I had some scene in a dancehall with color-gelled overhead parcans and at some moment during a dance, a green-gelled light momentarily touched the tip of the actress' nose. They made me fix it, which required clearing the set of some extras, bringing in a ladder, etc. when odds were high that it would have never been in the final cut anyway, a waste of five minutes to fix -- which doesn't seem like much, but those five minutes could be spent elsewhere more effectively. Often a DP has to pick his battles, where to spend his time, so it's annoying when someone else tries to tell you your job. I could fix every problem in the image given enough time, but no one ever gets THAT much time.

[Benjamin_Lussier]

Im one of theose butts who fix it in post joshwatson...

And I dont know why you guys are so scared about it... yes there's lots of fine tuning in post, color grading ect... But color grading CANNOT compensate for bad lighting.. it cant! So whats the problem... you just have more control over the image... what's wrong with that?

 

 

Ben

[Mike Pecci]

Josh, that seems kind of harsh.  I'd love to work with EFilm and, as a cinematographer, have the freedom to make adjustments in post.  While the "fix it in post" mentality has somewhat eroded the authority of the cinematographer on the set, we also have an opportunity to evoke our craft and art after the film is in the can.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I agree completely. As a DP I have learned how to digitally grade my own work so not only do I know how to shoot for post but can also give better direction if someone else is going to correct it. It's an awsome tool, no different than the use of chemical processing as a tool.