Shooting Straight for the Edit, or not?

Paul Nordin · March 30, 2005

This is a bit of a newbie question, so excuse if this has been covered before. I'm preparing to shoot my first feature and getting into a bit of a debate with the team WRT best practice around lighting/shooting straight vs. getting close to the desired result in-camera. The feature will be shot on my XL2. And is a very low-budget (almost no-budget) production.

In particular we are discussing a fairly long sequence for which the desired final result is a high-contrast, theatrical (stage) feel, taken to the Nth degree. We want to have almost zero background visible (ie; black/darkness) with various objects that are to be focused on like an actors and a vase of flowers lit and brought out of the black with tightly focused spots. Kind of like a Bob Fosse feel. I guess I come from the production focus of wanting to get as close to the desired lighting scheme in-camera. I had been thinking of using a combination of one or two xenons and some dedos for the small objects (this sequence will probably be shot on a stage). My thinking was that if I manage to control spill it would be fairly easy to keep the subjects 3-4 stops brighter, which is all that would be necessary when shooting DV. I would expose for the highlights, keeping skin-tone around 80IRE. That would help black out the things we want to, while still allowing plenty of detail for the post manipulation of contrast/gamma.

Someone else on the production team is pushing to shoot the sequence as straight as possible, to keep the options open in post. That approach would entail cutting masks around the subjects and actors and manipulating the background expose/lighting/look via alpha channel (probably in something like After Effects).

My basic question to you more experienced DPs is how would you go about making this lighting/effect decision in particular, and in general what lighting/atmospheric elements do you tend to save for post when shooting tape, not film?

Thanks

Patrick Neary · March 30, 2005

Someone else on the production team is pushing to shoot the sequence as straight as possible, to keep the options open in post. That approach would entail cutting masks around the subjects and actors and manipulating the background expose/lighting/look via alpha channel (probably in something like After Effects).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That sounds absurd. Have them do a quick test, and i think you'll see how laughable the whole prospect is.

It happens a lot, and I never can understand why some people are so afraid to commit to a look that isn't dull, flat and boring....

start rigging those xenons! (although, as a practical matter, you might look at the difference in output between those and dedos. Dedos don't really have that kind of oomph...)

Phil Rhodes · March 30, 2005

Hi,

Get it in camera. Even if the whole matting-the-subjects idea wasn't rather silly, which it is, doing a lot of post effects to DV footage doesn't often work that well because of the enormous compression.

You won't need much power to make the DV see your spotlights as very hot. Dedos are one of my favourite toys with video lighting. I need to own some, but eesh!

Phil

Michael Nash · March 30, 2005

Someone else on the production team is pushing to shoot the sequence as straight as possible, to keep the options open in post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Keep what options open, specifically? What is it that this person wants to see differently? Is this person the director who perhaps doesn't really know what he wants? Or does he just not trust your ability to light it effectively and get the look in camera?

You already seem to know what you want, and know how to get it in camera. Unless there's a different look that you might also need for the production, there's no reason not to simply light it and shoot it the way you want.