M Joel W

What approach are you taking toward interiors to make them scary? No fill light and crushed blacks in DI? Hard light rather than soft lights? Any tricks? Color gels? Shaky cam or steadicam? I'm curious since I'm shooting something in a similar genre....on an infinitely smaller scale.

PLease... PAR or fresnel okay. Ideally not scopex or PAR64 but will consider...

Thanks for the advice; I suppose I'll either build something or save up for the photoflex.

I was looking to pick up a rifa light, but they are too expensive... I have an old lowel DP light that's gathering dust, so I figured I'd buy a cheap softbox off ebay. I've used a few Chimeras (24X36, 36X36) in the past...would these compare (and work with a DP light). Or would the output be less intense and not as shapely? http://cgi.ebay.com/36-x-36-Professional-S...1QQcmdZViewItem http://cgi.ebay.com/31-x-47-Softbox-Univer...1QQcmdZViewItem Thanks, -Matt

Well, 5219 is ISO500, same as 5218, so, using either one, you'd get the same f-stop for a given set up. Apparently 5219 is a little less grainy, so you might be able to push it a bit further than 5218, particularly if you're shooting anamorphic, which is inherently cleaner than super35. So, it doesn't "extend the f-stop range" but it might let you use a bit less light with similar results. But, the thing is, it doesn't appear that 5219 is that much cleaner than its predecessor so it makes next to no difference. Why not just shoot super35 and rent sharp lenses? I doubt those anamorphic lenses are sharp wide open, and stopped down a stop or two you would need a whole lot of light, and this would probably increase your rental cost far beyond renting faster spherical lenses for the same amount of time. Than again I don't know much about this since I've never had the chance to shot 35mm yet!

I've tested the dvx under 6000K lighting with an 85b filter versus with daylight white balance (and compensated for exposure, plus took IRE readings) and gained it up and it definitely is cleaner at 3200K; that said it's almost unnoticeable. I agree that it doesn't make much sense, though, but I honestly think it has a 3200K native sensor. That makes sense about different stocks. Would 500D (if it existed) theoretically be cleaner than 500T is or is the preference for daylight unique to digital photography? EDIT: Further contradicting what I wrote about the dvx, I shot something this summer with an HVX and we didn't have enough light to gel the 1k's blue at night so we gelled the practicals with 1/2 CTO instead and turned the digital white balance way down in color temperature. All I can say is I hope most of that footage gets cut. It was so bad.

I'm pretty sure the dvx100 is 3200K balanced; I think Panasonic says so and it's noticeably cleaner (at equal levels of gain) under tungsten rather than daylight. That said, it shows more grain in blue than in other colors and it is also by far the noisiest channel. What is the chemical difference between a daylight and tungsten stock? Why not make a sensor that has more blue photosites? 2 blue 1 green 1 red?

Hi, I learned from the operator of a relatively big lighting rental outfit (who will remain anonymous) that Mole and particularly Arri make the most reliable HMI gear (I think the jokerbug stuff is good too, of course). He warned against Desisti and other brands, which have quality control issues, especially for rental use. He didn't say anything about LTM and I know his shop sells their peppers but not HMIs. Are LTMs (pars with magnetic ballasts) any good? My only frame of reference is a magnetic arri ballast and 575w fresnel, which was of awesome build quality. These ballasts don't explode, right? And the output with the PAR is similar? Thanks, -Matt

I want to get a two light as a poor man's HMI so I would be using the FAY bulbs mostly, but also the super efficient tungsten ones that burn out really quick. Are both of these lights basically the same and take par36 bulbs? What is the difference? Thanks, -Matt

I haven't seen the tent; neither has the director. We're shooting tonight. I hope they don't cheap out and buy the smallest one they can find... Heh... Anyhow, it's HD (hvx). I don't think our Arris have removable lenses. Maybe we'll use a lowel DP light but that might get too hot and I don't want to run the risk of the bulb exploding since we don't have a protective filter. Maybe just a 500w photoflood, although those are a bit soft. Hmm... That makes sense about removing the fresnel, though and I'll try it with a 650 if I can. As for shooting IN the tent...should I remove the front half of it so I can back up the camera a bit? Or maybe just open it up? Then maybe cut holes in the other side for edge lights? (Or I could just put compact fluos directly behind the characters in the tent?)

Hi, I'm shooting something inside a tent and just have a few questions: 1) How to shoot in such a small space. Is it worth chopping off the front half of the tent so I can place lights and get more telephoto? 2) How to create silhouettes (in a shot from outside the tent). I don't have an ellipsoidal (just small tungsten and HMI units) but I imagine it involves keeping the light close and flooded to get the crispest shadows and then just using a moderately powerful unit. Any other advice? It's a horror movie so scary is the key. Thanks as always, -Matt

That's an awesome trick and I'll remember it next time I'm shooting on a larger format, but our 1/3'' sensor won't get that out of focus enough to read except as christmas lights (since we're shooting almost all very wide angle). That is a really sweet trick, though. The stake light thing is pretty awesome and I'll check it out. Thanks for the help.

The woods is unfortunately so insanely thick (and I mean insanely thick) that we've found backlighting nearly impossible in almost all locations. It turns into pure shadow within ten feet. We haven't noticed much color shift so we'll probably just time it out in final cut, but I'll keep it in mind. We also only have one 20 amp circuit (and sometimes not even enough extension chords) for a lot of scenes so CTB cuts too much light in most situations. The director wants mostly wide angle jib shots for night exteriors to convey expansive space, but thankfully we're friends and have worked together a lot before--and he has a background in cinematography about as much as I do so he understands what's possible and what's not. Not to say we've been having an easy time, though....

Thanks, I found it on google before I found it here, but not before lots of navigating through lee's awful website. Thanks for the advice; I should have known as much but I just wanted to be sure. Looks like I'm loading up on 251 instead. Better than nothing.

I'm using a big diffusion frame made from lee 216 diffusion. How much light loss should I expect. Does it matter how far I bring it from the camera? Are there any diffusions which are more efficient (like the engineered rosco ones?) Thanks, -Matt

We're essentially no budget, unfortunately, so all we can afford to rent on top of a basic arri softbank kit and some inkies is one 575w or 1.2k fresnel (and sometimes just a few tungsten 1ks, which we shoot without gels then tint the footage blueish in post). We have a generator but are avoiding it because it's loud. I'm considering just running the 1.2k through a big diffusion frame and some branches then lighting the rest with photofloods in china lanterns for fill, which we'll move around the scene as necessary. Also, I didn't know cables made lights turn more orange. Is this because the longer cables work as dimmers? I know longer cables draw more wattage, since this is a problem we face frequently on set. Oh, and I'd appreciate the stills (and any advice regarding diffusion without losing too much light) very very much.

Hi, I need to light "dark mysterious woods" tonight (and in the future) for a feature I'm shooting. It needs to be dark since it's horror and we want it to seem like the monster could be lurking there. I'm using a slight blue tint for moonlight so I'm shooting with a 575w HMI with CTO 1/4 or 1/2 for the background light and using motivated tungsten sources for the key and fill on the foreground foreground plus a very soft and dark backlight on the talent and foreground. Will this work? We have access to a 1.2k HMI if that works a lot better. Shooting video around 500-800ISO. Also, could I just use inkies with 1/2ctb scattered throughout the woods to give a hint of depth? Are there any good articles online about shooting woods at night (on a budget). Thanks, -Matt

Thanks for all the advice; I think I'm going to try it! Then again, I don't have too many other options save for renting an HMI at this point. I did some tests at 6:30pm and they look very strange (the background is far too dark and too blue, even with only a 1k as my key) so I'm moving my shoot forward to 5pm to insure direct late-day sun in the background and a bit more daylight in the shade so my surprisingly efficient 1k won't be overpowering. Hopefully the background will look soft, faintly blue and blown out (I'm shooting wide open), and the actors' faces will transition from neutral to blue. It won't look totally naturalistic, but I think the effect will be very cool.

I'm shooting a scene with 6pm or 7pm sun (probably mild cloud cover) in an area in the shade that is meant to be the roof of a building. I can't place lights behind the actors because of space restrictions, but I want to separate foreground and background. So I was thinking maybe I could use a diffused 1k as my key (or a bunch of tungsten fixtures behind a shower curtain diffusion) and balance to tungsten. That way, the background would look blue (but not terrible since it's late day sun which is a bit warmer) and my actors' faces would look more natural, thereby separating the two in the master shot. In close ups, I'd use a small par a couple feet from their faces (90w with CTB1/2) to further delineate space. Is this done? Is it acceptable? After this, they fall into a shaded area and that whole scene can have a blue tint for sure. But this is a key scene and I can't have it looking sloppy or weird.

So I want to shoot a scene with a candelabra providing key light and I'm using a 650 and a 300, each on a flickering dimmer, to provide key light on the actor's face from slightly different angles... So the color temperature will be pretty warm since I've got a white balance effectively around 4000K by eye due to a long story...so this should look very orange and pretty hard--like candle light. But I want that CTS rather than CTO look with the nice yellow hue. But I can't lose more than a third or quarter of a stop. What gel do I buy? Or am I wrong in adding a bit of yellow to emulate candles? Thanks, -Matt

I posted a few scenes of some tests at another forum and got some negative responses...but no help! Anyhow, I'm wondering what I can do to improve or what I'm missing since I think this is mostly pretty good work: http://home.comcast.net/~amuletman/test.mov I appreciate the help. This movie has been in production for over a year so I want to get everything perfect for the last few scenes which I'm shooting later. Thanks!

Thanks for setting me straight on that one; I should have realized how that would work... But maybe an alternate wick that burns cooler or another kind of wax? I burned rubbing alcohol (burns very cool) and I couldn't even get an exposure. In the end I'll probably just apply some sort of diffusion/star filter effect, blow out the backlight as well, and say it was an artistic choice, tho... Anyhow, thanks as always for the reply. It's convenient that the most knowledgeable person on the forums is also the most helpful.

So on Barry Lyndon, Kubrick used three-wick candles to get an extra stop and a third out of his candles...my problem is that the candles in my shot are blowing out. Can you buy (make?) candles with a very thin wick to get a smaller (but more importantly dimmer) flame. Video here so not much highlight lattitude and I don't have enough light to expose over the candle's brightness. Thanks.

I think this has a lot to do with the fact that Super 35 is "sharp enough," and while it may mean more grain due to the smaller negative and possibly a softer print, the lower f-stop you can use with Super 35 means maybe shooting at ISO 250 or 320 instead of 500 and also possibly avoiding shooting wide open, which really negates this issue, too. And the use of soft lights and blown out edge lights (and deep focus with some cinematographers) necessitates brighter lighting, making anamorphic less desirable... Furthermore, most projection prints are less sharp than a Super 35 negative, and a 2K DI not only reduces grain, but also limits resolution pretty significantly... Still, I read that Michael Bay was very upset by how soft Super 35 was on Bad Boys 2, so he switched to anamorphic for both The Island and Transformers, both of which look very pretty (from what I've seen). And certainly The Prestige and Memoirs of a Geisha (from the trailer, haven't seen the movie yet) have very pretty anamorphic work... Funny that Spielberg surrounds himself with Bay and Lucas, despite hating both anamorphic and digital. That Munich was a self-conscious 1970s homage in its zooms, grainy yellow look, and aspect ratio and was still Super 35 is a sin, though... I think the main issue is that Super 35 is "good enough" and since anamorphic all but guarantees more production problems, people just opt for what's simplest and allows for the most freedom and easiest time for focus pullers. (I hear some t1.3 shots on Geisha were horrible to shoot...) I'd be happy with Super 16, though... All I can afford is miniDV and even then it's a stretch. </rant>

Well, I'm met with a personal attack rather than a refutal so it looks like there's no denying I'm right. Your lighting skills look fine, by the way, but it would be appreciated by all if you were more forward about spamming the forums. Also, lose the "film look" advertising; good lighting is good lighting, but it has nothing to do with film vs. video. (Edit: except adjusting contrast ratio appropriately.) Also, full names as user names.