rsellars

Guys, I'm late entering this discussion, so my answer will probably not help Phil with his original post. But as an academic exercise, here is my theory. I believe that all of the interior night time shots were photographed on a constructed set. The exception being the first two shots (filmed at twilight) in what I believe is a practical house. Once the model heads for the elevator and enters the elevator, she is in an artificial set environment with an "interactive translight backdrop serving as the city lights. I'm basing my opinion on observation of the set and lighting as well as logical deductions based on large budget commercial protocol. Big budget commercials want to control the whole look (set design, lighting, etc.) as much as possible - and they are willing to pay for it. They want lots of flexibility and as few surprises as possible. It would be too risky and difficult to schedule a shoot like this in a practical location. First, you can't control the weather outside - even in LA. Marine layer fog, clouds, or smog could ruin the background view on any given night. Why fight changing weather and light values when a set offers complete control over lighting placement and levels for balance. It's so much easier to get a perfect balance between the foreground set and the translight. The latest generation of translights have very realistic techniques for creating light movement and flickering by using LED's, sequencers, etc. It is also possible that a greenscreen was used behind the elevator set and the background was a live plate or CG background that was composited with the foreground. Either way, I'm convinced the elevator is a set. Another argument is architectural logic. The first shot depicts a glass room cantilevered out over a steep hill. There is no indication that there is a second story, although there could be a basement floor built into the hillside - although unlikely. It is most likely a modern ranch style house in the hills above LA. Why would such a house require an elevator? If it had an elevator, it could only go into the basement which would have no view out the glass sides. It's all an architectural cheat that "feels" logical based on the view established by the first two shots. The real practical location was shot very simply with only one key light placed in the ceiling, hidden by the trim. It seems to be a smaller size light with difussion that would be easy enough to hide and rig in a practical location. Additional fill could have been added from the interior side of the room off camera. These first two shots could have been shot with a much smaller crew on another day. At :09 sec into the commercial, there is a medium "cowboy" shot of the model's back as she looks out the glass wall at the city lights. The position of her key light is overhead similar to the practical location shot. But in this case, the light is a larger soft source that wraps around her body more. There also appears to be some practical lights (adding some fill and hair light kicks) built into the corners of the elevator up high out of frame. Because the camera angle is low, we see their reflection in the brass trim. Another advantage to the lower camera angle is to hide the camera reflection (glass wall) behind the model's body. Needed a curvier model for that! Also notice the reflection in the glass wall. It looks like the hallway set in the previous shot when the elevator doors closed. The doors are open now - allowing room for a short dolly shot. The next shot in the sequence (at :11 sec) is a close-up of the model. Notice that they have cheated her position in the set. Her background is now a glass corner (notice the seam above her head) without any brass trim. Yet there is still a city view in the background. How do I know it's a corner? Because that is the only way to avoid seeing a reflection of the large soft source key light in the glass wall. The source is fairly large and close - about 35-40 degrees above her head. This is indicated by the size of the reflection in her eyes and the angle of soft shadow under her chin. Skip forward to the :18 sec mark where the model is gazing out one of the glass walls. If it is the original glass wall (180 degrees opposite the elevator doors), it would be difficult to stuff the camera into the corner of a practical elevator. Also, this is not an extremely wide angle lens - another indicator that this is a set with wild walls. Notice the key light angle has changed radically since the first elevator shot. It's aesthetically important to have her looking into her key light because we see her face. It would be very difficult to accurately position such a light if it was shot on a practical location. Remember the steep hill? Of course, not impossible with condors etc. But again, this would take a lot of time to relight under such practical conditions. On a pre-lit stage set, it would be a piece of cake to make this adjustment. It's also much easier to rig lighting inside a fake elevator with no ceiling. Given an adequate budget, most directors and DP's would prefer to spend their shooting day finessing shots with great control - rather than waiting for time consuming rigs. Lastly, another reason that I think a translight was used instead of greenscreen is the reflections. It would be harder (though not impossible) to remove the green and keep the integrity of the subtle reflections. If greenscreen was used, then the background plates were likely shot after the main set. This would make it much easier to match the lens focal length and perspectives after the main action was finished. Perhaps any plates were shot on the same night as the first two twilight shots. Anyone out there agree with my theory? Disagree? My experience has been that low budget projects are forced to use practical locations due to costs. Big budget projects will pay more to have extra control over all visuals and more options to execute various angles.

Yes, there are many different types of gag lights. One of my favorite "gags" is a television flicker light that simulates light falling on a face from a TV. I've seen and tried lots of methods and this one works best for me. If you observe what a real TV light looks like, you will notice that the intensity and color temperature will vary when there is a radical shot or scene change on the TV. The overall color temperature is also quite cool - 6000-7000K. I like to use a minimum of 3 fluorescent units. Kinoflo Diva 200 or 400 work nicely. The middle light is usually the "base light" that doesn't change. I normally white balance my camera to 3200K and use a daylight kino with 1/4 or 1/2 CTB gel as the base. Then, I change the color temperature (warmer and cooler) on the other two lights by using gels or changing some of the tubes. During the shot, I have two electricians randomly dimming the "non-base" Divas according to the desired pace of the TV show being simulated. It takes a little practice to get the desired effect, but I like using humans instead of flicker boxes for the organic look. Besides, kinos don't like running off flicker boxes. I don't like using tungsten lights because they aren't soft enough like a TV display. If sound isn't an issue, I often add another variation. I use a fluorescent "shop work light" and put daylight color correct tubes in it. Or sometimes I use standard cool white tubes which are warmer (4800K) and which add some green. I attach this light to a household style "hand dimmer." When the voltage is up full, the light looks fairly normal. But when you dim it slowly, it goes down in intensity and begins to flicker slightly. I only let it flicker slightly, before dimming back up again. The flicker isn't too pronounced when mixed with the base light and the other light. Using this method can be very realistic, but the dimmer creates quite a hum. The advantage of this gag is that it can be built with any number or size of units for a longer throw. It becomes more challenging if one needs to see the TV at the same time. One can get away with lights slightly off axis from the source - but not too much. I once made a custom smaller fluorescent "TV gag" unit that could hide in front of most TV's. I hard wired two 24" tubes to always remain on as my base light. Then I had a friend build me a small box with a round grip on top. Inside the box was a series of floating mercury switches. As one "rocked" the level of the box, different switches turned different flo tubes on and off. Due to the nature of fluorescent ballasts, the lights were not hard on and off - but rather they "flickered" to life. The key to a realistic effect was to move the switch box slowly with minimal flicker. This mercury switch gag could also be applied to multiple tungsten bulbs (dimmed to desired color temperature) to create a random and realistic fire effect.

Harry, What brand and model camera are you using to film the scene? To get the best results for this type of scene on a low budget, I would recommend using a very light sensitive camera that can shoot at a high ISO and still look fairly clean. Something like a Canon DSLR camera (60D, 7D, 5D) if possible. Your biggest challenge is not lighting the car interior, it is getting your background to read like something other than black. Scout for a location that has lots of street lights if possible. Also look for streets where people leave their front lights on. If your neighborhood is too quiet and dark, your background will go so black, you won't have a sense of where you are. For cheap car interior lighting, I would suggest looking at a hardware store, home improvement center, or auto supply store for some LED work lights that are rechargeable. Depending on how long you will be filming, you may need to get twice the number of units necessary so that you can have spares on hand charging. If you can find something that plugs into the car - that would be even better. Just be sure to have someone standing by with "jumper" cables and another vehicle. It's easy to run down the car battery while setting your lights. The LED lights that you find will likely be on the blue side with some green spikes. You can try using some 1/2 minus green (magenta gel) if you want to remove some of the green. Or you can just let it go and white balance to the LED light - or correct in post. I would suggest using one LED light per person in the car as a "base light" key. You could place them in the dash area shinning through the steering wheel up at the actor - or gaffer tape them to the visor area. To prevent the lights from looking too fake, I suggest setting a level that is underexposed quite a bit. Your lights will likely not dim - although some have a switch that cuts the light in half. You can knock down the intensity of the LED's by using small strips of ND gel or diffusion material - or both. I would start with a light diffusion as that will soften and spread the light and knock down the intensity. To get the right exposure for your camera and to balance your LED base lights, park the car near a bright background that you will be filming. Set your camera ISO and lens aperture to get a desired exposure for your brightest background that you are likely to film. Then have your gaffer test hold an LED light in different areas outside the camera frame until you like the angle of the light hitting the actor. If the LED is too bright looking as an ambient light, diffuse or gel it until it looks right (underexposed). Then gaffer tape it securely in place. This is a minimal lighting set up that should work well assuming you can boost your camera's ISO or gain. If you would like your scene to be even more sophisticated, try adding an effect light. Purchase or borrow a powerful flashlight (torch in the UK). Something like a "Maglight" brand flashlight that the police use in the US. I prefer the rechargeable ones. Have someone drive a "lead" car just ahead of your picture car as close as possible. Have someone (other than the driver!) occasionally pan the flashlight through the picture car windshield at the driver or passenger as if it is an oncoming car's headlights. Using a flashlight that is closer to a tungsten balance will look more like a car headlight. This effect will add visual interest and realism to your lighting. Be sure to test the duration of the flashlight "headlight" to make sure you aren't blinding the driver in an unsafe way. Of course I would test all of these elements before the actual shoot day to make sure everything will work properly. If the flashlight isn't bright enough, you might be able to find a safety spotlight (similar to what police use) that will plug into a car lighter. Boating supply stores may also have something. Hope these suggestions give you some ideas.

Brandon, first of all I would forget about using lighting ratios. It is a very antiquated way of lighting that can create a sterile "paint by numbers" look. Learn to light by eye. Play with light placement, quality of light (hard, soft), controlling the light and adding shadows with grip tools. Create the mood that feels appropriate to the type of scene you are filming. Try this approach. Set the key light first. Adjust the quality of the light. If you want it soft, put it through diffusion or bounce it. Set your camera exposure to create a "normal exposure" (for now) for your actor's flesh tone. Using a camera's zebra setting at 70% will give you an average exposure on an "average" caucasian flesh tone. Just dial in a little bit of zebras on a facial highlight. Now look at the spill light of your keylight - the areas that aren't hitting the actor. Does the keylight spill onto your background? Does that work against the mood you are creating? If so, try to flag or net some of the spill off the wall or background. It is not always easy to do with soft light. That's why DP's often encourage director's to stage scenes away from wall - especially if they are light in color (more reflective). Add desired amount of fill light if any. Again, use your eye and judgement about what fits the mood of the scene. If you keep the fill light extra soft, it will prevent adding extra shadows on the background that are distinct. Sometimes it is advisable to fill from an angle above the actor's head. This will help hide the fill shadow behind the actor's body. If necessary, try to remove excess fill from hitting the background if it makes the background too bright for the desired mood. Add a backlight or kicker light if needed for separation. Set the intensity that feels right for the scene. It can be hotter than the key or darker. It depends on the reflective value of the person's hair. It depends on whether or not the backlight looks fake or appropriate. Sometimes, a backlight isn't needed. Now that your lighting is fairly well balanced, try changing the exposure to see if that enhances the mood without giving up too much desired detail in the shadow area. You can bring down the camera iris, use an ND filter in front of the lens, or add scrims to your light sources. It depends on what f-stop you prefer for depth of field. The examples that you showed were "underexposed" on the keylight, fill, etc.in various degrees. This is often desired for moody scenes. This darker exposure will also affect the background level - usually for the better. If your background is too dark because it is further away from the actors, then you can always add select light in certain areas or an overall wash. I always light the background last after I see what the spill light from the key, etc. is doing. My main principle is to use a brighter keylight than actually needed. By the time it get softened and shaped with flags & nets, it will be much less intense. If it is still too bright near the end of the process, I can always slow it down. Much more disruptive to make it brighter because that usually involves bringing in a new light. Obviously, this approach requires a good quality viewing monitor that is calibrated. However, you can always check your extremes (highlights and shadows) by using a light meter or waveform monitor to make sure that you are within the dynamic range of your camera. You can also play it safe with exposure (protect highlights) and or have a little more shadow fill than desired. Additional contrast can always be added easily in post. I would encourage you to experiment and light intuitively, not follow any prescribed formula - including my suggestions if they don't work for you.

Justin, there is probably a smartphone app that has this type of info. But I'm old school. I used to use a chart published in the older ASC manuals to make quick footcandle calculations or use the back of my analogue Spectra meter. But you can figure it out in your head using the info that Tom provided. I'm terrible with math, so I just count on my fingers if necessary. At ASA (ISO) 100, 100 footcandles is f2.8. First, round off your 44 fc to 50 fc. So, 50 footcandles is half of 100 - that means at ISO 100, 50 fc is f2. Double ISO 100 to 200 and you get f2.8. Double 200 to 400 you get f4. Double 400 to 800 you get f5.6. Your actual footcandles was 44, not 50. Open up approximately an 1/4 of a stop from f5.6, and you have the correct exposure.

I agree with aapo and Tom. It looks like the quality and color of an HMI with a little diffusion. Definitely not a shinny board. No way to really know what size HMI since one can't tell know for sure how much ambient light is in the scene for the kicker to overpower.

Adam, I'm afraid I don't have a clever solution for adding gel - it is a pain and doesn't work well. I avoid gels with china balls and approach the issue from another angle. If I want a warmer light source, then I typically use a large wattage household bulb (warmer than the 3200K photofloods). Or, I use a larger wattage bulb than needed and dim the light to the desired warm color temperature. If I want a cooler source, then I use a #1 or #2 blue photoflood (approx 4800K). If the source needs to be even cooler, then I also use a blue paper lantern. If I want party colors, I use different color paper lanterns. I realize that these options are not as precise as using gel, but they are much quicker and less likely to melt and smoke. If I need a precise color that I can't duplicate using one of these methods, then I usually choose another lighting unit. China balls are great solutions for many situations where omni-directional light is needed like over a dinner table. The light weight makes them easy to rig safely deep into a set. But they can also take extra time to skirt and control any unwanted spill light. There are often other quicker alternatives to using china balls that have a soft quality and are easier to gel, diffuse and control such as kinoflos. I can't afford to waste time with any time consuming rig that has a faster alternative.

I agree with Stuart - I don't see any reflection of a ring light in his glasses. Also, a ring light would provide even illumination across his face. His face is not evenly lit. The key light is definitely a soft source on camera right. It could be light through diffusion material or a softbox - or bounced off foam core or bead board. Open face lights would be the most efficient to use. The position is just slightly frontal of 90 degrees side light. If it was more frontal, it would reflect more often in his wide glasses. There may possibly be some slight soft fill on the camera left side. However, the soft "edge" light on the actor's camera left cheek is bounce light coming off the white cyc background. The light hitting the background is so bright that it clips in the center area of the beam. Sepia color tone is likely added in post since it is selective and not overall.

Stuart & Sean, while Lee & Rosco might not publish mired shift numbers for diffusion material, nearly all diffusion material does make light sources warmer. You can see it with your eyes and you can measure it with a color temperature meter. It varies slightly with each type of material, but I have found that a true 3200 tungsten source aimed through diffusion material averages around 2900 K. I'm not sure what the mired shift is. This is one of the reasons why Kinoflo offers 2900K tubes for their units. This "warmer" tungsten matches better with tungsten studio lights that are softened with diffusion material or bounced off white boards (which also warm light).

Michael, Thanks for your suggestions. I appreciate the help. Good idea about the H frequency detail. I'll look at that. Randy

I've shot a fair amount of HD greenscreen - first time shooting SD in a while. Any recommended camera settings for the SDX900 as far as detail, coring, gamma, knee compression, etc. I know that noise is an issue to be avoided, so should I avoid the cine gammas and use a normal gamma? Also, will knee compression add too much unwanted noise? A little knee compression might help with product highlights. I know that I should avoid detail - can I go below "0"? Of course it can be sharpened in post - but how much without looking weird?

Thanks Daniel & Michael. Randolph

I need to calculate depth of focus (approximately) for an HD shoot. I'm using a Panasonic Varicam (2/3" chips, 720p resolution). I have the film formula for calculating near and far focus at various F-stops. Is there a circle of confusion value that can be used to approximate this camera resolution? I realize that video resolution is measured differently and that circle of confusion may not apply literally. But is there a number that can work to "ballpark" focus prior to shooting? Is 16mm close? Obviously, a large tech monitor would be my final guide.

Rich, These are good questions. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert in sound - I'm primarily a shooter. As I mentioned, we shot in DVCAM mode because we did not have to deliver in HD. This was the same result as shooting in HDV and then later downconverting as far as image was concerned. I don't know if there would be any difference with audio quality in HDV. Our commercials received a lot of broadcast air time and they sounded great. As far as compression is concerned, Mini DV and DVCAM compress at 5:1. So I don't know if your VX2000 will yield better quality or not. It doesn't have built in XLR inputs like the Z1, which most soundmen prefer. If you do use a separate camera for recording sound, I would record the audio signal on both cameras. You'll need some sort of reference for synching later. My suggestion would be to run a comparison test by using the same mic and recording the same signal on both cameras. Then go to the best audio post facility possible and look at the signal and listen on quality speakers. I would be very concerned about recording sound in NTSC and video in PAL because of the frame rate difference 30 vs. 25. I would definitely test this concept first. I'm sorry that I can't offer anymore specific advise. You might try posting these questions in the audio sub-forum for more expert opinions than mine. Good luck! Randy