Jump to content

Kennan Conner

Basic Member
  • Posts

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Student
  1. I might be asking an idiotic question (I know it at least sounds like one), but why would you need to raise the light levels up? If you are filming a night scene then it should be dark anyways. My solution to your problem would be to lower the amount of light in the car altogether, thus creating less contrast. Much of Gordon Willis' work would be an excellent example of this technique. If you need to see the actors' faces in the car, then you can use a LED practical to justify a light blue glow underlighting the faces. You could probably even use a gelled LED panel near the opposite actor's legs or lap to simulate the light. This should keep the scene in low contrast and still resemble night time. If you don't need to see their faces then I would suggest using a small light hidden by the car's framework (this could be difficult depending on how you manage the handheld aspects). You could use this light as a backlight to distinguish one actor's profile (since it's small it will create a very distinct silhouette that doesn't add to the contrast) and the spill should bounce off the roof of the car and create a very flat illumination on whoever is in the passenger seat. As far as making the car appear to be moving, the technique I have most often seen is with a helicopter rig hanging above the windshield. This too would probably work best with low light scenarios, as a well lit set won't be much as affected by weak lights as a weakly lit set will. I can understand if I grossly misunderstood your question, or if I gave you a terribly inadequate answer. Either way, don't be afraid to tell me.
  2. I am a student writing a research essay about the correlation between method acting and the trend towards soft lighting in American cinema. My take on the topic is going to analyze how the popularity of method acting increased cinematographers' use of soft lighting as a means of lighting a space for the actors to improvise. I am going to qualify the method actor argument with other factors (i.e. technological "advancements" away from sunlight or carbon arcs towards helium balloons or kino flos, and greater dynamic range/faster film emulsions) which may have also affected the trend towards soft lighting. My research so far (including on this site) has turned out very little; if you can give me any advice, suggestions, directions, or opinions, I would be very appreciative. I am planning to support my analyses of A Streetcar Named Desire, The Godfather Part II, Raging Bull, and There Will Be Blood by outside evidence. Thank you in advance. "Soft light has been a trend for the last fifteen years. Largely because of what happened in acting techniques through method acting, namely that actors don't hit the marks like they used to. They want more dynamic range. Hard lighting is very specific, and if you want it to look good, you have to hit that mark all the time. The new style of acting makes it impossible to do. We went into bigger soft sources so people can move around" -John Buckley
×
×
  • Create New...