Chris Cooke

Yes, I'm with Ignacio. Especially Caleb Deschanel (Anna and the King, Passion of the Christ), John Toll (The Last Samurai, Braveheart), Conrad Hall (Road to Perdition), and Vittorio Storaro (The Last Emperor).

It definately depends on the mood that you are trying to achieve. Having said that, the same basic rules aply. Multiple shadows become increasingly obvious. Also depth is very important. Contrast helps with depth but also good set design. You can still backlight tables, tv's, etc. to seperate them from the background. Take real care in where you place your shadows.

No, I'm not NDing my cameras down to get a 2.8. I've actually lit the set to a 2.8. There are several reasons for this but one of the reasons is so that we would be able to see the "fire". As it turns out, the fire still doesn't show up much. One of the hosts came up to me and told me that price isn't an issue for this. She really wants this fireplace to look right. The idea about fluorescents in the bottom is a good idea since they wont heat up. I could even use regular fluorescents and gel it to my liking since flicker is not an isue in a fireplace. Has anyone come across electric fireplaces that are made for tv or film (with control over intensity)? I've done some research on Rosco products and it looks like all that they make is electric candles.

Does anyone have some thoughts about projecting a fire onto a screen in the fireplace?

You want to take the audience to an entire different place visually than what the director's trying to do with the story? Or did you mean a world outside the one the viewer is living in so that they'll get lost in the story that the director is trying to tell?

I could open up our lenses (fujinon) to f1.3 if I wanted to and expose for the fire but I'm exposing for the faces at f2.8. I'm also not willing to light the set any darker than f2.8 because I don't want my camera operators fighting to keep people in focus as they lean in or out, stand up, etc. My shutter is normal for interlaced NTSC at 1/60. I opened up the fireplace today and found four 60W bulbs shooting into a rotating gobo. 60 watts is max. I was thinking about getting our electrician to rewire it so that I could put some brighter bulbs in there but my next thought was that it would melt the styrofoam ontop of it. Yes, Christian films, tv shows, etc. tend to be flat and boring. I'm doing my best to change that at least in my place of work. Every show, film or comercial that you watch is trying to get a message across. Whether it be Christian or Muslim, horror or comedy, beer comercials or pampers comercials. In cinematography, we hopefully shoot projects that we support. Because our main job is to support the story, emotions and message by lighting, camera angles, color scheme, etc. I'll definately post some stills when I get a chance.

I just finished lighting a set for a daily interview show called LifeLine (a Christian show somewhat similar to Oprah). It's looking really good and we've already shot four shows to get ready for the start of the season. There's one thing that's really bothering me and that's the fireplace. I've basically lit some logs that sit in a mantle (it looks a little cheesy on an otherwise great-looking set). So today I got someone to go pick up an electric fireplace to put inside the mantle just to see what it would look like. I lit the set to a f2.8 to get a nice shalow DOF but the fire still barely shows up. I've checked out some gas fire places too and they're no brighter. It's not feasible to have a real fire in the building that we're in. Are there electric fireplaces that are made for tv and film? My other option is to shoot (or buy) some video of a real fire and put it on a Plasma, LCD, CRT or Rear Screen Projector. Does anyone have experience using any of these methods?

I really like your second grab Stuart. What was your setup? You probably used a lot of flags and cutters.

Yes, this makes sense Kyle but for most films this concept is a box that you don't need to put yourself in. Each scene should obviously have some consistency with other shots in that scene (especially key to fill lighting ratios and color). If the lighting changes within a scene the viewer should (other than for dramatic effect) see why it's changing. An example of this would be a person indoors passing by an exterior window. Throughout the film though, different places can have different feels to them and therefore maybe a different hue or lighting ratio. Lighting continuity within a scene is probably as much or more noticable than props continuity.

If you have any stills, post 'em. Next time you could also remove the lens from the Fresnels to get more light. This makes the light behave much differently but if you're going through diffusion or window sheers you'll probably get away with the more specular and less controled light.

Some halogen work lamps can actually support 3200K tungsten bulbs such as a 1000W DXW, 650W FBX/FAD or 300W CL/CL2. Color tempurature may not be exactly 3200K with work lights but I don't know if it matters much to you. The bigest issues in my opinion with these lights is control and size(wattage). I've only used them on one shoot where I put a bunch behind some diffusion for some fill. I just bought some little 300W PAR 38's for $50 each (Canadian) brand new with bulb. These are almost as cheap as Halogen work lamps, they're a lot more controlable, they're 3200K, they pump out quite a bit of light per watt and the bulb will last longer.

You're right, I stand corrected.

http://rosco.com/includes/technotes/filter...lor_Filters.pdf Check this .pdf file out. 1/2 CTS or 1/2 CTO might work well, also Straw Tint and Bastard Amber. Many more choices though. Ask for a gel swatch books from Rosco, Lee and GAM. Too many choices for us to tell you exactly which ones you need for this project.

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...?showtopic=7017 Lots of great info here.

Yeah, that Deftones Minerva music video is great. But it supports what we've been saying about moonlight looking blueish and white light looking like a big tungsten source. In this case the tungsten sources were in the frame which worked nicely for this video. Did you notice the scenes with the man in the desert under only "moonlight". That had a slight blue haze to it which looked quite realistic.

Sorry David, you posted while I was typing and we kind of said the same thing.

Very true Alvin. Art direction plays a big part in it. Another main factor involved in achieving this look is color timing. For instance, shoot your grey card (film) or white balance (video) with a 1/4 or 1/2 CTB on the key light then pull it to shoot. Also, desaturate the image marginally or do a bleach bypass. This way, you will have no need for CTO, CTS, Bastard Amber, etc. unless you want certain scenes or areas in the scene to look extra warm.

Point #1 is very false. HMI's can give up to 4 times the light per watt as compared to a tungsten light of the same style. Yes, PARS output more light than Fresnels but not 10 times more like Robert was saying (full blue only transmits about 10% of the light). Also, Robert shot with mixed color tempurature which usually looks very amature. I agree with Adam about HMI's but you don't have access to them apparently. Also, Bob makes a good point about shooting with natural light which is what you (Lucita) were thinking of doing allready. Without HMI's, boxing the window in might still be your best choice for full control.

Every DP has come across this situation and most of us with resources similar too or less than yours. Both options that you listed are viable with your resources and can look quite good when fully understood. Another option that you have if you don't need to see anything outside of the window is to box it in. With this setup, you will need the right kind of window coverings (preferably white sheers) that catch the light and let it pass through but don't let you see through. Then put up a 2K or 5K tungsten source outside the window with maybe a tree in front for a little breakup. With this setup you have full control over your set instead of the ever changing angle, intensity and color tempurature of the sun. tip: bring the sheers close to overexposure but not quite.

Gelling night exteriors (or using HMI's and balancing to tungsten) is typically the most natural because the sky is quite a deep blue at night to our natural eye. A person like John Toll is to cinematography somewhat like Tolkein is to writing (not quite, but you get the point), he can get away with "breaking the rules" and people will still like it because he's proved himself. On the other hand, cinematography is an art that doesn't have quite as hard set rules as writing. So, do whatever you feel suits the story. I've seen films where the talent had white light on most of them but they were backlit with a little blue or there were blue hilights in the background. That looked kind of nice. A night scene (that is motivated by moonlight) is very hard to look believeable without a little blue in the picture.

Show him some great looking interviews from television or dvd special features. Explain the difference between his camera work/lighting compared to these. Although, he sounds like the type of person that has trouble taking critisism. Maybe tell him about this forum.

Indrajith, You may have already shot your music video but if not, check this out. http://www.creationarts.ca/screenings.htm click on "The Huron Carol" Best Music Video I shot the night scene with only two Arri 650W Fresnels. I gelled the one light with CTB (motivated by the moonlight) and the other with CTO (motivated by the firelight). If you're shooting fairly tight shots, you can get away with very few smaller lights like this.

Try playing with different focal lengths. It's easiest staying in focus with a wide angle lens. Maybe even try macro when going for really tight closeups of the strings. That will put everything else out of focus but keep the strings sharp (don't move your guitar or camera). Don't use the auto focus feature on your camera because that will put the guitar in focus but not the strings. A couple little LED backlights inside the guitar body might give the strings a nice hilight that's easy to focus on. Also, the more you can get your iris closed down the deeper focus you'll have. (I'm a guitar player as well, I've got a beautiful all graphite guitar called Rain Song.)

I would suggest putting the diffusion or ND on the inside of the lamp shade but only in the front. That way, you can have complete control over the intensity of the practical but still see the hilights on the desk or wall from your practical. Dimmers are ok to use on practicals if you want the lowered color tempurature. If you don't want the color tempurature shift then just ND it a little more. If you're balanced to 5600K then the 4800K daylight photoflood would be plenty warm enough without dimming. You can get 1/3 CTB to cool that down if you feel that you need to.

It sounds like you might have access to an HMI or two. That would be great since you're only using the apartments power. HMI's output 3-4 times as much light per watt as a tungten of similar style. Also HMI's are balanced to 5600k which is great for that blue cast that you often try to achieve at night (when balanced to tungsten). Like Tim said, try to get some grip equipment or make it yourself because you won't want your lights spilling all over the place during night scenes. Also, use practicals in the shots and for depth and motivation. Use a tungsten source for your key.