Albion Hockney

Alot of people shoot features on the c300. the c100 puts out a comparable picture. my experience is that the 4k blackmagic camera is a really bad highlight clip and is like maybe 10 stops of latitude where as the c100 is closer to 12. C100 also can handle 850 ISO up to 1600/3200 with the black magic 800 is pushing it. you'll never create a real "35mm" look with either of these cameras its hard to do that with an Alexa let alone a c100 ...but I'd say the c100 will get you closer.

Having seen a few of the new errol movies. always looks like the classic super soft side key. in your example it looks like either a book light or through 2 layers of difussion. probably the biggest being an 8x and then an opposite side little edge/hair light

Thanks for the replies everyone. As for the drake seen after watching it several times. I agree with Guy, I think there is some sources for sure that edge carries way too far. but I can sorta see how that could be done in my head now. Satsuki, can you explain what you mean by hiding LED's around set....are you saying having the lights in frame? or are you just talking about tossing LED's in interior locations to give the apperance of rooms with lights on. the other question was what is a "smoke pot" I do want some smoke....kinda like the look of steam heating pipes leaking through the sewer coming up in the background basically. Was trying to figure out the best way to do that. Phil, I think you have to understand low budget is for sure relative. Guy explained and I know he is right the biggest expense of night exterior in the past is a huge generator and all the crew that comes along with that along with cost of big lights. His solution is "low budget" in a sense and actually that information is really helpful. Although that is still a high end production world I'm curious about those sources. In the past one thing I have done is just put some 2k open face lights on cheap condor style lift. and fortuently I am not lighting up near the size of an area as they are on a show like "Chicago Fire"

I have a project coming up with some steadicam shots of someone walking around an urban setting at night. maybe walking down an area of about 50-100ft and then standing on a corner. Widest shots are like medium wide or a little wider. Its pretty modest budget, I could probably get a condor and maybe a 5k out but that would be it. I have been seeing a lot of urban work as of late that looks lit mostly with practical light though and I'm just curious what some of the newer practices are other then just edging someone from down the block with a big light. One thing Is that there will be open bussiness they will be walking by so I was going to try to utilize that to motivate/give a lot of the light for the walking scene. I was just watching this drake video/short film....excuse the content haha unless your a drake fan. starting at 6:44 there is a scene infront of a liquor store which turns into a long steadicam shot of drake walking out and getting into a car. I'm just curous how people think this was done. It looks like it could almost just be practical light, but the parking lot retains a pretty strong exposure of the cool blue light. I wonder if there were some other sources going on to do that. https://vimeo.com/119416353 I guess in general I'm curious how much practical light can be used in night exterior. If anyone can think of any examples of wide urban night exteriors shot with practicals I would love to see it.

those lite pads are great, I would suggest using them for fill. basically gel them up to match the street lights and have them on pretty dim just to give you a base exposure. can also use em to get an edge sometimes but it can look a little forced. 500t wide open at t1.3 and you can make some great pictures. find area where there is a lot of street light ...neons signs and stuff in store fronts are also great!

Thanks Dennis! this is the kinda information I was looking for ....and David yes tottaly forgot about focal lengths obviously has a big effect. I really want to get a better understanding of how this works as to obtain better control on set and maybe do some tricks! So basically the amount of elements a lens has is going to add potentional flare scenarios + how good that coating is ....but I wonder if there are some generalities that can be made about the angles that most lenses flare at and the best way to create the flashing "veiling" effect. Dennis can you explain what you mean about ghosts? are you talking about the direct colored circular flares you get? or are you talking about something else. I will look up that paper!

ah yea, I think when cook first put out the mini s4's they called them panchros and it confused the hell out of everyone myself included till right now.

oh yea my mistake you want the faster ones. that is a whole different ball game! Mini S4 as far as I know are just rebranded Panchros though same optics.

ultra primes cheaper then panchros? panchros should be way less at most houses ....as little as half the price I'd guess

I understand the basic way lens flares are created.... bright source shinning toward the lens causes internal reflections of elements or can cause a "flashing look" where everything is washed out. I have a couple questions about what the specifics though I have never been able to really nail down. Difference between the "washed out" look and the "internal reflection colored flares" ....What causes each of these. Is a sharper point source create the reflections vs a softer light for the hazy washed out effect? does it have to with the angle of the light source? Opening up a lens..... how do flare charectoristics change in general with aperature changes. does a wide open lens flare easier? Playing around on set I generally get to a point I'm happy with when I need to flare up a lens in someway (usually just looking for a soft hazy look) but it always takes sometime and I have never been able to really nail down the causes of each effect. thoughts?

its not that it reflects the light....it just takes the light thats not directly part of the center beam and fills in more. black silk just diffuses the beam with no added ambiance

The thing with lighting day exteriors is that thee is no "one size fits all" and its not as simple as the idea that having lighting will allow to imitate other kinds of natural light like for example if it becomes cloudy you can't just pull out an 18k and make it look sunny....not unless your against a flat backdrop like a wall and you might still need more then 1 18k to do it. Roger Deakins is well known for saying he doesn't even really diffuse the sun because he finds it looks artifical and the way he makes his day exteriors look so good is great planning and LUCK! If weather changes your always gunna be in a bind and lighting can't really help that much. a 6khmi (not aware of any 8ks) will be sufficent to light medium wides at most ....with the sun out it will not be very useful at all. it will also require a large generator and all of the baggage that comes with it.

If its just for getting jobs when people ask do w/e feels right.... if you have some stuff you dp'd and some stuff you gaffed put it together but just throw in titles to let viewers no whats what. I would never hire a gaffer without seeing their work or a really strong recomendation.

a lot less make up being used these days too, but I agree tests are important. couple of the last things I did there was almost no make up on anyone.

as phil said yea no where in life is there a real meritocracy, but if you make a film that is that good or show strong talent and pursue it things will happen. There arn't many filmmakers who made great work no one ever saw.

100% agree I can't say I agree, sundance gets 5,000 shorts they choose 150. Yes I'm sure many excellent short films dont make the cut....sundance has something they look for and yes there is a politcal aspect to it for sure. That said if you make a really great film it will get seen. Vimeo Staff picks are a nice show of this. I get real fed up with people talking like this as someone who knows festival programmers and sees the process from both sides. Honestly most people who have such disdain for film festivals just don't make good enough films. ....and yes you can then point to some examples of some awful film that got in to a festival for political reasons or its casting ...but that is not the rule that is the exception.

I'd just like to say there are a lot of great shorts made every year. You don't see them because they go through the festival rounds and most of these filmmakers are using them as a way to get to feature length films. The shorts just don't get seen. I have seen brilliant stuf shot on crumy DV cameras for little to no money. Poorly made short films are not just poorly shot they are poorly made in general. This has to do with people who are all working at a certain amatuer level ....from script to perfromance to sound to light ....if things arn't all up to par and though in depth about well ....its well...amatuer. And thats fine people are starting out or w/e. as an experienced DP you will never take a first time director who doesn't know what they are doing and make a masterful film with them. But if they are lacking certain understanding, for example in the way they are blocking a scene not working well for the shots, or they might not be thinking about a certain cut in how two shots will come together.....but they can't be a tottal amatuer. some people are really brilliant, but just don't have the experience that some DP's have and they need to learn those skills.

way better on the lighting. I think the production design could use a little work haha but yes much much better.

Its hard to define what makes something "cinematic" but one thing that most real "pro" DP's (and this is me generalizing not all work that is good is like this) is that they control contrast very subtly. I think your image everything is pretty bright and "Sharp". Im suprised you say your key is bounced off an 8x8 how much of the frame are you filling because the key doesn't look as soft as you say. Also I think you are overexposing the image a bit. I would suggest backing off the frame and maybe adding a 2nd light to it if need be. Stoping down to match the exposure value that the key is giving you (you look 1-2 stops over) I would also create a contrast between your background which is very bright. your hairlight also appears a bit harsh I would put some diffusion on that light and dim it down as well. when lighting interviews "cinematically" or I should say when I light interviews in general when possible I always think about it like I would a scene and motivate the lighting sources. as the above poster says controlling the light off of things is a big thing and for example I would think about what your key light is.....is it a soft ambient light coming from a window? in which case adding a cut on his lower half might look really great. Or is it ambient light from a kitchen or something? I guess I would just say feel out the scene....what is the interview about and what is the feeling supposed to be then take the location into consideration and try to create a mood. in the end maybe "cinematic" is just about creating emotion

Here is the still David References David, That movie was shot by Bradford Young....who I keep referencing on here. Did you enjoy how it was shot? would be very curious your opinion on it ..... Anyways yes I agree with david in lighting people with practicals when you are close to them, totttaly works. Also I find it curious people always say you need to bulb practicals bigger .... if you are using them to light the talent I think this is sometimes necessary, but if not I always wind up bulbing down. With modern cameras at 800 base ISO's generally smaller bulbs (25-60W) I find work great. Using practicals to look somewhat "realistic" or within latitude is just about balancing out the contrast making sure your practicals don't blow out in frame, and at the same time give out some amount of light. sometimes I find like shooting with natural light outside its just about balancing the fill side out a bit, other times I find you need to "fake sources" with other lights hidden above the practicals ....but that is more useful for example extending a lamp out 15ft to work as an edge on someone .....if someone is close to a lamp for example my approach would always be to work the lamp to light them. In terms of color temp I find I like the household bulb color quiet a bit and I often dim movie lights warmer to interiors.

"If more actresses would let us photograph them for character and for story and not for beauty, it would have a really positive effect [on the industry] and it could lead to stronger female roles." atleast someone is saying it thank you!

this actually is not always true...sometimes its true but there are plenty of very simply light scenes in films.... Roger deakins being a good example of someone working now on big budget stuff that is often done simple especially his night interior work.

Hmmm, can't edit the above post....hit post too soon....please ignore. David, I tottaly agree and that IS the basis of my own work and moreover to talk about what is somewhat of the current movment. I mean when "cubism" was all the rage not everyone was painting disjointed perspective paitings and I think this is no different ....all kinds of work will be made and there is nothing worse then seeing some banal "natural" alexa cinematography ....I saw two low budget indies last week where the whole thing was handheld shot with a lot natural light and both just looked so flat and boring....and honestly, nothing like any reality I know. To John's point: not to de rail the conversation, but the thing that is not talked about as problematic when people try to discredit the 'auteur' theory is that the collaberative process is generally intertwined with commerical intentions. there is no reason that interesting progressive work can't be made by collaberation...the problem is when the group around a director is more interested in the film making money and fitting into a box already made.

not to de rail the conversation, but the thing that is not talked about as problematic when people try to discredit the 'auteur' theory is that the collaberative process is generally intertwined with commerical intentions. there is no reason that interesting progressive work can't be made by collaberation...the problem is when the group around a director is more interested in the film making money and fitting into a box already made.

To bring the conversation back around a bit let me go to david's response to one of my posts... As this current conversation shows. Realism in photography is not necessarily about depicting reality ....a photograph is not reality and even your eyes do not see reality....reality is subjective and eventually it gets to the word "truth" which is just not an obtainable thing. But we try! and I think "realism" can include stylized imagery that gets maybe at an "emotional realism" ....but like I was saying I think we are now at a point where we are trying to do so in a more subtle way. Gordon Willis was for sure a great proponet of this and a huge inspiration to me as is someone like Savides That said I do agree very much things do not get better over time, but I do also still beleive in progress ....things may not get better, but we try.... just like you say we always look back generation to generation at older work and find holes in it. Time exposes all. This is why some scenes from an older film might be "cheesy" now to an audience accustomedo modern cinema....that is not to say it was better or worse....but we have progressed since then in some ways. Again I think your right in saying the idea of progress is better is not true. Going to your later point david I agree with this for the most part, but I don't think it's about acquiring tools ....like as if realism in itself was a style to draw on....I think the realism is just an evolution and because we all start from a place where we know any image we create with a camera is subjective and won't really be "real" this evolution toward "realism" in cinema now is more about being more subtle and less heavy handed. That said I think there is plenty of room for other approaches and again its less about creating images that appear as "real" and more about a subtly and finding new ways to approach a truth. Maybe the next step will be an abstraction like in painting? I donno.....You actually do see that sometimes even now.....the idea of for example leaving a conversation off screen and showing something else or images so dark you can barley see what's in frame. Also now you see films calling attention to the fact that they are films for example the use of the Zoom lens has come back once removed from commen use because we felt it was cheesy now we are finding it interesting again to use sometime in ironic way or even just to call attention to the fact that we are watching a movie. Many of these thoughts came to me well writing this and I just wanted to note your comments David did make me rethink what I was saying.....orginally I did not see how realism as creating images that appear more realistic was flawed....and it certainly is not what I was trying to get at or a strong approach.