Albion Hockney

Hey David, A random question I've never had to do this type of work....and maybe never will ....but I wondered if you are doing a "direct sunlight" look in a stage how do you go about that.....do you still create a base of the overhead top light and then just a add big source on top.. do you need a huge stage where you can get a big huge source really far away for wides so the fall off is right?

if your budget is tight you can also do this stuff with kinos ...daylight image 80's through light diff create a nice source and can give enough power. everybody hates kinos though haha me included

Generally people like to light from ourside of windows for day interior, but that means usually "tenting" the windows to get rid of the real sunlight and using pretty big lights. If your shots are mostly close ups and MCU's and you have a big enough space you can maybe get away with having the lights inside the house. Satsuki's ideas to use natural sunlight as your BG is great and I would recomened that for sure. Something also to consider is if your going to show windows in frame as if you are you will probably need atleast 1.2k probably better with 2.5-4k hmi The book light is a good call and its how most people do this kinda work now, It seems like you will have a pretty tight day trying to get a lot so I would recomened figuring out a nice simple key light setup whether it is a book light or maybe just hmis through diff and just moving that around through out the day occasionaly agumenting it with another source or two for backround or an edge or something. One thing I do alot instead of booklights if I don't have a big enough light or want to do something more simple...I usually just get an 8x8 or a 6x6 frame and tbone it (so you just use one peice of the frame to hold the rag) and use something like light grid or frost and then I also will have a 4x4 frame of diffusion or just on the lamp head with something like 251 or 250 so you get a similar very soft source with a nice wrap around the face. I would also consider the softer the source the more power you need to get your exposure so you need something like a 2.4-4k which is bigger and require more time and effort .....if you are all in Mediums and MCU's you can probably get away with a 1.2k or try the 1.8k arri if you can get it but that is really only going to light singles of people and not a whole shot if you are seeing natural daylight or windows. as for it being light and airy and feeling a little dynamic just think of contrast in frame you will want some parts of your frame to have a little contrast....the can be a production design thing too! ....something people do a lot now days is flare up the lens for this kinda stuff too....if you can get the sun backlighting your talent through a window and put your book light or super soft source on once side of them you will get a nice flary look that is kinda the "light and airy" thing I think you are talking about.

I wouldn't treat it any different then shooting it for real. the only thing is your inside so you need to create the sun and or ambient daylight. usually in studios people use space lights for a soft ambient top light and use another source as the sun.

...I mean it does reflect poorly on zeiss though. I think the cp2's are over priced and the zeiss and canon both rushed to fill a spot in the market without developing new lenses to do it. when looking at lenses in this price range the schneider xenons are much more interesting

Most "regular" rigs use suction cups including some in the pictures you sent although many involve more advanced rigging to get the camera off the car a good distance.

I think it should be fine, but yes always have secondary saftey cables in place if the mount fails for some reason.

so in that first wide there is nothing added on their fill side that is just what was present in the room? I think that first wide is the strongest shot looks really dark, but without a heavy hand at all. Yea hopefully they won't bring it up in the grade, doesn't need it at all.

Yea people use these filters on the 35mm all the time. Its not such a simple thing to get a comporable look going from 35-16mm .... the filteration effect will be the same, but 16mm is lower resolution so the effect maybe be a little more subtle....at a certain point though it depends on what resolution your film is getting scanned/screened in. I use these filters on a digital camera and If I know something is Web Only even at 1080p im more likley to use strong filtration if I know its going on a larger screen I am more apt to use a lighter weight diffusion. I think as everyone on here kinda always say you just need to do tests.

I think this is actually true for the most part dennis there may be some small differences but I think this phrase "optically identical" is not marketing talk as if anything Zeiss wants use to beleive the CP2's are optically better then the ZF lenses as they are far more expensive. The Cp2's are known as rehoused ZF's ....they took the glass and put it in a bigger housing, put on new coatings, and added more blades to the aperature. The reason the CP2 is T2. and ZF is 1.4 is because zeiss locked the aperature at t2 beacuse under T2 the lens just doesn't hold up......People complained about this and then Zeiss released the Cp2 "super speeds" which just have the aperature open up as wide as it did on the ZF's

are you talking about buying or renting? I would say the visual differences you will see in the resulting footage will be subtle. the bokeh being the biggest and maybe yea the CP2s coating performing a little better. The Cp2's are far more expensive so in my opinion the question is really about how to best spend your budget and where that money will go. If you can afford it get CP2's....or if this is to own I would think about the long term value stay and also if you plan to ren them out. The Zf2 and Cp2 should have the same aperature's btw.... Zeiss released the Cp2 "super speeds" which have the wider stops ....although they are not sharp at those stops at all and neither are the zf's as for as operating handheld alone....without a follow focus its easier for sure to pull off the barrell of a photo lens the long focus throw on the cp2s is good for critcal focus and narrative work and really needs a follow focus.

hmm yea never tried the schneider stuff I should try to test that next time around. any other companies making a similar product worth testing you know of? curious if you have a preference or notice differences?

Looks great, would you mind breaking down your lighting setup for the wide cabin interior ...or just your apporach to that stuff in general.

I have started using Black Pro Mist filters when shooting on the RED and I have really liked the effect the 1/8 takes the edge of the digital very subtly and the 1/4 is great for a bit stronger of an effect at certain times. I feel ideally I'd love to use a 3/8 density and I looked that up and found someone on here long ago said Tiffen would make a custom filter. I have emailed tiffen with no response. Just curious if anyone here has used 3/8 density or have heard of this custom 3/8 filter.

Yea Actually I don't agree with either David, I don't think the goal is to: I think this is a very interesting area to bring up though.... I think most people would agree that is the goal of mise en scene in general....But I think I like the idea that the goal is instead to get closer to some sort of truth. Sometimes that truth is found through a more "realistic" depiction and sometimes that is found through creating a fantastic world where things are glamorous or funny or w/e.....but I think in general I question the notion of film as entertainment first and I feel that there is something problematic in general with the Idea of making actors more attratcive or even more interesting then people in everyday life. I was just listening to something and heard David Byrne say something like "the goal of art is to raise the banality of everyday life to the sublime" ....I think in the past the approach in cinema was more direct and based on older beauty standards .....the idea being we will cast beautfiful people into films and make everything look really special and impressive.....now I think that is coming into question more...and we are often finding the way we make things look can be offensive or shallow...For example the idea of hollywood making films about foregin issues where pretty actors are cast into a situation real people have faced....often these films can be distasteful and ignorant. I think your example of Terrance Malik as and Art Filmmaker might not be the best example, Terrance Malik although has an image of an "art house" guy comes from the studio system and has always used big name talent in his films. I only really brought him up because of lubzekis work. I think if you look at some of the most interesting work being done today you will find many directors using "normal" looking people in their films as its more relatable and honest and cuts through some of the problematic nature of commerical cinema. I just watch Urlich Seidl's "Pardise Love" which has lighting work by Edward Lachman and is a beautfiul film with very real looking people. Again I think its important to consider why we think these people are more pretty and why it helps tell a story.... and if there is anything problematic about that. Personally I feel like the answer is yes it is often problematic and why should I have to look at pretty face to be engrossed in a film. I walk down the street everyday and everybody looks pretty damn interesting to me.

in the first still there is a big hmi really far away backlighting trees and haze....that is just for the backround. then in the forground you can see another probably medium size HMI source giving an edge on the man. camera right there looks to be some sort of soft fill at a low level of illumination ...probably a soft source bouced into muslin or something then off of frame left from above the Police van there is another source side lighting....its hard to tell but it appears it might be a gag that emulates the lights on the cop car. You can tell they are using big sources and shooting at reasonable stop (like a 4 or 5.6) by the depth of field and also probably at lower iso/asa as the cop lights on the car are on and not even overexposed at all really.... They might have cut ND filters around them but it seems like they are just using really powerful sources. the 2nd frame is just more or less relianet on that big backlight source as everyone is basically a silhouette the last frame again you have the big backlight and fog (im guessing its an 18k actually in all of these) and then you have some frontal fill I would guess its a big frame of muslin with like a 5k bounced into it maybe but I couldn't really say.

Dana dolly is ok. If you have a heavy camera you really need heavy stands and a middle support for 8ft of track and even then it can wobble a little. but I think any of the slider systems you run into stability issues as they are smaller/lighter.

the status quo in all industries is to make women look beautiful in a classical sense. The most hilarious example is doves "real beauty" campagin which focus's attention on more "regular" looking people who are 1. still classically pretty just not glamorous models and 2. still emphasising a need to use beauty products. Do you not see what I mean by understanding the baggage that comes with "glamour" ....I mean you have to admit the industry as awhole (movies, fashion, beauty) is pretty **(obscenity removed)**ed up right now no? ....and creating idealzed images in cinema of beautfiful women only goes to support that right now. Your in a sense setting up this world where we value the beautfiul actress more then other's just because her body is such a way. What do you say to someone who is born looking "ugly" ....are they automatically a step behind? I mean that is terribly **(obscenity removed)**ed up. Sure I think some level of this is part of our world....if your a handsome guy you have a leg up....but men are valued very differently the level that exists of this for women is crazy. I do some documentary work and I have heard these stories from women with ED I mean something is just a little off in our society right now and I think some of this glamour stuff needs to be knocked down because it is harmful. back to the deconstructionist thought... The very concept of beauty and glamour is not one that can be locked down. that is to say people have been trying to define beauty since the begining of time and it is not a concept that can really be defined. Therefore it is very much worth questioning why we think certain things are beautiful today because much of the reason we think certain women are beautfiful has no biological end ....it is simply because society has taught us. For example in the 50s 60s women were much larger and today are much more skiny. So to say this kinda light that removes skin texture, this kinda women who looks like way, etc is beautful ....that is problematic and very exclusive .....only a certain group of skinny, mostly white, probably rich, etc, etc women are "glamorous" and that is very very problematic....and to be straightforward ....bad for the world.

I think an interest in sports should be questioned.....male aggression and interest in sports is also a marketing game. I think the Bio stuff is really interesting and I'm looking forward to learning more about that. From what I have read of evolutionary theory though alot of this stuff is very prelim ....alot was founded by men and just rreinforces stereotype so it all seems a little iffy... I'm in know means well read enough to say much more though. As for the "radical feminists" I understand that you disagree with much of these ideas but not all "radical feminists" believe men are trained to like naked female bodies.... Getting back to movies though I think you can make a nice argument the thriller stuff and the crime films etc are a male thing of course ....but just the act of using darkness as a tool ....I donno about that. As for glamour I think there is nothing intrinsically shallow or wrong about going after that and using it in films ...but you should be aware of all the baggage it comes with in using it I think. Which is why I personally like to try to redefine it a little hence the interest in the work of lubezki or someone who is trying to approach it differently then the status quo..... As someone who has shot commericals you gotta understand its a pretty big turn off to hear someone over your shoulder with no creative understanding of whats going on say "we really need more light on her face". I couldn't imagine lighting some scene with the script and collaberation with the director perfectly in line and then have to know that you need to make a womens face look a certain way for no reason other then that she is famous and has an image to uphold. Is that not a little silly?

I saw a 70mm projection of the master back a few years ago and it was really stunning. It is a different thing then seeing 35mm for sure. With that said 35mm is the norm ...its what we are now used to and it says a baseline expectation. I think the question is besides just looking at the technical aspects of "wow this is sharper...wow" is it helping the story telling. Most people I talked to about the master 70mm screening said the first 10min was very "WOW" but after that they settled into the story telling and the larger print didn't matter so much to them. Now I'm not saying I advocate lower resolution ....the 2k DI standard sucks .....and I think its inevitable in the next 5-10 years we start seeing some 8K + cameras and projection systems in theaters. But I dont really like 70mm as a selling point especially when its intercut inside a film....I just don't get that 70mm for select scenes thing. Maybe if it was an artistic choice for like the ending scene or something or a couple really pivitol moments.

its all constructed though! why don't men like glamour? because it wasnt sold to them and a part of there life since they were born ....and for a men to like glamour is to be feminint which is thought of as a negative....historically women have both been evil and saintly but in both roles they are objectified and stereotyped. To say the darkness is intrinsically male is like saying black/darkness is intrinsically sinsiter and evil and white/light is intrinsically pure and good. Tell that to a person of color! I don't think its pathetic for a women to want to be beautiful at all.....but I think it should be questioned....what is this beauty that is being looked for and why socially do I want it. In film it should really be considered because most of the times actresse's are commodities

Oh wow, so much to say! David I really appreciate the practical side of the conversation you bring to the table, but I think much of these things need to be questioned....I understand there is a business at hand and that has implications, but it seems a good idea to ask "why is the business the way it is and is it problematic?". in this case with both points I think the bussiness is super problematic in both limiting artistic creativity and being inherently sexist Gender Issues I understand this is a big conversation so not to go to far down the road....Personally I think the whole of society is pretty **(obscenity removed)**ed up in this area and your right Anna, I'm sure women ask to be lit that way... and I think your also right in saying its not sexist to treat women differnt from men....Women and Men will never be the same of course. But you have to question the root of why someone wants to be lit a certain way and why we do these things. It's hard to get away from the fact that this stuff has a root in thousands of years of a patriarchy and even if Women find agency in being sexy on camera....it still can be problematic. Anyways with that all said yea I think beauty lighting a women is super sexist and the film industry is super sexist and again agree with you Anna things seems to have gotten worse in a lot of ways. In terms of diffusion David, yea we still use diffusion but 1/4 black pro mist is a lot differnt then the heavy diffusion of other times where could literally see a change shot to shot on screen when a pretty women was there. Soft Lighting Think of the word soft.....the lighting is litterally touching people softer its more subtle in appearance by its nature. Again bringing up Savides .....Harris knew how to use soft light to make images appear more realistic while still retaining stylistic charector (I suggest watching Birth, that is a well shot film!). As someone who shoots and spends a good amount of time thinking about light literally every day I walk around Anna I would say that the sun is not the "Most" natural source of light....it is one of many. When your inside your house in the day and the sun is not coming through the window the interior is being lit by sky light which is a huge soft source. I think in the real world people are often not in situations where a light is hitting them directly and because of the increased Dynamic range of our eyes we see them still as lit.....when you are looking at someone .....lets say in a lamp lit room and they are facing away from the lamp that light on there face is super super soft because its lit being bounced of adjacent walls. Soft light is everywhere and I think very natural. No more or less then hard sources. ...on to this nervous system thing. You tottaly can change the meaning of archetypes ....we invented them and they are up for question! haha we will have to agree to disagree on this point I'm sure. I say question everything.....language is the most constructed thing of everything ...and even language is tied up with all sorts of political, gender, class etc etc etcissues. you know Gondry made a really nice movie about Noam Chomsky with animation and such and does a really good job taking about how language is constructed I really recomend that. you may tottaly disagree but I think its a good watch either way. ahh and the dark lighting. Dark is definitely in and trendy right now...I'm for sure guilty of it too I love to light dark.....and again I'd say that its use is usually intersting and not just to scare people in this classical sense. That said darkness in photography today I think has a lot to do with the fact for a long time hollywood and out technology told us we need to use a lot of light to make a movie so people are rebeling now that they can and trying to find new ways to make images. Also it should be said that realistic darkness is being better used in films then ever before.... sometimes in real life its dark man! you can't see much.....why shouldn't films try to repersent that reality.....and so often it can be used in beautiful meaninful ways.

Tottaly, the shinning is so great for that reason. I can't really take horror seriously as a genre although some stuff gets made with in it I think that is interesting. Personally I think genre in it self is a silly thing and more of a marketing game than anything else.

Anna I don't necessarily privalage modern work over older works ....This is like privileging Duchamp over Renoir .....both were brilliant! but thought has progressed and new ideas are brought forth. The idea that "new is better" is a construction of the modern world ....especially of consumerism and captialism .... and I very much agree.....new is not always better and your right right its not necessarily more "real" ....but I think people are presenting new ways to get at truth and they are valid ideas. I agree....and anyone not using lights to be more natural is missing the fact that the camera itself imposes its own reality. Those who know what they are doing approach it differntly .... Harris savides had a great understanding of how to light for the camera to help recreate a honest reality. Every cinematographer I think should have an understanding that cameras do not capture reality ....they create a version of it sure....but an image in itself is no more true then a painting and it should be treated as such. I very much like Davids example of "one from the heart" in which the asthetic is high stylized yet done mostly with practical sources. This is the one place I think you are missing something. If shadows affect the nervous system one must ask why.....it might be born into us....but that is a concept still ....maybe its evolution and we are just afraid of the unkown but that is still something to challenge and it is not a fixed idea it is a concept! ....as for galmour lighting as I brought forth with Lubzeki's tree of life I think there is a new "glamour lighting" which is saying that our reality is beautiful in itself and I don't need to stylize it to show glamour. Also on a slightly less theoretical level this becomes a women and gender issue too because you have to look back at the reason for "glamour" lighting and all of that soft filtration crap on women.....because women are these beautiful objects and blah blah we are now working through that so your not going to see a soft fx filter on a women's close up anymore...although I can't say across theboard things have gotten that much better for portrayl of women in film.

First of great thread...some really interesting stuff said here! Anna, I think you make some great points I was curious to learn more about the Idea you started with ...in terms of why art students have trouble drawing light and shade....is there any books/essay's you've read about this ...thats very interesting. The idea that we don't really see light....we see objects. Wanted to introduce a couple counter points though, I think what has happend is (and I just talked about this in another post on the main forum) is that we have entered a modern and now post modern era of thought. The essence of post modernism is deconstructionsim which is basically rooted in the idea that everything we think and feel is a constructed concept. The notion that we feel a "shadowy" scene is more frighting is a constructed concept and post modern thought tries to take this a part and ask "why are shadows scary" ...."ok because we don't know what is there and we assume that something dangerous could be there"...."ok why do we fear what we don't know" etc etc and when you do this and those ideas start to break apart I think you are able to work toward a truer/more honest place. The problem with all of this is of course if everything is constructed then theoretcially anything can mean anything and meaning is just lost.....There is this really great thing that the philoshpher derrida said which I don't know how well I can paraphrase but basically he says that ....yes everything is a concept and therefore meaning is always constructed (in terms of lighting again we are talking about "shadows" meaning frightening") but yet we still must try to create meaning and all we have is the socially constructed world so we must move forward under the pretense of knowing that is kinda all bullshit and try to find something. Now with that said I think your right that some of this I think has led to this more "objective" lighting that doesn't try to put meaning on a scene and let the scene be the scene. I personally like this idea in some way, but I think the best contemporary cinematography does what derrida was saying which is that it is aware of the fact that to just light a frighting scene with heavy shadow is a constructed concept and that you can get deeper then that without being tottaly banal and objective. You can still try for meaning ....but be weary of where the meaning is coming from! I think you see this in a whole slew of differnt way in contempoary cinematography work. I have heard of DP's referencing film cliche's and placing them in differnt types of scenes for example maybe you have this love scene where the guy is afraid to commit and is terrified and you light it like a horror film where you can't see the face of the women. In another take you see lubzeki do tree of life and using a very realistic lighting asthetic to get closer to beauty.....I think Lubzeki's work in tree of life is basically saying "people think hollywood lighting and capital C cinema is what beauty is but I'lm going to take that apart and show you that natural light and less galmour is actually more beautiful". maybe I got too theoretical here haha ....I like to give a pretty deep read of things!