Albion Hockney

Thanks for the response David two thoughts come to mind I have recently been thinking about.

1. this is something Darren Aronofsky said recently which is that all his films are cliches and that it's not about using a cliche, but about how you go about getting there. In the terms of a DP I think this means ...for example taking your cliche backlit 50/50 kiss. In older cinema a dp might go straight for it ...big studio backlight camera close up super out of focus BG ...maybe some filtration. Now I think a way to get there might be much more subtle..... trying find a more naturalistic way to get to that moment that feels more true. Maybe you shoot on a longer lens farther away with a dirty frame, maybe that backlit is a street lamp instead that they just happen to be near ....etc.

2. Going along with the same scene I think the other notion that is more modern might be to do that super hollywod backlight thing but doing it with a knowing nod to the fact that it is referencing an early hollywood cliche. I think in a way this is even what Hitchcock was doing. Hitchcock knew the cliches well and he would flip them on their head to create irony ...Hitchcock thought his work was hilarious .... I think that is a very modern concept in itself as many people don't think of Hitchcock as a maker of comedy ....but he was! and his films are both funny and thrilling and scary....hence they deconstruct those concepts of what makes a comedy a comedy and so on.

Of course yes....I'm a total art guy and cliches do still work for a lot of audiences in a more conventional way ...and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. But I do think the goal of any artist is to, and I think as cinematographers we for sure are all artists even if we approach it more from a craft sensibility, progress the form in some way.

Not very effective ...but depending on the size of the flag can be useful. Stephen in your diagram I think you are thinking that the flags on the left and right side of the source are making the light a harder source but I think what your missing is that from the perspective of the talent in that diagram ....the talent can probably see most of the light source. so yea you can make a softer source harder by flagging it but depending on the placment of the flags in the Z axsis it might actually not make the source any harder.

So many amatuer sets or commercials the DP's and Directors are just doing differnt jobs.

 

There's a movement in cinema called "realism" which Andre Bazin elaborates. There are many films throughout the history of cinema that inteconnect with realism. However the philsophy behind such a movement is not in terms of what appears real (or natural) but more controversially: in terms what is real (or natural). The outcome of such is that the appearance of a realist work need not actually appear real or natural at all. This is because reality herself doesn't always appear real.

 

Just something to consider if you are inspired by those works known as realist.

 

http://artistfilm.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/realism-long-take-and-special-effect.html

Thanks for that, this is a very interesting point and I will read that essay for sure. I think in terms of this conversation with a focus on the topic of lighting especially the work is rooted in the "real" world the one society created with street lights and lamps and all of that so when talking about natural looking image making I think the deffinetion is more about making images that look like what our eyes see day to day. Although again that is a really interesting notion.

George, to be honest I think you are a bit out of touch! I mean this not in a malicous way at all but, like I said Gordon Willis knocked down the notion that "funny requires a lot of light" with annie hall in 1977! ... Furthermore technology has not actually led to the requirment of less lights on a set in a way I know.....maybe smaller lights ....but keep in mind Prosofsky usually shoots film probably 50-400 speeds. Less lamps on set is for sure a part of the naturalistic asthetic which has been taking down the old stage lighting theatrical methods of doing things.

as far as more examples, they are indeed countless ....you didn't respond to Lubzeki's work on tree of life (also shot on film).... I could name a slew of highly regarded independent films that have similar ideology behind the lighting even if they use movie lamps.

Ok, sorry for the spelling error.....

Just quickly George to reply to your first comment which I think is a bit of a tangent.

In the intermediate classes in film school you're taught the various tones that lighting can set for your shoot. Anything beyond that is essentially a derivative of the basic theory.

I think this is absolutley not the case. That basic classical cinematography theory which is funny as it was invented in the modern age is basically pre-modern era Idea and modern thinking is not derivative of it, it has instead built on it. To make more sense of it ....The very idea that when a scene is scary you should light it dark or when a scene is happy you light it bright assumes there is such thing as "scary" lighting ....now this well get quite theoretical but, the very notion that dark is "scary" or happy is "bright" is a concept that was socially created and the very root of modern and now post modern thinking is to say that the concept of "scary" is something that can be broken down and challenged....to bring it full circle I would say the best cinematographers certainly challenge the status quo of what look fits what tone... a key example being the Gordon Willis Woody Allen collaberation.

Now as far as Naturalism the last 60 years of filmmaking you have seen progressivly less hollywood style studio lighting and more and more DP's using motivated sources. This not just being in lighting.... camera work as well, in terms of handheld and documentary inspiration...I also think your right in saying some DP's have been doing this for a long time and these are not new ideas....but even guys who were "natural" guys like for example Gordon Willis, he did things in a way that I would say is actually much less "natural" then much of the work being done today (and btw I love willis I am not knocking him at all!) ....My point is this....yes you could say Casaevettes did all of this before anyone but Cassaevettes was on the fringe when he made those films ....now working in that way is almost common place.

So again yes these are not new ideas but overall things are trending toward naturalism. to really explain or prove this I'd have to like chart out the last 60 years of films and the tecniques they used, but to be honest I think this conclusion is pretty common knowledge. If I'm wrong on that though be interested to here from those who don't agree for sure.

In terms of contemporary work that is pushing on these ideas take a look at a film like tree of life Lubezki didn't even have movie lights ....and much of the work was done with no light agumentation at all. I think 15 years ago even people would have thought he was insane. And its not like that is the only example there is alot of new work done that uses very minimal movie lighting. I think honestly the place you see this most is with younger shooters and most of them haven't shot features yet or are just starting to. If you take a look through vimeo at the latest and greatest music videos your going to see a whole lot of 35mm film and Alexa being shot with total natural light or very minimal lighting. I'd recomend taking a look at Evan Prosofsky's work as it is really great and he barley uses lights....even doing some night exterior work natural...... I also wanted to point out your use of the word "gritty" as associated with naturalism ...I think that is also an antiquated Idea....no longer is naturalism more gritty and documentary esque the new wave of naturalism can be any style it wants....and often it is beautiful and clean (take a look at tree of life!)

Hey Miguel thanks for the insight for sure. I was aware of Kaminski's work....I guess I'm curious to see something that is not interested in being subtle about it ....maybe I need more then 2 stops over direct sunlight ...even 3 or 4.....but I guess I might have the means to do so. In the derek Rose spot where were the 18ks positioned....I can see some of them in the backround I think no?

Anyone know how close an 18k can get safely?

...had this post deleted from the wrong forum by the moderater so reposting here. Thanks for the couple responses when it was over there but wanted to see if anyone else could weigh in....specfically on the danger issue....why does arri say that is dangerous?

Original post:

Kinda the opposite of my last post...I have a shoot coming up and was interested in possibly doing some shots where I over power sunlight in direct sun. Basically flag the sun and use an 18/12k hmi at a close enough distance to where I am about 2 stops above direct sunlight.

I have not seen any work like this before....alot of fashion photo work but no film. I was just curious if anyone has an references to this being done and I was a bit concerned about the saftey of big HMI at close distance.

the arri photo metric calculator said its not safe to be closer to an 12k arrimax then 30ft!? is that the case? Is this because of heat or UV or something? I mean I have been 10ft from a 12light with narrow bulbs and its hot but its not going to burn you....

Is there a reason this is a UK problem. In the US at any local hardware store you can find 200W that are the standard bulb size. 300W bulbs are always bigger though.....I always assume this had to do with heat or something?

I thought it might be interesting to have a conversation on here about "the natrual look" in cinema. I think making images that apear natrual or real has been a part of cinema for a long time ....even before more natrualistic lighting became a thought, but contemporary cinematography is with out a doubt more interested in natrualism then ever before. I'm not saying I am personaly for or against this trend I think it's and pardon my pun a natrual part of the evolution of filmmaking given new camera technology and our awareness,as well as ironic attitudes, toward things that feel fake or "cheesy".

I think the idea of natrualism in itself can be interpreted a lot of ways and I'm curious what others opinions are toward natrualism. How do you incorporate natrualism into your work? Do you hate the trend or love it .....is it here to stay or do you think we will renounce it? ....whose work do you love/hate?

that film was shot handheld.

If you want to do rear projection and achieve a look that is realistic you need a really great projector and strong source material. I think it doesn't matter too much what you are shooting on yourself (digital or film)....someone else might chime in and say some technical stuff with 35mm I am not aware of but I couldn't really see any difference existing.

As for screen size I'd think you want something pretty large in size as to get a bit of distance between your talent and the backround. For the projector I'd say you want atleast 1080p (2k or 4k would probably be better) and you will want something very bright ....at the very least 5000lumens

there are specfics of the screen type too for sure, I did this once many years ago and I had a good talk with a rental house about what screen to use as there are several options in materials....I'd talk with the rental house about that part.

Yea we are going to give it a high angle through some diff so the talent should be able to see ok. Satsuki the problem with shinny board is that I need the light to be stronger then direct sun as shinny board is reflective I don't think your ever going to get more out of it then the sun.....also lack of control would be an issue.

sorry this post is in the wrong forum I dont know how that happened can a moderator switch it over to lighting?

Thanks guys this helps alot....think I was just afraid to let the unexposure happen

Ah, didn't think about the color temp issue! .... David do you ever underexpose faces backlit by the sun.... lets say in a traditional scene with dialog?

Kinda the opposite of my last post...I have a shoot coming up and was interested in possibly doing some shots where I over power sunlight in direct sun. Basically flag the sun and use an 18/12k hmi at a close enough distance to where I am about 2 stops above direct sunlight.

I have not seen any work like this before....alot of fashion photo work but no film. I was just curious if anyone has an references to this being done and I was a bit concerned about the saftey of big HMI at close distance.

the arri photo metric calculator said its not safe to be closer to an 12k arrimax then 30ft!? is that the case? Is this because of heat or UV or something? I mean I have been 10ft from a 12light with narrow bulbs and its hot but its not going to burn you....

I have been having trouble with my day exterior work ....in specfic when shooting in more middle day (not sunrise sunset). I have a taste for natrualism and low key lighting I suppose and I have been having a hard time figuring out how to expose faces.

so often people say "put the sun behind your talent and fill them in" but to me this approach often looks really false to me because if you bring up the fill enough to get a nice exposure on the face at or just below your shooting stop it looks really lit to me. ....

I recently did a fashion shoot where we did a scene at around 10AM sun in a semi low position and I put it behind the talent and filled with a 12x and it just looked really false to me....just flat and bright.

So I guess my question is simply.... how much fill do you need in a daylight setting and has anyone had a good experience with underexposing? and if not what are some other techniques people like when dealing with direct sunlight to create more natrualistic images with good contrast.

^^^

that is awesome, 1500mm! ...I thought 400mm was long

what does "beautiful more than sexy" mean exactly? I would really recomend trying to be more specfic cinematography is a subtle art and depending on context of the scene and a million other things the same lighting can be beautful, sexy, dark, happy, sad w/e the lighting.

the approach most people take for the classic kiss is to light from the rear if shooting profile of two people kissing. having each face light from the rear 3rd so near faces casts a shadow on the other and the fill from the front with a really soft source.

Yea I would say go with a camera with a lot of sensativity....the scene that you posted a still from was shot with Muscos or like several 18k HMI's actually (thats true grit right?) and that was for an 800ISO base camera.

I'd say at like 6400 ISO with fast lenses (f1.4) with an 1.8k HMI you could do something on a pretty large scale ...not as big as that shot you posted but pretty big.

I'd also just consider shooting late dusk and keeping a little ambiance around and in the sky.

Crackle is the distributor and plays the "studio"

sponsorship dollars are generally based on viewership and it is not an exact science although lots of companies are in the bussiness of trying to make it a science. You'd have to see the viewing stats to make a call on this but you know if 100,000 people view it that is not bad. although small compared to tv obviously.

with a star like jerry seinfeld and the fact the show costs very little to produce and I'm sure he doesn't need a ton of money to make it happen and I'm sure at this point seinfeld is not looking to make a lot of money anyways so it worked out....I would assum the show was seinfelds Idea and something he just wanted to do and he was just looking for someone to cover the cost of it and throw him a bit on top.

I think your best bet wouldbe to talk to the people who made that video and are trying to sell that product.... I have never heard of a spinning snoricam till seeing that video.

with an epic the weight is for sure going to be tough.... the rig needs to stabilize the camera to spin so it becomes more like a reverse steadicam then a standard snori which is just a bout a rigid mount.

Yea but I'd think the 70-200 even with extender is sharper then the cheap sigma.... maybe not though?

super long lens is tough on big sensors especially if you need a decent stop.

yea i dont know if it will get better then 70-200mm with extender.... there is the canon 400m 2.8 but its a sports lens and is enormous and very expensive and no zoom range.

if you want to be really cheap there is the BIGMA ....sigma 50-500mm but not a constent aperature through the range and i think a 5.6 on the long end.

I have shot a couple football games and talked abit with the NFL films guys.... they use a bunch of cameras all with differnt glass when I was doing it they hand't fully gone over to alexa/amirra yet but even so they lenses are super varied some guys with long eng seems b/4 mount some with super wide stuff.

the fuji lens is only what 90mm or something? for some stuff these guys are shooting super long lens

Yea I would shoot during daylight when sun is opposite like Mark said that will help alot. you might find with only having 2 2ks that you can't get an exposure without blowing out the window....that might ok but like mark said curtains would help you out a lot.....sheer curtains are a dp's best friend for day interior.

I would suggest taking both your 2ks and putting them through a little diff outside the window and firing them in to maximize the punch you can get.... when it comes to mimicing the sun I think the bigger the light the better.

then inside the room I would use a smaller source bounced off something to fill.....a very soft source.