Albion Hockney

The practice of lighting Men and Women different in the same scene seems like a disservice to creating a full and realized world on screen, atleast in most cases. Of course there are commercial concerns and fashion/beauty work—But in a film, I think, the idea is to create as immersive a world on screen as you can. The Hollywood glam style prioritizes making actors look beautiful above creating more realistic lighting (and don't forget this style is largely influenced by commercial means...IE actors are a commodity and the studios always wanted to make sure they looked their very best). I think the contemporary style is moving away from that for good reason. Take a look at a Safdie's brothers movie for an example of this - Look at Robert Paterson in "Good Time" or for for an example from De Palmas period try a Cassavette's film. De Palma's quote seems a bit like a cranky old man...I wonder how he feels about Gordon Willis or Harris Savides who often put actors in what would be deemed less beautiful lighting. Hard frontal light is super flat....I mean it can look great at times, David Mullen's love witch work proves that. But theoretically it is lacking in contrast and depth since it creates a uniform tone over a majority of a face and it also less than realistic as very rarely in the world would lighting like that ever occur. This all said I think hard light is coming back in style already and its not just for reasons of beauty, it can look great.

All I'm saying is Quasar Bulbs for example have a high TLCI, but they always look a little magenta. Skypanels in tungsten match damn near perfect to tungsten lights on camera. I know you hate skypanels and I agree they are overpriced, they are too heavy, and the numbers don't look that great - but like all arri products they work.

I think all of these numbers can only be so helpful. Every camera is different - Everyone talks about how bad skypanels are, but they look really great on the alexa.

Hopefully you can build an open an honest relationship with your director and talk honestly about the script - this is how you will make the best work. The flipside is if you're being paid well or a job is good for your career it can be good to tread lightly.

If you want to be a DP - especially on indie film or more artful projects NY or LA is necessary. I would rec moving early and building up there. Spend a lot of time just meeting up with people and networking. hustle.

I'm not positive on this but from my experience you can't record the full 4:3 sensor @ 200fps which is why the options are grey'd out. Anamorphic shooting tops out at 120fps on the mini. The only way to shoot 200fps is in 16:9 HD

Yes. I Love Ozu's transitional shots. Those shots are always metaphoric and carry a lot of meaning and intention! the contemporary filmmaker Koreeda does a similar thing very effectively.

I'm not sure how much lighter those fixtures are? how big do you need the source? if something around 4x4 is desired and you don't need a ton of output I'd go light mat spectrum 4 or maybe a small array of astera tubes through 4x4 diffusion. Much lighter options. The Max menance arm which is what is in your reference picture is rated at 75lbs - so you could use a skypanel if that is what you are getting. I would guess the rigging would take time to be done safely though. A goal post could for sure carry an s30 though - not sure if you will get much frame clearance though as you would with a menace arm

Yep. this is what arri says "This intensifier panel for SkyPanel* increases light output by up to 50% while maintaining a soft, even beam of light. The increase in output is achieved by capturing some of the light going off to the side and refocusing it in a more forward direction. " Love to see this tech be used on other lights and extended further. with intensifier they say the s60 beam spread is 74degrees, be interesting if they could get it down further.

I think its good to note that "establishing shot" and wide shot are also different things. An establishing, used purely for a sense of setting, in my opinion can feel unnecessary if it doesn't have any further motivation or feeling to convey - but the wide shot is just a tool of camera language. I don't think its a simple as would we get better production value out of staying tighter - that is a larger conversation about the intention of the filmmaking and the feeling a wide shot might illicit that a closer shot could not achieve.

Hmm, I don't think it can narrow the beam pattern though - only appears to widen it. The narrowing is the key ingredient I think. I wonder if you could pack led's with lenses tightly enough to resolve the multi shadow issue, If you do place a fixture far enough back it does limit this for the most part with the Spot Astra fixture. OR yea just one lens over the top could maybe work?

Rosco Opti Scult seems to be focused on the theatrical world and more like just normal diffusion. (Video Below). I do wonder about a large array LED with narrow lenses built onto each diode or something. Would be amazing to have something like a LitMat 4 with a narrow beam angle built in. The Aadyntech holographic lens looks closer, but I wonder if it has the ability to narrow the focus of a light or if that is just further spreading the light? If anyone has any more info about trying to do a thing like this that would be great!

I stumbled up on this video (posted in another thread). This DIY fellow is saying that there is a fresnel lens layers in edge lit tv's that project the light forward. In essence this creates a much longer throw and can focus the light of a soft led array forward...As if you could use a lens like this as a sorta optical honey crate. Any truth to this crazy idea? anyone have more information ?

Bradford Young had custom kino rigs that bounced the bulbs upward and back down....so super super soft quality top light. I believe that is how he achieved the reflective look in the skin. Now days with litmats would be a lot easier!

The simple answer is that you need to balance the exposure on the sky and foreground. The sky will be brighter in backlit situations since you will be shooting toward the part of the sky with the sun in it. here is an example of that at sunset: At Sunrise/ sunset the brightness of the sun is less intense, but I haven't found this dramatically effects the exposure between the sky and foreground with the exception of just before sunrise or after sunset at magic hour. In general if you shoot front lit or even side lit you can usually get a strong blue sky. The quality of the camera you use does for sure matter - most modern digital cameras with 12+ stops of latitude can easily handle the brightness of the sky - pulling down highlights in post production will also help.

There wouldn't be any real benefit to underexposing the white seamless. It would likely take more lighting effort to bring down the backdrop exposure to where you want, especially to get a dark gray color. If you were to light a white seamless to match the same shade of grey as a dark grey seamless theoretically there wouldn't be any discernible difference. There isn't a reason the underexposed white would be any cleaner of an image since you are under exposing it in camera to match the same shade of grey. The evenness of the light on the background is a product of having a light that evenly hits the whole background so it is the same level of brightness across the whole surface. if you have access to a spot meter this would be a good way to make sure the whole backdrop is lit evenly at the exposure that will result in the dark grey you like.

You should look into the cinematography of the lighthouse which was shot on Double X with a custom color filter.

I think sometimes the banding can look cool. Remember before easy rider when lens flares where though of as mistakes?

Yea the LED light companies over the hype the output on all of these lights so much!

You can actually use the 1600W Joker with the source 4 attachment.

It depends on what you need from the city. The film permit itself is usually not very costly, but often you need police officers or the help of other city services for large budget shoots. On a large scale I'm not sure how it works - for example if you are interfering with a strip of business's. Cities like LA where production is a business charge much more than smaller cities that may not even have a dedicated film office.

I think it is important to keep in mind there is all highly subjective. any sort of "guide" may generalize greatly. For example that you need more light to properly illuminate darker skin tone is certainly not always true. Also important to keep in mind that this subject intersects big with racial issues.

What "psychology"? That women's brains must be wired to spend time doing docile tasks. This sort of social constructed idea is very dangerous and ugly. I should also note the idea of "merit" based job hire is a complete false hood. Your portfolio is yes partly do to your skill, but also do to luck and the work of those around you. IE if your a marginalized person it maybe be hard to create as shinny a reel as someone else... you might be just as good though. This is why most people in the industry don't come from low SES backgrounds. I know director's who've lost commercial jobs to women because of free the bid. They didn't complain for a second. They are happy to make the industry more inclusive. I think its also important to note there are no women posting here and that I believe the average age of the men in this conversation is at-least 35-40+. I would suggest you all speak to some of your younger peers. Ideas on this subject have changed considerably for the better.

Assuming your goal is to create a direct sunlight effect it's hard to say how large a unit you will need without knowing exactly how bright the space is. You might get away with an M18 an M40 would be safer. How much space do you have on the right side of that sweep to light from? Another concern is creating enough space between the lamp and anything you use to create the pattern on the wall. If you want hard clean lines you will need a minimum of I'd say 10-15ft feet between the lamp and the items you will use to cut the light to create the patterns. Unless there is a large amount of room the right of the sweep to me it seems the space might be too small to use one source to create a large enough sunlight effect that could both light your talent and your background in a Wide shot like your Wide reference. You could open that door on the left and use large Solids to create a tent and light from there (though that takes a solid crew to manage. Or if its north facing and you can place an M40 out there that might be enough. Another route might be using Jo-Leko. Gobos are attachments for ellipsoidal lights like a source 4. They can create hard shapes/patterns without flags within the light itself. This might be a good way to go, especially if the space is tight. It might be easiest the use a Jo-Leko which is an 800w or 1600w HMI with a source 4 attachment for a streak on your background. The cost is about the same/little bit cheaper then an M18. Then you could use a 2nd source to light your talent. Not sure of a 300d would be bright enough. Maybe get a 2nd Joker 800 or M18 if you can afford it. Your reference photos of hard light on the side of talent, but you could try a soft daylight source like a 2nd Joker or an M18 through diffusion. In addition I'd plan for some large solids to control contrast in the space if continuity isn't a big issue try to work with the actual sun. Will probably look the best.

It costs more to rent a 416 than an Alexa mini right now. crazy.