Albion Hockney

1 hour ago, David Mullen ASC said:

David Watkin covers this in his autobiography when talking about whether diffusion filters are needed to get rid of wrinkles in a face -- he said direction of lighting is the number one issue, not filtering -- a wrinkle is only seen because the light is creating a shadow of it along one side, so the more frontal the light, the less texture the skin will have because of the lack of shadows.

excellent point. Which is also why soft light is effective ...you can keep the light directional and have contrast on the face while having soft shadow. That is if you're concerned with skin texture. 

1 hour ago, David Mullen ASC said:

Wait, hard frontal high-key glamour lighting on every woman's close-up isn't a realistic way to light movies? I had no idea!

Haha, I'm guessing this was directed toward my comment! 

I don't think the goal is always realism, but it is immersion in a  realized world. Hard frontal lighting brings attention to the fact you are watching a movie....sometimes that can be good or intentional of course. Again I think the Safdies are a good example, because things are often far from realistic, but they aren't going after conventional beauty standards either. 

Also you must agree that you can often make a more interesting picture from a purely aesthetic POV if you don't need to light a face flat and can add more shape/contrast. 

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 

On 6/23/2020 at 5:39 PM, AJ Young said:

I'm a fan of Ozu's pillow shots. Personally, I think locations are characters in and of itself; establishing shots can introduce the location, but I feel they should as a character. Ozu's pillow shots are antithetical to how establishing shots are used yet they simultaneously establish location, character, and mood while serving as transitions as well.

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.

1 hour ago, Bradley Credit said:

Also, do you think a similarly desired effect could be achieved with a Kino Freestyle 31, or a Litepanel Gemini 2x1?

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.

On 6/17/2020 at 6:57 PM, Andy Jarosz said:

It's definitely in the form factor of traditional diffusion, but there's definitely something else going on. It's clearly not a louver or eggcrate, so it really has to be something akin to a holographic lens. I have a sheet of this at my shop, I might have a microscope somewhere I could take a look at it under!

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. 

On 2/4/2020 at 9:37 AM, Phil Rhodes said:

I should preface this by restating my position, which is that nobody should be unfairly prevented from doing anything they want to do.

The problem with all this is that we just don't know what proportion of DPs we'd expect to be female. I suspect, in a completely fair world, it'd be higher than it is right now. I also suspect that it wouldn't be 50% simply because of the differing average psychology of men and women. There may be no easy answer to this question but it doesn't mean we should ignore it, nor should we endorse a blank-cheque attitude to affirmative action without these questions at least being raised.

P

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.