Jump to content

amirali mohammadi

Basic Member
  • Posts

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by amirali mohammadi

  1. On 5/1/2021 at 11:20 PM, Stephen Sanchez said:

    @amirali mohammadi

    That professor is describing the same thing as two different terms. Perhaps he's using older concepts. "Fall-off", as I and every shooter/photographer I've met use it, is the fall-off rate. And it's literally the inverse square law. (Closer to the source, the steeper the drop. The further from source, the more gradual the drop.)

    Contrast ratio is separate.

    I would love to chat with this professor. Because contrast is dependent solely on a balance of more intense and less intense bodies of light that the subject sees. In the flash-photography example, if the camera had rotated around the subject 90°, there would be lots of contrast. But inside a white sphere, that would be truly flat. Inside a white sphere with an extremely intense hardpoint can be just as contrasty as the photography setup, if the intensity was strong enough.

    His example of the spotlight/floodlight is not an accurate interpretation.

    The inverse square is simple to explain. No light rays ever travel in perfect parallel, so they naturally spread from one another. And that spread is described in the inverse square law. It's a logarithmic line that has a constant rate of fall-off. You can't circumvent the law. But you can stretch or compress the line closer or further from the light, which is what we see when we spot and flood a light. An extreme example is a laser. Measured within a few meters, the fall-off rate doesn't appear to change. But over a couple kilometers, you'll see that it spreads and drops in intensity under the inverse square law. A floodlight's intensity drops so fast near the lamp that it appears to have a lower falloff. If you funnel all that light down a directional tube, the logarithmic line is stretched over a longer distance, and that same intense drop-off will appear further from the fixture.

    By learning the laws of light (1: Inverse square law, 2: Law of reflection, 3: Law of refraction), and understanding them, you'll be able to identify for yourself what is anecdote, misconception, or false claims. Analyze the laws within your setups and it'll get easier.

    Thank you very much for your complete and comprehensive explanation, I hope people like you start writing books so that we students do not get so confused.??

  2. Dear friends and Masters, thank you very much for your guidance and answers. Based on your explanation, I conclude that Mr. Herbert Zettl's definitions were not very correct.
    However, according to my conversation with One of the senior professors, he said that Zettl's definitions are correct  and have a scientific aspect. My problem is that more than half of the movies I analyzed were based on his definition, for example where the contrast on the character's face was high, I just analyzed that the fall-off is fast. I think I have to correct these. . Thanks again to all of you

  3. 23 minutes ago, David Mullen ASC said:

    I think there is no "scientific" definition for "fall-off" in terms of contrast effect, that is more or less a vague description someone gives when a room is going dark quickly around the area that is lit. You could have a person lit with a soft box and if the sides of the room are far away, or the furniture and walls are dark-toned, the perception will be that the room "falls off" despite the light being soft.

    So it's a term that gets used but I would be hesitant to define it too clearly.

    It is easier to talk about "fall-off rate", which is a way to avoid the more scientific term "inverse square law" since that technically only applies to point sources, though I think the rate is similar.

    Thank you for your complete explanation, dear master Mullen, you always answer us generously. We owe you. Thank you???

  4. 14 hours ago, Christopher Santucci said:

    A hard light will cast shadows with hard edges (as with the sun) and will create smaller highlights. 

    Thank you very much for your answer. Yes, as Master Mullen pointed out, this is a semi-hard, semi-soft light

  5. 12 hours ago, Albion Hockney said:

    The light on Newman is pretty dim. often dim subtle light is confused for a soft light.

    The vibe of this shot is more from the fact he is near silhouette in front of the window. the light on his face is just a subtle touch, if it was a soft light instead of the semi hard approach the look wouldn't be that much changed.

    Yes you are right, the overall effect is semi-silhouette and the key light did not have much effect on the overall effect. However, in analyzing my dissertation, I have to point out exactly the quality of the light. Thank you very much for your answer

  6. 4 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

    I don’t think distance of source and contrast are related. An overcast sky is a distant source creating a lower-contrast effect and the sun falling through gaps in a forest canopy is a distant source creating a higher-contrast effect.

    Thank you very much for your comment, dear Master Mullen. Do you think that Zettl's definitions are correct?

  7. 12 hours ago, Christopher Santucci said:

    Sorry, tldr, but "fall off" is pretty simple and can be explained with a lot less words.

    The closer a source is to something, the greater the contrast, and hence - a more sudden fall off.

    At the extreme end, the sun, which is millions of miles away and produces a completely even light with essentially no fall off.

    Thank you very much for your answer, the fact is that the author (Herbert Zettl) is highly respected at our university. So my professors insisted that I use the author's definitions. However, you are quite right, it can be explained in a shorter way. Thank you Dear Mr. Santucci

  8. Hello Dear friends and professors, please guide me,
    Unfortunately, I sometimes have trouble recognizing hard and soft light, for example in this image, I'm hesitant whether the light on Paul Newman's face is soft or hard? On the one hand I think this light is relatively soft and on the other hand I say it is relatively hard.
    My argument for soft light is that the light source is winter light provided by the window so the light should be soft.
    And my other argument is that the direction of the key light hits the actor from the position of three quarters, and this is a relatively hard light that creates a triangle of light on the face, with dense shadows.
    I'm really confused.

    I'm sorry, I know my questions are obvious .Thanks for your help

    Screenshot (1386).png

    • Upvote 1
  9. Hello friends, I'm sorry I had a little trouble defining fall-off, the fact is that in the books on lighting, this is a bit vague; However, Herbert Zettl (a university professor) describes fall-off in his book:


    We use the term falloff to mean two different yet related light/shadow relationships:
    the brightness contrast between the light and shadow sides of an object, and the
    rate of change from light to shadow.
    Contrast

    If the brightness contrast between the lighted side of an object and the attached shadow is high, the falloff is fast. This means that the illuminated side is relatively bright, and the attached shadow is dense and dark. If the brightness contrast is low, the resulting falloff is slow the brightness difference between the illuminated side and the attached-shadow side is relatively small. In extremely flat lighting, no contrast at all shows between the so-called illuminated and shadow sides. In this case, falloff no longer exists. Because most flash photography illuminates the subject directly from the front, both sides are often equally bright. Such elimination of the light/shadow contrast— and with it the falloff—results in the typically flat image of such snapshots

    . Change

    Calling falloff “fast” or “slow” makes more sense when applied to the rate of change between light and dark, abrupt change from light to shadow represents extremely fast falloff. 

    He also wrote: Spotlights, which have a highly directional
    beam, produce fast falloff and A highly diffused floodlight produces slow
    falloff
    Do you think this definition is correct? Thank you

    • Like 1
  10. On 4/24/2021 at 9:52 PM, Christopher Santucci said:

    I wish I could think of examples, but using David's suggestion, check these films out:

    Leaving Las Vegas

    Permanent Midnight

    Requiem for a Dream

    Trainspotting

    The Panic in Needle Park

    The Basketball Diaries

    Thank you very much for your help??

    • Like 1
  11. On 4/21/2021 at 9:37 AM, Giray Izcan said:

    There was a movie called "Arbitrage" that came out in 2012. If you find October 2012 American Cinematographer magazine, you can read about how they lit Richard Gere the dark man in a contrasty way and him as a respectable family man etc in a different way. The article clearly talks about their choices in accordance with the character arc. Hope it helps.

    Hello, thank you very much for your help, it will definitely help me.

  12. On 4/21/2021 at 12:14 AM, Christopher Santucci said:

    I never got a sense that lighting was ever used to elevate a character arc in any film. Not saying lighting hasn't been used this way, but I never noticed it. You should identify films that even have strong character arcs and then scrub through to see if lighting approach changes for protagonists by the end.

    Hello, thank you very much for your answer. Yes, that's exactly what I do; But unfortunately, in some films that have character transformation, the lighting is not very readable. On the other hand, in many films that have very significant lighting, there is no character change!

  13. On 4/21/2021 at 12:49 AM, David Mullen ASC said:

    Almost any movie dealing with a character who becomes a drug addict does a gradual lighting change -- look at "Lost Weekend", about an alcoholic, the lighting gets harsher and makes his face paler as he drinks more.

    Thank you very much for your answer, dear master

  14. Hello friends, I hope you are well and healthy, I am writing my dissertation on lighting and main character arc, but unfortunately, I can not  find movies that also have lighting that are designed according to the positive and negative Main character arc  (in fact, I could only find the godfather, the light changes according to the change of character. Can you introduce me to some movies? Thank you very much

  15. 7 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

    Somewhat soft, I guess?

    People tend to refer to something as "soft light" if it's a large source. If you move that source further away, the shadows get sharper, but everyone would probably still think of it (inaccurately, maybe) as a soft light.

    Maybe try some experiments. That effect could be a light source the size of a sheet of letter paper a couple of feet above his head, or it could be something ten feet square, fifty feet above his head.

    Thank you.

     

  16. Hello friends
    I'm sorry, my questions seem obvious, but its on my mind
    Do you think soft or hard light was used in the opening sequence of Godfather 1?
    On the one hand I think the light is soft and on the other hand I think the light is hard (because of the depth of the shadows and the sharpness of the edges of the shadows )  What do you think? Thanks a lot

    main-qimg-985923d107a5eddcd6d3ede59551a020.png

  17. On 12/29/2007 at 8:54 AM, David Mullen ASC said:

    Here's some frames from "Crimson Tide" showing the effect of a soft glancing edge light, usually from a Kinoflo. Edge lights also do a nice job of bringing out the sweat on someone's skin, and reflecting soft lights off of dark skin can help provide some highlights on the face.

     

    crimsontide1.jpg

     

    crimsontide2.jpg

     

    crimsontide3.jpg

     

    Of course, you may want to avoid this technique if an actor has bad skin (pimples, acne scars, etc.) and you're trying to make them look good.

    Master Mullen, what exactly is the difference between KICKER light and EDGE light? Is it possible to give me an example with pictures? Thank you very much for your kindness

  18. On 9/5/2020 at 1:05 AM, David Mullen ASC said:

    Often these concepts are developed but are mitigated / softened / made more subtle / watered down (depends on your viewpoint) by the reality of the situation or location if the script or scheduled can't be adjusted so that, for example, in the section where a character is hard-lit from one side, there aren't day exteriors in flat overcast weather or a scene in a grocery store under a ceiling of fluorescent lights.

    Thank you for your complete and useful explanation, dear master

  19. On 9/4/2020 at 10:02 PM, Satsuki Murashige said:

    Perhaps I’m just stating the obvious, but I don’t think there is any widely applicable theory for lighting design at play here. At least, there is none I am aware of that is commonly accepted. The design is something the cinematographer comes up with on a per-project basis. That means you can’t really apply (for example) Mr. Storaro’s theories of color that he used in ‘The Last Emperor’ to Michael Slovis’s work on ‘Breaking Bad.’ You will often find influences between the work of cinematographers of different generations - but those are usually aesthetic and not semantic.

    One good example of this is darkness and underexposure in the work of Gordon Willis in the 1970s and Harris Savides in the 1990s. On the surface, they are aesthetically similar. But semantically Mr. Willis was mostly interested in contrast - he wanted to move the audience between light scenes and dark scenes, wide shots and tight shots, quick paced edits and slow edits. He wanted the audience to strain to see into the darkness and imagine what was there. He was, in a way, a manipulator of emotion.

    On the other hand, I believe Mr. Savides was very much motivated by realism (especially towards the later part of his career) and photographic texture. He came from a still photography background. He disliked artificiality and came to think that the less he added to a scene, the more the audience would engage. He says this in his interviews after working with Gus Van Sant on films like ‘Last Days’, ‘Gerry’, and ‘Milk.’ At the same time, he had an interest in degrading a clean image, adding grain, muddying colors, using soft lenses. He liked the softness of the ‘toe of the film curve’ and radically underexposed to get the important part of his image there. The aesthetics were similar the Mr. Willis’s work, but the motivation was more about immersion than dialectics.

    So if you’re looking for intentional meaning in lighting design, then I think it might be best to stick to a single cinematographer. On the other hand, if your main focus is aesthetics then perhaps it would be better to focus on one single aspect of the image like color or contrast? 

    Thank you very much for your comprehensive and valuable explanation, Master.
    You are absolutely right.
    In fact, one of my problems is that I have to choose films in which the character has undergone a character Arc . On the other hand, lighting should not be just a scene lighting. And have expressive functions. Also, sorry for the delay in responding, unfortunately my profile had a problem.

  20. On 9/5/2020 at 1:05 AM, David Mullen ASC said:

    Often these concepts are developed but are mitigated / softened / made more subtle / watered down (depends on your viewpoint) by the reality of the situation or location if the script or scheduled can't be adjusted so that, for example, in the section where a character is hard-lit from one side, there aren't day exteriors in flat overcast weather or a scene in a grocery store under a ceiling of fluorescent lights.

    Thank you very much for your answer, Master. Sorry I replied late. I did not have access to this site. I understand this fact. In fact, my goal is to study some of the main scenes that are purposefully designed light. For example, the opening sequence of The Godfather  which uses top lighting For Marlon Brando  And for Michael, soft light is used , or the breaking bad, in which Walter  decides to make drugs, uses cross lighting. These are examples. Congratulations on the award. We are proud of you, Master

×
×
  • Create New...