Low Level Night Interior

[Jae Christsensen]

Hello. First off i would like to apologize for my english for its not very good. I have been listening to a wanderingdp's podcasts and I really dig his images. However, when pulling his screenshots in Resolve I see that his shots are sitting between 0-300 IRE. Unfortunately I dont have a way to watch his final products but in theory, is this where one would want his levels to be for low light interiors. They look really good on a computer or a cellphone but I need your 0.2 cents on this matter. Please see attached image from his site wanderingdp.com. Thank you in advance and I can't wait to hear from you.

Image credit to Patrick Sullivan of wanderingdp.

http://wanderingdp.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Lomo2.jpg»

http://wanderingdp.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/12-2.jpg»

 

[Ryan Emanuel]

I don't know if theres really a solid answer to that question. It really depends on your story, some stories warrant skintones at 30%, some need 20%, some need 60% and everything in between. There wont really be an exposure that works for ever night interior. Its a creative decision in addition to technical. If you like his style for your story then use similar levels.

 

Also this looks low light, but there was probably an nd 6 in the camera.

[Jae Christsensen]

I don't know if theres really a solid answer to that question. It really depends on your story, some stories warrant skintones at 30%, some need 20%, some need 60% and everything in between. There wont really be an exposure that works for ever night interior. Its a creative decision in addition to technical. If you like his style for your story then use similar levels.

 

Also this looks low light, but there was probably an nd 6 in the camera.

Ryan. Thank you for the reply. I totally understand skin tones level depends on the situation. I am more confused now that ever though. It looks like the screenshots in his blog have low levels but the actual reel he has for the same scenes are regular levels. Hopefully he can answer my question. Maybe the screenshots above are just pre-grade and are not really touched. Also, you mentioned ND. He does use a lot of ND indoors. What other benefits does ND have inside other than letting you shoot wide open? Thank you again for your time.

[Alex Sprenger]

What other benefits does ND have inside other than letting you shoot wide open?

 

Most lighting equipment for film isnt really made for shooting at these incredibly low levels. I almost always stick a .6 or sometimes even a .9 ND on LED Panels I use indoors for night stuff (sometimes even during the day), because it just is impractical and tedious having to work in the 1-5% output range of these units. Same goes for tungsten fresnels, at ISO 800 and a t1.4, you can do very little with even a 300W without completely blasting the scene with light. Having everything on dimmers and constantly in the "barely on" region makes fine adjustments very difficult. Also, this isnt a bright, high key kind of look, but very dim shots - so if you shoot this at an 1.4, every tiny adjustment can become very strong.

 

An additional benefit of giving yourself some headroom in terms of having an .6 ND on the camera is if you shoot a lot of commercial work, as Patrick evidently does, the agency at some point will tell you "we love it ... we just wondered, if its possible to have it just a bit brighter". Often you can get out of these situation with a bit of reasoning and explaining to them, that this was the look that we all agreed on and so forth, but if they are stubborn you can say "sure", change to an .3 ND on the camera, stop a bit down and you can immediately offer them a version that is a lot "safer". If you light precisely to the level that you think you will need and give yourself no headroom at all, this would take a longer relight.

[Jae Christsensen]

 

Most lighting equipment for film isnt really made for shooting at these incredibly low levels. I almost always stick a .6 or sometimes even a .9 ND on LED Panels I use indoors for night stuff (sometimes even during the day), because it just is impractical and tedious having to work in the 1-5% output range of these units. Same goes for tungsten fresnels, at ISO 800 and a t1.4, you can do very little with even a 300W without completely blasting the scene with light. Having everything on dimmers and constantly in the "barely on" region makes fine adjustments very difficult. Also, this isnt a bright, high key kind of look, but very dim shots - so if you shoot this at an 1.4, every tiny adjustment can become very strong.

 

An additional benefit of giving yourself some headroom in terms of having an .6 ND on the camera is if you shoot a lot of commercial work, as Patrick evidently does, the agency at some point will tell you "we love it ... we just wondered, if its possible to have it just a bit brighter". Often you can get out of these situation with a bit of reasoning and explaining to them, that this was the look that we all agreed on and so forth, but if they are stubborn you can say "sure", change to an .3 ND on the camera, stop a bit down and you can immediately offer them a version that is a lot "safer". If you light precisely to the level that you think you will need and give yourself no headroom at all, this would take a longer relight.

 

That makes sense. As long as your contrast ratio is good to go. The most simplest way to adjust exposure would be nd filters. Thank you.