Search Results for 'no'

[quijotesco24]

I think the zone system is it still applicable in part in cinematography too.

Specially the first part about metering and where to put each part of the scene in the “negative”.

It’s been long time but if I can recall right Ansel Adams zone system is a 3 part process. The metering, the negative and the print, I may still  have his books some where. As David said the negative and the print process is hard to apply in cinematography for the said reasons, but the metering is very much interesting to learn.

I’m coming from a photography background, where I shot a lot of large format too so to understand how to meter, understand the zones inside an image and how to expose for desirable effect was already knowledge I had thanks to know the “zone system”.

If I was starting today I’ll probably won’t learn the zone system as it makes no sense nowadays but I would make sure to understand how to meter and expose consistently and for any desirable effect I would want with any camera/sensor.

 

[M Ryan]

If you’re fighting the sun something like a 12k hmi or 2 (or 3 or more) might be something you would usually see.. not very portable or low budget 🙂 In this scenario a simple collapsable reflector can be a great solution 👍👍

 

[Daniel]

Hopefully, I’m not putting words in his mouth by saying this. I recall a podcast where he explained that he shot an entire film with filtration and regretted it.

Also, in the “old” forum, there was a great discussion where David ( @dmullenasc ) and Roger talked about filters. I think it’s safe to say Roger is willing to use filters but highly selective about it.

In the “Looking at lighting” section of the site (Members > Looking At Lighting), Roger breaks down scenes from ‘BR 2049’. He mentions filters, what he selected, why, etc.

[Daniel]

@dmullenasc

Since we’re talking about how still photography concepts compare to filmmaking, is there a rule like the Sunny 16 rule for how powerful a light you need in more common filmmaking scenarios indoors and outdoors?

For example, let’s say I’m shooting 35mm stills. If I walk outside on a sunny, cloudless day, I’ll probably want to overexpose by two stops for a backlit portrait. What’s our rule of thumb for the power in watts that I’d need to fill in an actor’s face in that same scenario?

We tried shooting some test scenes with a lone actress outdoors at golden hour with an Aputure P60c (60-watt) LED panel. I had no idea how much power we would need because I’d never done it before. We had zero budget, so we tried the most affordable, portable rental option possible. I learned that power was not enough for what we were trying to accomplish.

That same P60c was perfect later that night when we tried filming a test scene backlit by street lights and shops but poorly lit from the front.

Do you get to a point where you can “intuit” the minimum amount of light power you’d need to handle a given scene? Or do you math it out or test it most of the time?

[dmullenasc]

With digital post, it’s sort of the opposite — we not only have control over the gamma (contrast) of every frame, we have control over portions of the frame.

[dmullenasc]

In the most general sense, the concept of “visualization” (or “previsualization”) of how one’s exposure and development choices would translate to the finished product has some loose application in cinematography, but in the specifics, it’s very hard to apply a system that was based on taking single still images rather than a sequence of moving images for a scene that all have to intercut. It’s similar to why it is hard to use ETTR (Expose To The Right) still photography approach in cinematography except for one-shot scenes or visual effects shooting, or just as a general idea of “get a good exposure, just don’t clip detail”.

Ansel Adam’s idea was that knowing the intended contrast of the print, one could expose and develop the negative so that tonal values fell into the areas that one wanted in the print. With the motion picture photochemical approach, this was hard to do because we couldn’t adjust the gamma of the negative on a shot-by-shot basis and we didn’t have a lot of control over the gamma of the release prints either, unless we did something like skip bleach or ENR, and then the whole reel had to have that same technique.

[dmullenasc]

If the camera is recording something like Arriraw Open Gate at a 1.55 : 1 aspect ratio using spherical lenses, then both the 2.39 theatrical and 1.90 IMAX versions are cropped from that larger area. Technically then the 1.90 IMAX version is “opened up”, not cropped in, compared to the 2.39 version.

Generally you frame for one aspect ratio on set — usually the one most people are going to see — and “protect” the area outside of that as best you can for reframing for the other aspect ratio.

[dmullenasc]

Recreating the natural fall-off of skylight in a set with windows is very difficult due to the inverse square law. On the other hand, plenty of movies and TV shows have lit convincing day interiors even if the fall-off rate isn’t like it would be in real life.

Obviously you start by working large and far as possible on stage to get a gentler fall-off rate for the soft light.

In a wide shot that is static and the windows are to one side of the frame, ND grads or ND attenuators are useful. I just used an ND.6 attenuator a few months ago for a shot in a white kitchen where I wanted to light someone at a wall-mounted phone from the side but the wall was getting too hot even with flagging. A similar thing can be done in post with Power Windows as long as nothing is clipped but it’s nice to get it right in camera.

For closer shots, you can sometimes use nets or an additional diffusion frame on the foreground person by the window to darken them relative to the background person who is deeper in the room. But of course once you go in closer, it’s easier to balance things.

Yes, if the fall-off is too steep opposite the windows, you sometimes do things like bringing up the room with a soft ceiling or floor bounce. The softer it is, the less “source-y” it is.

[jeff791107]

Hi Roger,

I’ve always heard from cinematographers talking about how they framing their films with what aspect ratio like 2.39:1, and there is still a Imax 1.9: 1.

If I could see some movie in Imax and normal version (normally 2 different tickets price), does that mean the DP framing for different aspect ratio on set? Or the Imax is just cropped from the original?

 

[jeff791107]

Thank you for your answer.

Now I know what I have to do next time.

[jeff791107]

Yeah that’s what I was talking about.

Situation differs, and not every actor can stand with technical adjustment. Some of them don’t want any distraction.

[Roger Deakins]

I did consider a number of hand held variations of lighting for the daytime work but that was a little ‘overthinking’. In the end the lighting just didn’t make sense as the speeds and space restrictions were too much to deal with. The hardest part of the shoot was the waiting for cloudy conditions. When any cloud came over it always seemed the pressure was on me to say we could shoot or not. I guess that was true. But, thankfully, we were pretty much all in sync about what it would take to make the ‘one shot’ work. In fact we didn’t shoot at all on our first day!

To maintain consistency, I did have a remote control beside my camera head controls, which either I or my DIT was adjusting depending on which piece of equipment the camera was mounted on. With the Steadicam, I could be on the wheel. With the Trinity I had one hand on the tilt control and the other on the aperture and when we were on the Stabileye I was talking Josh, my DIT, through the exposure changes.

[Roger Deakins]

My M8 with its original sensor seems totally fine but the sensor on my monochrome M9 de laminated. But the upgrade sensor is very nice and the M9 is my favorite camera.

[Roger Deakins]

I will sometimes adjust my lighting after I watch a camera rehearsal and I might make a few more ‘tweaks’ between takes. I think that is part of the process, and especially so when you are seeing an actor in costume and make up for the first time. But when shooting some actors, or some particularly delicate scenes, you know that it is better to compromise and shoot. There is a balance and many more people are involved in creating the end result than just you. Any time you step onto a film set and look through a camera it involves some sort of personal compromise.

It has happened that I felt the need to make a large adjustment to a lighting set up. But its also happened that the director or I will discover a ‘better’ camera shot. Or, maybe the actor will find an entirely different way to play the scene and then everything changes! But its all part of the process of exploration we go through.

 

 

[Stip]

Are you referring to the Christian Bale rant on the set of ‘Terminator Salvation’ in 2009?

“Bale verbally goes off on the film’s cinematographer Shane Hurlbut, who had walked onto set to check a light during the filming of a scene. This was apparently the second time he had done this…”.

I would say that is a very different situation than adjusting the lights when the actors arrive on set, which is being done all the time on the productions I am on. But I also don’t know the workflow on bigger budget productions.