Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Hi,
I hope it’s OK to answer part of your question, since this is something he has talked about in numerous interviews and the podcast. Usually, a LUT is developed for the particular movie beforehand and Roger uses this LUT for monitoring during the whole shoot of the whole movie. I’m not sure if he ever had multiple LUTs for different scenarios, though my guess would be most likely not.
As far as testing beforehand, I would think once you developed a color palette with the production designer and maybe already have set pieces and wardrobe to test it on, you can just develop the LUT to your liking and tweak it until you’re happy.
Thanks, Roger! Did you have a Plan B in case there hadn’t been any overcast conditions or would you have just rescheduled?
Thank you so much, Roger! Those are great insights and it all makes sense. Can’t wait to build my own experience with those setups, since I’m sure any theoretical knowledge just can’t compete with figuring these things out as you build your experience as a DP. I just haven’t had the chance yet.
Hello everyone, I feel like the personal back and forth between a few members have distracted a little from the core question, if there might be a way to recover the old forum or not. I’m curious if Magneticat could be of any help and/or if a recovery attempt is maybe still in progress?
Just curious and would love to read a quick statement from anyone who is or was actually involved in trying to recover.
The overall look of the movie is generally developed before any takes are shot and include the planned color grading, often developing a specific LUT for the movie. Therefore the decisions of color tint and “feel” don’t really need to be dialed in in-camera, but can be solved by using an according LUT in the DI.
I agree with Andrew, that a few stills of your work vs. the look you’re hoping to achieve would be really beneficial. Tiny spaces create a lot of challenges. If you light from within all the lights have to be very close to the walls or subject and therefore the fall off is pretty quick as well. I think that’s what creates a more sourcy look and potentially harsher shadows. In this setup two things would help in my opinion:
1) A large top light. Lots of commercials are sets and instead of a real ceiling they have a huge soft source overhead, often stretching out to the entirety of the room. This makes for a very evenly lit room and lots of level everywhere (that’s how the typical high key look defined, I guess)
2) Use blocking and placing the light to avoid such shadows. Similar to the point above, try to light more from above so the shadows naturally fall on the floor more than walls, also maybe block in a way that there isn’t an empty wall behind the actor?
A third idea, if you have a window in the room is utilizing the window as the main light source. Since you can place one or more lights further away outside, the falloff in the room will be less and it’ll spread around more evenly.
Hope this helps a bit or at least gives you food for thought.
I know this is a super late response, but have you checked out music videos? I think this is a genre where you might find more simple and cheaper lighting setups as well as maybe more bts footage. Just my guess…
I love the shot in the trenches , beautiful composition and depth. Also love the composition of the last shot. My only constructive criticism would be that the few backlit shots inside look a little too much like “highlight recovery” to me. The clipped areas in the curtain look a little digital and the shadows very much lifted throughout the frame. Wonder if that was your decision or what happened in the DI without your watch? All that being said, bravo to this piece of work! I’m impressed.
Let’s stay respectful here, will we? It’s hard for me to fully understand the OP’s point and question, because of the language barrier. But my assumption is he/she feels like it was a bold choice to tell the story through Kate and leave out the beginning scene with Alejandro, therefore wonders if there were any worries during shooting that telling the story from a more “passive” viewpoint would create the need for more “action” in other departments (camera work, editing, sound design)…? Or I might have misunderstood the question all together. Either way, let’s not intimidate and blame other forum users. I don’t think he/she meant to be disrespectful.
In regards to the question though, I would be very surprised if Dennis had any doubt in his choice of telling the story through Kate. He’s a fantastic director and I’m sure he knew her viewpoint is a very strong and interesting way of telling the story, that doesn’t need any “make up” through other aspects of the movie.
I’m not sure what exactly your question is. Using a light meter or false color will make it fairly easy to adjust your ratio as desired in every shot. So if you want to stick to the same ratio in every shot, that’s how to do it. But I don’t see why a DP would want to stick to such a hard rule. Every shot is different and might need a different feel and therefor lighting and lighting ratio.
Interesting question and I’m curious what Roger will share. I wonder though: How would you really define a consistent look throughout a movie, when ONLY talking about the lighting aspect? Clearly, every movie features drastically different locations and times with different vibes, looks and feel to it. The sun baked outside with harsh shadows and no additional lighting, a huge, cold glass office room, the tunnel in night vision in Sicario. These are drastically different settings with completely different lighting, so there can’t be an overarching feel in the way to light them, right? I would argue it is way more the overall color scheme, framing, lens choice and color grading that makes them “match” for you? Just my two cents…
I wouldn’t be surprised, if you answered your own question here. In many situations it would look very unnatural and HDR to have both a properly exposed sky and foreground. There are lots of shots in Roger’s films with plenty of details in the sky (like in your second screenshot) but then the foreground is usually very dark (again, like in your second screenshot), which makes it look realistic and what we’re used to with film and even just our eyes.
Since Roger states regularly that he prefers images without artefacts (like lens flares, breathing, vignetting, distortion) it only makes sense to me that he isn’t going for a digital looking HDR image.
Also, the sky is a creative choice of the director and cinematographer and having a beautiful sunrise sky with lots of highlights and beautiful shapes, in my personal opinion, wouldn’t fit the mood in the scenes you reference for 1917 at all.
