Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I hope i am not saying a complete nonsense but is it possible that on “FPS variabile” the camera tries to keep the exposure constant, so when the ISO is changed the FPS are changed accordingly by the camera to compensate?
Thanks a lot David! I always appreciate the time you and Roger dedicate to explain and teach things to unexperienced people like me.
I’m doing some tests to see what works better, but i think that making clear to the audience what is coloring the bouncing light could be the right solution for me. Thanks for the tip!
I have a doubt about the color of bounce light.
I was watching a movie with some scenes in a dark room with only flashlights as practical lights, with a very cold color, somewhere around 5500/6000 k. The walls of the room were made of wood with a warm dark color. To make the scene possible the actors had some bounce light on their faces, but the lights had the same cold color of the flashlights. Now, if their motivation was that the light from the flashlights bounced back on the actors, it should have been a warm light, not a cold one (that was caused by a white surface in front of the flashlights to create a fill light on the actor). The scene was done in a very good way, in my opinion, and I think that as audience we are so used to this effect (the source and the bounce having the same color) that if they had used a warm light on the actor it would have made the scene a bit confusing. So, what’ s your advice?
Going for realism and using a bounce light of the same color of surfaces around the actor but risking a disorienting effect, or going for a traditional route and using a white surface (so a bounce of the same color of the source) but obtaining an unrealistic effect?
In my humble opinion Sicario is the modern “heir” of The Untouchables, it has the same continuous menacing feeling that comes from not being able to divide the good ones from the bad ones, everybody could be a traitor. And the Juarez scene is simply amazing, a gem in a wonderful movie.
[qu ote quote=216034]…As a group we scouted the Bridge of the Americas, between El Paso and Juarez, and the build was based on that location as well as the action as scripted. As it was impossible to shoot on the real location…[/quote]
I hope to remember correctly what you told in the podcast, but was one of the reasons to use VFX the fact the scene of the hanged men was so realistic that could be traumatic for the local people, since they actually witnessed something like that? I know drug wars in Mexico can be gruesome but i thought that was a touch to make the story more dramatic.
Thanks David, you’re always very kind! Your knowledge and experience are always precious!
I’m going for the green screen, i think It will allow me more freedom for the camera movement and It seems the simplest solution. To achieve the 180 degrees movement I still have to figure If It’s simpler to work with a green screen with maybe 3 sides around the actor or edit two shots and “hide” the cut, but the rotating platform could really be a great idea!
Thanks Stip! Yes, that’s my idea, that’s why i think the first Alien Is almost perfect.
Some could insinuate that I’m actually relying on the darkness to hide the flaws of the cheap setpieces i built and that i’m trying to look smart, but it’s only a despicable lie, of course
In a couple of weeks i’ll be shooting my first short movie and i’ll have a very similar scene, in terms of mood and lights (i am aware that i am aiming too high for my first work but i think It’s the right light for that scene, so i am trying to do my best to face the challenge) .
Since i am still not very sure about the metering i Will use this workflow:
– metering the Key light on the relevant elements of the scene, setting It at a level that allows me to use the lower ISO possible for the given aperture, trying to keep It under 800
– set the fill light to obtain a good contrast ratio with the Key (It’s an horror story, i think a bit of contrast will help creating the atmosphere)
– keep the shadows as dark as i can, trying to reduce noise with the low ISO.
Is there any relevant problem with such an approach? Any advice to improve my workflow?
Thanks a lot Tyler! I am actually thinking about getting an entry level Sekonic meter, for my simple needs is more than enough (getting close to a decent exposure and learning a bit about lighting), but i was curious about this model Roger was talking about and in general the analogic ones, I find them a bit intimidating, ah ah!
I still use a meter to judge my exposure, even with a calibrated monitor. I use a Gossen Luna Pro, usually with the invercone and in incident mode. For the shot your reference I would have stood where the actors are and pointed my meter towards the camera.
(sorry for going OT)
Would you suggest this meter for a beginner?
I searched for it on the web and, while I was expecting a super technological meter costing more than my car developped by NASA etc etc, i actually discovered that it’s usually sold for a few euros (that technically is still more than my car value, ah ah) , at least a second hand analogical version of it (I don’t know if it’s the same version you use but I didn’t find other ones of it).
Just a tangent to the OP’s question – I find what separates amateurish looking scenes from professional ones is the set dressing. Stip – the examples you included are a perfect example. So much texture and personal items fill up the intimate space in frame. It seems many lower budget films skip this and the intimate scenes have bare walls in the background. The set dressing really sells it I feel. I realize this is not the DP’s job, but certainly there’s a discussion to be had there.
I agree with you on the importance of set dressing but I don’t think it’s the only element that makes a difference. I’m afraid that a blank wall shot by a great cinematographer will be more interesting than a stunning set shot by, let’s say, me. Consider Stalker by Tarkovsky: an immortal masterpiece, but to say that its sets are minimalistic it’s an understatement. Lights, set, camera movements, angles, blocking, etc etc. : every piece of the puzzle should be carefully planned to achieve the visual result. This is where i find the difference : a professional director know (well, at least he should know) exactly the result he wants to obtain and leads the production in that direction, an amateur usually does his best with what’s available, with limited knowledge and lack of a global vision.
A couple of days ago i read on Facebook that it’s possible that Roger will be the DoP on Sam Mendes’ Beatles movies . I don’t know if it’s true (it looked like more a rumour than a real cinema news, actually) and i don’t think Roger will announce his present and future projects here or around the web (you know, privacy, NDAs, contracts, etc etc.), but perhaps it’s the project you remember?
I’m in the very same situation (working on a short movie with little experience, practical lights, etc) , so I can’t give you advices, but perhaps the things that I tried for myself could help you a little and save you some time (i hope so, at least) .
– you want the audience think that the light is created by a bulb, a candle, etc, but this doesn’t mean that you actually use them to light all of your scenes. Example : in a medium shot you show the practical light, so the audience know that there’s that source there. This create the motivation to know where the light is coming from. In the next close up of your talent you could use another source (of the same color and type of light but stronger) that you won’t show but that will help you achieving the right exposure. A bit of creativity and DIY will help you in creating the right look. You want to use a nice lamp for the scene? You can hide a second bulb behind it, for example, to have more light from the same practical source (if i remember correctly Roger did something like that for 1917, in the tent scene to increase the light from a lantern).
– if you want to shape the lights you could use some (black) flag to reduce the bouncing on the wall and the ambient light, if you manage to avoid to make the flag visible in camera (in a small space may be tricky, be creative with camera angles!)
– mind the inverse square law. It could be a powerful tool but I’m afraid it could also turn into the biggest enemy of people like us using a small set of practical lights. When you double the distance the light gets 4 times weaker, that means you’ll need 2 stops more to achieve the same exposure (please, correct me if i’m wrong on that). On the contrary, if you halve the distance you get a 4 times stronger light, with a bonus of 2 stops in exposure. The same practical light you used in a shot will be stronger or weaker in the next according to this law: for example, mind it when planning actors movement.
– pay attention to the noise created by high ISO : a low key scene will probably mean that you’ll need to rely on high ISO to achieve the correct exposure. Use it as very last resource
That’s what i’m doing for my short, perhaps it can give you some idea: my short movie the character will have only a torch and a bit of blue backlight from a (fake) window. But this means that nothing will actually light his face: you put a torch in front of you, not on you… My possible solution: in some shots the torch will be visible (that’s the motivation), but in the close ups it won’t and i’ll give him 2 or 3 torches and place a bouncing surface at the right angle in front of him. Since it will create a lot bouncing lights i’ll place a black flag right behind him to make the room darker. My goal is creating the right contrast ratio between him and the background while keeping the ISO as low as i can. It should work, as long as i manage to keep all of this stuff out of camera in a really small space.
I hope it helps somehow!
Roger will be the best source for these informations of course but in the meanwhile you can begin with these things (i’m sorry i can’t paste the link but i have some kind of bug when i post links here) :
– “Bio” and “Musings” pages in the “Team Deakins” section of the website
– The “Beginnings” episode of the podcast (but informations are everywhere in the podcast – for the record, my favorite is Roger telling the story of his documentary in Jamaica that turned in an masterpiece of experimental cinematography for unexpected reasons)
– The article from American Cinematographer “Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC: Six Favorite Films ” (it’s available on AC website)
– The article from British Cinematographer “Visionary – Sir Roger Deakins CBE BSC ASC” (it’s available on BC website)
I hope that helps!
Happy birthday Roger!
I join Shea in thanking you for all the time you dedicate to explain and teach even the simplest things. As a school teacher I know that the majority of the time the questions are a bit stupid but still the answers are important for people looking for them.
By the way, I was curious about Shea’s post, I didn’t know you follow football and support United. It’s funny to know that even world renowed artists have some “common man” passion, ah ah.
I’ve a (quite) similar problem and doubt, but i think that while you could quite easily match in post some difference (for example in the colors) , other differencies could be more noticeable (chromatic aberration, type of “bokeh” if you blur the background, sharpness, breathing of the Lens, etc etc). Perhaps the result of integration changes from lens to lens?
