Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I think you have the name of the cinematographer who shot The Master wrong. Mihai Malaimare shot P. J. A’s film.
The lighting should reflect the scene and also fit with the location the scene takes place in. Also, I would caution not to copy someone else’s work. Your film is your film not theirs and you don’t learn by copying.
It is tricky with a bus as it is so large. I have shot ‘poor man’s’ but only created a few lights in the distance nothing interactive with the interior. I did this for a short scene in ‘Empire’. Any exterior light would be minimal relative to the bus’ interior lights anyway.
I used just the flashlight in the basement itself and a warm bounce coming down from above. The camera saw the entire space so there was no way to use anything else, not that I needed it.
The latest electronic finders are good but I would prefer an optical one. Of course, that is no longer an option and we get used to what we have.
Is one green or is the other magenta. I am sure that neither is a true reflection of what is on the DCP. The exteriors were deliberately shot on overcast days to look dreary and they surely tend toward the blue/green but I am sure the YouTube version is a little off.
The flares were real and our effects supervisor had them specially made to last exactly 26 seconds, which was the length of time it took them to cross the frame. They were mounted on wires and computer controlled. We could have just shot them into the air but the results would have been quite random given the wind and other variables, so we opted for control and a wire rig. The set was designed from a model and we used small LED bulbs as stand ins for the flares. From that we could see how the shadows would play out on the full size set.
Isolation? Close shots with a shallow depth of field could work very well. You could take a look at ‘Come and See’ to get a sense of how that might work.
We were lucky with that low cloud. I must admit to trying to hurry things alone as I was concerned the light would change. I was not using any solids as we were working quickly and I liked the light as it was. I don’t remember the make up being any different for the exteriors so the effect you are seeing is just the light, which, I think, makes Daniel look very strong and works in the scene.
We shot ‘Empire’ with the LF simply because we liked the results from the camera on ‘1917’. I don’t know what the future will hold! Every film and every director takes a cinematographer down a new road. That’s what makes it interesting.
I consider contrast when I am staring a project and when I light a scene but mine is not a mathematical approach. Some cinematographers my work from a ratio when they light but I just use my eye, judge the way I want a shot to look by looking at it.
Whether you maintain the contrast of the image through the whole film is up to the individual and the script. Its impossible to give one sweeping answer.
Like for any scene you need to consider what you want it to look like and what would motivate the light. A park could have existing lamps on posts or you may want to add some. You may want the scene to play in ‘moonlight’, in which case you may be turning light off rather than adding them.
I would not say exposure plays so much of a role as you think. In every case you refer to there is detail in the windows. In no case was I wanting the highlights to be a pure white. The nature of the light is effected by the size of the set window, which is different in every case, and the quality of the light that is being ‘punched’ through the window. A series of lamps that are wider than the window project the light to each side, whereas a source the size of the window and at a distance from it creates a ‘tunnel’ of light that falls off to the sides of the window. And, the inverse square law plays its part as well. The light I was bouncing into Sapper Morton’s was far closer than the light I used to light the restaurant in ‘Unbroken’, which meant the light fell off far more quickly and the far walls of the set were that much darker. And lastly (maybe), a heavy diffusion on the window itself will become the source and spread the light whereas a very light diffusion will allow to be constrained.
How to light a day interior is actually quite complicated and we have not even discussed the limitations a location might bring into the equation.
I was referring to the positioning of the light on the bounce. There were no lights inside the set at all so the positioning of the ‘hot spots’ gave me some shape to the light coming through the windows. I would adjust the focus of each lamp so that it was out of frame from shot to shot, and the white of the bounce seen through the window was lit only by the spill. This was so the window didn’t ‘burn out’ and I maintained detail in the highlights, texture of the dirt on the glass etc.
There are more and more good LED options coming into use with a larger spectral range, something which was an issue in the early days. I would not be worried about using LEDs and they do have many advantages. However, it comes down to the film and the conditions in which you are working. I don’t see an alternative to using an HMI (or a Dino etc) to imitate ‘moonlight’ right now, though there may be one I am not aware of. In the lower range of lighting, where there would be a 650, a 1K, a 5K, or even a 10K, the LED alternatives are as good if not better. To dispense with gels is a great advantage!
