Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
The angle of the light to the light to the bounce can alter the size and the shape of the source you create. Whether a lamp is above and rigged to the ceiling or on the floor on a low boy or ‘turtle’ is usually just about space and convenience.
You can double the muslin but it doesn’t make so much difference. The light going through it could be a problem though, and bounce around to interfere with the contrast of the shot.
If I have a series of lamps bouncing off a wide reflector I may, repeat may, dim the lamps to the sides and also warm them up to create a softer fall off and a warmth reaching into the shadow area. I might do that but it is no means necessary.
Whether I gel a light and with what strength of gel in order to maintain color balance is a decision based on the script, the scene and the individual shot. Maybe, you would like the daylight to be blue’ish and the interior lights to be warm. Maybe not.
Looks very good. Regarding that bulb – a small quartz bulb would have looked a little more like a flame. But who is really looking at that. Nice job!
Max,
The photo is interesting! I had forgotten I had this rig on the ceiling. The main lighting was the Par lamps coming through the windows but I did have this rig for any bounce I might need. I used 2K Blondes as I wanted a wide spread of the lamp on the bounce material and, therefore, a very soft source. The lamps were either bouncing off unbleached muslin that was laid on the floor or off 4′ x 4′ sheets. I had this rig, rather than lamps on stands, as there were many so people in the scene and I didn’t want my lighting to get in the way. Besides that, the lamps could aim over the extras and bounce off muslin close to the wall.
In a case like this I will ask for a rig to be put up knowing it might only be necessary for one or two angles or even not at all. But it is better to have it than struggle during the shooting day with lamps on stands.
The depth of field of a 40mm is the same whatever the size of the sensor. With a standard Alexa you would need to shoot on a 32mm (some say wider) to match the field of view of a 40mm on a Large Format camera. A small adjustment to the iris will not change the ‘feel’ of that lens. The additional latitude and resolution of the LF can be an advantage over the standard Alexa but that would not be my main consideration when choosing one camera over the other. The ‘feel’ of the lens is uppermost in my mind.
The ‘Byways’ experience has already been a great success and inspirational for us. We hope to continue with similar events as the one at Deborah’s gallery. Our next will take place in Dallas.
I am not sure you can say that the length of the shot is entirely responsible for an audience understanding a film or not. Content and narrative drives the image rather than the image driving the narrative.
Yes, I was referencing a super 35mm format. On ‘1917’, which we shot on the LF, a 40mm was about the only focal length we used and it was on the camera quite often on ‘Empire of Light’ as well.
We used the Alexa LF on ‘1917’ because we liked the shallow depth of field as well as the increased information it gave us in comparison to the standard Alexa. The S35 did not exist at that time and we only had a look at that camera when we were in prep for ‘Empire’.
To compensate depth of field between the LF and the S35 wouldn’t it require closing down the iris rather than opening it up?
You might want to watch the films of Robert Bresson or Luchino Visconti! There are plenty of films with a similarly controlled camera style but less in contemporary mainstream cinema.
A 35mm or a 32mm, yes, but I also use a 40mm and a 50mm regularly. I will also use a 28mm or a 25mm, maybe an 18mm, sometimes a 16mm, or even a 135mm. Perhaps a 300mm or an 800mm. What shot are you asking about?
How to manage consistency? I don’t know what to advise. You decide on the look for the film, a scene or a sequence and then break it down into individual shots. You consider when and how to best shoot each shot depending on the restrictions you have regarding the existing natural light and/or your schedule. consistency is key to immersing the audience in a film and, therefore, a priority for the work of any cinematographer.
What I did on ‘Empire’ was only an extension of how I always work, choosing practical sources, rigging additional lighting in a concealed way, adding only minimal floor lighting when I have to and always working closely with the art department. What was ‘new’ for me was lighting almost entirely with LED sources.
It may be that lighting becomes entirely ‘controlled’ through an LED wall or some other ‘environmental’ source but that is not something that I see myself involved with.
I totally agree with David’s advice there. If you have no need for additional light sources you should have no problem timing out the excessive green tint – or you might just like it! As David says, if you see green outside you might expect the inside to reflect the same source rather than something that is purely ‘white’.
You might try adding household bulbs and sockets around that hanging fixture. I can’t imagine it ever featuring in shot and a brighter soft source in this central position could be nice. You could always cut the sides with a circle of silver foil if you wanted to concentrate the light from it in the center of the room and have a little more fall off.
As I said, it depends on the width of your shot. In full sunlight, a red head held a few feet away from a face would fill in shadows in the same way as a sun gun but why would you not use a bounce in that situation? I am sure that both Chivo and Josh Richards would prefer to use a large soft reflector than a small bright light however powerful that might be. I would also think it rare for either cinematographer to regularly use any additional light when shooting exteriors.
