Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
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!
I’m glad that I did remember to ask Aleksey on our podcast, even if I had forgotten I had! It really was the best I have seen.
Yes, we used smoke on the ‘BR 2049’ shot on a studio backlot.
We talked with Aleksey Rodionov for our podcast and we should have asked him about that fog. I suspect it was a combination of real and added smoke but it certainly looks real.
Yes, a brilliant scene from a brilliant film. The fog is so good in that scene that I imagined it was done on the right day. Maybe it was! There is some equivalent work done on Antonioni’s ‘Red Desert’, although the wind does give the effects away at one moment. Serious fog and wind machines were used for ‘Red Desert’ as can be seen in some behind the scenes images. I have never seen images of the ‘Come and See’ rig but I imagine it must have been substantial.
I have had mixed success with fog, the best being done on stage. For an exterior you are at teh mercy of the weather. I would suggest setting your rig the day before you shoot as, invariably, smoke/fog will hang early in the day rather than later. Otherwise, if it is possible to have a flexible schedule and wait for a calm damp day …. Yes, that might not be possible. It seldom is.
Not every film begins with a look book. Some of them are created by a director in advance of the film. being given a green light, some by the production designer and some, less often in my experience, by the cinematographer. I will gather references if that is the way a director likes to prepare for a shoot but I don’t do it for my own sake. What I do are sketches of possible shots and staging as well as detailed diagrams for lighting. I find that the style of the film’s cinematography, camera movement and so forth, comes from discussions that happen during location scouting, when a director and I get time to talk through a script, or not until the actors go through a blocking rehearsal on the day of the shoot.
I am a bit rusty as well. I think it would be fine to drop the 85. I used to do that when it was just a film print and I wanted cooler shadows. In the DI you should be fine.
The solids were outside the window. The LED was bounced to the side of the shot and not directly overhead, which would not have reached so far into the face.
I did use a single white bounce outside the windows for both of the scenes. I also had a solid to cut some light as well. I was only using the bounce for the shots on Michael. Inside the first cafe I used two LEDs bouncing off the ceiling to either side of the wide shot. These were set to a tungsten balance to give some warmth to the shadows. I did not use them for the closer coverage.
Ahh! We have different ways of working. I would in the past never considered blowing up an image and I still only look at that as an option as a last resort. You say you can make a telephoto shot from a wide angle but you are loosing definition whatever your capture system. Besides, there is a different feel to a blown up shot when there is movement in the frame. But I get what you are saying. You want the flexibility.
Not so many takes on any scene. The scene with Ron eating the chips was quite a few and I felt for that actor.
We had tested the fireworks before the shoot as well as their positioning. We needed a low tide so that they could be set off from the beach and they were just off the shelf fireworks. I metered the scene in the foreground and let the fireworks fell where they might. It was just the same as on ‘Skyfall’ though some on that film were added in post whereas everything in ‘Empire’ was in camera.
Interesting comments. I would have said a 32mm but I see the trend is towards wider lenses. Shooting a close up on a 25mm or a 27mm is something I have done in. the past and would do again in the right circumstances but I doubt that often.
I was shooting film and I used a regular shutter opening.
A plate shot on an 18mm, for instance, from the same camera position as the main camera shot, if that is a 40mm, will not match. Both the perspective and the lens distortion will be different. If you are shooting a wide background and selecting a part of that background to match with your main camera shot then it is viable and only what is done on the ‘volume’. But shooting a specific plate for a specific background is different.
I used branches on a revolving pipe rig to mimic the trees that were in the plate. We had the plate playing on a small screen so we could judge the speed and timing with the background.
That was about it. We also shot our plates at a specific time of day to justify the sunlight playing on the car interor..
