Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
The first image was done ‘in camera’. There may be a little extension to the set in the lower portion of the frame but it is basically there.
The second and third images are CGI. We shot exteriors of the spinners in various lighting and we did shoot some models, but it proved more cost effective and efficient to work in CGI and, besides this, we found we had more control over the look of the image. I think if there is one element of ‘BR2049’ that works it is the consistency of the CGI work with the live action.
When I used tungsten balanced stock for my exteriors on ‘Shawshank’, without an 85 correction filter, I was timing the negative to a more neutral look. I wasn’t doing this because I was after a cold blue look but because I adjudged that when timed back the shadows retained a colder look than if I was shooting with an 85 correction filter. This is something I did on scenes in ‘1984’ and other films.
Of course, using a daylight stock to shoot candle light is, basically, the equivalent to shooting on tungsten stock and gelling your lamps with a full CTO. I say basically, because the are subtle differences. To my eye, the daylight stocks have more contrast as well as more saturation so this might factor into the choice of stock and which approach to take.
You have many options. moonlight would be one but you could also create a streetlight effect from outside. Of course, your schedule, whether you are shooting after dark, and if you have the necessary access outside will dictate what you can do. Personally, I might look into what kinds of light fixtures I could utilize inside the bathroom. There you have so many options whether they are film lights or simply from Home Depot.
We would rarely shoot a whole scene in a conventional ‘master shot’. But that also varies depending on the scene as well. If it is of two people talking across a table then there is no reason not to cover the whole scene in your widest shot. Sometimes that is good for the actors to get ‘into’ the scene and prepare themselves for tehir closer coverage. But there is no one way to cover a scene and no ‘right’ way either.
I normally parked the mirror when I was lighting but it didn’t really bother me when it was rotating.
I have no formula! I would have to know the context and the location before deciding what I might do.
There was an additional tube on a stand to augment the cold kitchen light and I suspect I had a small Fresnel lamp adding to the warm light on the ceiling. It doesn’t look as if the hanging lamp would make that ‘pool’ of warm light behind the silhouette. This was a set and the practicals were set with all the scenes in mind but there is often a shot that needs a ‘tweak’.
Right! Interesting! Perhaps it was simply that the 50mm was easier to make. But for the movies wasn’t it also about projection? The viewer in the premium seat and their field of view being in sync with the camera on the set. I thought I read somewhere.
If I wanted the daylight and practical sources to be the same color temperature I would gel the window with CTO or use a daylight bulb in the lamps. I may have worked like that in the distant past but I more usually allow for some difference in color between light sources, as it more naturally appears to the eye. I just came from doing a remaster of ‘Thunderheart’, a film I shot many years ago now, and I noticed how I often used a bare tungsten bulb in locations that were primarily lit by the daylight coming through the window or doorway. I was bouncing tungsten sources off the ceiling or the wall to augment what the bare bulb was giving me and using the color variation as part of the ‘look’. My ‘moonlight’ was an HMI source, a Musco light, and I combined this with firelight allowing the color difference to be what it was, only using an 81EF on the camera to set the relationship in the middle as far as my tungsten balanced stock was seeing it.
