Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I don’t think you are overthinking it but only you can say for sure! The lamp you use is preferably one that has a even spread rather than a hot spot and an uneven surround . I would use a Fresnel when in close and required some control of the beam size and intensity but an open face light when I was after something more substantial from further away. Personally, I do not like using a par as a bounce light.
This particular scene was lit by the overhead florescent tubes as you suggest. The idea of this kind of lighting came from a location we scouted before we built the set. I did add an extra 2′ tube to soften the light from these fixtures depending on the camera angle but that was all. In fact, I did use some small squares of black cloth to reduce the natural bounce off the set walls.
The small conical shades, and the paper hanging off them, that are the main source of light when the projectors are in operation, were also a mirror of the way the lighting was rigged in another working location that we scouted.
I thin k you could simply shoot this with black velvet drape but I would be careful about what your character is wearing. If the black is not dense enough you should be able to crunch it with a window in timing. You could shoot this inside or at night outside. You only need black in the area directly interacting with the character.
I don’t understand the suggestion to look at the digital exposure and then add 1 or 2 stops to the film. That makes no sense. An exposure is an exposure. Of course, that will vary depending on the speed of the film verses that of the digital camera and you may prefer the look of a ‘thick negative’ but that you can only find out by personal experience.
We shot most of the film under cloud cover but you have it wrong regarding this sequence. This was shot at magic hour as I needed not only the feeling of first light but I was balancing to the firelight sources. To have tried that balance during the day would not have worked. The particular shot pictured was rehearsed extensively during the day and that is no doubt where the lower image comes from.
When Scofield is in the river we did shoot that during the day and I remember the day distinctly, constantly studying the Dark Skies App and our long wait for the cloud cover it promised to arrive.
I should add that this was a shot that required very little adjustment in the DI. In fact, there were very few shots in the film that needed much adjustment in the DI.
The filters I used on ‘BR 2049’ were purely to adjust color and not effecting the image in any other way and I do sometimes use an ND grad. The last time I used a filter such as a Pro Mist or a similar kind of diffusion was for a film in 1985 and, yes, I did regret doing so.
I use my meter and my eyes. If you are thinking about zones and studying every aspect of the exposure range across the shot then you might just miss the shot. Ansel Adams was working to his own schedule and, for the most part, taking shots of landscapes that were static. That is hardly the same as a modern film set and you can’t but envy him.
I did consider a number of hand held variations of lighting for the daytime work but that was a little ‘overthinking’. In the end the lighting just didn’t make sense as the speeds and space restrictions were too much to deal with. The hardest part of the shoot was the waiting for cloudy conditions. When any cloud came over it always seemed the pressure was on me to say we could shoot or not. I guess that was true. But, thankfully, we were pretty much all in sync about what it would take to make the ‘one shot’ work. In fact we didn’t shoot at all on our first day!
To maintain consistency, I did have a remote control beside my camera head controls, which either I or my DIT was adjusting depending on which piece of equipment the camera was mounted on. With the Steadicam, I could be on the wheel. With the Trinity I had one hand on the tilt control and the other on the aperture and when we were on the Stabileye I was talking Josh, my DIT, through the exposure changes.
My M8 with its original sensor seems totally fine but the sensor on my monochrome M9 de laminated. But the upgrade sensor is very nice and the M9 is my favorite camera.
I will sometimes adjust my lighting after I watch a camera rehearsal and I might make a few more ‘tweaks’ between takes. I think that is part of the process, and especially so when you are seeing an actor in costume and make up for the first time. But when shooting some actors, or some particularly delicate scenes, you know that it is better to compromise and shoot. There is a balance and many more people are involved in creating the end result than just you. Any time you step onto a film set and look through a camera it involves some sort of personal compromise.
It has happened that I felt the need to make a large adjustment to a lighting set up. But its also happened that the director or I will discover a ‘better’ camera shot. Or, maybe the actor will find an entirely different way to play the scene and then everything changes! But its all part of the process of exploration we go through.
There are no rules. When do you think it distracts? You c]an see from my work when I have used a ‘blue moonlight’ and where I have avoided it. Its about personal taste.
That is an interesting question. There was a distinct shift in the shadows when you pulled an 85 and shot a tungsten balanced stock in daylight. I did this throughout ‘Shawshank’ but only for specific scenes of other films. As I understand it the Alexa was, originally, more sensitive to blue light. I certainly did some side by side tests before I shot my first film with an Alexa but I found little, if any, discernible difference between shooting for a tungsten and daylight balance.
I don’t remember the specific material. I used it on ‘Shawshank’ so that was a long time ago. Tarp might well be too dense but that will depend on what lights you have. What I was thinking of was equivalent to a 216 or even less dense than that.
