Lighting

Posted on by
Back to Lighting...

Exposure Index (3 replies and 2 comments)

ThomasMiceli
1 month ago
ThomasMiceli 1 month ago

Hi Roger,

Today in lecture I looked at exposure index and looked at work of David Fischer and his work on light. The way he makes a scene dark but makes you focus on the dark parts, also without them being grainy. So I was thinking about the scene in 1917 with Colin Firth. Was that much more exposed than it looks? But I know those candles, you said, were the only source of light...

Thomas Miceli

dmullenasc
1 month ago
dmullenasc 1 month ago

Do you mean David Fincher?  He's known for underexposing in order to work at low light levels and then taking everything through an expensive de-noise process at Lowry Digital and then re-adding a certain consistent level of noise/grain.  At least he did starting with "Panic Room" (Super 35) and all through his Viper movies.  Not sure if he's been doing that with his Red camera movies.  

ThomasMiceli
1 month ago

Yes sorry! Fincher, that was autocorrected

Roger Deakins
1 month ago
Roger Deakins 1 month ago

That scene in '1917' was exposed the way you see it in the film, neither 'printed' down or 'up'.

adamf
1 month ago

Hi Roger,

I saw 1917 today, stunning on so many levels: it’s still sinking in. The night/early morning hours scene with the town on fire, the lead’s silhouette in front of the burning building is sticking with me. The guys looking through the window frame of the only standing wall...had me flashback to 1984.

However, with regards to the Colin Firth scene, was there any bounce setup going on to augment the lantern lights, unbleached muslin or other etc, what was the setup?

Roger Deakins
1 month ago
Roger Deakins 1 month ago

That scene in the bunker was lit using the 'oil' lamps and nothing else. As I have said elsewhere, the lamps held 500watt quartz bulbs dimmed down to about 25%. The intensity of each varied as the camera changed position.

Back to Lighting...