I Bloom
Well-known member
What is the role of a DIT in your crew? Has it changed over time? Do you see it changing in the future?
IBloom
IBloom
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
Ask David Mullen ANYTHING
- Thread starter Tom Lowe
- Start date
David Mullen ASC
Moderator
I shot one of the first F900 features ("Jackpot" 2001) before people were even talking about DIT's -- the camera was basically a betacam and I was familiar with those, so I set-up the menu for the look I wanted based on talking with various techs. Over the years I shot another eight or so projects on the F900 and just kept modifying my set-up based on experience from the previous project.
In general, my philosophy is that I don't have time on set to do post-production work like color-correction, and I don't want to create new looks scene by scene -- I approach digital like I did film, which is select a basic set of film stocks, filters, and a lab technique... and keep it simple: no more than three stocks if I could help it, a couple of looks, etc. Same goes for digital -- either there is a basic overall look I am going for day-to-day, knowing that in the final color-correction I can change things further, or there are a couple of variations on the basic look. In other words, if I am using LUT's, generally there are no more than three LUT's and often 90% is shot with one LUT.
So given that, the basic color issue is how to create that look on the set monitors and then how to carry that into dailies. A third might be how to get that information to continue onto the final color-correction but I am less draconian than some DP's about forcing the final colorist to work from the dailies grade, maybe because I'm usually involved in the final grade so I'm not paranoid about it not being done the way I want (and if producers and directors are determined to change the intended look, all the technology in the world isn't going to stop them anyway.)
So where does the DIT come into this? Do I need him on the set every day?
First of all, there is the issue of look creation. For me, that is done in pre-production, not on the set. So either I need a DIT during the testing phase or some other technician that knows these issues. Sometimes all I need is a little advice from the technicians at the rental house, sometimes I need the DIT there. Then there is the issue of applying that look (usually a LUT) every day on the set to the monitor image. Do I need a DIT, for example, to turn on the LUT box and monitors and check that the image looks more or less correct? And what if there is no LUT and the camera itself contains the gamma corrected monitor image signal? And what if it is never modified after pre-production? And then how is this look applied to dailies?
Second, there is the issue of camera maintenance, dealing with bugs, etc. The more cameras working on set, the more there is the need for overall supervision on this level, someone who knows the technology. Does that have to be the DIT? In the "old days" that was the job of the A-camera 1st AC working with his crews and coordinating with the rental house technicians for support. But DIT's have often taken on that responsibility when it goes outside the traditional problems with lenses, etc. because the digital camera technology was changing faster than the camera crews had time to learn. However, recently camera assistants have gotten so familiar with the latest digital cameras that they can handle software problems just as well as mechanical problems.
Third, there is the issue of data management, and the coordination of data from the shooting phase on set through post-production. Personally, since I don't do much in terms of on-set color-correction, this is a bigger issue for me, the workflow management. But again, this is also something that is usually figured out in prep and then stabilizes over the long term, the process of downloading, backing up, etc.
All of this suggests that in a short term project like a 3-day commercial, the DIT is more necessary because there is no time to get up to speed on color management, workflow, etc. before the shoot is over, but on a long term project like a TV series, if there are no day-to-day changes planned, then the whole system needs to be set-up at the head and tweaked early on, but after that, there are only two areas that need supervision: dailies creation and data management. Does that need a DIT? Certainly you need someone in charge of back-ups and delivering data to the post houses, etc. As for dailies, a recent development has been for dailies to be created in the camera truck, usually by the DIT since it involves some sort of color-correction system, plus no camera assistant has the time.
So back to my experience... I didn't have a DIT for all those low-budget F900 features I did because I could figure out most of that stuff myself. I had a DIT starting on a TV series I did using the Genesis, but I would say that he was somewhat under-utilized since mostly all he did was turn on the LUT box and the monitors and look for occasional problems. On the other hand, leaving all of that to camera assistants on top of their normal workload can be a problem too. I had a DIT on a pilot I shot on the Red camera partly because the AC's were so unfamiliar with the camera.
I had a DIT on a feature using the Epic again because he was the main person familiar with the camera but also because we had to generate dailies on the camera truck.
But I'm doing a TV series right now on the Alexa and we don't have a DIT. I was told up front that there was none in the budget anyway (and they said that the pilot didn't have one) so I had to figure out whether I could do this without one. So to address all of the issues I raised:
Look creation. I wanted to eliminate the need for a LUT box on set, just from the point of view that I think they are a bit silly, cameras themselves these days should have the ability to send out an adjustable gamma corrected signal to the monitor that is different than the signal recorded. It's an extra expense, it takes up room on the cart, and you often need one for each camera. The main argument for a LUT is mainly that the same LUT can be applied to the set monitors and used by the post houses to create dailies. Now in my case I was using the Alexa and I knew that it had the ability to load looks into the camera for the Rec.709 monitor output. But I also found out that the ARRI look files were not transferrable to the post houses for applying to the Log-C footage for making dailies. But my feeling was that since dailies were viewed by people on uncalibrated monitors, there were limits to how accurate I needed to make them anyway. What I needed was a LUT for dailies and an ARRI look for the camera that matched each other even if they were separately applied.
So I did something similar to what I do to create LUT's, which was to shoot some charts and faces in Log-C and take that to the post house to color-correct and build a LUT. In general what I was aiming for was a basic Log-to-Rec.709 correction but tweaked to my tastes (and I'm not a fan of the Alexa's built-in Rec.709 conversion.) So after that, I had a LUT for the creation of dailies. The problem was how to get that into the camera so that the monitor out on the set had the same look. We basically had the post house send a JPEG frame of a Log and then corrected Rec.709 version of my tests to the rental house (Panavision NYC in this case) and a technician there used ARRI's Look Creation software to create a look that matched the look of the LUT.
So now I had one look for the whole show that was loaded into the camera. I could have created more looks and more LUT's but again, my general inclination is to keep things simple, I can correct minor contrast issues later in the final color-correction, all of this was just for dailies.
The next issue was familiarity with the cameras. In this case, my first AC and his assistants knew the camera very well so they didn't need supervision, plus the Alexa has a simple menu system, etc.
Dailies were going to be created by the post house so I didn't need them created on the set.
(cont.)
In general, my philosophy is that I don't have time on set to do post-production work like color-correction, and I don't want to create new looks scene by scene -- I approach digital like I did film, which is select a basic set of film stocks, filters, and a lab technique... and keep it simple: no more than three stocks if I could help it, a couple of looks, etc. Same goes for digital -- either there is a basic overall look I am going for day-to-day, knowing that in the final color-correction I can change things further, or there are a couple of variations on the basic look. In other words, if I am using LUT's, generally there are no more than three LUT's and often 90% is shot with one LUT.
So given that, the basic color issue is how to create that look on the set monitors and then how to carry that into dailies. A third might be how to get that information to continue onto the final color-correction but I am less draconian than some DP's about forcing the final colorist to work from the dailies grade, maybe because I'm usually involved in the final grade so I'm not paranoid about it not being done the way I want (and if producers and directors are determined to change the intended look, all the technology in the world isn't going to stop them anyway.)
So where does the DIT come into this? Do I need him on the set every day?
First of all, there is the issue of look creation. For me, that is done in pre-production, not on the set. So either I need a DIT during the testing phase or some other technician that knows these issues. Sometimes all I need is a little advice from the technicians at the rental house, sometimes I need the DIT there. Then there is the issue of applying that look (usually a LUT) every day on the set to the monitor image. Do I need a DIT, for example, to turn on the LUT box and monitors and check that the image looks more or less correct? And what if there is no LUT and the camera itself contains the gamma corrected monitor image signal? And what if it is never modified after pre-production? And then how is this look applied to dailies?
Second, there is the issue of camera maintenance, dealing with bugs, etc. The more cameras working on set, the more there is the need for overall supervision on this level, someone who knows the technology. Does that have to be the DIT? In the "old days" that was the job of the A-camera 1st AC working with his crews and coordinating with the rental house technicians for support. But DIT's have often taken on that responsibility when it goes outside the traditional problems with lenses, etc. because the digital camera technology was changing faster than the camera crews had time to learn. However, recently camera assistants have gotten so familiar with the latest digital cameras that they can handle software problems just as well as mechanical problems.
Third, there is the issue of data management, and the coordination of data from the shooting phase on set through post-production. Personally, since I don't do much in terms of on-set color-correction, this is a bigger issue for me, the workflow management. But again, this is also something that is usually figured out in prep and then stabilizes over the long term, the process of downloading, backing up, etc.
All of this suggests that in a short term project like a 3-day commercial, the DIT is more necessary because there is no time to get up to speed on color management, workflow, etc. before the shoot is over, but on a long term project like a TV series, if there are no day-to-day changes planned, then the whole system needs to be set-up at the head and tweaked early on, but after that, there are only two areas that need supervision: dailies creation and data management. Does that need a DIT? Certainly you need someone in charge of back-ups and delivering data to the post houses, etc. As for dailies, a recent development has been for dailies to be created in the camera truck, usually by the DIT since it involves some sort of color-correction system, plus no camera assistant has the time.
So back to my experience... I didn't have a DIT for all those low-budget F900 features I did because I could figure out most of that stuff myself. I had a DIT starting on a TV series I did using the Genesis, but I would say that he was somewhat under-utilized since mostly all he did was turn on the LUT box and the monitors and look for occasional problems. On the other hand, leaving all of that to camera assistants on top of their normal workload can be a problem too. I had a DIT on a pilot I shot on the Red camera partly because the AC's were so unfamiliar with the camera.
I had a DIT on a feature using the Epic again because he was the main person familiar with the camera but also because we had to generate dailies on the camera truck.
But I'm doing a TV series right now on the Alexa and we don't have a DIT. I was told up front that there was none in the budget anyway (and they said that the pilot didn't have one) so I had to figure out whether I could do this without one. So to address all of the issues I raised:
Look creation. I wanted to eliminate the need for a LUT box on set, just from the point of view that I think they are a bit silly, cameras themselves these days should have the ability to send out an adjustable gamma corrected signal to the monitor that is different than the signal recorded. It's an extra expense, it takes up room on the cart, and you often need one for each camera. The main argument for a LUT is mainly that the same LUT can be applied to the set monitors and used by the post houses to create dailies. Now in my case I was using the Alexa and I knew that it had the ability to load looks into the camera for the Rec.709 monitor output. But I also found out that the ARRI look files were not transferrable to the post houses for applying to the Log-C footage for making dailies. But my feeling was that since dailies were viewed by people on uncalibrated monitors, there were limits to how accurate I needed to make them anyway. What I needed was a LUT for dailies and an ARRI look for the camera that matched each other even if they were separately applied.
So I did something similar to what I do to create LUT's, which was to shoot some charts and faces in Log-C and take that to the post house to color-correct and build a LUT. In general what I was aiming for was a basic Log-to-Rec.709 correction but tweaked to my tastes (and I'm not a fan of the Alexa's built-in Rec.709 conversion.) So after that, I had a LUT for the creation of dailies. The problem was how to get that into the camera so that the monitor out on the set had the same look. We basically had the post house send a JPEG frame of a Log and then corrected Rec.709 version of my tests to the rental house (Panavision NYC in this case) and a technician there used ARRI's Look Creation software to create a look that matched the look of the LUT.
So now I had one look for the whole show that was loaded into the camera. I could have created more looks and more LUT's but again, my general inclination is to keep things simple, I can correct minor contrast issues later in the final color-correction, all of this was just for dailies.
The next issue was familiarity with the cameras. In this case, my first AC and his assistants knew the camera very well so they didn't need supervision, plus the Alexa has a simple menu system, etc.
Dailies were going to be created by the post house so I didn't need them created on the set.
(cont.)
David Mullen ASC
Moderator
(cont.)
That brings up data management and workflow. As data-centric shows become more common, then the solutions become more common -- in this case, we did what a lot of shows are doing, which was to back-up to RAID's on the camera truck and send shuttle drives to the post houses. My camera assistant in this case was comfortable ordering all the equipment needed for this. The camera loader would handle all of the back-ups in the truck.
That left the monitors on the set. Already even on my shows with a DIT I had eliminated the whole DIT tent system after my first experience with it because I didn't like being separated from the director. So the DIT cart became the director's video village after that and had to be mobile. I was willing to give up some accuracy in monitoring to gain mobility and interaction with the directors (and frankly I think the DIT's preferred being part of the director village team.) In this case, with no LUT boxes and no day-to-day changes in look creation, I just needed someone to roll the cart around and plug it in. This ended up falling to the camera assistants since we have no playback people on this show. Personally there really needs to be at least a utility person in charge of this because in all the work to get the cameras moved and set-up, the monitor cart can get left behind for last, and with digital I need the monitors up in order to finish the lighting work. But we have it down pretty well and I don't have to wait too long.
An another issue is that as these cameras become wider and wider in dynamic range, the ability to screw up the exposure starts to go down. The truth is that with the 14-stops of DR in the Alexa, I could, if I wanted to, shoot it film style with just a light meter and no monitors at all. But where would be the fun in that? Live monitoring is one of the big advantages of digital for me. But my point is that I don't need a DIT to supervise my exposures (I didn't even back when I was shooting on the F900 -- I've never figured out why some people find it so hard to expose a scene correctly...)
But the issue I always bring up to producers whenever the DIT question comes up is one of coordination -- OK, so who does the work if not the DIT? Who figures out the data management and workflow? Who figures out the look creation and dailies creation and on-set monitoring issues? Who solves the camera software bugs that happen? My point is usually that someone has to. And if it is not one person, then if falls on multiple people who have to work in coordination. With the right people, the right AC, the right DP, the right post supervisor, the right rental house, the right post house, then often you can figure it all out. But if there is a weak link in the chain, then the work starts to fall under one person to coordinate.
To some degree it also depends on how stable the technology and workflows get, how standardized.
So if I were creating multiple looks daily on the set, I'd want a DIT. If I were creating dailies on the camera truck using color-correction software, i'd want a DIT. If I were using multiple digital cameras and multiple types of digital cameras and had a camera crew that didn't know all of them backwards and forewards, I'd want a DIT. If I were doing a commercial or other complex but short-term project, I'd want a DIT. If I were using cutting edge beta technology, I'd probably want a DIT. But in a simpler single-camera long-running show with only one look built, simple back-up systems in place on the camera truck, dailies done by the post house, a camera crew that knew the camera technology well, then the DIT seems less necessary except maybe in prep and the first few days of the show.
That brings up data management and workflow. As data-centric shows become more common, then the solutions become more common -- in this case, we did what a lot of shows are doing, which was to back-up to RAID's on the camera truck and send shuttle drives to the post houses. My camera assistant in this case was comfortable ordering all the equipment needed for this. The camera loader would handle all of the back-ups in the truck.
That left the monitors on the set. Already even on my shows with a DIT I had eliminated the whole DIT tent system after my first experience with it because I didn't like being separated from the director. So the DIT cart became the director's video village after that and had to be mobile. I was willing to give up some accuracy in monitoring to gain mobility and interaction with the directors (and frankly I think the DIT's preferred being part of the director village team.) In this case, with no LUT boxes and no day-to-day changes in look creation, I just needed someone to roll the cart around and plug it in. This ended up falling to the camera assistants since we have no playback people on this show. Personally there really needs to be at least a utility person in charge of this because in all the work to get the cameras moved and set-up, the monitor cart can get left behind for last, and with digital I need the monitors up in order to finish the lighting work. But we have it down pretty well and I don't have to wait too long.
An another issue is that as these cameras become wider and wider in dynamic range, the ability to screw up the exposure starts to go down. The truth is that with the 14-stops of DR in the Alexa, I could, if I wanted to, shoot it film style with just a light meter and no monitors at all. But where would be the fun in that? Live monitoring is one of the big advantages of digital for me. But my point is that I don't need a DIT to supervise my exposures (I didn't even back when I was shooting on the F900 -- I've never figured out why some people find it so hard to expose a scene correctly...)
But the issue I always bring up to producers whenever the DIT question comes up is one of coordination -- OK, so who does the work if not the DIT? Who figures out the data management and workflow? Who figures out the look creation and dailies creation and on-set monitoring issues? Who solves the camera software bugs that happen? My point is usually that someone has to. And if it is not one person, then if falls on multiple people who have to work in coordination. With the right people, the right AC, the right DP, the right post supervisor, the right rental house, the right post house, then often you can figure it all out. But if there is a weak link in the chain, then the work starts to fall under one person to coordinate.
To some degree it also depends on how stable the technology and workflows get, how standardized.
So if I were creating multiple looks daily on the set, I'd want a DIT. If I were creating dailies on the camera truck using color-correction software, i'd want a DIT. If I were using multiple digital cameras and multiple types of digital cameras and had a camera crew that didn't know all of them backwards and forewards, I'd want a DIT. If I were doing a commercial or other complex but short-term project, I'd want a DIT. If I were using cutting edge beta technology, I'd probably want a DIT. But in a simpler single-camera long-running show with only one look built, simple back-up systems in place on the camera truck, dailies done by the post house, a camera crew that knew the camera technology well, then the DIT seems less necessary except maybe in prep and the first few days of the show.
Martin Stevens
REDuser Sponsor
Thank you David for your detailed post.
It was a great read this Sunday morning.
It was a great read this Sunday morning.
Martin Stevens
REDuser Sponsor
I love this comment....and is what I have been doing....sort of.
The in-camera light meter is the real blessing.
Jon Carr
Well-known member
Hey David, I'm planning on shooting a long car scene in a studio and I was wondering what is the best idea to match the reflections of the car like in real life. i.e. passing trees, buildings, traffic lights at night. I was thinking shooting sky day/night footage first with my RED, then use a projector and when the car is on the green screen, project the b-roll on the car. But I'm a little worried about having green screen issues. I'm thinking that I should defiantly use them Green Kino bulbs on the screen to give the screen a more true green without the projector polluting the windshield. I also thought of making a rig using them old big christmas light moving over the car to make it look more convincing. But would need to be at a high height for a convincing out of focus look. My question is do you see any problems with doing the projector and green screen issues. Any advise would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you
Thank you
David Mullen ASC
Moderator
I wouldn't project reflections over glass with green screen in the background, your compositor can add the reflections himself after doing the composite with the background plate -- he might have trouble pulling a key if the glass has too much veiling reflections all over it. (But maybe not, some compositors like reflections in glass in front of green screen.)
But unless the shot is tight, it is often hard to create a projector screen large enough to fill the glass surface, except for the flat side windows -- curved glass sees a much larger area. As for reflections in the car body, again, it's not a bad idea though a compositor might be able to do that in post. And I'm not sure that will make it harder to remove the green spill that tends to happen on car surfaces. The interactive lighting is probably more important than the reflections on the car surface, which at least could just be achieved by reflecting pale blue or white over the surface for the day work.
If shooting through the side windows, some people have taken the same plate that is being rear-projected behind the background window and also reflected a second projection over the foreground window -- an early shot in "Bugsy" of Warren Beaty driving through the snow and trees did that. But this wasn't a green screen shot.
This all sounds like stuff to talk over with the person doing the compositing work.
But unless the shot is tight, it is often hard to create a projector screen large enough to fill the glass surface, except for the flat side windows -- curved glass sees a much larger area. As for reflections in the car body, again, it's not a bad idea though a compositor might be able to do that in post. And I'm not sure that will make it harder to remove the green spill that tends to happen on car surfaces. The interactive lighting is probably more important than the reflections on the car surface, which at least could just be achieved by reflecting pale blue or white over the surface for the day work.
If shooting through the side windows, some people have taken the same plate that is being rear-projected behind the background window and also reflected a second projection over the foreground window -- an early shot in "Bugsy" of Warren Beaty driving through the snow and trees did that. But this wasn't a green screen shot.
This all sounds like stuff to talk over with the person doing the compositing work.
Jon Carr
Well-known member
Thank you for your response. I'll talk to the compositor about it and see what he has to say about it.
Martin Stevens
REDuser Sponsor
Hello David,
At what ISO does the Epic-X have the same highlight latitude as the Alexa?
I have heard that the Epic-X has 4.5 stops of highlight latitude when set to 800 ISO (with HDRx off)
Have you found this to be true?
At what ISO does the Epic-X have the same highlight latitude as the Alexa?
I have heard that the Epic-X has 4.5 stops of highlight latitude when set to 800 ISO (with HDRx off)
Have you found this to be true?
David Mullen ASC
Moderator
I don't know the exact highlight range of the Epic at 800 ASA. ARRI claims that at 800 ASA, the dynamic range of the Alexa is equally split between shadows and highlights, so about 7-stops on each end. I think the Epic without HDRx has only a stop less dynamic range (and obviously has more with HDRx), so I guess (unscientifically) that it is about 13-stops... but I don't know the exact ASA where it is balanced evenly, but 800 ASA seems like a good starting point for testing purposes. But there are other things to factor in, like black levels and noise, which depending on how you like to color-correct things, will affect how much dynamic range is seen. I've found that at very wide f-stops (below f/2.0) combined with high ASA values (like 1600 ASA), the Alexa starts to get "foggy" and once you correct the blacks in post to pure black, there is less shadow information seen than you originally thought you had, so you have to mentally adjust for that when shooting.
Martin Stevens
REDuser Sponsor
Hello David,
Here is an extract from a Reduser web conversation I had with Graeme Nattress.
I am posting this for you to see because I am very interested in your take on this.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Martin Stevens:
So..(on the Epic)....does this mean that at ISO 800 there are an equal amount of
stops above and below middle gray? Can you answer this question directly?
Graeme Nattress:
No, at ISO800 there's still more stops below than there are above. I think there's 4.5 above at ISO800, but the stops below are personal noise tolerance defined, so we picked ISO800 as "good safe starting point".
Martin Stevens:
So at what ISO do we need to rate Epic MX so that the amount of highlight latitude
is equal to that of modern 35mm Negative?
I'm not including HDRx in this.
Graeme Nattress:
Martin, I did measure 5219 while working on REDLogFilm, to help me understand how film "works" so to speak - I'd have to go back through my notes and see. I remember the "overall" dynamic range being very similar though between RED One M-X and the 5219.
Martin Stevens:
In my mind 35mm Neg always seems to have its ISO set so that say out of the 14 stops of DR
that it has the highlight latitude is about 8 stops
and the shadow latitude is about 6 stops.
So to get the MX to match this a very high ISO would be needed, maybe ISO 6400. Am I crazy?
Thank you a million times for HDRx! Love your work!
Graeme Nattress:
Definitely more in the highlight side of things than shadow - which is severely grain-limited. It's also tricky because of the smooth highlight roll-off and how to compare that to the linear nature of a digital sensor which gives increasing information in highlights until it stops, rather than less and less and less and less until it's all gone. They're different beasts...
- - - - - - - - - - -
Thanks for your time David.
Here is an extract from a Reduser web conversation I had with Graeme Nattress.
I am posting this for you to see because I am very interested in your take on this.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Martin Stevens:
So..(on the Epic)....does this mean that at ISO 800 there are an equal amount of
stops above and below middle gray? Can you answer this question directly?
Graeme Nattress:
No, at ISO800 there's still more stops below than there are above. I think there's 4.5 above at ISO800, but the stops below are personal noise tolerance defined, so we picked ISO800 as "good safe starting point".
Martin Stevens:
So at what ISO do we need to rate Epic MX so that the amount of highlight latitude
is equal to that of modern 35mm Negative?
I'm not including HDRx in this.
Graeme Nattress:
Martin, I did measure 5219 while working on REDLogFilm, to help me understand how film "works" so to speak - I'd have to go back through my notes and see. I remember the "overall" dynamic range being very similar though between RED One M-X and the 5219.
Martin Stevens:
In my mind 35mm Neg always seems to have its ISO set so that say out of the 14 stops of DR
that it has the highlight latitude is about 8 stops
and the shadow latitude is about 6 stops.
So to get the MX to match this a very high ISO would be needed, maybe ISO 6400. Am I crazy?
Thank you a million times for HDRx! Love your work!
Graeme Nattress:
Definitely more in the highlight side of things than shadow - which is severely grain-limited. It's also tricky because of the smooth highlight roll-off and how to compare that to the linear nature of a digital sensor which gives increasing information in highlights until it stops, rather than less and less and less and less until it's all gone. They're different beasts...
- - - - - - - - - - -
Thanks for your time David.
David Mullen ASC
Moderator
I trust Graeme on this, though I don't think of Red MX and 5219 having the same dynamic range, at least not in how it affects real-world shooting scenarios -- film negative still seems more tolerant of exposure mistakes. The fact that density does not increase linearly with exposure on film means that there is a long roll off into the dark and bright ends of the spectrum, though grain-limited in the shadows just as digital is noise-limited in the shadows. I don't know the magic ASA number but obviously you can bias the digital camera towards highlights by rating it faster.
The behavior of film negative towards exposure is just so different than a digital sensor that to some degree, you just have to accept that it's hard to make one behave like the other in all situations.
The behavior of film negative towards exposure is just so different than a digital sensor that to some degree, you just have to accept that it's hard to make one behave like the other in all situations.
Martin Stevens
REDuser Sponsor
Thanks for your time and reply.
Okay, so is shooting with the EPIC-X at 800 ISO going to give me enough highlight protection?
Would you personally use the Epic at 800 ISO if you were shooting a feature?
Do you know at what ISO Ridley Scott's "Prometheus" movie is shooting at?
Or at what ISO "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" shot at?
Sorry if I am posting too many questions.
James B.
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Lighting the interior of a Bell Tower
Lighting the interior of a Bell Tower
Hi David.
For a recent project I am tasked with lighting the interior of a bell tower.
- A roughly 40ft square space,
- dark brick walls,
- dark with no existing light except for 2 lone incandescents on opposing walls, slight ambient light from below
- very limited access, a narrow catwalk along 3 sides
-3 power outlets on 1 wall only
An amateur video clip that will give some idea of the challenge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERcEWRxCmCs
I have very few resources and lights at my disposal and may need to rent, can you suggest a couple approaches you might take with
a)- a VERY limited budget
b)- an unlimited budget
Thanks in advance for any feedback!
Lighting the interior of a Bell Tower
Hi David.
For a recent project I am tasked with lighting the interior of a bell tower.
- A roughly 40ft square space,
- dark brick walls,
- dark with no existing light except for 2 lone incandescents on opposing walls, slight ambient light from below
- very limited access, a narrow catwalk along 3 sides
-3 power outlets on 1 wall only
An amateur video clip that will give some idea of the challenge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERcEWRxCmCs
I have very few resources and lights at my disposal and may need to rent, can you suggest a couple approaches you might take with
a)- a VERY limited budget
b)- an unlimited budget
Thanks in advance for any feedback!
Last edited:
juliensees
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2010
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
miniatures
miniatures
Hi David,
I was wondering if you've had any experience lighting miniature sets and if there's any special things to take into account. Is it better to shoot with macro lenses or are long lenses fine? Are there certain aspects that help to make it look life-size? Or is it mostly the production design?
miniatures
Hi David,
I was wondering if you've had any experience lighting miniature sets and if there's any special things to take into account. Is it better to shoot with macro lenses or are long lenses fine? Are there certain aspects that help to make it look life-size? Or is it mostly the production design?
David Mullen ASC
Moderator
I assume this is a night interior -- I'd mainly go with adding more wall practicals than would happen in real life, you can always turn some off -- add some more light bulbs on walls or fluorescent strips, maybe even tubes along the base of the railings or walls, or uplight from below as if there is a brighter source below. The only thing I'd do differently on a big movie would be to build it on a set and make it more camera friendly, with the extra practicals. You can augment the lighting in various ways like putting a Chinese Lantern on a boom pole.
David Mullen ASC
Moderator
The main problem is depth of field, you need to light to a really deep stop. Generally wide-angle lenses up close are used to make the miniature look bigger, and you want to consider where the camera lens goes and how it moves as if you were shooting a real object, a move that would be two hundred feet in the air in real life, for example, would likely be a helicopter shot (hence why often miniatures are shot from a low angle to simulate a normal person's perspective). I also find that smaller lenses like Innovision probe lenses are useful to simulate the point of view of a relatively smaller subject looking up at the miniature. And relay optics help get the lens into spots that the camera body can't fit into. Of course, besides the deep stop, the lighting has to be realistic. Macro lenses are useful just because of the minimum focus limitation of normal lenses, if you have to be close to the miniature -- a lot of normal lenses don't focus closer than 1.5 feet or so.
Marc Wielage
Well-known member
BTW, David, congrats on the new NBC show Smash -- one of the best-looking shows of the season. Absolutely terrific look. Major kudos -- this is feature quality work on TV, for sure. Very lush, rich, and beautiful, from what I've seen so far.
For people who want to watch the show right now (a week prior to the official air after the Superbowl), here's a link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu4oYy8VgHQ&list=PL14C2D6BDC6252435&index=1&feature=plcp
Even viewed in standard-def, this is an extraordinarily well-lit show. The juxtaposition between fantasy and reality is particularly good.
For people who want to watch the show right now (a week prior to the official air after the Superbowl), here's a link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu4oYy8VgHQ&list=PL14C2D6BDC6252435&index=1&feature=plcp
Even viewed in standard-def, this is an extraordinarily well-lit show. The juxtaposition between fantasy and reality is particularly good.
David Mullen ASC
Moderator
Thanks, though the pilot seen on that YouTube clip was shot by Shelly Johnson, ASC -- if you want to see more of my stuff, look at the upcoming scenes at the end of the clip, though some shots haven't been completely timed yet.
Marc Wielage
Well-known member
I coulda sworn your name is in the credits! Maybe I blinked. The clips look dynamite, though. I hope the show does well.