Help: Skin Tone or Low Light OLPF?

[Kyle Kelley]

I'm shooting a short soon, and it is the first time I will have a choice between the skin tone OLPF and the low light OLPF.

Here's the situation:
--The majority of the script takes place in a run down home that we want to feel as though is being lit entirely from sunlight (so no practicals). ---We're aiming to expose for the windows (at say 1-2 stops over, max)
--our subjects will be lit by ambient daylight (likely an 800 booklight), "sunlight" floor bounce, and will occasionally pass through hot spots on the floor.
--because we'll be exposing for the outdoors, it will be relatively high contrast, at times even bordering on silhouette (at least when shooting from the fill side)
--I'm planning to shoot at a T4 or T4/5.6 split
--my gaffer thinks we can get our ISO down to 500 with the units we'll have


So my question is this -- this isn't a traditional "low light" scenario. It's high contrast with some areas that will be very well exposed and others that could be 3-4 stops under, but are meant to be dark. Is this a situation that could be handled well by the ST OLPF? From the (admittedly brief) tests I've done, I like the results I'm getting from that over the LL. That said, if it's just going to result in crazy noise, the LL may be the better option. Thoughts???


I know OLPF questions have been covered extensively here, so if this question has already been answered in another thread, please direct me there!

 

[Terry VerHaar]

As an aside, it's REALLY hard to read your post with the black text.

 

[Ryan Emanuel]

Choosing an OLPF is really just choosing what game you wanna play, is it an over exposure game or an underexposure game. With the highlight OLPF you won't really have to worry about the sunlight coming through the window clipping or not, the role off is pleasing to the eye, but you will have to pay close attention to underexposure, exactly how many stops under would you like to go for your key for your fill for you background, that will determine how much noise you'll get at 500 ISO. Noise is really tricky to advise because everyone has different thresholds. Personally I feel like I can underexpose middle grey by 1.5 stops at 500 ISO and I'm still pleased with the performance, but thats just me though.

 

[Detlev Eller]

As an aside, it's REALLY hard to read your post with the black text.

confirmed.

 

[Robino_J]

Got my Dragon last Friday with the STOLPF installed and I ordered the LLO separately. In retrospect I didn't need the LLO. Really, I bought it because of all the threads about noise and stuff - I wanted to make sure I was covered.

Personally I prefer the STOLPF by a LOT. Colors, range, rolloff etc.. I would say get both like I did, maybe one day you'll find yourself in a situation where you want to screw it in there - and it's not that expensive ($200) for RED gear

 

[Tony Mac]

If you'll have plenty of light and will be shooting into sources or windows a lot, I would say go with the STH OLPF. The highlight roll off is more pleasing to look at.

 

[Milan S.]

STH all day every day. Unless you are reduced to practicals and have to push beyond 640 ISO.

 

[Chris Hagan]

I shot this example using the STH OLPF at ISO 800. Our key was a 1200W HMI with a silk blasting in through the left window. I used a daylight balanced Kino in the rafters as an ambient fill. Lens was at an f/8. When I went in for close ups I opened up to an f/2 and added ND. No color grade, DEB, or ADD. I like shooting with a lot of light but that doesn't mean you can't have contrast. Keep the goal posts and stop lights in check and you'll be fine.

Download R3D still

 

[Ryan Emanuel]

I shot this example using the STH OLPF at ISO 800. Our key was a 1200W HMI with a silk blasting in through the left window. I used a daylight balanced Kino in the rafters as an ambient fill. Lens was at an f/8. When I went in for close ups I opened up to an f/2 and added ND. No color grade, DEB, or ADD. I like shooting with a lot of light but that doesn't mean you can't have contrast. Keep the goal posts and stop lights in check and you'll be fine.

Download R3D still

I have to disagree, I think it the case of this r3d it would have been better for LLO, the background is 3 stops under and the talent is 1 stop under for the key and the window is clipped at least for red gamma 4. It this instance since the window is already gone with the same lighting I would have chosen LLO and gotten cleaner underexposure. 3 stops under is a bit much for middle grayish objects that should have detail on the skin tone OLPF at 800. The goal posts on skin tone is not as important as fill light and contrast ratios.

 

[Mark Wilkinson]

The only reason to shoot this LLO is if f8 was the dominant creative element and you wanted more exposure.

If not, then I would have recommended opening up a stop and rating at 400 to get a slightly cleaner grain structure. But that's me, I like a cleaner image. As it is, I doubt grain is much of an issue crushed like that.

Adding fill would change the mood of the shot - which I assume Chris was happy with.

 

[Kyle Kelley]

Thanks for all the input. Sorry about the black text in the initial post -- I wrote it on the subway and just copied and pasted from my notes app without realizing that it copied the text formatting.

 

[Ryan Emanuel]

I wasn't saying that he should have added fill, I was saying that using red gamma 4 in this case will clip that window which I assume was the desired look as well. Since that window is gone even with the Skin tone, then LLO would have produced better fidelity in the darks with the same ratios.

 

[Chris Hagan]

I agree, the LLOLPF is a better choice. I posted to illustrate that the STH isn't as awful with blacks as some believe. There's an obvious misconception there. I will add that I liked the shot from a technical standpoint at f/5.6 but the director liked the f/8 from a creative standpoint. In hindsight I should have rated at 400 (because everyone wins) but my mind went to the aperture in that moment. Thanks for the feedback.