Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Indie filmmaking strategies?

G

GlennChan

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
933
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.glennchan.info
Just throwing an idea out there about a potential way of shooting an indie feature with Red...

What if you shot your entire movie with very minimal lighting, and let Red's exposure latitude + color grading in post take care of the lighting?

By doing this, the production saves time + money by spending less time on lighting setups. Very minimal color grading could be performed for screening the movie. If it receives distribution, more detailed color grading work can be performed. This defers your costs, which is a good thing if the film doesn't receive substantial distribution (and chances are, would happen most of the time). Shooting this style allows good screenplays/stories to rise to the top and go through with distribution + polishing.

How much would you need to light?

You'd certainly try to take advantage of natural light a lot, and shoot fast before the sun changes too much. Possibly shoot with two cameras, to shoot even faster. Shooting in Hollywood helps too, since they tend to have more days of sunlight there.

Play location lemonade to get locations with good light. A single light (or a few) could be used to add particular lighting effects where needed. Certain lighting 'flaws' could be finessed in post (although this would likely be more expensive than doing it right in the first place). For example, if it was an overcast day, it would be possible to re-light the shot in post to add some modeling and light onto the faces of the talent.

Definitely see the following article to see where I'm coming from (/ stealing this idea from). Dale Launer talks about his experience in indie digital filmmaking.
http://www.dalelauner.com/press/digitalcinema.html

Where this won't work

The problem with shooting a film this way is that it may be hard to get a big theatrical release. Movies with star power are much easier to market and are profitable. But if you're paying for stars, then you might as well:
(A) Shoot like how Hollywood movies have always been shot, with big production values and lighting and so on and so forth.
(B) Shoot it all in a green screen studio and use virtual sets, like Sin City. Shooting in a studio probably allows you to shoot faster + cheaper than shooting on location with mostly natural light.
 
Hi Glenn,

I have found the below principles to be true.

If you can light, it doesn't matter what you shoot with.

If you can't light, it doesn't matter what you shoot with.


I have always found without question the light is the key to good images.
 
Yup, that's my WHOLE strategy . . .

• Find locations that are already lit right, and shoot it there.
• Find locations that already look "just right" at a certain time of the day, and shoot there.
• If you're shooting in a location where you need four 18Ks, a 20' x 20' silk AND a crane to hold it, plus a truckload of other grip equipment, you're either shooting in the WRONG location, or shooting it at the WRONG time of day!

My daily life is occupied with, "Hmmmm . . . that parking lot is REALLY well-lit, AND it's all Mercury-vapor! Note to self . . ." "Wow, at 4:47PM in the spring, the sun hits that location at JUST the RIGHT angle . . . Note to self . . . etc." My basic location rule to myself is, "If I can't light it with a Kamio, a Diva, or one HMI, I simply can't shoot it." This applies of course mainly to locations I am STEALING (basically, all of them).
 
I was recently on the set of a major network television show (1-hour drama) doing some BTS. The sun and the sky were cooperating (plus they had the luxury of shooting on 35mm film), so the entire exterior scene looked like 100 Musco lights through a giant half-grid and a celocuke. They had a major location exterior scene with Steadicam, dolly track, principals, extras, stunt players, mechanical effects, high-speed cameras, etc. Not a single HMI or silk or ANYTHING was used by the DP. It was already "right."
 
To throw a brief two-cents into this discussion, I think there's a time and place for everything. Not every shoot can be lit in post. With that said, not every shoot needs a sun on a condor. Just know which battles to pick. Is it a day exterior? Maybe a few shinys and a big silk will do it. Is it a one-line insert of some unimportant character? Maybe their light can suck for all 3 seconds they'll be on the screen.

But what if it's an important scene? What if it's a key moment? What if it's a night exterior? Being a D.P. is not just being a camera operator. Equipment is necessary, but know when to bring it out. You can do a lot with a little or a lot with a lot. Put it in the right place.

Case in point... here are a few production stills from a shoot I just completed. The day interiors? A few kinos and some bounce. The day exteriors? Some shinys, mirrors and cards. All fast, cheap stuff. But the night exterior finale? You can't do everything in post. If you need to spend the money, put the money on the screen.

I blame the director.
 
Well, just to make myself clear [cool BTS photos, Brook!] . . .

I would NEVER condone or practice, "making up for bad/inadequate lighting in post." My strategy is basically, "don't shoot anything that isn't already 'okay.'" Does that kinda make sense? Brook's advice is excellent, "Just know which battles to pick . . ."
 
I plan to shoot my Red feature with basically all natural light, ala my hero Terrence Malick. If I can get away with it, it will be mostly shot around magic hours and at night lit by candles, practicals and firelight.
 
Tom said:
I plan to shoot my Red feature with basically all natural light, ala my hero Terrence Malick. If I can get away with it, it will be mostly shot around magic hours and at night lit by candles, practicals and firelight.
Click to expand...
Sounds NICE! Yup, a million shoot days of magic hour! That's purdy stuff! Like Days of Heaven, huh?
 
Ralph Oshiro said:
Sounds NICE! Yup, a million shoot days of magic hour! That's purdy stuff! Like Days of Heaven, huh?
Click to expand...

Yep! But imagine Days of Heaven shot in Yosemite, Tahoe, Moab, Arches, Mojave, Joshua Tree, Baja, etc, plus toss in about 40 motion-controlled timelapses, ala Baraka, and that's the insanity I'm hoping to pull off. :)
 
Capturing and harnessing the right lighting conditions (in the case of natural light), and creating and capturing the right lighting conditions (in the case of artificial light) are something we all need to do on a regular basis. Either way, we have to manipulate the technology we're using in a way that will most accurately record what we're trying to say to the viewers with the shot. I love working with natural light as much as possible. To me, nature is the original and greatest artist by far, and all we as artists can try to do is manipulate, copy, record, and/or present it accurately.

Narrative cinema is but one of the many potential genres of production of RED One, and narrative cinema with artificial light is one option within that genre, when a script calls for it. I really like the quote about lighting that Finner made, and I've heard it before. It’s very true – working effectively with light is the foundation of all image making, whether still or motion. One observation on that: in artificial lighting we create and manipulate the lighting, but in natural lighting we don't create the lighting, but we do manipulate it. I think an experienced shooter, who shoots multiple genres and styles, can readily shift gears between creating images in natural and artificial lighting, and combinations thereof. Time is money on any set or production of any genre, thus a shooter must quickly and accurately choose, setup, and record images in the proper lighting for each shot.

None of what I've said above is any news to seasoned pros in the image recording business. But there are also some intermediate and novice shooters who visit this forum, so I've summarized those concepts for their benefit.
 
I have always found without question the light is the key to good images.

Obviously this strategy isn't about making your images look good... it's about focusing on story. The light (and shadows) just have to be good enough to not detract from the story. Beyond good enough, I don't think that good lighting makes too big a difference on the final product. Things like reality TV show that audiences will watch something even if it has mediocre-looking images.

Certainly if you have a big budget, then it would make sense to put some time into lighting and you'll likely attract a slightly larger audience with your higher production values. But at the same time, it's still the content that makes or breaks a production.

EDIT: I don't mean to be condescending here, just throwing some ideas out there for discussion! :)
 
Glenn, I think you've hit on a valid point of the image marketplace, and that is that what we as artists conceive as good images/lighting, and what the public will readily watch and enjoy, don't always coincide. Whatever production values support and compliment the genre and storyline can be the correct choice. Certain projects, genres and content simply don't call for "filmic" image properties, and its economically and aesthetically impractical to spend the time to put them into such projects.

"Look & feel" are determined by genre, content, budget, end-user preferences, and aesthetically-dictated needs of each project.
 
With a good eye, you should be fine with a minimal package. Sven Nyquist (or somebody) gave an example between big budget Hollywood and low budget European lighting going from inside to out using a couple of branches to produce shade outside the door, rather than lighting up the whole interior.

I hope RED will have the option of higher ASA ratings to be able to use available light as much as possible, even if it ends up a little noisy. Say enough to just use some old lamp in a cheap motelroom in the middle of nowhere.
 
agwah said:
I hope RED will have the option of higher ASA ratings to be able to use available light as much as possible, even if it ends up a little noisy. Say enough to just use some old lamp in a cheap motelroom in the middle of nowhere.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. RED appears to be very clean. If there was a way to push the gain it would be nice.

Also, I'd recommend anyone interested in natural lighting rent the Soderberg movie "Bubble" and listen to his commentary. I think only one scene in the movie was lit with anything other than what they found on location. Can't say I always liked the lighting - but I found it to be a very compelling way to work.
 
Small is beautiful

Small is beautiful

It has been discussed that shooting in 4k and then downrezzing to 2k or 1080 for edit will have the effect of adding a stop of latitude in the shadows. I cannot detail just what the physics are on that but if true it will be great for shooting with fewer footcandles.

The right type of light coming from the right places, falling on the right places, adding the right atmospherics is still a part of how we tell stories. My hope is to be smart about the use of available light, as many in this thread have suggested but I also plan to add light quite often - what I am hoping is that I can use smaller instruments.

Big grip trucks and gennys can make great images but are expensive and make permits mandatory. I'm thinking a 5 head Arri kit, a couple of peppers and plenty of bouncers can accomplish a lot. I also think that IF the handling of blown out highlights is smooth enough that exposing for the skin tone (or whatever makes sense in your scene) and letting the top end go could work for a lot of material. If the RedOne can deliver 11+ stops of latitude and the lens/filtration you choose mellows any harsh edging then perhaps we can use more of the film approach where you properly expose the shadows and let the highlights blow.

Add in the power of RAW image manipulation...
 
For low-budget projects, perhaps a better approach would be to light with just one or two lights (with the exception of scenes that need more light)? One light takes less time to setup compared to multiple light sources.

To avoid nasty shadows on the talent's face, you only need a single light (e.g. a soft source near the camera lens, or above it). If the overall light levels are too low, then you can likely get away with a single light for night scenes (that light = "moonlight").

To get decent close-ups, you only need two lights. The first light is the key, ambient light (or a reflector) provides fill. The second light can add rim light, hair light, back light, or it can light the background. With two lights, you should be able to get good modeling on the subject's face with separation from the background.

Most of the time, a soft light source won't create too many additional problems (i.e. shadow) that would require time or another light to fix. Go hard light where you want stylistic shadows. If you look at Dale Launer's movie, ~45% of the shots were lit with a Kinoflo.

2- Power:
Unless you're shooting lots of day exteriors, a modestly powerful HMI should be powerful enough for your needs.

Day exteriors are difficult to do to begin with. Perhaps the best thing to do is to hope that the weather behaves, and shoot quickly before it changes too much. If there are no clouds, bounce light into the talent's face.

If it's partly cloudy, then the light is probably nice (do nothing). If it's cloudy, then you might need to fix that shot in post (which may be expensive and the time/money deferred until you get distribution); or use a single HMI to add some modeling. Or, just wait or shoot another day.
 
agwah said:
I hope RED will have the option of higher ASA ratings to be able to use available light as much as possible, even if it ends up a little noisy. Say enough to just use some old lamp in a cheap motelroom in the middle of nowhere.
Click to expand...

It should be able to. Semler was quoted in AC saying that the Genesis was doing something like 1200-2500 ISO on the Apocalypto shoot!! Even if red could do 800 or so, that would be fab for night firelight scenes, etc.
 
I obviously believe that the Red is going to be an excellent camera, but I don't think that it will be good enough to make it unneccessary to do things right in the first place. "We'll fix it in post" is never a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top