Lighting bill plumets using EPIC.

[Mark Toia]

Hi Everyone,

I've finished all my EPIC tests a couple of days ago, I'm back on the horse working on another project in Jakarta this time. (never at home these days)

We are working on a few quotations out of the US, Europe and Asia at the moment and we often go back to older jobs for reference.
One thing that dawned on us the other day was how our lighting (gaffa) quotations have plummeted over the last 12 months. We still hire Gaffas but really.. hardly any gear comes out any more. Well only a small percentage of what we did use.
The latitude and range of the chips these days are so bloody good in hi contrast situations and low light situations that large lamp fill is almost non existent anymore. In Shots were I'd throw up an 18k without even thinking twice to fill a shot under a tree through a 20x20 trace... gone. Generator gone, best boy gone... time delays waiting to set it all up also gone... Trucks have turned to Vans, Hmi's turned to small LED panels or bounce boards...

Example from EPIC...

http://www.zoomfilmtv.com.au/ftp/Dynamic_range/no_lights_in_hi_contrast.mov

Now what is really sad about this is that I have many good friends with huge lighting trucks. Great guys, been using them for years!, but it's really taking it's toll on that industry.
I think we should all support our lighting guys. Even if we don't need them anymore. It's up to them to modify what they own or have in there trucks, but it's up to us to keep them employed.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

All that latitude or speed doesn't really help much when you have to recreate daylight after the sun has gone down. If you need to create sunlight falling through a big window, you are still going to need a big lamp, it just might be a 6K HMI instead of a 12K HMI. The reasons you use big lights are not necessarily due to the speed of the camera or the latitude, you use them to substitute for big sources in real life, like a big sky or the sun, where a tiny light isn't going to create the same feeling. Sure, if I can rate a camera at 1000 ASA instead of 500 ASA, I can either use a lamp half as bright or I can stop down the lens by one-stop, and that's convenient. But the need for large units to recreate sunlight on a large scale, or light a large area at night (let's say a field in the middle of the country lit for moonlight) doesn't go away just because the speed of the camera has improved or the latitude.

I would say that the decrease in the amount of lighting being used is just as much due to stylistic trends (greater interest in available light photography), and/or budgetary concerns, as is due to technology.

The Epic is fast, and so is the Alexa, and that's great, but let's not exaggerate what another stop of sensitivity gains you in terms of the need for lighting a scene.

 

[paulherrin]

haha, that's maybe a little extreme... i love lights and i'd hate to see them go, but as david mentions, i do love working with the environment a little bit as well using some available light as the starting point. lighting is without question the most important thing to capturing images in many ways. without light, we wouldn't be able to survive of course, and neither we or our cameras could see anything. but really, being able to sculpt light is a huge factor in storytelling and in creating beautiful artwork. sometimes that doesn't take much, and sometimes that means the big boys bringing the big lights. they'll be okay as long as they are dedicated and listen to wisdom and the winds of change blowing.

 

[Christian Munoz D]

Mark,
I agree with David. I think stylistic situations and recreation of light on specific scenes is reason enough to keep our electrical department working safe for a very long time...

 

[J Davis]

hey Mark a quick question ... is that with or without HDRx ?

 

[Rob Ruffo]

All that latitude or speed doesn't really help much when you have to recreate daylight after the sun has gone down. If you need to create sunlight falling through a big window, you are still going to need a big lamp, it just might be a 6K HMI instead of a 12K HMI. The reasons you use big lights are not necessarily due to the speed of the camera or the latitude, you use them to substitute for big sources in real life, like a big sky or the sun, where a tiny light isn't going to create the same feeling. Sure, if I can rate a camera at 1000 ASA instead of 500 ASA, I can either use a lamp half as bright or I can stop down the lens by one-stop, and that's convenient. But the need for large units to recreate sunlight on a large scale, or light a large area at night (let's say a field in the middle of the country lit for moonlight) doesn't go away just because the speed of the camera has improved or the latitude.

I would say that the decrease in the amount of lighting being used is just as much due to stylistic trends (greater interest in available light photography), and/or budgetary concerns, as is due to technology.

The Epic is fast, and so is the Alexa, and that's great, but let's not exaggerate what another stop of sensitivity gains you in terms of the need for lighting a scene.

Yes, I 100% agree - but you could also use the brand new Big Eye and put a Joker bug in it. You really must try the Big Eye David. You will fall in love. I just did (and am really excited to actually be able to share a useful tip with you, as you have given me so very many.)

However, the Big Eye won;t help much when you're fighting or re-shaping daylight - sensor sensitivity does not change the fact that daylight is what it is, and to fight it you need something of similar strength.

I'd also add that while I've been extremely impressed by much of Marc's work, that demo shot looks like an after-effects save, and the trick looks a bit weird. It would look way better had it been lit properly. If we were closer to the man's face, the weirdness of the After-Effects (or whatever soft was used) save would be even more pronounced, as we can always tell when facial lighting looks off. Tracking these kinds of cheats with a moving camera would have it become an even more difficult trick, in the end likely more expensive than on-set lighting because post is not free.

A very highly placed editor at a fashion mag once told me "The best photographers of course use Photoshop like everybody else, but when they're shooting they pretend it doesn't exist."

Also, some "rebel DPs" might like lots of doco-ish "natural" lighting, but audiences don;t. Generally unlit-looking movies and TV shows flop (with a few very rare exceptions, most of them in TV), and studios have been studying this.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm just sensitive to any re-emergence of the old "with digital you don't need to light anymore" sort of line of thinking...

 

[Jannard]

My bet is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle... you need to light, but you can light with less with EPIC. EPIC does not solve every problem, it just makes life a bit easier.

Jim

 

[Geoff McLeod]

Yeah '...somewhere in the middle' sounds good. But I do share Mark's joy. It's great to know that you pull out the detail if you need to. Especially if it's over a wide area where it's impossible to light. So many times I've been asked to shoot in a large, dark apartment, but they also want to see the view. So I guess, I can still use lights to shape the shot, give things an edge etc.. But it's great to know that when the client springs an unscheduled shot last minute, and you may not have the lighting for it (this happens alot on budget shoots), or you're not allowed to set up light at all (safety reasons) then thank goodness for Epic.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I'm just sensitive to any re-emergence of the old "with digital you don't need to light anymore" sort of line of thinking...

I agree with that issue as well. It's kind of like dealing with filmmakers who believe you can "re-light in post," which in a way you can, but it's a lot more organic (and more pleasing, I think) to get it right on the set.

There's also the old axiom of great lighting being about placing shadows, so it's not simply getting a camera (or film stock) that's so sensitive, you need less light (or all natural light). Dynamic range and key-to-fill ratios are still significant issues, and only an experienced DP can control these.

 

[Liam Hall]

In Shots were I'd throw up an 18k without even thinking twice to fill a shot under a tree through a 20x20 trace... gone. Generator gone, best boy gone... time delays waiting to set it all up also gone... Trucks have turned to Vans, Hmi's turned to small LED panels or bounce boards...

You've always been able to do this type of shot with a couple of lightweight reflectors, but I get your point.

 

[Mark Toia]

All that latitude or speed doesn't really help much when you have to recreate daylight after the sun has gone down. If you need to create sunlight falling through a big window, you are still going to need a big lamp, it just might be a 6K HMI instead of a 12K HMI. The reasons you use big lights are not necessarily due to the speed of the camera or the latitude, you use them to substitute for big sources in real life, like a big sky or the sun, where a tiny light isn't going to create the same feeling. Sure, if I can rate a camera at 1000 ASA instead of 500 ASA, I can either use a lamp half as bright or I can stop down the lens by one-stop, and that's convenient. But the need for large units to recreate sunlight on a large scale, or light a large area at night (let's say a field in the middle of the country lit for moonlight) doesn't go away just because the speed of the camera has improved or the latitude.

I would say that the decrease in the amount of lighting being used is just as much due to stylistic trends (greater interest in available light photography), and/or budgetary concerns, as is due to technology.

The Epic is fast, and so is the Alexa, and that's great, but let's not exaggerate what another stop of sensitivity gains you in terms of the need for lighting a scene.

Completely agree David. When you need to create light.. you need lights full stop.

But for filling a scene with more ambient light.. Thats long gone. Big lights are swapped with little lights, Generators swapped for wall power... The machine is changing and our quotation spread sheets have noticed before i did..

 

[Mark Toia]

hey Mark a quick question ... is that with or without HDRx ?

No... just the straight R3D graded in resolve.

 

[Mark Toia]

I'm just sensitive to any re-emergence of the old "with digital you don't need to light anymore" sort of line of thinking...

Sorry mate, I'm a bit sensitive too... This thread is not about killing of a hard working lighting technician.

I'm from a huge lighting back ground, I have owned lights, trucks, studios, all the bells and whistles, I know the machine backwards.

I have a lot of very dear friends with huge lighting trucks and warehouses packed with massive lights.. They are all noticing the change and are all in a major panic stages. When I light a studio, Every light comes out to play. But shooting a large scene (as per my test)... .. well.... the evidence is there.

David I respect all your thinking and your experience, I'm all for saving the lighting department but the only way to do that is to show them what they are now working with, Then they can tool up to suite, instead of carrying huge dept on something they don't need.

I show these tests to all my Gaffa friends, because I want to help them see the future, Help them build better companies and have the correct assets so as they move forward successfully.

One these guys has sold a bunch of 18k's and invested the sales into a Van full of LED wall panels and a on board silenced Generator, It's his hardest working most profitable product in his fleet. He's buying another one.

Education is good for all.

Cheers mate.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Mark.

Not to nitpick. I respect you, love your images and enjoy your writing style!

Ok, than that's out of the world! -)

I think most of your examples are good.

This one, though, shows me how much you can recover from the lowlights, which is great.
It also shows me that the precission and "meatyness" of the Epic naturally diminishes at lower exposures.

Not that I mind, not that that's a a surprice, but a little lift in his face would definitely have given smoother skintones...

Just my 2 humble cents...

Cheers and thanks for all your great examples!

G

 

[Mark Toia]

Mark.

Not to nitpick. I respect you, love your images and enjoy your writing style!

Ok, than that's out of the world! -)

I think most of your examples are good.

This one, though, shows me how much you can recover from the lowlights, which is great.
It also shows me that the precission and "meatyness" of the Epic naturally diminishes at lower exposures.
Not that I mind, not that that's a a surprice, but a little lift in his face would definitely have given smoother skintones...

Just my 2 humble cents...

Cheers and thanks for all your great examples!

G

It's ok Gunleik,
I'm well open for feed back.. I'm a big boy with nothing to loose.

To be honest, you only see about 1% of our in house testing. And only when I have a spare few minutes to share things. I feel like I should.. I like sharing. No gain for me in anyway other than helping out some young new starters looking into the future and maybe some old boys that are lost or struggling with the future.
I know this because I get many many emails from people that want this knowledge and are too embarrassed to ask publicly on the forum.

We never shoot any sort of camera until we are satisfied with it's performance. Thats everything from technical performance (latitude, grain, coloring, etc etc) all the way through to onset performance in the way of how it fits into rig's, heads, hand held config's, stedicams, etc etc etc... So I just share a little here an there, just for the hell of it.

So... my answer to your feedback:
"It also shows me that the precission and "meatyness" of the Epic naturally diminishes at lower exposures.
Not that I mind, not that that's a a surprice, but a little lift in his face would definitely have given smoother skintones... "

Is.. If you see any diminished images, Blame me first because I don't really spend much time finessing test grades, I just dig into them deep to see what's left and to see what I can get away with... Nothing more.
A smoother skin tone I can get with a touch of a button.. So once again please don't blame the camera for my quick rough grade.

These tests are just for me and I use this knowledge to great effect in my work.

Once again, my tests are to see what can be retrieved, and is it useable. 98% of the time YES... With another 2 minutes spent finessing it... you wont see any imperfections.

Thanks Gunleik... Love your posts too.

 

[Mark Toia]

My bet is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle... you need to light, but you can light with less with EPIC. EPIC does not solve every problem, it just makes life a bit easier.

Jim

A lot easier at my end.

 

[gerald stahlmann]

Hey Mark, nice image. Just wanted ask... Is there a power window on his face?

 

[Gunleik Groven]

These tests are just for me and I use this knowledge to great effect in my work.

LOL

I know what you mean...

Thanks Mark!

 

[Mark Toia]

Hey Mark, nice image. Just wanted ask... Is there a power window on his face?

Nope... but there is one big soft one around him..