Two ASC Cinematographers Discussing Lighting

[Steve Sherrick]

Tom Stern and Reed Morano did a workshop at Camerimage back in 2013 and there are some interesting moments throughout this discussion. One common theme you'll hear is that they don't want a sharp, digital image and they are often trying to take the edge off (the Alexa). At least at that time, neither seemed to be big fans of 4K. This is obviously heavy on the Alexa side, but I think there are some interesting moments in there, especially about lighting. They are demonstrating in a kind of awkward set and you can tell neither seems very comfortable with the set up but still, they touch on the thought process behind what they are doing when lighting a movie. Anyway, the production value is a bit low and some may not agree with their opinions on some things but if you have an hour to kill give it a watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S8Q7t8c01Y

 

[Austin St. John]

Thanks for posting 

 

[Mike P.]

To be honest, I was hoping for a DoP joke. Like:

Two ASC members walk into a bar to discuss lighting. The first one asks, "What's your favourite light?" The second one answers, "Coors!"
Ba-dum-tss.


...Sorry, I made that up on the fly (which is actually a prime example of why I was hoping for a real DoP joke.)

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Steve, thanks very much for posting this. I found it useful. Reed Morano is the foxiest DP working today, as far as I can tell.

My mind usually wanders off while watching these things and it got me thinking about lighting in general. I agree with both Stern and Morano that one light is usually better than many (not counting secondary lights such as practicals or hair lights). I've seen setups which use what I felt were too many lights, even though perhaps sometimes you really need more than one.

Morano mentioned that - as far as the Arri goes - she shoots ProRes and not RAW. Stern mentioned that 4K acquisition would generate too much data. Fair enough, but what's interesting is that RED RAW takes up less space than ProRes, AFAIK. Of course if you're shooting 8K 3:1 compression, that's a different story.

They are both more or less right about catch lights, in that it can look like something out of a photo studio, and I'm pretty sure most people loathe anything that looks like it came out of a photo studio. Studio photos make me want to stick my finger down my throat. But I think you have to get some kind of 'sparkle' in the eyes, even if it's subtle.

And notice how almost everyone applauded Morano when she brought up the issue of motion interpolation? I'm all for high refresh rates (film projectors are I think 72Hz; our PAL CRT is 100Hz) but certainly anything which effectively gives a higher frame rate is disgusting and should be classified legally as cultural desecration.

I am completely in sympathy with the point about 'too much' sharpness and the preference of lenses. But even if you wanted to deliver in 2K, why would you not shoot 4K anyway? A little bit of headroom never hurts. So if you had a 16:9 project, you'd shoot full frame, then crop later, downsample, and go easy on the sharpening. You're shooting digital, so you can do these things that you can't always do with film. I assume it would cost very little to rent a Scarlet MX compared to an Alexa (I'm talking about today, not 2013). Depending on how long your shoot was, you could buy the Scarlet outright, and before you resell it, you've saved money over the Alexa. On paper, all that should work out just fine...

The only problem with this video is that I don't see any before-after shots to show me how the changes they were making were affecting the scene.

Anyway. I would not put myself in a situation where I was 'sponsored' in any way by a camera company. There are two reasons. One is that I want to remain as critical as necessary. The other is that when I say I like a camera (or any piece of equipment), people will know that I am being honest.

 

[Elsie N]

Tom Stern and Reed Morano did a workshop at Camerimage back in 2013 and there are some interesting moments throughout this discussion. One common theme you'll hear is that they don't want a sharp, digital image and they are often trying to take the edge off (the Alexa). At least at that time, neither seemed to be big fans of 4K. This is obviously heavy on the Alexa side, but I think there are some interesting moments in there, especially about lighting. They are demonstrating in a kind of awkward set and you can tell neither seems very comfortable with the set up but still, they touch on the thought process behind what they are doing when lighting a movie. Anyway, the production value is a bit low and some may not agree with their opinions on some things but if you have an hour to kill give it a watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S8Q7t8c01Y

You had me until that last line... '-)

 

[Cameron K]

Good listen, thanks Steve.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Steve, thanks very much for posting this. I found it useful. Reed Morano is the foxiest DP working today, as far as I can tell.

My mind usually wanders off while watching these things and it got me thinking about lighting in general. I agree with both Stern and Morano that one light is usually better than many (not counting secondary lights such as practicals or hair lights). I've seen setups which use what I felt were too many lights, even though perhaps sometimes you really need more than one.

It's a bit of a generalization but I think I get their point.

Morano mentioned that - as far as the Arri goes - she shoots ProRes and not RAW. Stern mentioned that 4K acquisition would generate too much data. Fair enough, but what's interesting is that RED RAW takes up less space than ProRes, AFAIK. Of course if you're shooting 8K 3:1 compression, that's a different story.

Reed would not be the first one to say this. I've had other DPs tell me they don't see the advantage of a RAW workflow for a dramatic narrative or comedy. In some cases, I would agree with this. ArriRAW is a lot of data. But it's also a very thick negative with flexibility and I do prefer it over ProRes most of the time. I feel you should get as close to the best the camera can produce most of the time.

They are both more or less right about catch lights, in that it can look like something out of a photo studio, and I'm pretty sure most people loathe anything that looks like it came out of a photo studio. Studio photos make me want to stick my finger down my throat. But I think you have to get some kind of 'sparkle' in the eyes, even if it's subtle.

I feel you do need something in the eyes as otherwise it usually doesn't feel right. and you are right, sometimes subtle is better.

And notice how almost everyone applauded Morano when she brought up the issue of motion interpolation? I'm all for high refresh rates (film projectors are I think 72Hz; our PAL CRT is 100Hz) but certainly anything which effectively gives a higher frame rate is disgusting and should be classified legally as cultural desecration.

Reed and I share a very strong disdain for the way this has been implemented on televisions, often on by default and never changed by the viewer. Very frustrating

I am completely in sympathy with the point about 'too much' sharpness and the preference of lenses. But even if you wanted to deliver in 2K, why would you not shoot 4K anyway? A little bit of headroom never hurts. So if you had a 16:9 project, you'd shoot full frame, then crop later, downsample, and go easy on the sharpening. You're shooting digital, so you can do these things that you can't always do with film. I assume it would cost very little to rent a Scarlet MX compared to an Alexa (I'm talking about today, not 2013). Depending on how long your shoot was, you could buy the Scarlet outright, and before you resell it, you've saved money over the Alexa. On paper, all that should work out just fine...

Resolution is not the problem in my opinion. Over sharpening, aliasing, etc are all more dangerous than resolution. However, for someone like Reed who is missing the texture she had with film and what I tend to call the "Glue Effect", where grain, even fine grain seems to help glue all of the elements together in a way where suspension of disbelief seems easier to achieve. With digital sometimes you have to work hard to avoid giving away the illusion. I thought The Hobbit suffered from this, especially at the beginning of the movie.

The only problem with this video is that I don't see any before-after shots to show me how the changes they were making were affecting the scene.

Yeah, that could have been done better for sure.

Anyway. I would not put myself in a situation where I was 'sponsored' in any way by a camera company. There are two reasons. One is that I want to remain as critical as necessary. The other is that when I say I like a camera (or any piece of equipment), people will know that I am being honest.

They like the Alexa, nothing really to do with sponsorship. But I feel in 2016 more DPs at high end feature level are incorporating the cameras they feel work best for their aesthetic and also for the tasks at hand. Which is why it's not unusual to see REDs and Alexas on the same set.

 

[Fahnon Bennett]

Thanks for posting, Steve. Showed me a couple of things I didn't know and was pretty reassuring that DPs on their level solve some problems the same way I do.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Tom Stern and Reed Morano did a workshop at Camerimage back in 2013 and there are some interesting moments throughout this discussion. One common theme you'll hear is that they don't want a sharp, digital image and they are often trying to take the edge off (the Alexa).

My clients often ask to do that with all digital cameras, not just the Alexa. I know of several TV series that add simulated film grain to the image, all in an effort to chase the ephemeral "film look." And we often do a little tiny bit of skintone softening for actors' faces, particularly "actors of a certain age." It doesn't take that long to do, and I generally do this as a preset look that takes maybe :30 seconds or less on a closeup, but our job in post is to flatter the actors and make them look good at all times.

I have been on projects where actors were supposed to look very haggard and/or older, and for those, we let it all hang out. But most of the time, there's a lot of time spent toning down the edginess -- either from hard lights or unflattering shadows or makeup issues. 4K is great for wide shot of buildings and cities and so on... not so great for a 40+ year-old actor concerned about how they're aging.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

My clients often ask to do that with all digital cameras, not just the Alexa. I know of several TV series that add simulated film grain to the image, all in an effort to chase the ephemeral "film look." And we often do a little tiny bit of skintone softening for actors' faces, particularly "actors of a certain age." It doesn't take that long to do, and I generally do this as a preset look that takes maybe :30 seconds or less on a closeup, but our job in post is to flatter the actors and make them look good at all times.

I have been on projects where actors were supposed to look very haggard and/or older, and for those, we let it all hang out. But most of the time, there's a lot of time spent toning down the edginess -- either from hard lights or unflattering shadows or makeup issues. 4K is great for wide shot of buildings and cities and so on... not so great for a 40+ year-old actor concerned about how they're aging.

I specified Alexa there only because I've seen some comments here on Reduser that Alexa is soft, so I wanted to point out that some DPs feel even the Alexa needs some edge taken off it. For what it's worth, I've seen plenty of Alexa footage that looked plenty sharp. As per usual, lenses, lighting, contrast, color, etc all play into what that final perception of the image is.

I hear you on the skin softening. I had the fun task of doing that during dailies coloring for every take of the movie a particular actress was in. Not too common to do it in dailies but every so often, it's requested.