Archive for July, 2008
DYNAMIC RANGE AND LIGHTING FOR FILM
The new vision3 stock.
What if I told you you could get a crisper, poppier, higher contrast, more film like image out of your camera, spend less that $40, and save hours in post at the same time?
Keep reading.
The digital age has allowed for countless people who would otherwise be unable, to have the means of making their own films for a fraction of what it cost not 20 years ago. It has also allowed for them to become fat and lazy filmmakers, who have become dependant on the technology, and have abandoned the old, “obsolete,” techniques in favor of ‘easier’ ways of doing things.
The biggest crutch kids entering filmmaking cling to is their LCD monitor. The sales reps at Best Buy trick them into thinking that what they see on the screen is what they get, and the Spielbergs-to-be run off under the impression that they have everything that they need to make a great picture.
The problem is that the LCD on your camera isn’t calibrated. At all. And let’s say you have a big fancy external monitor, calibrated and leant to you by Roger Deakins for the weekend; well, that’s great, but the problem remains that you still aren’t seeing what you get. If you use that monitor as your only guide, you won’t be able to take full advantage of your camera’s dynamic range, and end up with a picture that was not lit for film, but lit for TV. So, unless you’re shooting for Monday afternoon Telemundo, read on.
First, the technical background;
Your LCD, under perfect circumstances (which you’ll never have) can resolve about 6 stops of latitude. That’s six f-stop levels between the darkest area where you can perceive detail, and the brightest area that you can perceive detail. Your camera, however, has greater range. How much? well, the majority of digital cameras have between 8 - 9 stops, Vision2 has near 10, Vision3 more than that, and Kodak Tmax400 has well over 14 stops of latitude.
That difference between what you can’t quite see on the screen, and what your camera is still picking up, can encompass a lot of screen space and detail. Leaving it under lit, only to find that there were details or problems you missed later on is taking a big chance. It also robs you of true “contrast.” Contrast shouldn’t be something you add to a shot in post with an effect slider. Doing that only cuts your dynamic range more, increases artifacting and visible noise, and leaves you with a messy picture that any 6 year old with a handycam can make. As a cinematographer, your frame is your canvas. You can’t go cutting portions out or leaving chunks of it to chance.
“But Joe!” you whine, “If I can’t easily see everything on my preview monitor, how could I predict how to light for it?”
Now we get to why the article is entitled “lighting for film.”
Though there are a number of tools that help in determining proper lighting and exposure, the one we are going to cover today is the classic: the Light meter. When we shoot film, there is no accurate preview. If you’re lucky enough to have a video tap, it still suffers from the same problems of all LCD’s as listed above. So, you need to break out the ol’ light meter, and do things the old fashioned way.
In short, a light meter is a tool that measures the amount of light falling on an element of your scene. You can find them on ebay. I’ve seen Sekonic studio meters go for $40, and it does the job.
HOW TO ADD CONTRAST WITH A LIGHT METER:
Contrast in a shot can be set using the principle of lighting ratios. A ratio is determined by finding the intensity or brightness of your key light (in a unit of measure known as a footcandle), and then finding the intensity of your fill light. To do so, you turn on ONLY the light you’re trying to measure, and then take a light reading from your subject. When you have the two values, you add the key light value to the fill light value, then divide the sum by the fill light value.
Para exemplo: if you have a key light of 800 foot candles, and a fill of 200 footcandles, then your equation would be (800+200) / 200. which reduces to 5 /1, which makes your lighting ratio 5:1. That’s right. I just used math in the real world. Call Ripley’s.
Now, the higher your lighting ratio, the more contrast is in your scene. A ratio of 2:1 is relatively low contrast, and would be used for comedies, or sitcoms. A ratio of 8:1 is high contrast, and would be in use for horrors or noirs.
Okay, so let’s say you’re shooting a drama. You’ve decided you want a 5:1 light ratio. Cool. How does dynamic range come into play?
LIGHTING FOR DYNAMIC RANGE:
So, you have a scene. Your ratio is 5:1, and your key light is 800 foot candles, and you’re shooting with your HVX which has 8 stops of latitude, and coincidentally, a broken LCD (cause you tried a flip hack and voided the hell out of your warranty).
Well, if you set exposure with your light meter, and the key light on your subject was at 800 footcandles, that makes 800 your peg. What’s a peg? Consider a peg the middle of your dynamic range. When you take a meter reading, and the meter gives you the f-stop to set your camera to, that’s the middle of your range. If you have 8 stops of dynamic range, that means you have 4 stops above (brighter) the peg, and 4 stops under (darker).
Stops of light are measurable exponentially, in that every stop of light is twice as much as the one under it.
Knowing that, we can take our peg, 800, and measure 4 stops up; 1600, 3200, 6400, 12,800. So, we know that anything in our frame that meters over 12,800 foot candles will blow out, and we won’t be able to see it.
On the other side, if we measure down, (400, 200, 100, 50) we find that objects metering below 50 foot candles will not show up in our frame.
Great. We did all that math, and now our heads hurt. Now What?
If you light every element within your frame so that at least 50 footcandles of light fall on it, and no more than 12,800 footcandles fall on it, then everything in the frame will be visible. More over, if you include some elements in your frame that are lit at the bottom of your dynamic range, and some that are lit at the top, along with a subject metered in the middle, you are taking full advantage of your medium. This is called being a cinematographer.
THE BEAUTY PART:
You now know enough so that
you can make your frame as contrasty as you want
you know exactly the most and least amount of light to put on any object in the frame.
By following these steps, you keep everything in your frame within your dynamic range and take full advantage of your camera, while at the same time avoiding flat and low contrast pictures, and avoid losing all your range by correcting in post.
Perhaps the biggest benefit will be training yourself to use the industry standard method of exposing a picture. Heaven willing, you’ll get on a big shoot with a budget some day, and you don’t want to be the laughingstock on set because you spent half an hour trying to find the flipout LCD on an Arri. I see a lot of kids come in, representing themselves as ‘pros’, but lacking the skillset that’s required to make a living in feature films. Don’t be a casualty of the comforts offered by digital technology, and learn the skills now.
BlogMarks
Furl
Newsvine
Rojo
Email This to a Friend
If you like this then please subscribe to the EQUATION OF A FILM CLASSIC
Mention the word “classic” in different circles, and the responses you’ll get will be as varied as Tara Reid’s bajungas. Go on, try it out; I’ll wait - ‘sides, I gotta light my stogie anyhow. What’s that? Not in a circle right now? Me neither, though I do pal around with a few squares (no offense, Dean).
Golfer Ben Hogan is undeniably a classic, but so equally is Tiger Woods. The Twilight Zone; classic, classic stuff…but couldn’t the same also be said about The Sopranos? See what I’m getting at here?
Jimmy Stewart in It’s a Wonderful Life
Just so I’m clear…
One saying “They don’t make ‘em like they used to” is something else entirely. Hell, I catch myself saying that all the time (being the old soul that I am.) Understand one thing though: Classic doesn’t necessarily equal old…and being old sure as shit ain’t an auto-qualifier for classic status. Cinematically, I could point you to many an old turd. On the other hand, every decade does sire true blue classics (even, gasp, this decade we call our own.)
Many who know me know me as “The Classic Film Guy”. Often I will be asked to talk about the golden age of cinema or the studio era; both of which I’ll babble on and on (and on) about. But eventually I pause long enough to order another drink. It is at this point that I turn to my co-conversationalist(s) and (in my best Cleavon Little) say, “Excuse me while I whip this out!” I then proceed to pull out my now infamous Callaghan Top 100 Movie List (yeah, so I carry it around in my wallet…what’s the big deal?) I always am quick to point out that my film picks straddle the vast chasm that spans from the 1930’s right up to the aughts (twenty-aught one, twenty-aught two…)
Are you not entertained ?
You know how we look to the renaissance masters’ paintings to really get under the skin of fifteenth and sixteenth century life? Well, in the distant future, historians will study our film classics as the art form of our civilization. It’ll happen, just wait. You can’t convince me otherwise.
So what does make a film a classic? Many critics consider the year 1960 to be the “1 AD” of the film world. I have already spelled out my distaste for this vintage = classic malarkey. I think that, like the overly clichéd pornography definition, you know a classic when you see it. Simple as that. An authentic classic will retain its magic through multi-generational screenings; and, like Andy Dufresne, will “…come out clean on the other side.”
Dude, you spelled Hitler wrong.
Casablanca, It’s a Wonderful Life and Singin’ in the Rain…classic, classic and classic. Those are give-me’s. Now consider if you will all the film classics that came out in the 80’s, 90’s and 2000’s: Raiders of the Lost Ark, Schindler’s List and Gladiator respectively, just to name a few. Like their older brethren, they will stand the tests of time.
So next time you think classic, think epic, timeless, filmic goodness. If, on the other hand, you are in need of a word to describe an older film…might I suggest the term “vintage”. I guess now that makes me the “Vintage Film Guy”. Now if only I could find me a circle…
Cheers,
Callaghan
FEAR.NET and 30 DAYS OF NIGHT WEB SERIES !
Fearnet
I recently stumbled onto a couple killer websites, one featuring all horror, thriller and suspense movies and the other with a variety of entertainment options; for free. What particularly got my attention was a 30 Days of Night Series (I loved 30 Days of Night). Sort of independently made with Ghost House Pictures producing (Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert’s company) and the same company remaking The Evil Dead.
Crackle
Also being mentioned over at Steve Niles site, the creator of the graphic novel, is that a comic adaption of this series is being adapted. First a little about that:
30 Days of Night
The comic book provides an entry into FEARnet’s all-new 30 Days of Night inspired web series - 30 Days of Night: Dust to Dust — that will debut July 17th on FEARnet.com. Produced for FEARnet by Ghost House Pictures, the joint-venture between Sam Raimi, Rob Tapert and Mandate Pictures, 30 Days of Night: Dust to Dust will once again unleash the terror of Steve Niles and Ben Templesmith’s ground-breaking 30 Days of Night graphic novels. The new six episode web series will be bolstered by the star power of one of today’s hottest femme fatales: the stunning Shawnee Smith of the blockbuster horror franchise Saw as well as The Island, Armageddon and Leaving Las Vegas. The series will also feature appearances by horror cult favorites Ken Foree (Dawn of the Dead) and Ted Raimi (Evil Dead Series).
And a little about FEARnet
FEARnet, the world’s premier horror and thriller destination on demand, online and on mobile devices is a cutting-edge, multi-platform horror network with an unrivaled modern horror library bringing together the nation’s leading provider of cable, entertainment and communications products and services …. and yadda yadda yadda.
And check out 7 (and counting) webisodes below of 30doN - BLOOD TRAILS courtesy of
http://crackle.com/
From Crackle:
From Crackle:
From Crackle:
From Crackle:
From Crackle:
From Crackle: