Hollywood film lighting vs indie/low budget video lighting

[shaocaholica]

Is it just me or do most indie video and low budget video tend to use a super bright key light thats almost annoyingly bright?

I've been watching a bunch of mainstream movies lately and trying to spot the lights and I can't. It almost seems that beginner lighters tend to overthink the problem and overdo the lighting.

But what do I know, I've never really seriously lit anything for video before.

[Erik Bien]

I think it has more to do with the amount of equipment and manpower the big guys have to throw at the problem: a big production will throw up huge overhead silks to filter the daylight and then gang two or three HMIs (any one of which would completely overwhelm every electrical circuit in a typical household) through another big frame of diffusion for even a simple daylight exterior. Then scrims, flags, fingers and dots to erase or re-shape any bit of light that doesn't look "just right."

Meanwhile, the kids shooting the indie zombie flick for peanuts have a couple of Lowel Totas they picked up on ebay, some work lights, and maybe a shower curtain.

A really good gaffer can do a lot with very little, but most of the specialized and expensive grip and electric equipment was developed for very specific needs.

[Christoffer]

I don't think a bright keylight is the issue, just think Darius Konji's philosophy.
It's merly about not using softed keylights that bugs me... it feels lit.

As for worklights, I'm using them as counterlights and background lights; works fine, without looking "lit"

[Cedric_Akins]

Originally posted by Erik Bien
"A really good gaffer can do a lot with very little, but most of the specialized and expensive grip and electric equipment was developed for very specific needs."

This is on of the truest statements I have ever read. Most people who start out lighting want to use every light they can find causing double and even triple shadows, like one such feature I have just had the pleasure to work on. It all has to do with experience and ability of the gaffers and grips that you have on set. Furthermore having an idea of how you want your scenes to be lit. Before shooting a short film or low budget film it is always a good idea to look at a few films and or photos that you feel have the look you want to immulate. This way you have some blueprint for your lighting scheme.

One other thing I think would help don't get in a rush when lighting just to get a shot. Take the time required to get the scene lit to the best of your ability. Your audience will apreciate it and so will you in the long run. But some times that extra time may not be available so you have to do the best you can while you can.

Just a few thoughts.:)

[Christoffer]

Most people who start out lighting want to use every light they can find causing double and even triple shadows

Just look at much of the Red One footage...

[Cedric_Akins]

Just look at much of the Red One footage...
Hey Christopher are there any clips in particular that come to mind?

[Christoffer]

There is one in perticular that I saw at http://www.redrelay.net/
But I really don't want to point... look yourself, I think you know when you find it.

[Chris Newman]

I've been watching a bunch of mainstream movies lately and trying to spot the lights and I can't.
Keep doing this. Pause on a frame that you like, and think about how to reproduce it.

Look at shadows (below noses and chins, for example): How hard are the lines? If you don't really see a line, then to reproduce this look you probably need to bounce the key light off of something to make it softer. If the shadows aren't very dark, then you would need another light or bounce card for fill.

Look at bright areas (reflections off someone's skin, hair, clothes, etc.): Where would a light have to be to cause that highlight?

Then just practice. Move a few lights around, try bouncing them, etc. and see how they affect the look.

[Peter Majtan]

Have a look at the following FREE lighting guide from ARRI (not just for ARRI lights):

http://www.arri.de/infodown/light/broch/arri_lighting_handbook_english.pdf

It explains well how light is composed and how NOT to create double (forget triple!) shadows + plenty of useful general lighting hints...

[emotepix]

Nice one, Peter, thanks.

What's the biggest thing that Hollywood has that indies think they don't have? Money.

But think a little. Only in the most expensive movies and the very cheapest ones does one have another luxury - time.

What does the Hollywood buck buy? People, equipment, other resources, sure. But only for a limited time.

Sure, the saying goes that time is money. But the most usual application of that saying is in the professional sense.

For indies, invert the saying.

Money is.... time.

One of the biggest mistakes I've seen indies make is to try to do things as fast or faster than the big dogs. That's the dollar speaking, not the filmmaker.

You have less money? Spend more time to get the great results. Maybe not as great as the Hollywood blockbuster, but then the additional time you should have spent in doing your research should have steered you clear of subjects/stories that are not produce-able in your budget/schedule.

So use a smaller crew if you want to save money. But prepare and shoot for longer. Use unknown talent -- if you spend the extra care (time and effort) to really go after the best of the best that's absolutely right for your story.

Use simple kit - but use it right. Learn your instruments, you filters, diffusions, your isoluxes, your falloff formulae. Not hard but it all takes time. Don't rush it, shoot tests (tape us $7 the first hour, free thereafter for quite a while), watch, look, redo, get it right before you get on set so you can tweak it, you can finish it, you can think about getting it excellent, not just getting it good enough, getting it done.

IMO the biggest time waster is the low budget production that pushes everything through so fast that the gaffer doesn't have time to prepare properly, to light properly, the sound op doesn't have time to hide/place mics or hand accoustic blankets, or get decent room tones, and the DP doesn't have time to tweak a shot.

So in the end you get this mishmash of mostly unusable footage that was proudly all shot in 6 days on a dime and a half - well, maybe that makes the bean counters proud, but to everybody who actually has to watch the stuff later on...

Do us all a favor. Have little money? Spend lots more time. Research a lot. Build rigs yourself, but also hang out some, get to know the people who have the specialized ones you'll need, learn from them, get so you know where to put your production buck - and then budget yourself to spend the time on the set to do it right, first time.

Because as we say in the trade - we do this right - or we do it again.

[Peter Majtan]

Amen to that...

There is that "dredged" rule of BETTER - FASTER - CHEAPER: Pick TWO at the cost of the THIRD!

Basically:
You want something good and quick - it's going to cost You!
You want something good and cheap - it's going to take some time!
And You want something cheap and quick - well, it's going to be a piece of crap...!

Altho I have dedicated my carrier to prove that rule wrong! With a little thinking out of the box and A LOT OF PLANING one can actually deliver all three... But that rather the exception confirming the rule...

Another good one to keep in mind:

If You fail to plan - You plan to FAIL!

Good luck!

[Christoffer]

A tip for newbies in lightning... turn the light away from the actor!
I'm dead serious; use a white reflecting surface, maybe the roof.
Most common thing that newbies do is to use a threepoint lightning where shadows look unnatural and the light seems unrealistic.

What I mean is that you should use as much soft light as possible but not as many lightsources as possible. If you are able to use a softbox/softbank use it, because hard light is superhard to handle and make realistic.

[Max Link]

A tip for newbies in lightning... turn the light away from the actor!
Yip, very important one, especially if you don't have a range of different wattages/faces to select from to tweak your setup enough to avoid said artificial look.
It took me a while to this figure out, and applying that rule got me some bewildered looks from people I worked with on school projects, but it helps a lot, especially in lighting indoor settings.

[Cedric_Akins]

I found it. That looked as though they were going for a high key lighting situation but I believe there was a better way of doing that. One really good over head light with a large enough silk or chimera that would have provided enough light and killed those doubled shadows. It wasn't the worst thing I had seen but for that spot it could have been better. It was like there were two key lights. I knoe that the fill light was just slight weaker than the key light, may 10-15% at best.

[Christoffer]

Another tip is to not use to bright keylights or the balance between existing lights is lost. That's why a cameras light sensitivity is important.

[jmalmsten]

another phrase of wisdom...

"What makes a master is all of the things he DOESN'T do..."

A sidenote... I've been in lavatories all around... and one thing I have noticed is that actually looking at the image in the mirror... I actually like the lighting in those situations... so in my list of things to invest in is one or more of those matted plastic bowls that covers those light-bulbs giving that specially soft look. Then I thought of makeup mirrors that we all see in movies about broadway-actresses and such... having rows of lightbulbs to create a soft light around the actresses...

The tip on pointing away is also something that's extra important for video-users... since we often are using standard dynamic range of video, which is pretty shallow. Compared to film, so even if they do use direct lights with film, a softer might be preferable to avoid hotspots...

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Amen to that...

There is that "dredged" rule of BETTER - FASTER - CHEAPER: Pick TWO at the cost of the THIRD!

Basically:
You want something good and quick - it's going to cost You!
You want something good and cheap - it's going to take some time!
And You want something cheap and quick - well, it's going to be a piece of crap...!

Altho I have dedicated my carrier to prove that rule wrong! With a little thinking out of the box and A LOT OF PLANING one can actually deliver all three... But that rather the exception confirming the rule...

Another good one to keep in mind:

If You fail to plan - You plan to FAIL!

Good luck!

It really makes sense man.

Thanks for sharing this line of thought.

I'll think about it everytime I start a new project.

[DSNR]

Amen to that...

There is that "dredged" rule of BETTER - FASTER - CHEAPER: Pick TWO at the cost of the THIRD!

Basically:
You want something good and quick - it's going to cost You!
You want something good and cheap - it's going to take some time!
And You want something cheap and quick - well, it's going to be a piece of crap...!

Altho I have dedicated my carrier to prove that rule wrong! With a little thinking out of the box and A LOT OF PLANING one can actually deliver all three... But that rather the exception confirming the rule...


Good luck!



Hehe....yeah Thats the first thing my teacher told me many years ago in first year engineering. It applies to everything though.

Wouldnt a lot of planning require more time though?:)

[Peter Majtan]

Sure, but what is the cost per day for You sitting in Your house with a computer (with internet), phone, pencil and few papers compared to daily location cost or postproduction cost...

[Craig Bowman]

The reason you will get a lot of "use soft boxes" etc. when refering to lighting used for video is people grab a book about film lighting and they're not using a film camera but they light as though they were because they're following the book.

Light for the medium. If you're shooting actual video, then grab a reflector and bounce you're key light off the reflector so the bounced light becomes the key. Learn to use a waveform monitor for checking lighting levels vs. a light meter.

Do your key, then backlight and finally add your fill. Then flag out the excess and shape light for mood.

On a setup for a scene think about where the marks for the actors are that you set up for framing at key points in the scene and light those using your stand ins. The lighting that works very nicely for those "framed points" in the scene is no accident.

Don't forget the odd eyelight to put that twinkle in a character's eye if it isn't there naturally.

[Tim Hole]

I agree that less is more...take the Alton approach and paint with light. Imagine the canvas as black and light what you want to see.

Indie is the best way to be. as soon as money is involved you loose the greatist buzz of all-finding a creative solution to a problem without using money as the answer.

I just finished shooting a low budget film for a friend - in fact it cost 150ukp ($300).

Shot mostly with either a blonde or a single 300w depending on the shot. It is a surrealist film mind so we were going for gritty realism.

there's a version of it on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NpAatvrZjs

I like using par lights and concealed stik lights. I build my own grip equipment and use a jvc100 (until I get my scarlet)

[neptune13]

I watched Cheyne-Stoking -

I love this type of film because of the lighting chances that you took. Experimentation when your not under the gun is the most fun/addiction you can get when your working with min/no budget situations. I'm a huge fan of this type of film. Loved the anxiety and the music that carried the mood. Great work. :popcorn:

[Tim Hole]

Thanks Neptune much appreciated. Like you say it was a chance to be creative without client pressure! Freedom to create.

[Stefan Christou]

Nice film.

The less DR you have the more soft fill you need, also having poorer low-light capabilities can mess with your lighting set-up. Generally if you spend less on the camera you have to spend more money and time on the lighting. (This statement is false in regards to scarlet. :happyhappy:)

This could be seen in a lot of TV when the transition from SD to HD was in its infancy. The new HD cameras had less DR and poorer LLP, so crews that were used to the DR and LLP of digibeta cams had to make mistakes on the job –under the gun.