Oh okay, well so far for this story situation, I was going to have the long lens panning shot, be mostly a mastershot, I would cut back to whenever I please.

Then I was going to do all these other shots closer up to the action. But I could have the a car tracking shot as a master shot, if that's better.

Well I wanted to do a test there but it costs a lot to shoot there, and that would be an extra day of costs to do a test. I tried just going there to do the test without it being a shoot day, and just see if I could do it, but they would not let me. That's why I didn't choose there. But I thought that the park test, would also suffice for the outdoor chase as far as tests go.
Why can't you go to the garage at an off peak time to a level no one is on and do some unobtrusive tests hand held with your camera? Or find a similar garage.

I tried going at 10 at night when no one was around and two security guards came out the door and asked me to leave before I could even set up the tripod.

Perhaps the concept of a master shot is holding you back with a chase scene.

Oh well I felt the other shots would be easier, it's just the master I was asking about since I would want more DOF in it theoretically since it's a longer focal length. However, would it be better if I had a tracking car shot as the master shot instead?

I tried going at 10 at night when no one was around and two security guards came out the door and asked me to leave before I could even set up the tripod.
What part of unobtrusive don't you understand? Find another garage that has many floors, be mindful of their security cameras and do hand held tests. Or shoot from in the car. You give up so easy.

But I can't do a handheld test on a telephoto though, for a telephoto panning shot. If I am trying to do the same telephoto shot panning shot, I need a tripod. If I do a car tracking shot as a test, then I need to drive around with a car while shooting. These are not handheld shots we are talking about here.

Use your storyboard to plan shorts, have overlaps. Most of the time master shots never get used, so don't waste too much time thinking about it.

Well it's just in the past when I didn't use a master, I felt I need more coverage later, so going by my own experience, masters are good to have. What do you mean by 'overlaps' in this context?

Overlap the action between the shots, so that you've got a choice of cutting points.

If all the action within the scene isn't seen in the shot, it's probably not a master shot.

Having the storyboard means that you won't leave out shots. There probably isn't a master shot in the Psycho shower scene because elements (if not the whole scene - still up for debate) were storyboarded by Saul Bass.

Your film course really was rubbish Ryan. They don't seem to have covered any of the craft, just the art - and that in a very haphazard way. Have you noticed that Pete, Brian and myself often do things differently through choice, but easily understand each other, and what they are trying to tell you - but you don't?

Overlaps, in the context used above is perfectly straightforward and obvious. If you can't get it - then our help is pointless.

And yes - you give up so easily I'm amazed you even get anything shot.

But I can't do a handheld test on a telephoto though, for a telephoto panning shot. If I am trying to do the same telephoto shot panning shot, I need a tripod. If I do a car tracking shot as a test, then I need to drive around with a car while shooting. These are not handheld shots we are talking about here.
There are many purposes of a test. Can you shoot with existing light? Is the lens too slow or not enough dof. The point is not to do a perfect pan it's to determine whether the shot viable at that location. You might even discover that you don't want a telephoto because there isn't enough room. That the whole panning idea doesn't work in this location! If you must setup a tripod do it quickly not in view of security or surveillance cameras, inside the car, behind a pillar...

You turn everything on it's head. You've predetermined this panning shot is necessary when it's probably not.

There are many purposes of a test. Can you shoot with existing light? Is the lens too slow or not enough dof. The point is not to do a perfect pan it's to determine whether the shot viable at that location. You might even discover that you don't want a telephoto because there isn't enough room. That the whole panning idea doesn't work in this location! If you must setup a tripod do it quickly not in view of security or surveillance cameras, inside the car, behind a pillar...

You turn everything on it's head. You've predetermined this panning shot is necessary when it's probably not.

Well I managed to get a bit of footage before I was kicked out with the telephoto lens. I think there is enough room, the pans just won't be really long.

I also did some handheld tests. Without lighting, I have and the existing light, I would have to shoot at ISO 800, shutter 1/50, and the aperture open to f2.2.

But with a better camera, perhaps I could close that aperture more for the action, and not have as much noise, but also more lights?

Well I managed to get a bit of footage before I was kicked out with the telephoto lens. I think there is enough room, the pans just won't be really long.

I also did some handheld tests. Without lighting, I have and the existing light, I would have to shoot at ISO 800, shutter 1/50, and the aperture open to f2.2.

But with a better camera, perhaps I could close that aperture more for the action, and not have as much noise, but also more lights?
Again if you already have done the test and have determined that is what you want then why are you asking us?

How much lighting will you need for a car park? If you got chucked out with a small tripod, how will you get access for a day to set up lights? Not really viable as a guerrilla shoot.

It sounded like he’s willing to pay for an official shoot day there.

Oh well they told me before that it's workable if I get permission in advance. I was asking about what kind of camera I would need for better ISO quality, if such a large place was lit, and in order to get a more closed aperture, is what I meant before.

Plus wouldn't shooting guerrilla style look more amateur because then you cannot set up lights and equipment compared to non-guerrilla?

Unless you've got a big budget you won't be able to light large areas like a car park (nor will you have the time), you can only deal with the foreground, the rest will be available light. Shooting with f6.5 lenses is dumb, so best dropped for this type of stuff, there's no point in putting in high ISOs in a drama because of the noise.

A good guerrilla film maker could probably do a better job than you with the lights at the moment

But I don't think there is this hard rule that all dramas cannot have higher ISOs is there?

As for dealing with the foreground only, well when the actors are running around a lot, the foreground becomes the background, and goes back and forth there. What if I just hire a DP to take care of all that and the lighting?

As for the aperture, I am okay with a very shallow DOF during action scenes, as long as the audience is. It's just whenever you see it in movies, the action scenes are never shot on a shallow DOF, so if I did, I would be doing something I've never seen done before, and would be something new, as long as that's okay?

But as far the parking garage being too large to light, I said this before, and it was said to me before to still light it anyway, and that I was making excuses.

There's no rule, if you can live with the noise at high ISOs that's fine, but what may be acceptable to you may not be to a DP, especially on a large screen. A native 800 ISO is pretty common these days, while some Sony broadcast cameras are 2000 ISO, you can shoot shoot in a lot of places with that, as long you're not using crazy stops.

Audiences are well used to productions shot at f2 these days.

Oh okay, but as far as shallow DOF, goes are there chase and fight scenes shot at f2 nowadays though?

Yes, of course they are, it depends on the nature of the scene.

Some films have been shot at f1.4 for some scenes and that goes back to the 1970s, so nothing new, Kubrick even used f0.7 for more static stuff, Your limitation is the skill of the focus puller, so f2.8 would be more sensible for you. Action scenes tend to be wider shots, so you may not be aware how shallow the DOF is, plus big productions have big lighting rigs, while you don't.

You can light the foreground, but with a large car park you need a lot of lights, a smaller one can be more manageable. Power and running cables will also ne an issue if you;re short of time, I suspect we only saw a corner of what I assume is a car park, so you're not providing enough information for your full lighting requirements.

Oh okay, it's just what if the actors move from the foreground into the background during the action. That was my concern since it's an action scene where there is going to be a lot of moving around, from background to foreground.

When you say you suspect we only saw a corner of the car park, do you mean that parking garage shot I posted way before?

This is why I recommended a set a fast cine primes, stay away from the telephoto lenses with shallow dof and use wider lenses, but you don't listen. If you shoot in high gain this scene wont match the other scenes.

Oh okay thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

What about the whole lighting the foreground, but not the background, if the actors are moving around a lot and the background becomes the foreground, and vice versa?

Talk to your DP about this, the background won't be in darkness, the foreground will just have better modeling than you get with the standard car park lighting, You can use localized spots in areas of interest in the background if need be

You want your film to have a consistent look, so you don't want to be ramping up the ISO between scenes or even shots. .

Sure. It was also suggested to me that I open up the aperture wide for the master, but then for the closer ups, close it and use more light then.

If that's a good idea. But we would have to make sure the light matches the master shots then.

You keep the stop constant throughout the scene for constancy, that's the way you shoot scenes in a drama.

If you change the lighting setup between the master and the shots it will never edit together will it! Shadows will be brighter and the hotspots stand out. Do you really have the budget to light this large an area? It's a lot of kit and a lot of power.

Oh okay but there are other movies where the aperture looks like it changes from shot to shot, unless it's saying the same, and on those cameras, the change is just more noticeable.

As for lighting, I see what you mean. But let's say I do not like the parking structure, cause it's too big too light. It will have a guerrilla look to it, lighting wise. The other scenes will not have a guerrilla lighting look. So won't think style of lighting look inconsistent with the other scenes then, if I choose not to try to light it?

Generally DPs will keep the stop pretty much the same within a scene. I'm not sure how you're making these judgments, if it's based on looking at the DOF or what, since the scene is usually colour corrected to match.

You don't need to expose the car park brightly, it's all a matter of taste.

If you change the lighting setup between the master and the shots it will never edit together will it! Shadows will be brighter and the hotspots stand out. Do you really have the budget to light this large an area? It's a lot of kit and a lot of power.
Of course not, but it’s free to talk about it. Can you imagine how many questions he would have if ever had the budget for lights? He can’t even buy the cheapest cinema camera and lenses. He only asking about the lights because he wants to use telephoto lens and small apertures.

Given the length of time spent discussing this scene, in the real world it would've been shot and the crew down the pub by now

Generally DPs will keep the stop pretty much the same within a scene. I'm not sure how you're making these judgments, if it's based on looking at the DOF or what, since the scene is usually colour corrected to match.

You don't need to expose the car park brightly, it's all a matter of taste.

Oh it's just if I don't expose it enough then I might have noise though.

Of course not, but it’s free to talk about it. Can you imagine how many questions he would have if ever had the budget for lights? He can’t even buy the cheapest cinema camera and lenses. He only asking about the lights because he wants to use telephoto lens and small apertures.

Well as far buying a cheap camera goes I have the Canon T2i, but I thought I should shoot on something better, rather than going for the cheapest, shouldn't I?

Oh it's just if I don't expose it enough then I might have noise though.

As long as you don't increase the ISO too high , you won't have unacceptable noise in the blacks. Don't expose so you need to bring it up in post, having a good monitor correctly set up, should enable you to pretty much nail the correct exposure on the set.

How about doing the shot with a drone - you could get some quite exciting stuff flying just above the cars and in front and behind the subject? Find somebody who has one and is safe and good, and try something more unusual?

Oh I thought a drone would cost more, and was trying to avoid a drone, cause I thought that would be best.

I;m not sure why you have the what's best thought process. If this is a dramatic highlight to your film spend the money on it and save on the talking head scenes.

Oh okay, I just didn't think I need a drone, for a chase fight scene, in a parking garage, but maybe...

So since it was said before that this place would be too large light, and to shoot with the natural lighting available, does that mean I have to do that with every scene, to match? If I shoot with the light available, then the movie is going to look 'documentary style' in terms of lighting. But if all the other scenes are lit in a much more 'cinematic style', would that be inconsistent styles then, and the whole movie needs to be lit like it's natural lighting then?

Ryan - this cinematic style really isn't going to happen, is it? I think your attention to tiny detail and the panic to ensure absolute noise free images clouds the holistic approach. You have FAR more serious issues than the ones detailed here.

The drone idea was just something that popped into my head. Most of my ideas just suddenly occur to me, and most are rubbish, and I immediately discount them - but if the scene is vital, and exciting then like that Dirty Harry scene - the technicalities are secondary to the plot importance. If this character is being chased, then the excitement and edge of seat-ness comes from what's happening, not how it's shot. The drone idea mean that the subjects facial features would be easy to capture, and the ability to float and travel over obstructions that the subject cannot might work for you and be cheaper and easier to shoot. Drone image quality is not at all bad, and rarely is a limiting feature. Why not try it out and see what the results are?

Scenes stand alone, everyone knows what a car park looks like, so you can't diverge too much from that,

Here's how they did it in the "Ipcress File" with 50 ASA film,

"The Ipcress File": Out on Blu-ray 28/07/2014 - YouTube

You've got a lot more sensitivity than that, so it'll be easier for you.

Or "All the Presidents Men" 100ASA film

All The President's Men: Deep Throat - YouTube

Oh okay thanks. It's funny you brought up All the President's Men, I just watched that one for reference. But in that one, the characters are standing very still in one place of course, so it's easier. The other example, they are moving around a lot more. I could try do it like that, lighting wise, if that will work. In the examples, the lights are green in the background, but they used white lights for the foreground to separate.

Should I do that as well to create separation, or should I try to match the color of the lights already in the parking garage? If I use mostly natural lighting, than I will not have much light to separate with then?

Regarding the car park lights, it will depend on the colour space of your camera what way the these lights go, film will record the green in florescent lights. Video cameras were pretty blind to it in the past, although more modern cameras can be more sensitive to it.

You need to test the camera you will be using on the film i.e, not your current camera, unless that's the one you will be using.

Well done garage scenes. They again play to the location strengths. The darkness compliments the mood and purpose so they don’t try to light the entire garage. Instead they use strategically placed lights for the actors so you can see their face for dialogue parts. They also let the fluorescents be green.

Oh okay. Well in my parking garage scenario, it's a stand off between the police and villains, so the police have to be able to see down the parking garage, since that's where the villains are. I can let some parts be dark so they can hide though, but I want it to be more of a shooting stand off and chase, rather than a hide and seek game.

The lights for my location are daylight balanced, so they will show up blue, if the camera is on on a 3200 kelvin white balance.

Is the garage outside or undercover? Lighting (the real lighting) is unlikely to be 5600K or anything useful. However, shadows and contrast make the actual colour less important. Seeing everything bright and beautiful is nowhere as exciting as shadows.

Yep not everything has to be bright and beautiful, but the characters need to actually see more than what you in All The President's Men for mine I think.

The garage is indoors, but the natural lighting does illuminate more. If the shadowy ares were that large and that dark in real life, no one could see beyond 30 feet when they went to look for their cars. However, if I go with the real daylight balanced lighting, and just let it be blue, kind of like how All the President's Men, let it be green, the actors' skin is going to be magenta in the faces, but will that be okay?

Reality and how you film and light a scene in a feature film are two entirely different things. You're interested in drama, not assisting people to park their cars!

You can use gels to colour correct the lights on the actor's faces, assuming that you're not using the LED film lights that have a wide range of colour controls.

Oh okay, but I thought we were talking about the natural lights of the locations. Gels those?