Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

I suspect that has been done before.

You should be discussing all this with your DP, who may bring their own ideas to the table, not in a forum.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

For sure, it was just said before that I should come up with my own lighting ideas, rather than being inspired by other movies though. But I will keep trying to look for a DP and PD, and tell them what I want and try to make it as original as I can, without any previous movies I have seen, if that's best.

I guess I am just worried if I am too original people may think it's too avant garde for their tastes, but maybe that's a good thing, and I should learn to embrace, it even if people say it's the way the things are suppose to be done?

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

I haven't seen anything avant garde about your stuff to date.

Your lighting for the office is pretty utilitarian, not unlike what news crews used when they had a lighting kit (unlike today) and an electrician.

Show some visual references to the DP, (paintings photographs etc) don't give them a lighting plot, because, if they're any good, they won't want to work with you.

At the moment you're sounding more like Ed Wood.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

The snag is that many viewers have never been near a film school, and will possibly view your movie using their common sense, and see your carefully crafted well researched brand new style as something truly horrible. Why reinvent the wheel? If I see a movie with a Police station room filled with officers being briefed, then in real life it will have institutional colours, lit from lots of fluorescent tubes. Hardly any shadows, very bright, probably allowing the usual grubbiness of the space, and the feel, to come through - the wanted pictures on the walls tell you it isn't a prison, even without uniforms. The same room with bars on the windows is a prison. The same room with work benches and safety posters becomes a factory. Shooting it with Key light and fill, and perhaps some nice areas in shadow will just distort reality in a way that confuses.

REAL PEOPLE DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT AVANTE GARDE EVEN MEANS!

You're not in film school - this is the real world and people like the signposts you place in the scenes to guide them towards your goal. If you confuse them, you've lost them. We've now had every conceivable way of shooting your police scene, bar the obvious ones you reject, because it's too hard, too expensive or (and I think its the real one) or just what you've already decided and you just bang away hoping one of us will say your idea is good, when we think pretty much it's bad. We've gone through changing the colours in post way back, but we've still arrived back at the police station scene. Look through your collection of movies. Police stations feature in lots. How many look like they are shot in a wrong room, badly dressed to make it try to be a convincing one?

Many years ago I realised that making anything about organisations who wear uniforms is out - the cost of uniforms is crazy. I hired once three military dress uniforms. It worked fine once I made sure I booked actors who had been in the military. Very few actors can convincingly play military - police is much better they can be quite normal. They still need to act well though because if they are wearing plain clothes, for movie purposes they still have to behave/move/react like Police. Worth thinking about if you want to engage the audience.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Ryan what everyone is trying to say is you should be working with the DP to light your movie that best tells your story and makes sense and works with your scene locations. So you film a police station which the viewer will expect soft fluorescent light but instead of using lighting that’s makes sense you decide to impose hard lighting from a movie you’ve seen.

No one is asking you to invent a new style of lighting we’re saying you shouldn’t be trying to reverse engineering another movie lighting. Most if not all of your questions and topics revolve around how do recreate the final product of big commercial movie you watch without out having budget, knowledge of how it was done, expertise, or equipment. Then you come up with a detailed plan and show up to a location to find out it won’t work. No good dp wants to be handed a blue print of a lighting setup from some inexperienced crack pot director.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh okay, well it's not that I want to re-invent the wheel, it's just I was told to go with my own look rather than using looks of other movies.

The thing about soft fluorescent tubes, is that it doesn't look cinematic, and will look like a made for TV episode of The Office, it sounds like. Shouldn't I go for a more cinematic look? This is an example of what I mean though. I am told to make up the look and have the guts to do it my way, rather than copy other material, but then when I try to come up with my own, I'm told it's wrong and it will confuse people. So should I come up with my own, or follow a standard so that people are not confused?

The thing about using fluorescent tubes as lights, I have used those before, but they posed problems for me in the past. One thing is, is that they are not near as bright as halogens so I have a problem, using the light to separate the foreground from the background, when they are not near as bright. So I didn't think that fluorescents were very good to use therefore. They are also much larger than halogen lights, which makes them trickier to fit into locations since they take up more space. Wouldn't this be a problem for fluorescents compared to halogens? Oh course I can talk to a DP about this too, I just thought that a DP would prefer the halogen lights, since they are brighter.

If we are to use flourescents though, what if I we did a similar lighting set up, where the fluorescent lights are the keylight and they are hitting the actor from the side more so, to separate the backround? And another flourescent as a back light on the actors. Would that be better?

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Given the ISO ratings of modern digital cameras, florescent lights shouldn't be an issue There are film lights that use colour accurate florescent tubes, so the light levels are sufficient for this type of work. The DP may decide to use additional lights, but .as the director, you should communicate the overall look you're going for and let the DP work out the mechanics from there. The top lights usually separates the actors background.

DPs work with florescents all the time, including on feature films. It's how they lit the Washington Post newsroom in "All the Presidents Men".

You do seem to stuck in making a pastiche of 1960s films.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh okay, well a lot of movies I like are from the 60s, and I like some of the looks of them. All The President's Men looked a little documentary-ish style for my taste. But I can watch it again. But if we are allowed to use other movies for inspiration, what about this kind of police station setting scene, lighting wise?


They don't have back lights for the actors to separate them more from the background, which I like, but if I were to use backlights in an office setting, would that look too weird?

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

You can use back light, but it needs to be subtle, many of the DPs in the 1960s came from shooting black and white, where you needed the back light for separation. You don't need that in colour.

There's not much back light in Seven

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

This is EXACTLY what I tried to explain. Where on earth do you get these rules - you bang o0n about separating the actors from the background as if this = cinematic, or not doing it =TV or documentary. It's all context driven. That picture could be a police station, or a newspaper office, or the call centre for a big insurance firm.

Nobody suggested bringing in loads of fluorescents - we thought that you'd use a space that already has them. You don't have the budget to rent a four waller, build a set and light it do you?

Why do you believe that cinematic doesn't mean natural light, or real artificial light. There must be hundreds of examples where lighting augments what's already there.

In an office, strong key would possibly look like sunlight, but what if there are no windows? Strong key in a room that doesn't need it looks really odd. Backlight would need to come from somewhere. Do you have backlight in a real room. We're not making a sit com, or a morning TV show.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh, well I didn't say that using a back light for separation was a rule. It's just a preference of mine. Isn't it okay for me to have preferences, as to what I like, looks wise?

As for using a space that already has fluorescents, I can't rely on lights on the ceiling, in tests I have done before, that causes the actors to have shadows around the eye bags, making the eye bags look worse. I need light pointed in from the sides and in front more, to get rid of that eye bag shadow. Or at least fluorescent lights on the ceiling only are not going to do it.

As for the motivation for the back light, I thought it would be the sun as motivation.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh okay, I just like the look of the back light separation. Even though it's in color, I still prefer the look as a personal preference. I actually like this type of lighting better:


Could I do something like that for a police station setting, but with more back light separation?

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

It's up to you. but it looks like something a film student would do.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh okay. You are saying the back light specifically is something a film student would do?

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

No, he's saying that it's the kind of technique a film student would do rather than the most appropriate one.

I'm really confused by the bags under the eyes comment? Flu tubes are just soft light - and lots of flu tubes creates pretty much no shadows, so if you got them, they were in the wrong place, or the actors were in the wrong place, or the camera was in the wrong place.

I find it so difficult that you cannot understand the basic concepts of movie making. You do something, it doesn't work - so the technique is immediately abandoned. Sometimes it's just a good technique used poorly.

Why are you obsessed on creating backlight when it's unreal for some situations. You are perfectly entitled to have whatever opinion you like - the question is that other people may not think the same.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

He's talking about overhead flo lights already built into the locations creating the eye shadows

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

As in one overhead, and the actor underneath? Lost the will to live now.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

I assume any office-y type location... with built in flos directly overhead everywhere.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

It was said before that I don't need to bring my own fluorescents when the location already has them. What I was saying is, is that I don't want to use the location ones, because if they are over top of the actors, the eye bags look bad in my experience.

The way I solve that problem is to shine the light in front of the faces, rather than over their heads. But if I shine the light in front, than I have to bring my own, as oppose to using the ones already there, is what I was saying.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

When you say the actors are in the wrong place, the actors cannot be still though. They have to be able to move around. So I need to have the lighting to look good for all the places they move around to in the blocking of course.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

I can’t even keep up with the contradictions and misunderstandings. Ryan you can have whatever opinions you want but they aren’t opinions that take into consideration your lack of budget. I think what they mean by student is that you’re heavy handed, overly concerned with stylistic looks instead of using common sense dictated by the purpose of the scene and the limitations of the locations. Since the drama and action will not be taking place at the police station and what’s most important is establishing that this is a police station and the lighting should support that. If the location is dark or you want to supplement the existing lighting so be it. You seem to make everything more difficult than it needs to be.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh okay, I don't mean to be contradictory, I am just trying to come up with a look. What is it about the locations that would be so limiting though? You can just bring in lights and put them on stands, can't we? Why are locations limiting to not using lighting kits, or what is it that would be so limiting?

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

You completely misunderstand lighting Ryan. If you have a low ceilinged room and put lights on stands, it looks awful, and everybody casts shadows that land on other people, or the walls. Remember that 45 degrees is a great down angles for natural lighting - but how do you do that indoors in a real location? That's NOT a question, I know the answer - just in case you misunderstood that too.

This magic look you are trying to achieve needs to be balanced against practicality. You always miss this. You choose a location, and then you work with it. Sometimes the location is king, so your lighting and sound has to suffer if it really is that important. Other times when you need certain looks you need to change the location and techniques to make it happen. You want to have it all, and you can't.

Please don't start "Oh, OK..." because when you say that you never mean it - you just skip it.

Can you actually afford all this stuff? Based on the people you keep talking about - Proper actors, director, DP, sparks, and the audio folk your budget is going to be substantial.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

He's said he has $50k right now to spend and thinks he can raise more.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

If 50K is enough... When you say low ceilings will cause the lighting to look awful, you are saying the lights cannot go high enough is that right? So wouldn't we just have to make adjustments then? Sometimes I would be okay with the shadows cause I thought that the shadowy look was good. Other times I or the DP, would fill out the shadows with other lights. Is that bad? I could just get a DP to figure out how to light with the low ceiling problem, if that's best.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

I'm just saying that the lighting in the interview is something a film student would do, if you want the same effect effect there are methods that don't look as crude.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

You believe that. Did you believe he was going to get a BMPCC camera a few months ago?

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Well he's been saying the "I have the money right now" and that that's why he wants to do this now, since if he waits a few years, he may not be able to self fund it, ever since these threads started last year, so yeah.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

The 50k is BS

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Maybe? It's conceivable that someone could have saved money.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

All this reminds me of someone who used to phone me every couple of months about buying a video camera. In the end he never bought it, but the conversation was the same as these threads.

With the amount of time spent discussing this policeman's office, the scene could've been shot and everyone gone down the pub. .

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

He’s filming with 2ti and an antique sound recorder and cant buy a power adapter. Maybe he’s a Howard Hughes. Who knows. I just think he fits an insecure type of person who wants to be taken seriously. He’s been caught before with inconsistency in what he says.

Just remember this is the same rape thriller that he can’t find anyone who wants do it.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

You could be right. I feel with the things he's chosen to reveal that he's nigh incapable of deception. But I do think all the past problems and criticisms have to led to a serious case of decision paralysis, where any move he makes on anything could be the wrong one leading to no moves at all.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Yes - it is bad. 100% bad, and usually horrible to look at.

I'll try to explain. Let's assume you have one light in a room 20ft x 30ft with a ceiling height of 10ft. You put up your key till it touches the ceiling. You are shooting across the room to fill the frame left to right with the usual picture ratio. The best place for natural lighting would be half way from the wall - at 10ft. If you have multiple actors you could spread them left to right at the 10ft distance but that isn't practical. If you want them in a group 15 ft from the camera, then their shadows are going to be very visible on the wall. Let's send the actors, bar one to get a coffee. At 15ft, he will have a quite prominent shadow on the wall. Bring one more actor back and stand him in a position where he's in shadow. Stick up your next light to light him, but then this creates another shadow. with two actors, you now have 4 shadows on the wall. Add more actors and the shadows multiply. Oh dear - we don't want shadows on the wall, what can we do? Lets add some light to make the black shadows lighter. We don't want them to come from the front of course, so it has to be side light, but that means it's bright ones side, but not the other. So we stick in another, and put it on the other side. Now we have shadows centre, but less in the brighter wall at the left and right. If it was old days, we'd put a half scrim in, so we could make the light closer to the fixture dimmer. That doesn't work with LEDs that well. Before long we have a lot of lights on stands and every time actors move, the shadows do too. We've also got a very bright background which probably bleaches out if exposure is right for faces. we cannot up the face light brightness because the shadows increase again. If we were doing a documentary and the ceiling was white, we'd bounce loads of light off it and get an even bright soft coverage. You hate this, so that option is not open to you. Low ceilings in bigger rooms mean lighting is far from easy.

You cannot just fill shadows with light. It works for interviews fine, but if you want the actors to be able to move, it falls down very quickly.

Shadows you deliberately create are good. Accidental shadows are usually bad, because it might look good until people move, and when you move from the wide shot to the closeups, things can get very strange looking, so you have to change the lighting rig to match the look but probably by a different technique. The setup above goes horribly wrong as soon as you change camera position. In a real studio with proper lights, then every camera position can have kit hanging in the right place. That means rigging trim height is dependent on camera to subject distance to get the angles right.

Lighting is either for mood or illumination. Often mutually exclusive. If you really have 50 grand to waste - you're on a good path.

You also need to think about audio. The scenario above is boom unfriendly, so it's hidden lavs probably. Yet another complication for you to juggle.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh well I was going to use a different camera for shooting, probably the bmpcc but waiting for a DP's input. Is that ad to use the antique sound recorder? I was told before that the technology has hardly changed, and to still use it, unless I should get a new one?

I am still looking for a good DP and good actors to work with, first, in order to make it good. Those were the reasons for the delay, because I don't want to settle for just anyone, since I need more experienced people to work with.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Okay sure, I will allow the DP to sort out the lighting more then. However, why can't I use a boom? I've used booms before in office settings. What about the location would make it boom unfriendly, since it's worked before? Are you saying the ceiling would be too low for a boom?

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

No (engaging patience control). The scenario with the one light, one actor, that gets out of control quickly would be simply awful with a boom wouldn't it. Virtually nowhere for the boom to be operated from that would not be in one of the beams, and then casting a very obvious shadow. You'd perhaps get away with it in the tight shots, but even then - if you have multiple keys and loads of fill, its a boom nightmare. The usual ideal boom position would be right where the light is coming from.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh okay, well in the other shoots I have done before, I couldn't see a shadow in of the boom, in the shots, so I thought as long as you deal with the shadow then it's okay I thought. But I would be sure to go over that with the DP and tell them that I want the to be able to use a boom, and to light so you cannot see a shadow of it. Sorry, I don't mean to test your patients, it's just in the previous post, you didn't explain why the boom would be a problem, you just said it would be unfriendly. So I just wanted to ask why, that's all.

I really do appreciate all the help! I just only want to ask questions on points that are not touched upon, cause if someone says something like 'unfriendly', that is not very specific, so I just want to ask what was meant by those things, that's all. Sorry, I really do appreciate all the input.

But in the past, we would always light the scene in a way, in which you wouldn't see the boom, so I didn't think that would be a problem, if we did that.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Low ceilings, mean shallower lighting angles, light travels to the subject through space that needs to be clear of anything that can cast a shadow. Where exactly do you think a boom could go? Your plan to add lights means more problems with shadows. With lights higher, the shadows don't travel so far and land on the floor which may be out of shot.

If you find a good DP, do you think this person will wlecome you handing him the camera you can't work yet, with your lens choice and smile when you expect your predetermined results.You WANT a team, but a team who will do exactly what you say.That isn't a team it's a disaster. Roles come with responsibility. You need to micromanage.

Let assume we lived near you. Do you think that based on what we know, we would be your team. I think it would be a pretty good team if you let us get on with it, but you won't. You just have this weird obsession with unusual or perculiar production techniques and your list of importances is upside down.

Re: Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?
 

Oh okay, I have no problem allowing a a team make the decisions since that is what they are hired for. I just thought I could have some input as to how I feel the movie should look.

I could just allow the team and the DP to light for the boom correctly, if that's best.