Would using a star filter for cinematography be too weird?

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

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.

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.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

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

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:

lighting example - YouTube

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

[Brian Drysdale]

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

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

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

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

[Paul R Johnson]

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.

[Josh Bass]

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

[Paul R Johnson]

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

[Josh Bass]

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

[Ryan Elder]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

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.

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.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

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.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

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.

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?

[Paul R Johnson]

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.

[Josh Bass]

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

[Ryan Elder]

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.