Search results

1/3 of a stop -- from 320 down to 250 ASA -- is pretty minor, within a margin of error in exposing. I wouldn't worry about it. I actually think the RED needs more exposure anyway and is closer to 250 ASA if you want to keep the noise in the shadows down.

Yes, I meter the sun separately from the shade (shading the dome with my hand when necessary) and then determine how much of a split I want to give the exposure. I don't want the meter to be averaging the two on its own.

Well, 1/3 is better than nothing, but it's within a margin of error in exposing, i.e. even if you rate the stock 1/3 of a stop slower, it doesn't always mean you'll end up with a consistent amount of extra density. But it's still better than nothing. It's really more of a hedge against...

It just depends on the look you want, and also the balance of sun to shade in the shot -- the more you are in the shade, the more you can open up. With a desert setting, you can often get away with playing the sun side one-stop overexposed even in frontal lighting because it makes things feel...

No, lighting is lighting. You make adjustments for the contrast, dynamic range, color balance, etc. of any film stock or digital camera, but the fundamentals are the same in terms of how to key someone, how to fill, what direction to key from, how to replicate available light, etc. The only...

I point the dome at the light I want to read, not towards the camera, which would average key and shadows of the face was side-lit. As you said, if the camera moves around the subject, then the key becomes a side light, front light, back light, etc. so it's better to just read the light by...

There's not a magic line that you cross from detail to no detail, partly because faces have a range of highlights on them. If you are talking about how much you can overexpose a face and bring it back down to normal without it looking odd, I'd stick to 3-stops over as the limit for color...

There's a reason that call it "directing" and not "creating". A director directs (as in "push in a certain direction") other things -- other people, the project itself, etc. The best directors therefore make it possible for everyone else to do their best, through encouragement, collaboration...

Whether or not you need to add fill depends on the style or look you want, the dynamic range of the camera or film stock, and what you are trying to balance the shadows against. I try to keep things simple and not automatically add fill - not only does this makes things look natural, but it can...

It can take too long to test every possible combination of things. When I start a movie, I like to shoot some basic over and underexposure tests and lighting ratios, just to get a feel for the stock again. Then I'll try some likely shooting scenarios, styles, with some variations -- like if I...

Overexposing isn't so much changing contrast (although the response in the highlights does start to flatten out due to being on the shoulder of the curve) -- your balance between key to fill is remaining the same. It's just that you don't like the fact that by overexposing the highlights you've...

No, what you did sounds right -- 1.5-stops under is not that dark in the shadows; neither is 2-stops under in the wider shot. All depends on the amount of bright highlights in the frame. For example, when the sun is setting, you can get an intense halo backlight but if the background is not...

Sure, rent a 16mm camera with a PL-mount (it will probably be a Super-16 camera but that doesn't matter) and put a standard PL-mount 2X anamorphic lens on it. The problem you'll have is that you'll be cropping the negative on the sides to 1.20 : 1 (in order to get a 2.40 image with a 2X optical...

You can only correct an overall frame or shot one way or the other -- for example, under greenish lighting, you'd shift the image towards magenta to compensate. So a lab can't correct for mixed color temps in the same shot and even them out, though by spending some time in a color-correction...

It should be fine. Just get everything in the same ballpark and then you can time the overall image either direction, cooler and whiter if you want. Truth is that the main thing is that the location and clothing have the warmth removed because there are limits to how cool you can time the...

You're asking two different things -- exposure versus balancing light. If adding light is an option, then yes, you'd balance things so that you can then expose for the look you want. This is one of those shots -- someone in profile against a big daytime window -- where there is no right or...

Just depends -- yes, I'll add 1/4 CTO to movie lamps to match the warmth of practicals, but I've also left them white and let the background practicals look warmer. Just a slightly different look. Also depends on whether your movie light is matching the color of an onscreen practical, or if it...

Regarding a TV lighting effect, again, the intensity would depend on if it was the only source of light in the scene/room, just as in real life because your eyes would adjust to the lower levels of light. A TV set is really just a soft light source, the size of the TV, that is shifting in...

Here's a snapshot I took of a stand-in while I was lighting a forest for a night scene: I'll probably time it even darker when I finish the movie.

Well, you'd have to define what looks fake about moonlighting because clearly you have some sort of opinion about that. The intensity of moonlight is dependent on what it is in relation to. In an urban environment, it is unlikely for the moonlight to be the brightest source of light and would...