Another round of beginner questions.

Buddy Greenfield

Buddy Greenfield

After writing for a few years and discovering how lack of budget can be an effective creative tool as opposed to a limitation, I realized that perhaps I too could make my very own *relatively inexpensively short films. However, before I do so, I have a few million basics questions that I hope you guys can help me out with and/or point me towards some essential online reading material that will begin the enlightenment.

My main concern is understanding the correlation of film type, lens settings, lighting, and filters.

As a practical example, I have a 16 mm Bolex and wish to shoot one of my shorts called "What lies outside the closet" which in fact takes place IN a closet. With camera type and a location void of any natural light in mind, which type of color film, amount and kind of light and filters (If any) would you suggest I explore to at least get something on film?

Also please:

What kind of light meter should I consider buying or avoiding and will it possibly help make things a bit clearer as to this correlation I hope to understand?

And finally (for now) is there some kind of structured guideline I can follow to not only effectively test, but also learn from while shooting my 1st 100 ft test reel?

I appreciate any help you guys can offer.
:)
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
The 40 watt light in the background probably wouldn't change your main exposure. I would think it would mostly just bring some items in the background into range, so they would not be totally lost in shadow. 160 watts of light isn't very much light. Even 200 watts, spread across background and subject sounds weak to me.

Each full f-stop represents a doubling or halving of the light from the previous stop (depending on whether you're going down or up). So, F1.8 would be double the light of F2.8 and F1.2 would be double F1.8. Therefore, shooting at 1.4 would significantly push your exposure up. Although you may have 2 stops of extra lattitude, I'm not sure you'll be happy with the noticable difference you may see in the shots, after telecine. I would try to maintain consistant exposure (film density) throughout the shoot. If you want to shoot everything wide open, I'd just drop the 75mm lens. I can't see where you'd need the 75mm while working in close.

I looked at Kodak's specifications, and they do, indeed call for 20 footcandles @ 24fps with 170 degree shutter (about 1/50 second exposure, I believe). If you're reading 32, you're going to be overexposed by less than 1 stop, which is Ok, but you'll be overexposed by 2 to 4 stops using the faster lenses wide open. Your reading doesn't sound right to me. Is your 100W bulb very close? Light decreases by the square of the distance, so a 100W bulb that is 2 feet from the meter is like a 400W bulb that is 4 feet away, or a 1600W that is 8 feet away! You may find that you can correct your over-exposure simply by moving the light a couple feet further away. Keep in mind, that, if you light is too close, the fall off within your frame will be really significant. Having your main light 6 feet away and putting a low wattage lightbulb close in as a prop, rather than the key light source might give you a better effect. You'll have serious issues if your key light is actually in the shot with the subject. The light source, itself will blow out your exposure ceiling (D-Max) at just about any rational setting, and your subject will always be in relative darkness.

In any case, I think your choice of filmstock should serve you well. It is tunsten balanced (3200K) and fast enough to let you do a wide range of lighting configurations. You may want to note, that if you're shooting in close, you don't need the widest aperature setting to get good selective focus. When shooting in close, you don't get much depth of field. With a wide aperature, at a distance of 2 feet, your depth of field would probably be measurable in millimeters.

You still need to so some tests. If for no other reason, you must verify that your light meter is accurate and that your camera is functioning correctly.

I'm rambling. Sorry if none of this seems very coherent.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It's informative and well appreciated rambling so don't sweat it.
Normally I would vow "This short will get made even if it kills me!" , but at the rate I'm going it
just might -of old age! I like the idea of a low watt bulb to make the table lamp more of a prop, but
then my only alternative at the moment is floodlights as key which kill the look I was after.
I was told to spray the bulb facing the camera with black hairspray to lessen that blow out effect, but I haven't tried it yet. I will experiment more and read more and report back.

I appreciate you patience and efforts
Thanks :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Black hairspray? That's new to me. I should mention that I've never had a reason to setup a shot similar to the one you describe, so there are probably ways to work out the bugs that I haven't seen or tried.

Your light reading is high for the amount of light you're using, so I have to assume close proximity with the key light. There are ways to balance things out, and maybe darkening one side of the bulb will reduce the hotness of the bulb, but I'm pretty sure you'll want to have several other lights illuminating the background and subject, to make the light look more natural. Keep in mind, that in a small room, the one light would bounce all over the place, and the human eye compensates for huge variations in luminance.

I think if you do a test shot with your simple setup; even a test shot with a digital camera or 35mm still camera, you'll see what I'm talking about, and get an idea of how your setup will appear on film.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
As a matter of fact I have been taking digital pics to get an idea and I kind of like the look.
(Hard to create a closet prop wise, but it’s getting there)
With a 40 watt in the table lamp as key and a 60 watt above and slightly behind in a clamp on work light as an adjustable source of fill, I am getting about 16 to 20 on my meter, it’s really easy to add or subtract the level with the fill light positioning, so I hope I am in the right neighborhood.
As you suspect, the table lamp by virtue of it being a closet is right next to the actress’s face (Like a foot away as she will be sitting and kneeling) and I can see how the key being so close will leave her face in silhouette, so my 1st question is, if I hit her face with a small wattage of tight spotlight, will that presumably illuminate her face and cancel out that silhouetting effect of the key being so close?

Second question: If I can reduce my table lamp bulb to maybe a 20 watt and add a face spotlight which will hopefully bring my light reading to about 12 to 16, will I be way under for my 20 required for 2.8 and way over for the 5 and aprox 8-9 required for my 1.4 and 1.9?

I am confused as to if I should be trying to create 1 average light level that will give me proper exposure and illumination for all three of my lenses. If so, any idea what that level as far as just exposure would be for 500 asa?


Sorry if you have given me the answers previously and I just haven’t understood them yet.
Thanks :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think I'd just use all lenses on f2.8, to solve one dilemma with a minimum of fuss.

As I vaguely described before, I'd probably start with a more distant light (it would probably need to be a spot, or a light with some kind of snoot) on the subject, which would be the key light. Then, I'd add a low wattage bulb as a prop, that would also add some light to make it look like the bulb was the main/only light source. Then, I'd set up 2 or 3 more lights with barndoors, or some other controls, that would illuminate the things I wanted to show up in my shot. Those lights would be dimmed, filtered, or moved far enough away, that the things in the background will still be low key (at least -2 stops). I might also add a color filter to one or more of the background lights, depending on the mood I wanted.

There is really no way for me to say for sure how I'd light your set without actually working on your set, moving some things around, changing bulbs, etc., etc. Lighting is one of those things that is never the same from one set to the next. Keep trying different things and taking digital photos as proofs. Take copious notes, and don't be afraid to use some aluminum foil and/or other non-flammable materials to form some control surfaces, reflectors, etc. You'd be amazed at what you can on the cheap.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I am seeing more and more what you mean by using the lamp as a prop.
I lined 3/4 of the inside of lampsahde with foil which was instant blow out remover, but ultimately since I only need the lamp to have a little glow and cast a small shadow from the shade, I'm thinking of trying an adapter in the lamp bulb socket that converts it to an outlet, and then just plugging a nightlight into it. I did have the look, illumination and a decent light level going, but undoubtedly I can try to make it better and reduce 90% chance of any blow out or leaving the actresses face in the dark, however in using bigger key and fill lights it becomes a matter of casting harsh unnatural shadows which I will somehow overcome as well.

At the risk of my brain (or yours) going completly Scanners, I'd like to ask about the final chapter of my initial film making confusion, depth of field. If anyone following this thread takes high blood pressure medication, now would be a good time to dose because here is what I THINK I KNOW about depth of field which is undoubtedly wrong, but a good place to start. The misinformed notion I have is that DOF is expressed in like distance (say 1 foot) to infinity. A lens set at 10 feet to infinty would act as a "threshold of focus" in which everything from the film plane to 9 feet 11 inches (For a rough example) would be out of focus, while everything 10 feet and beyond would be in focus (To a certain extent).
What I also don't know is, do I HAVE TO use the DOF setting, or can I focus my veiwer on its own with no lens in place, then replace the lens and set it to like zero to infinty and everything will be in focus.
Also, if my viwerfinder is focused to my eyesight, then if I simply focus on the lens and get it sharp on my subject as I intend to film it, is what I see what I get?

Thank you much :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've taken my meds. You have some work to do on your understanding of DOF, so let me start with 2 oversimplified statements that might clear the water a little ...

1) DOF determines the range from near to far that is acceptably sharp; technically, there is only one plane that is precisely in focus.

2) Because of item 1, you should always focus on your subject, unless you have a range of subjects that need to be reasonably sharp, then ... well, we'll cover that later.

What you describe, where DOF extends from some distance to infinity, is called hyperfocal distance. Hyperfocal distance is generally not a big deal to cinematographers. It is more useful to landscape photographers, etc.

What you need to know is that the range of relative sharpness, and how fast things go out of focus as they leave that range, is controlled by the aperature, and the distance from focal plane (camera) to subject. Larger aperatures (smaller f-stop numbers) give less DOF and things go out of focus faster. Being close to your subject also decreases depth of field.

Since your shooting will all be in fairly close, and you can use F2.8 on all of your lenses, the most important thing is that you focus critically on the subject, and continue to focus if the subject is changing it's distance from the camera (subject or camera moving).

I've got some example DOF shots that might help explain DOF. I know everyone on the web has their own shots, but I'm going to include some here, just in case it helps. The first image is shot at F16, the second is shot at F1.8, and the final is at F4 (included to show you that you can use F2.8 and even F3.5 and still get good, selective focus). P.S. You generally don't want too much to be in focus ... it's distracting to the viewer.

dof_test_f16.jpg

dof_test_f2.jpg

dof_test_f4.jpg
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm not sure if I need to say this, but, regarding those 3 photos, the focus point is identical on all 3 photos. The only change is to the F-stop, and shutter speed (to compensate for F-stop change, to maintain the same exposure).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nice pics and explain. It makes A LOT of sense after actually seeing an example. :)

Thank you tons for all the help Oakstreet (And everyone that contributed), going from almost scared of my camera to finally being confident enough to make my debut short film this week (With a beautiful girl, a hit song and a script so bad it gets hate mail) is very liberating and wouldn't have been at all possible without your help and patience.

Cheers :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top