Bitten off more than I can chew for a first short?

Hi Folks,

As many of you will have gathered by now I am currently writing my first short. I am however slightly apprehensive as the narrative demands that 99 percent of the movie will be indoors and at night in relatively dark conditions.

The gear I am using will be a hacked GH2 (flowmotion) with the older kit lens(14-45mm f2.8) and a really nice canon FD 50mm f1.4.

As yet I don't have any lighting gear bar a manfrotto LED panel that sits in the hot shoe mount on top of my GH2,it has 22 LED's at 5600k.

I am worried about lighting the shots as it is something I have never done before.

Am I complicating my first shoot by doing it so dark?

Cheers.
 
Thanks folks, I am in the envious position of shooting in my own house so I can basically shoot any night I like. Thanks for the advice Craig,maybe I will try the white balance trick and see If I can get away with avoiding shots that mix the 2 light sources.If not I will just make a light box following one of the guides on youtube and find some 4100k bulbs to go in it for now.

Not sure if you have a field monitor. I do but I also do tests and watch them back on both the field monitor and a large calibrated monitor. Your camera's LCD screen is simply not good enough to properly check footage be the set at your home or elsewhere. And have fun shooting! :)
 
Last edited:
Thanks IP.I don't have a field monitor I just tend to check the footage on my macbook pro,I figure this short will only ever go on youtube so as long as it looks right on this it should be fine? I'll pick up a nice field monitor when funds allow but for now I'm all spent up.
 
The moon lighting is really holding up production now,I need it for a few shots and I'm really struggling to find the right bulbs or lighting setup in the UK.I want to make a DIY light but 4100K bulbs seem to be only available in the US or be stupid money over here.
 
Here's a secret: Not everything we do in film mimics real life :) Just because moonlight may be a certain colour temperature in real life does not mean that we need to ensure it's perfectly matched on camera.

You'll find most productions make moonlight more blue than necessary, simply because that's the colour that we tend to associate moonlight with.
Moonlight should technically be harsh, with long shadows, but many productions (especially older productions) are fans of the 'soft' moonlight.

If you're really absolutely set on having your moonlight around 4100K white balance, use a tungsten light with 1/2 CTB; alternately you could use your 5600K light as the moonlight and use 1/2 CTB gel on all the tungsten lights, then set your WB to 4300K.
 
Hmm now I read this and I'm even more confused.Why will 4100k be bluer if the higher the colour temperature the bluer the look?

http://www.thelightbulbshop.co.uk/colourtemp.htm

If that's the case surely my 5600k will be nearer the moon light 'look' (Although not technically the colour of moonlight,just what we have been trained to accept is the colour of the moon in films.) than 4100k(the actual colour of moonlight.).In which case am I not better off getting a 1/2 CTB(learnt some terms and abbreviatons during todays reading!) gel that will make my 5600k even bluer and thus more acceptable to the viewers eye as 'the moon'?

I have done some testing tonight with my small L.E.D light and it isn't a terrible look but it is way too harsh.I need to move the light outside at some distance to get a more authentic look,which then will be a problem when it comes to getting the exposure right but I can sort that.I also now have access to another light which I found in the garage, it's a large S.A.D light that was a family members, basically a nice diffused 3 bulb fluro(I think) that in theory should be around 5600k as it is meant to mimic sun light,it's much brighter than my L.E.D light and I have accosted it for my film making!
 
That's what I've been trying to say! 4100K is warmer than 5600K! The higher the color temperature the bluer something is, of course relative to the white balance set in camera.

If its too harsh, look into Opal Frost or 1/4 White Diff which will take the harsh edge off without cutting too much light.
 
Are you looking for an overall blue cast to the scene, or just a particular light, i.e. moonlight coming in through a window while the subject is lit by interior lights? If it's overall it may be easier to adjust it either via white balance in camera, or color correction in post.
 
Thanks guys, the scene is a tv screen lighting a mans face whilst he sits on the sofa, then the tv goes off and he is sat in darkness with the only light being moonlight coming in from a big window.

The current plan is to use the big 3 bulb fluro light with a gel on it, placed outside of the window as far back as I can get it.
 
Hmm now I read this and I'm even more confused.Why will 4100k be bluer if the higher the colour temperature the bluer the look?

You're confusing yourself between white balance of your camera (made to determine what color is "white"), and the color of the lights.

Lower K lights are redder (warmer) like tungsten. Higher K lights are bluer (colder) like overcast sky.
But lower K white balance makes the picture "colder", and higher K white balance makes it "warmer".

Picture a number line that goes from 2500K to 10,000K, and you set your white balance (WB) somewhere on that line. Every light source to the right of the WB will be bluer, and every light source to the left will be redder. If the light source temperature is right near the WB mark, it will be white and the colors illuminated by it will be true and correct.

If you want (actual) moonlight to look blue, you need to set your WB below 4100K and it'll look blue. If you set your WB to 5600, the moon will take an amber tint because it's around 4100K.
 
Back
Top