Fascinating, what a difference just lighting makes

kCGQm.png
 
An excellent example of what I am ALWAYS saying...

There is a difference between an exposed image and a lit image.
That second one is exposed - everything can be seen - it's even
in focus for the most part.

Lighting is essential.
 
Welcome!

And yes, that is a great example. I just need to figure out how to light like the first one with cheap LEDs, and home lights.
 
Lighting? Definitely, a HUGE difference.

...but having a set dresser and dedicated post-production colorist certainly helps...
 
Lighting? Definitely, a HUGE difference.

...but having a set dresser and dedicated post-production colorist certainly helps...


I don't think the first picture was designed to look like that. Heck, they didn't even bother with composition. And I don't think it was graded either. And still looks good.

I wonder what's the bare minimum to spend to get enough lighting equipement. I hear so much about worklights but I'm kindda skeptical and actual filmmaking stuff seem so expensive.
 
I don't think the first picture was designed to look like that. Heck, they didn't even bother with composition.
Absolutely it was designed. Every prop, every picture on the wall
was placed there by the art department team. The production
didn’t just walk into the room, set up lights and roll film. They
didn't bother with composition? Look again. Everything in that
first shot is exactly where it needs to be including the slightly
higher angle and the shorter lens then the second picture.

Notice how the Coca-Cola signs are removed? Even the DPH
rating is changed - from the LA tag in the second picture to the
NYC in the first one.
 
Absolutely it was designed. Every prop, every picture on the wall
was placed there by the art department team. The production
didn’t just walk into the room, set up lights and roll film. They
didn't bother with composition? Look again. Everything in that
first shot is exactly where it needs to be including the slightly
higher angle and the shorter lens then the second picture.

Notice how the Coca-Cola signs are removed? Even the DPH
rating is changed - from the LA tag in the second picture to the
NYC in the first one.

I didn't realize it was the same place. I just thought the first one was on set and the second one an attempt at mimicking it. That's because I never saw this scene :D.

So yeah, you're right (as always ?).
 
both are very similar but lighting is quiet good in second one, so look at that again

black man's facial impressions not showing well. so i think he must change his place with in front of man or otherwise need add 3200k 2 lights in corners. oh don't use lights directly their faces they will burn :D
use white board or something and get lighting reflections for this place.:)

this is my personal opinion :weird:
 
Can anyone tell just by looking at it how was the first shot lit ? I feel it's lit from above because the table is evenly lit and the shadow's on faces are not always on the same side (Robert VS Thor).
 
Can anyone tell just by looking at it how was the first shot lit ? I feel it's lit from above because the table is evenly lit and the shadow's on faces are not always on the same side (Robert VS Thor).

There does appear to be an overhead light, as for the rest of it I don't know.
 
I think they bounced light quite a lot. I believe that they bounced some light against the ceiling and have thus created a quite evenly lit foreground..
 
haha, I havent seen this movie so it took me a long time to recognize the actors. Anyway, I don't think either still looks great here. I'm sure it looks a lot better on the big screen / when the picture is moving.
 
Can anyone tell just by looking at it how was the first shot lit ? I feel it's lit from above because the table is evenly lit and the shadow's on faces are not always on the same side (Robert VS Thor).

i think there was 1 or 2 lits only. one on the ceiling may be other one in right side

just look at the beer counter to see that lits :hmm:
 
Back
Top