Night Filming

[TLMAlexGro]

I was wondering if anyone has some tips/tricks to night filming. I have an upcoming shoot, and I know it's silly, but don't really have any experience filming at night outdoors.

I'll be using two cameras. A Panasonic AD-DVC 7 and a Sony DSR-250. In a few days I'm going to do some site shooting and editing for practice. I would appreciate any help so I don't look like to much of a fool in front of my crew .

This is going to be a night-for-night shoot. I'm just grasping for basics and noodling around google not getting much help.

Thanks in advance! And I'll post my pitfalls/successes after the shoot.

 

[oakstreetphotovideo]

is there a reason you need to shoot at night? many shots can be done in daylight and darkened+desaturated+blue tint in post. If you must shoot at night, it would help if we knew what kind of scenes you have to shoot.

 

[TLMAlexGro]

is there a reason you need to shoot at night? many shots can be done in daylight and darkened+desaturated+blue tint in post. If you must shoot at night, it would help if we knew what kind of scenes you have to shoot.

I've read a little about Day-For-Night shooting, but I'm nervous that I don't have enough technical ability to pull that off right.

The scenes all bascially revolve around a camp setting. Fire, lanterns, etc.

Thanks!

 

[oakstreetphotovideo]

My guess is that a camp setting is something you'd want to shoot indoors, or at night. You can fake the firelight and lantern light if you are not out in broad daylight. You could also light an outdoor scene after sundown (or before sunrise) and fake the firelight/lantern lights. I don't recommend shooting by actual firelight, unless you don't care about the quality. A campfire doesn't generate much light. A lantern might give you a bright light, but you'd want to bounce that light around for more natural looking light, and it would be easier if you had some flood lights for background lighting. I can picture a couple of other problems shooting outdoors by real firelight, that involve bugs, people tripping over wires, equipment getting damaged by the fire, etc.

I should probably back out here, and defer to someone who's actually done a shot like this. I've done some campfire video, so I know how little light you're going to get on your subjects, unless you put them in the fire! However, I can't tell you exactly how it should be done. If I were doing it, I'd do several experimental shots, I'd probably use all artificial light, for control, and I'd add the fire in post, where needed. It's much easier to get great campfire video if all you need to shoot is the fire.

I have lots of campfire video that I shot on miniDV, if you can use it. It's easy to composite, because the background is perfectly black.

 

[TLMAlexGro]

Thanks! After doing some googling I think I might give it a go during the day, but the schedule has already been set for the night so I'll have to check everyone's schedules, etc. I definitely wouldn't mind taking a look at the campfire video.

Appreciate it!

 

[directorik]

I prefer shooting night for night. Even with filters and post work I don't like the look of day for night.

Of course, you'll need lights. You don't mention lights (and power) at all in your post. I have some tricks - and can post a sequence or two if you like - but they won't do you any good if you don't have lights. I did a scene in the woods with six 650 watt Arri lights that looks really good.

 

[oakstreetphotovideo]

Agreeing with Rick; One obvious problem with day-for-night, in this case, is removing the background. A true night shot; even with lots of artificial light, will fade to black in the distance.

I uploaded 2 shortened and compressed campfire clips from my library. The original series of clips of clips is over 1GB in it's original, DV format, and the longest clip is 1m 41s long. I'd probably just mail you a DVD-R with the full clips. The compressed versions aren't as smooth, but you get the idea.

20 seconds of clip #5 a5 50% speed
5 seconds of clip #7 100% speed

p.s. I found that slowing the campfire down made it look less frantic and more realistic, so I included a clip at 50% speed

 

[Thunderclap]

I don't advice Day for Night unless absolutely necessary because it will not look the same as if you were actually shooting at night. The best advice I can give is light it! Light everything! You may want an experienced d.p. for this because s/he will really make the scene look right for you. But whatever you do... light it.

 

[scottspears]

For fire light, I use two lights, one with a red gel and one with an orange gel, put them on dimmers and then dim them up and down independently to create a firelight effect. Then I'll use a light with a either half or quarter blue on it to create a rim light to simulate moonlight on my actors. Don't forget to light your background, so put matching blue gel on a light and hit whatever is in the background, be that ground, trees or bushes.

Scott

 

[TLMAlexGro]

Thanks for all the help, suggestions. I just messed around with some day shooting and I did notice the background issue. I'm figuring that will take care of itself somewhat if I have a somewhat forrested backdrop. I also noticed that any little bit of the sky that snuck killed the shot . I already started the rumor that we may be moving the shoot, but I may just stick with the night and work up until that point with lighting. I'm just nervous that if I mess up the lighting in a night shoot, everythings lost, whereas a day shoot, I can at least work with it in post.

 

[scottspears]

I should have added this to my other message, but doing day-for-night is a bitch. I've done it, but only for a shot or two on most occassions. I did one scene that simulated dusk which worked. The key is to avoid showing sky. One glimpse of daylight sky and the illusion is shattered and the audience is out of the scene and maybe the entire movie.

Scott

 

[TLMAlexGro]

I should have added this to my other message, but doing day-for-night is a bitch. I've done it, but only for a shot or two on most occassions. I did one scene that simulated dusk which worked. The key is to avoid showing sky. One glimpse of daylight sky and the illusion is shattered and the audience is out of the scene and maybe the entire movie.

Scott

We stocked up on some lighting last night and probably will get some more equipment over the next few days. I'd rather have too much light if possible . I've decided with the tests and all the help from on here, that I'm just going to stck with the night-for-night.

The sony did a real nice job in a pretty low light environment. I still have to test the Panasonic, but I'm pretty much just going to jump in feet first.

 

[knightly]

If you end up with a sky shot, you should be able to make a garbage matte and generate a super high contrast version of the clip to use as a mask so you can replace the sky with dark. If the shot is relatively quick, it should pass.

 

[oakstreetphotovideo]

I'm with Knightly on this. Fixing the sky can be done with a luminance key or a travelling mask.

However, being aware of what sorts of problems you might have, will allow you to shoot better day-for-night video. I've found if I shoot in a heavily wooded area, when the sun isn't directly overhead, I can get day-for-night with almost no effort. The dense canopy makes it rather dark below. Once the sun reaches 4 o-clock, I'm finding it hard to get enough light.

The bigger problem might be finding a light that is bright enough to give you the firelight effects on people's faces. You may be able to use a luminance key to isolate faces and apply firelight digitally, if the faces contrast well with a dark background, but I'd do some test shots before I staked my film on it. Actually, I do test shots of almost everything, unless I've done it before.

 

[Will Vincent]

I would strongly advise against using "nightshot" modes on anything you want to use in a finished "professional" piece. By ramping up the gain so much you're adding a TON of graininess to the footage.

I would also not recommend shooting day for night. On the whole it would be best to remove "we'll fix it in post" from your vocabulary... even if it's you doing the post, save whoever is doing it all of the headache and do it right during production. Period.

Shooting at night, light is your friend. Light the background, light the foreground, light everything. Listen to Scott's advice about the firelight effect, he definitely knows what he's talking about. Something else you might consider adding to your light setup would be a china lantern or two, they are good for simulating moonlight in night shots.

A key thing to remember is that at night contrast diminishes considerable, so you should light accordingly -- soften everything, shadows are virtually non-existent at night, with a few exceptions.

Harsher light would make sense for "practical" lighting, such as car headlights, flashlights, etc.. also firelight would cast a shadow if it's the primary source of light, so take that into account when you do your light setup, while you'll want to light the background and such, it should be soft light at a much lower wattage than the key light of the fire. Even the fire light should be overpowered by any harsh practical lighting you might use (headlights, flashlight, etc)... but if you're not using any of those, then just make sure your fire light is the brightest light you've got, and you should be golden. The key, if you're not working with an experienced DP, is to do lots of testing as oakstreet mentioned.

With practice and patience, you'll get good results. Just don't rush through it because you're behind schedule (indie films, especially low/no-budget indie films are almost ALWAYS behind schedule). The more you prepare, the better the results. Time spent in preproduction is always the 'cheapest' time you have to spend, and even during production it's better to spend a couple hours getting your lighting set up before you have your actors arrive, than it is to make them sit and wait.

Good luck, and keep us posted! Would love to see some stills or video when you get it shot (even from test shoots)

 

[oakstreetphotovideo]

Second, I am not recommending the technique outright, but rather some experimentation with it. Under the appropriate circumstances it can look very good, however I also recognize that most of my shots that look decent from shooting nightshot were in a situation where there was plenty of light around. All the nightshot served to do in these cases was to get more detail out of shadows and to be more forgiving of looking into bright light sources with the subject in the darker foreground.

In a situation where you cannot control the lighting, you have to do what you have to do to get the shot. When I was shooting weddings for a living (on film), I would use 1000 speed film for a candle light ceremony, but I wouldn't consider such a loss in quality, if I could do something to raise the light levels.

Third, I am very big on breaking mold and trying new things. Definitely know the standard cookie-cutter formulae (i.e. the way everyone has done it since one innovatior found something that worked), but then if there's something you think could be better, give it a shot. ...

I'm all for testing the limits, but the reason we light any scene like we do, is to make the lighting look natural to the camera. Cookie-cutter or not, the fact is that cameras do not "see" the way we do. If you go sit by the campfire and you let your eyes wander, you'll find that the campfire looks bright, and orange, but not too bright when you look at it. When you gaze into the woods, your eyes quickly adjust so that you can see whatever is revealed by the weak light of the fire, the moonlight, etc., and when you stare into the sky, you see stars that can only be recorded on film by tracking them in a long exposure. It is simply a fact that you cannot reconcile all of these things with a single exposure setting in your camera, so you must fake it by adding light to the dark areas and exposing for the bright areas.

I know I sound like a 90 year old, professing the merits of the old ways, but light has not changed, the human eye hasn't evolved much in the past 10,000 years, and cameras, from film cameras to the most modern HD video cameras, all fall prey to the single-focus, single-exposure per frame syndrome. Reconciling the differences between our perception and the camera's limitations is the hallmark of a great photographer.

That is not to say that you should not study the capabilities of your equipment and know how to get the most from it. All I am saying is that to achieve a natural looking shot on camera, it is necessary to give special attention to your lighting. The more context you include in your shots (i.e. wide shots) the harder it is to get it all right. If in doubt, keep your shots tight.

Rock on!

 

[Will Vincent]

A couple of comments in defense of the concept....

For the record, I wasn't attacking your technique.. I actually was going to post before you, but was running late for work, and in flipping back and forth between tabs in firefox accidentally cleared my post, so I didn't have time to rewrite it.

 

[Will Vincent]

For headlights you might find that putting some gaff tape in an X formation across the center of them will knock it down enough that it's not blowing your shot out of whack, while still reading at headlights on camera.

I will grant you this, you have recovered a decent amount of picture information from the very dark shots.. but 'nightshot' modes really have no place in a professional piece. For something to just play around with any whatnot, cool more power to you, but you'd likely be spending your time better learning to correctly light scenes rather than trying to correct poorly captured images. That's my whole point.

Incidentally, what I would probably do for the above pictured scene would be to use something like a 4k with a soft box (and maybe a blue gel) from a fairly high angle off to one side, to brighten up the whole area (think moonlight) Then use the headlights and house lights as practicals, show the car pull up and park. Then cut to a closer shot for your conversation bits, so you could effectively light your actors without screwing up everything else. Maybe hang a china lantern just over the camera while you steadicam the conversation/walk, enough to light their faces and not much else... That would be my first attempt at lighting this, but there may be a better way, I'm not a lighting expert (strictly speaking).

 

[knightly]

I agree with will as far as narrative work goes, but for doc work or wedding work, sometimes there is no way to light a scene that you are expected by a client to just magically capture.

I've had too many shoots that were ruined because the house lights were too dim to get an image. I also don't have an IR night shot on any of my cameras.

 

[Will Vincent]

Well clearly we are not going to see eye to eye on this, and I'm not going to spend any more time arguing with you about how to correctly light and shoot. If you want to consider 'nightshot' an additional aperture setting, I guess that's your prerogative.

As this thread was started to help someone with how to correctly light a night shot, I would hope they would not see your views the same, because the footage looks cheap -- for a narrative. I would agree with Knightly that in certain cases, weddings, concerts, etc when you have no control over the lighting it's all you can do to get the shot, however for a narrative piece, it's best to do it "right". If done correctly, it won't "LOOK harshly lit, like almost all night scenes normally look." I'm not sure which night scenes you are referring to by that, but the good ones I've seen look good, because they were correctly lit, not cheaply with as few lights as possible.

That's all I have to say, I'm done now.