lighting What camera does Hollywood use in lowlight?

[Claude]

Hey, title pretty much sums it up.

Let's say I have a film that is 30-40% during night time, under clear skies and such. The irony in my question is that I know Hollywood would light the crap out of it and then use something like an Arri. But I'm sure even they are restricted by different factors sometimes to not light it enough so they'd have to compensate with a better camera for low light. What would they use? Have you heard of a7s being used yet for example, or do you reckon they generally go for more Dynamic Range over ISO sensitivity, and would choose a Canon 5dMark III instead for example?

Before anybody jumps on the bandwagon to say don't try to produce like hollywood if you are not hollywood, I'll just say I'd rather do it like them on this particular detail. The technical is still the technical, regardless of being indie or a studio.

 

[FilmmakerJ]

Hey, title pretty much sums it up.

Let's say I have a film that is 30-40% during night time, under clear skies and such. The irony in my question is that I know Hollywood would light the crap out of it and then use something like an Arri. But I'm sure even they are restricted by different factors sometimes to not light it enough so they'd have to compensate with a better camera for low light. What would they use? Have you heard of a7s being used yet for example, or do you reckon they generally go for more Dynamic Range over ISO sensitivity, and would choose a Canon 5dMark III instead for example?

Before anybody jumps on the bandwagon to say don't try to produce like hollywood if you are not hollywood, I'll just say I'd rather do it like them on this particular detail. The technical is still the technical, regardless of being indie or a studio.

I get the impression that you assume because the A7s has been heavily toted as a camera that can handle low light well, that Hollywood would have need of it because their much more expensive Arri's and RED's can't do the same. Or are you just trying to ask what would someone in Hollywood prefer using if they had to choose from the "Pro-sumer" side rather than the high-professional side of cameras?

I would assume that Arri and Red have built their cameras to handle a wide variety of lighting situations, much like what would be required of big-budget films with numerous needs and quality standards. So my assumption is that the Arri or the Red can handle low light really well on their own. I mean, whenever you look at the cameras used for different films, they usually just feature one or two brands of cameras, and they are almost always the Arri or Red these days, unless they are still the tried and true Panavision celluloid models, which are sometimes used in tandem with digital cameras.

 

[jax_rox]

Red and/or Alexa have pretty decent ISO performance. It's no A7s performance, but then they're also not limited to an 8-bit output. Both cameras output raw.

I think you're under the wrong impression if you think a Hollywood production wouldn't light a night scene for any real reason.

Every now and then, there are shots that the big cameras cannot get, and for that purpose traditionally 5Ds would be used, but I see more and more (local) productions picking up A7s' where they previously might have used a 5D.

 

[FilmmakerJ]

Red and/or Alexa have pretty decent ISO performance. It's no A7s performance, but then they're also not limited to an 8-bit output. Both cameras output raw.

I think you're under the wrong impression if you think a Hollywood production wouldn't light a night scene for any real reason.

Every now and then, there are shots that the big cameras cannot get, and for that purpose traditionally 5Ds would be used, but I see more and more (local) productions picking up A7s' where they previously might have used a 5D.

Huh. I did not know they did that.
But I guess if the big cameras during low light might get kinda grainy anyway, it wouldn't hurt to just use a 5D if need be. But I imagine the A7s with the 4K recorder would be the much better choice these days since they can probably push a whole-lot out of it.

I imagine one day, normal light sensitive cameras might be able to detect light or record information like a nigh-vision camera does, but better and more crystal clear without the grimy noise and green-tint. Or is that stretching?

 

[Claude]

Let's assume the following scenario just to illustrate: A hollywood production needing a scene shot in a tight cave corridor. There simply isn't enough room to light it properly from any side, there's room only for an operator following behind with his camera rig. Hell, maybe it's so tight the talent needs to crawl. So jax_rox, exactly, I was asking under the assumption there is a real reason not to light it.
Now, technically, what would one choose to bring about the best results? Bit depth over ISO and the other way around (as is the case with a7s against C500 for example?).
But in general, what should one look for when choosing a camera for that type of scenario. Or if you want to be specific, closer to reality and not talk about hollywood, what camera would you actually choose and why? I mean, having to cut well with the rest of the footage has to account for something too so what I'm wondering is, where does one draw the line saying "that's it, I'm not going to lose more than "this" amount of DR, or "that" much bit depth?"
Hence I believe it's reasonable to say the a7s could be "underkill" in some aspects if you had to cut it with an ARRI that simply won't do the job in there, regardless of the a7s being fit for exactly this kind of lighting scenario.

 

[FilmmakerJ]

Let's assume the following scenario just to illustrate: A hollywood production needing a scene shot in a tight cave corridor. There simply isn't enough room to light it properly from any side, there's room only for an operator following behind with his camera rig. Hell, maybe it's so tight the talent needs to crawl. So jax_rox, exactly, I was asking under the assumption there is a real reason not to light it.
Now, technically, what would one choose to bring about the best results? Bit depth over ISO and the other way around (as is the case with a7s against C500 for example?).
But in general, what should one look for when choosing a camera for that type of scenario. Or if you want to be specific, closer to reality and not talk about hollywood, what camera would you actually choose and why? I mean, having to cut well with the rest of the footage has to account for something too so what I'm wondering is, where does one draw the line saying "that's it, I'm not going to lose more than "this" amount of DR, or "that" much bit depth?"
Hence I believe it's reasonable to say the a7s could be "underkill" if you had to cut it with an ARRI that simply won't do the job in there.

I think even if one were to shoot a scene in a small crawl-space or corridor that requires crawling, either this would be filmed in a controlled environment with a constructed set that recreates this type of space. That way you can choose to light it in a stylistic and unconventional way. Or you would get a camera that would be able to see the dim light from flashlights that the characters are carrying with them so that they can see down this small tunnel. Because if there was no light in this tunnel at all, not even flashlights, then there's no way that any camera other than a night-vision one would be able to see anything.

 

[Sweetie]

What camera does Hollywood use in lowlight?

There's a wide range of cameras that Hollywood use. Alexa is one of the common ones.

The real dirty secret though is Hollywood uses lights to light a scene to get it to the point they need to tell the story.

I was asking under the assumption there is a real reason not to light it.

If there's no real reason to light it, then you've got the right lighting on the scene anyway. Just continue to shoot as normal. The question then becomes moot.

I'll just say I'd rather do it like them on this particular detail.

a scene shot in a tight cave corridor

It comes down to what you need to achieve the look you're going for. It may be shot in a cave and be done with it. It may have the location built on a sound stage where you have complete control (remove the roof, side etc).

It sounds like you're trying to choose what kind of camera to purchase. You'll always find there are benefits and limitations of every camera.

 

[FilmmakerJ]

It sounds like you're trying to choose what kind of camera to purchase. You'll always find there are benefits and limitations of every camera.

If that's Claude's issue, then I completely understand the concern about which camera to purchase. I think by next year, though, there might be new models of the recent DSLR bodies that will make the current competitors switch their pros and cons.

When I was deciding on my latest camera, the Panasonic GH4, my decision to buy it really came down to the internal 4K, because I didn't have the extra cash or any easy way to purchase and mount the 4K recorder that would have been necessary to get 4K with the Sony A7s.

In either case, I really needed to have 4K because my latest project was all shot on green-screens. And I knew that getting a 4K image would not only make my HD look a lot clearer, but it would give me fine edges for keying, and wiggle room for adjusting and re-framing any shot. So in that regard, I could not be happier. But I see now the enormous benefit that others have gotten from the A7s's lowlight capabilities, and more comparable "out-of-the-box" appearance to film or well graded RED footage. So I've seen plenty of tech enthusiasts, photographers, and filmmakers with a good monthly budget buying both the GH4 and the A7s because of the quality team that they make in one's arsenal. And if I had the choice, I would go for both as well.

The Blackmagic Pocket has also been a camera of choice for indie-filmmakers of late because of its compact size, its quality footage, and dynamic range. But with all of the enormous benefits of the initial 4K image, even though it will get scaled down later, I think most people would be wiser to get a 4K capable camera now they they are in a reasonable price range rather than waiting till later when 6K is the new hot thing. lol

Besides which, 4K, even when it's not true RAW, has a fair amount more color depth and dynamic range than a comparable 2K or HD image. Less color noise in your darks if you try to put the levels too much.

 

[sfoster]

I always thought that codec was really important for green screen so you preserve all the color information.

I never heard of 4k helping green screen before. (then again I've never done any green screen yet)

 

[FilmmakerJ]

I always thought that codec was really important for green screen so you preserve all the color information.

I never heard of 4k helping green screen before. (then again I've never done any green screen yet)

I'm sure codek is important as well. But there is far more green information in digital formats to begin with, so I don't think that quite has the same leverage here.

If you've used at least a few different cameras in your time, you might begin to notice that the label that says HD on your camera's packaging doesn't really mean "Crystal Clear HD." There are numerous different bit-depths and sensor sizes within what have all been termed HD cameras. This then results in various amounts of dynamic range, color purity, and image clarity and detail. So the kicker is that whenever I look at a film on a blu-ray, the footage is crystal clear, but it is also termed "HD." Except when I've ever filmed with my canon HD camcorder, or my Canon T3i, the footage is a far cry from ever matching up, and for many different reasons. Not the least of which is that 35mm celluloid has a grain count comparable to 4K, and most modern films are shot in 4K, 5K, or 6K sizes: and all to retain greater detail.

So, once I finally got my hands on a 4K camera, the GH4, because it's capturing twice as much information and its clarity is twice as clear, it is able to squeeze twice as much information into an HD (1920x1080) space than a native HD image can. I imagine, also, that the sensors on 4K capable cameras are also better at capturing a clearer HD image when you record in 2K on them.

Therefore, because of how much clearer the final image would be, whether it remains at 4K or is shrunk to 2K, the native clarity that it has allows for a much cleaner removal of green screens, and an easier time of cleaning up the keying mattes so that all of the actors and their outside edges are sharp and devoid of green screen spill. It simply makes the keying process that much easier and more able to be fine-tuned.

So in my case, I'm glad I made the choice to go 4K, even if the final product will be completed in HD like most things still are.

 

[Guanto]

The real dirty secret though is Hollywood uses lights to light a scene to get it to the point they need to tell the story.

This ^

The answer is "Hollywood" doesn't do lowlight.

When you are seeing what is perceptually a dark or night scene on the big screen there is actually a lot going on to achieve that look in a pleasing (read as you can still magically see people) manner.

But yeah if the bulk of what you are wondering, or want to do yourself at an indie level, will involve medium to low light I would lean towards the 5D's. Rent first do A/B tests make your own call.

 

[sfoster]

I thought the a7 was a clear winner for low light.

I'll probably rent one for the night scene i want to film.

 

[Guanto]

I thought the a7 was a clear winner for low light.

Lowlight is what the 5D's have always been heralded for, and I still can't believe the results I achieve on mine, why the higher ISO's (in increments of 160 of course) don't just explode into digital gunk is a thing of mystery/beauty. Plus obviously with the 5D you are getting a lot of other production value boons, esp if you are into the film-look, but I know that's not what we are discussing here.

I am not familiar with the A7 so can't comment. Borrowlenses and test test.

I'll probably rent one for the night scene i want to film.

Have you explored what sorts of Day4Night capabilities you have with your current skill/tool set?

 

[sfoster]

Lowlight is what the 5D's have always been heralded for, and I still can't believe the results I achieve on mine, why the higher ISO's (in increments of 160 of course) don't just explode into digital gunk is a thing of mystery/beauty. Plus obviously with the 5D you are getting a lot of other production value boons, esp if you are into the film-look, but I know that's not what we are discussing here.

I am not familiar with the A7 so can't comment. Borrowlenses and test test.



Have you explored what sorts of Day4Night capabilities you have with your current skill/tool set?

Day 4 night won't work for me, there will be too many cars on the road.

 

[Sweetie]

I always thought that codec was really important for green screen so you preserve all the color information.

Ok, lets quickly delve into this without going too far into all the details.

The codec isn't really important. When dealing with green screen, one of the biggest issues is the way that data is stored (or isn't stored to keep file sizes smaller). One part of it is Chroma sub-sampling (You'll probably recognize this when you see 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 or 4:2:0). Our eyes see Red, Green and Blue (in combination) to make the relevant colors. Our eyes don't see each color equally, so we can essentially throw away (in blocks) information without most people being able to perceive the difference. This can cause issues when you're going to key where some of that blocking will cause jagged edges.

There's a lot more to the topic but that'll help you point yourself in the right direction to read up more on the topic if you're interested.

I never heard of 4k helping green screen before. (then again I've never done any green screen yet)

It can, indirectly, though it can also hurt. A lot of cameras that are capable of 4k tend to be better cameras. Better sensors. Recording in a higher bitrate etc. That'll often result in a better image than the cheaper counterparts. If you have a 4k image of the same size as a 1080p file (while a simplistic explanation I hope it gets the point across) it's going to be compressed to hell in one way or another... in other words, have less information for the keyer to work with.

So FJ is likely to be right, but 4k isn't really going to be the reason.

There's a very good video on Vimeo that explains all this way better than I could ever do. It's about 40 mins in length if I remember right. Does anyone remember the name of it or have the link?

 

[sfoster]

The codec isn't really important.

When dealing with green screen, one of the biggest issues is the way that data is stored

AKA the codec. What did you think a codec is - if not the way that the data is stored?

 

[jax_rox]

I guess if the big cameras during low light might get kinda grainy anyway, it wouldn't hurt to just use a 5D if need be. But I imagine the A7s with the 4K recorder would be the much better choice these days since they can probably push a whole-lot out of it.

I imagine one day, normal light sensitive cameras might be able to detect light or record information like a nigh-vision camera does, but better and more crystal clear without the grimy noise and green-tint. Or is that stretching?

The 5D has been in use since it was popularised until about 6 months ago when everyone started going for the A7s. The reasons are pretty simple: The A7s is smaller and lighter, it gives a 1080p image that's miles ahead of what you get out of a mk2 or mk3, the ISO performance means you can expose identically to your A-cam and get a very similar looking shot, the Slog2 implementation means it's totally gradeable... and you can get 4k out of it - all with great performance (i.e. you don't need to hack it, and get one specific card, and then only shoot for 30 seconds at a time).

Yes - you're right. Evetually, it is likely that we'll have cameras that can shoot essentially night vision but in high quality. The A7s gets a lot of the way there already, it just tends to be pretty noisy at the top end.

Overall, better sensitivity tends to equate to a lot more creative options with how we shoot, but it will never replace physically lighting a scene. Compare the way we light now to 30 years ago. If I'm shooting a night scene, I'm still going to meticulously light the scene - but I might be able to get away with using a 2k par as a moonlight source, and Kino Flos or LEDs to augment, in addition to 150w Dedolights, rather than having to setup a bank of 10Ks and fill with 650s, 1ks, etc. etc.

I can get away with a smaller lighting package and shoot at 400-800 ISO on an Alexa, whereas in the past I might be working with an effective ISO of 160 or less (considering it was/is pretty common to overexpose film neg by a minimum of 1/3rd of a stop).

Let's assume the following scenario just to illustrate: A hollywood production needing a scene shot in a tight cave corridor. There simply isn't enough room to light it properly from any side, there's room only for an operator following behind with his camera rig. Hell, maybe it's so tight the talent needs to crawl. So jax_rox, exactly, I was asking under the assumption there is a real reason not to light it.

A 'Hollywood' production would build it as a set and light it accordingly. Even a smaller budget indie would do something similar - or find a different location, or find a way to light the location. Why would you choose a location that's so small an actor can barely crawl through it, and there's barely enough room for an actor and a camera, and it's so dark that any traditional camera will be useless for getting an exposure, and you won't be able to light it...?

But in general, what should one look for when choosing a camera for that type of scenario. Or if you want to be specific, closer to reality and not talk about hollywood, what camera would you actually choose and why? I mean, having to cut well with the rest of the footage has to account for something too so what I'm wondering is, where does one draw the line saying "that's it, I'm not going to lose more than "this" amount of DR, or "that" much bit depth?"
Hence I believe it's reasonable to say the a7s could be "underkill" in some aspects if you had to cut it with an ARRI that simply won't do the job in there, regardless of the a7s being fit for exactly this kind of lighting scenario.

The A7s will cut with an Alexa better than any other camera in a similar price range. The A7s is unrivalled at any price range for its low light performance. The thing can practically see in the dark.

The 5D image (albeit graded etc.) has been intercut with Alexa, RED, etc. on many Hollywood films over the past 5+ years. Considering the A7s (and even the GH4) provide an image that is better, sharper etc. and the camera itself is cheaper... why should it intercut any worse? When's the last time you noticed a 5D shot in the middle of two Alexa shots on a Hollywood film?

To answer your question, I wouldn't buy any camera for that situation as I wouldn't shoot in that situation. I'd be surprised that the Location scout, Producer, Director, whoever, was happy to even consider it as a location given the drawbacks and I would suggest either building the set itself or finding somewhere practical.

In terms of buying cameras - if you want to buy a camera to use as a main/A cam, then you have to weigh up what you generally shoot and what you ideally want out of your camera against your budget and make a decision based on that.
Do you want a camera for the sole purpose of shooting in practically no light? Or do you want a camera that's the best available for your budget and also has as good low light performance as you can get within that budget..?

Lowlight is what the 5D's have always been heralded for, and I still can't believe the results I achieve on mine, why the higher ISO's (in increments of 160 of course) don't just explode into digital gunk is a thing of mystery/beauty. Plus obviously with the 5D you are getting a lot of other production value boons, esp if you are into the film-look, but I know that's not what we are discussing here.

Okay - so I own an A7s... so maybe I'm biased But purely in low-light capability/ISO performance, the A7s has no rival. It sees in the dark. Have a look at the shorts online that have been shot in moonlight.

If low-light performance is the one thing that you're looking for, at this exact point in time there isn't a camera that is better than the A7s for that.

Now - will one come around that will be better within the next 12 months? Maybe. Who knows.

The reality of the situation is that apart from the odd occasion where the ISO performance comes in real handy (or for stylistic reasons - i.e. a film shot using moonlight as the only light source), in general I'm going to light my scene and shoot somewhere closer to ISO 800/1600/3200 (Slog is limited to a min ISO of 3200 so if shooting Slog, then that), rather than crank my ISO to 51000 or 409000 and shoot without lights....

I'm only bumping up that ISO if I absolutely have to..

 

[obakron]

Just to add in, the camera isn't just the only component of shooting in low light. With a the combination of a good low light camera and a low f stop on a sense will lead to the best result. I would suggest investing in a lens that goes below f stop 2 this mix with a decent low light camera would be the most effective.

 

[LiveLovethemovie]

All the Sony cameras I've worked with seem to give better results then anything else, even RED. The only exception would be an Ari Alexa. I've heard it does well. Or you could always spend a little extra on lenses and get something that opens up to a 1 or .8 :x!!

 

[FilmmakerJ]

Not that Hollywood is going to necessarily switch over to this rather than an A7s, but since I had showed interest here in the prospect of a camera one day being developed that could essentially see in the dark with full 24-30 fps, and a clear (non-green) image, apparently Canon has now managed to get closer to that ideal.

This is the new, Full-frame, 35mm, Canon ME20F-SH (bit of a mouthful there, lol). Only big drawback, it seems, is that it cannot record internally. So it's basically a very sensitive lens in a box that works to clean and clear up the noise that will be a factor with the extremely low light shots that can reach a whopping 4,000,000 ISO. The pixels are also twice as large as most other cameras, requiring this to be locked at 1080p, and making this a very specialized camera for getting only the most particular of low-light shots. Otherwise, you'd likely use an A7s or something similar for your regular, properly-lit shots.

http://nofilmschool.com/2015/07/canons-multi-purpose-ME20F-SH-full-frame-35mm-camera-4-million-iso