Yep. I’ve been researching HD cameras, and the Red is winning pretty much hands down. It would be nice if you could get Panavision lenses on it, but Red’s own proprietary lenses are pretty damn fast.
Thrilling to hear that he used available light for all but one scene! I’ve only seen the trailer to “GFE” so far, and that looks pretty fantastic. The only shot that doesn’t look like 35mm film is the shot of Christine in the elevator.
A still-underexplored region of cinematography for sure. Subrata Mitra in Ray’s films and John Alcott in Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon, too,
And Jon Jost, using Kodak reversal stock , shot “Last Chants For A Slow Dance” in 1976 using available light. But as he’s always operated far off the cultural radar, he doesn’t count.
Ballast by Lance Hammer was all available light. Great looking film.
As was Wendy and Lucy by Kelly Reichardt.
And its better for the environment.
available light = the way or the force
lighting kits / 10ks / HMIs = the darkside
10k is the dark side?! Not really, they’re really good for extending the day when you have a long scene in one location for instance. I think imposing oneself on the world is a good thing, contrary to what Soderberg says. It’s all a toolbox, some things work at one time, other things at other times. There is no dark side to light, just bad use of it.
Yeah I know. I was mainly goofing.
Light is light. There are good uses and horrible uses of it. I think sometimes though that there is this mentality in the industry of… “well we paid for it, might as well use it” and that doesn’t always = a tasteful lighting job.
so in closing, I retract my previous statement about 10ks being on the darkside. I was talking about the goofy over zealous gaffer mentality.
Amen.
OTOH, when Soderbergh says “I used entirely entirely available light”, what that PROBABLY really means is that he used a ton of silks and bounceboards and reflectors, etc, like most productions will use, just no lights.
Not that lights are at all difficult to use if you have any kind of crew. A single china ball can make an interior scene look like Harris Savides shot it.
Well that’s the sign of a weak/insecure DP when he/she’s using equipment just for the hell of it, which certainly happens often enough.
“Let’s line up the 10ks across there and then put in six banks of kino-flos across the other side. For a start anyway… Then we’ll see what it really needs.”
“what that PROBABLY really means is that he used a ton of silks and bounceboards and reflectors, etc, like most productions will use, just no lights.”
Have you read Almendros’ memoirs? A proponent of available lighting, early on, he used mirrors to reflect light onto the set.
should mention Satyajit Ray’s cinematographer Subrata Mitra, usually credited with introducing bounce lighting.
T T T
I think the pioneering camera technology that enables filmmakers to film in natural, available lighting conditions with outstanding results can be great, but I think some people go too extreme with it. It can easily, as it already has, create lazy cinematographers.
i agree with Ballast, great looking film and lucy and wendy that were shot only with natural light and establishing shots..im not a big fan of red cams, varicams and so forth but at end of the day it’s video and the lighting can be fix on post…
For a micro-budget filmmaker like me, practical/available light is incredible: cheap bulbs (versus “globes”), no generators needed, less crew to set-up/breakdown, little to no lighting rentals, not very hot, thus eliminating the need for additional air conditioning, and faster set-ups!
I’ll be shooting my upcoming feature on the Canon 7D, which does really well in practical lighting situations due to its low light sensitivity. I’ve shot quite a few projects on camcorders rigged up with 35mm adapters – they need a ton of light!!!
The photographer Robert Polidori shoots with available light, then recomposes with Photoshop…
Side narrative remembered from some comments in this thread:
An instructor of mine said he had a friend in college who became known for the “ring of fire.” He’d light a scene, be unhappy with it, introduce more lights, creating more problems, introduce more lights, get frustrated, bring in MORE lights, get into an argument with the gaffer over energy feeds, introduce STILL MORE lights, and then get fired.
That last line not being a joke. He only got famous for doing this on a single day on one feature. He didn’t get hired as DP again.
Not that that really happens too often, though. A practical filmmaker will know many different options for achieving the same effect without creating more problems. Confidence helps, creativity more, and nothing beats experience.
—PolarisDiB
Wow, interesting story. Thanks for sharing….
I think more films shot in studio should use available light. Especially if the studio has no windows.
I think the pioneering camera technology that enables filmmakers to film in natural, available lighting conditions with outstanding results can be great, but I think some people go too extreme with it. It can easily, as it already has, create lazy cinematographers.
Yes, but you have to remember that they’re complementing lazy filmmakers who use available settings with available plotlines and available story arcs…
I think more films shot in studio should use available light. Especially if the studio has no windows.
Um, what? Not eveything can be shot on-location, you know… and besides, even outdoor light is often not enough.
Um, what? Not eveything can be shot on-location, you know… and besides, even outdoor light is often not enough.
Derek Jarman’s Black
I just shot my first short film using only available light and the result was so so. I can’t wait to get it up so you guys can tear it apart.
KJ
Or, in new industry speak- practicals.
Most famously, Coutard and Almendros, have at various times used what was available to capture their images. Now the Red One 4k version weighs in.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/05/22/movies/20090522-soderbergh-audioss/index.html