Day for night shootings

MovieStuff · August 31st, 2001, 04:05 AM

Don't laugh. I've got a wonderful tape called "Trick of the Light" about early cinematographers. In it, old timers talk about how flares were used to shoot HUGE night scenes in "Intolerance" and other block busters from the silent days. All exposures judged by eye. No meters. Amazing.

Roger

Matt Pacini · August 31st, 2001, 03:34 PM

I think I'll just take the lazy way out:
Write a nightime forest fire into the script, then when all the trees go up in flames, I'll have enough light to get a good exposure!
Great idea, right?

Matt

------------------

Matt Pacini · August 31st, 2001, 06:48 PM

Wow.
Ya know, I have a Ford Taurus.
I should time my film shoots, for when the car explodes, since Taurus's are such pieces of excrement.
I wish I knew when it's going to blow.
Ford should publish statistics for cinematographers on the amount of light each model of burning Ford puts out, so we can film the even without having to fumble for our light meters.
Matt Pacini

------------------

Alex · October 28th, 2001, 06:44 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alex:

Couple more ideas...the wider the area you need to cover at night, the more it makes sense to shoot 16mm.

The super-8 way to do your shoot, if you insist on seeing wide vistas in your shot...

Is to shoot during magic hour.

So which is more efficient?

3 - 5 days of short magic hour shoots, or 1 or 2 nights of heavily lit Super-8 scenes, or perhaps 1 night with 16mm and less is more style of lighting.

Final compromise, shoot the wide shots in 16mm, (this also helps alleviate the issue of a loud camera, wide shots are pretty easy to over dub, and the camera may be farther away anyway) and shoot your close-ups and mediums in Super-8mm.

Final Final idea, shoot the wides during magic hour, the close-ups and medium shots at night, all in Super-8.

-Alex
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This just in, two months later.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
Yeah, just got a Scoopic M.
I'm eager to shoot some footage with it.
I think my on trailer shoot (that has been backed up now to November), I may shoot my night exteriors with it, and intercut with the Super 8 day footage.
Should be interesting.
It's a cool camera, pretty wild. I got it for $321.00, so I couldn't pass it up!
Seems to run OK, but I haven't tested it with film yet, so who knows.
Any tips you can give me?
Is there anything weird or unexpected I should know about the camera?

Matt Pacini
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're welcome Matt...

...oh yeah, you never say thanks to anything I have ever contributed your way, but you are the first to yell bloody murder against me and give me no benefit of the doubt. (the "prototype" post)

------------------
Alex

[This message has been edited by Alex (edited October 28, 2001).]

Alex · October 28th, 2001, 07:15 AM

This just in...a mere minutes after my previous post...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
By the way, I would like to thank two people for talking me into moving up the food chain to 16mm:

1. DP John Dick from L.A., who is a freind of my special FX guy on Lost Tribes, who has shot lots of Super16 & 16mm stuff. After seeing his reel of 16mm stuff, I was depressed at how superior it looked to my Super 8 stuff.

2. Roger Evans (Moviestuff on this board), who for the last few months of our discussions back & forth about the Workprinter I'm getting, convinced me to take the plunge.
So, I kept my eyes on ebay for a Canon Scoopic for a good price, and finally found one a couple weeks ago.

I will continue to shoot Super 8, that's why I'm getting the Workprinter, but my eventual plan is to move into real, 35mm feature filmmaking, not to forever shoot only on Super 8.
But I will continue to shoot short "demos" for the purpose of getting people interested in my projects, to interest financiers, etc.

So thanks Roger & John!

Matt Pacini
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your welcome, Matt.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alex:

Couple more ideas...the wider the area you need to cover at night, the more it makes sense to shoot 16mm.

The super-8 way to do your shoot, if you insist on seeing wide vistas in your shot...

Is to shoot during magic hour.

So which is more efficient?

3 - 5 days of short magic hour shoots, or 1 or 2 nights of heavily lit Super-8 scenes, or perhaps 1 night with 16mm and less is more style of lighting.

Final compromise, shoot the wide shots in 16mm, (this also helps alleviate the issue of a loud camera, wide shots are pretty easy to over dub, and the camera may be farther away anyway) and shoot your close-ups and mediums in Super-8mm.

Final Final idea, shoot the wides during magic hour, the close-ups and medium shots at night, all in Super-8.

-Alex

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

------------------
Alex

Scott Spears · October 28th, 2001, 12:39 PM

Day for Night is always tricky. You guys already have talked about the basics. In general, I try to avoid DFN.

I just did it on a 35mm feature, which makes it whole easier because you don't have to deal with the grain problems of Super-8. I did shoot it with Kodak's 50D. I ended up under-exposing the the key light just bit over 2 stops, but had highlights and some light in the background go over by a 1/2 stop. This helps avoid super muddy images.

Now on Super-8 and especially K40, I'd probably only under-expose by a stop or stop nd a half. I'd probably not gel the lights and add some blue in the transfer.

Here's another trick for post. If you have a cloudless sky and it's nice and blue, you can use the sky as a blue screen. I did it once on 16mm for a hole in a cave roof. In the shot, a character is supposed to climb through a hole in the roof of a cave. Well it was shot during the day with the camera looking out the hole. In post, we use the blue sky to key in a stary night sky.

For some great DFN, check out "Jaws". Fraker did it a a lot and got away with it.

Scott

------------------

crimsonson · October 28th, 2001, 02:17 PM

If you really want to get technically perfect, when shooting DFN keep your DoF shallow.

------------------

8th Man · October 28th, 2001, 03:23 PM

I thought about this thread the other night when watching Jaws and how they seem to break a lot of the rules mentioned here like seeing so much of the sky and sun behind clouds but it still works well and as a viewer I don't find myself questioning it much in the context of the film.
The oddest example I think I've seen is in the opening of the James Bond film "On Her Majesty's Secret Service",(another beach scene) where I'm not really sure what they were going for. It may be "day for pre-dawn" or something like that. Still, I accept it as a stylized approach.
Is anyone aware of when DFN was first done and if any newer films have used it recently?

------------------
PRM

Jambu · October 28th, 2001, 08:14 PM

Hi!
That topic at the top of the topics after two months of silence, wow!

On these 2 months i've gone on shooting my first movie (a juvenile thriller with some green monsters in called IT WAS MADE OF GREEN - THE GREENDAYS)? i shooted about 60 rolls of K40 and also a couple of DFN using a 2,5x ND filter so underexposing of about 2,5 stops. I've seen only the first 5/6 centimetres of each roll putting it against a strong light 'cos i still haven't got a projector i trust to put my rolls on and from what i've seen in that way i think i must have underexposed the film of about 3 or 3,5 stops to obtain a decent night look (i must say that i like strong and very deep shadows on a night scene so?) anyway that's my one cent italian opinion.

I don't know what was the first movie using DFN but i think there's a DFN on one of the latest scenes of HIGH SIERRA by Raoul Walsh (1941), when Ida Lupino arrive in the forest under the mountain where Bogie is hiding?

Super8ShootersMustSupersedeSuper8Haters

------------------