filming a campfire

[catshark65]

I will be attending an event which I hope to capture on Super 8. (It's a Renaissance Fair.) There will be a mighttime bonfire one evening, and I am wondering what my best options are for trying to film this. Will I get anything with K40, or should I go with the Ektachrome stock? (I do want color.) I am using a Kinoflex.

[tfunch24]

If you use K40, the campfire will show up on the film but nothing else will--the surrounding areas will be dark. I don't think Ektachrome would fare much better--you might some highlights in the shadows, but they would not be very discernable. In the same situation, I would bring some external lights if I could.

Tom

[Nigel]

It always seems that a fire comes up in someones film at some point. My only advice is that "Fire Only Lights Itself." You can't light your subject with fire unless your subject is the fire.

I have shot some pretty cool fire things in the past. They turned out great--the only thing is that they were only to show the lames and not the people around. I used K40 and it looked great.

Good Luck

[lightfeat]

I would suggest shooting a very orange coloured 60 watt lightbulb through the fire, from the ground, onto the face of whoever is in the scene, perhaps wafting something in front of the light to simulate the flame effect. The light will come from the direction of the fire, will be orange, the colour we imagine fire to be, and will flicker as you waft. I am thinking that the 60w will just render a nice subtle image of the face, not too powerful. Perhaps even 40w might be better, but very orange and flickery. Close-ups of the face with light should be under exposed, and wide shots of the fire without light, over exposed. Shoot K40, forget the Ekta, IMHO

Any good, do you think? Nigel?

Lucas

[Nigel]

That might work. I think that if you could focus the key light it would be better. Then you could use some sort of Gobo to add the flame effect. Play around with it. Shoot some stills first.

Good Luck

[Actor]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
My only advice is that "Fire Only Lights Itself." You can't light your subject with fire unless your subject is the fire.
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unless you are Stanley Kubrick in which case candles light the entire scene.

[Actor]

Actually the story of Stanley lighting the scene that way is not accurate. It's something the rumor mill created. What actually happened was that Stanley put a zinc plate under his tongue and stuck a carbon rod up his arse thus turning his body into a giant battery which powered the lights when the mains failed.

[lightfeat]

Stanley, yawn, Kubrick, yawn also lit a scene with the light that shone out of his arse once too. [img]wink.gif[/img]

[Matt Pacini]

I just bought the DVD to "Barry Lyndon", which is the movie with the famous "lit only by candles" scene everyone always talks about.

First of all, obviously, shooting 35mm they were not shooting on ASA40 film!
Second of all, he had a lens made with an f-stop of .067!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And now, the part nobody ever mentions:
If you know even a little bit about lighting, you can watch this scene and tell that in fact, there are lights other than the candles being used.

In fact, it's not even that hard to tell.
So it's just another B.S. film folklore story, right up there with the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" story.
You know, the one where Harrison Ford had this elaborate martial arts scene rehearsed with the big Arab guy with the black outfit and sword, and Harrison was sick, and didn't want to do the whole karate fight scene. (Never mind that Indy NEVER did any martial arts in any of the films).
Anyway, supposedly, person "X" says, "hey, just pull out your gun and shoot him instead!"
And of course, it gets the biggest laugh.
Guess who's idea it was?
Spielberg says it was his.
Harrison Ford says it was his.
John Milius says it was his.
George Lucas says it was his.

It was probably either in the script, or some grip came up with it.
My point is, if something as obvious as this can't even be trusted by THESE people, then we shouldn't believe all these far-fetched stories we hear like the "shot by candlelight" scene.

I'm not sure I believe there is such a thing as a f.067 lens anyway.
I mean, if he had that custom made, and it can shoot in such low light, think how useful it would be!
It's SOMEWHERE, right?
If you owned a rental house, wouldn't you LOVE to have that lens, and wouldn't you advertise the4 crap out of it?
Yet mysteriously, it's nowhere to be found!

Matt Pacini

[lightfeat]

Hi matt

Good to have you back. I have been told by Jan Harlan (yes, personaly) that it was commissioned either from or in connection with NASA. Big whooppee doo! I personaly find Kubrick's films cold and cynical, and think he was a fine, fine technician, but not the genius film-maker he is credited with being. What is the most moving, human, life changing film he ever made?

Anyway, as you say, even the technical inginuity of Kubrick would struggle to get a K40 Super8 result with nothing but candles, or a fire.

The hype machine that comes up with all these stories is quite intentional, and they are almost all due to Kubrick's true story telling ability, which made him a legend, along with the controversial subject matter he always chose. Very boring indeed, IMHO. His best films were The Shining, Bazzer and Lil Lol...Dr. Weirdsex could have been better, especially given Peter Sellers, 2001 is an imax educational film and Arse Tight Open has it's moments but verges on being truly dismal. Clockwork is now truly awful - it was banned here until his death, and boy, was I disappointed. As Spielberg so spectacularly made most of us chunder with AI's sentimentality at the end, I wonder if K could have helped get the film right with his cynical, brutal edge - perhaps.

Lucas