Image Quality and Look: Beginner ??

Production value wise, great lighting and great sound is most important. I've seen films shot in SD with excellent lighting and well-recorded sound that looked (and sounded) amazing.

However, great film all comes down to script. You can have all the polish and production value in the world, but if your script sucks then all you have is a polished turd. On the other end, if you have a great story you can shoot it on a toaster and people will still love it.

Light is MUCH more important than the camera. Excellent lighting can make a very mediocre camera look good and bad/no lighting can make an arriflex look like crap.

HowTheyDoThat said:

Could you take a base model (canon 1100d for example) and make something that had a sophisticated and polished look? With the right lighting, director, DP, acting, set design, etc....could a entry model camera produce something like the visuals of Collateral or Miami Vice?

Click to expand...

If you worked around it's limitations you could definitely get close - probably close enough at least that most of your audience wouldn't notice the difference or care, if you also had an engaging story along with all the other stuff you mentioned.

Of course if you've got a world class director, actors, lighting crew, etc - and all the expense that entails - it kind of begs the question of why you'd skimp on the camera, considering it would be a relatively small portion of the overall expenditure.

thanks for the help.

I agree that you need a good story, otherwise the polished turd....

A movie like Festen(celebration) didn't "look" beautiful, but it worked. Other times, though, a film does seem to suffer.



Here's an interesting comparison:

I saw Tiny Furniture a few years back. It looked perfectly fine. It wasn't stunning, but it worked. The actress/writer/director was entertaining....


I tried watching her other film---creative nonfiction, but that film looked very amateurish.

I looked up Tiny Furniture and saw it was a Cannon 7d, and of course there was a big budget, but the writer/actor was the same.
In Tiny Furniture there were non-actors, so the big difference was most likely camera/lighting/.

The visuals on the filmmakers first film were simply too poor and harmed the movie, in my opinion.


Another question---

When I have searched youtube and vimeo for short films most are Canon 5d, 7d, and other higher end DSLR. (I'm coming at this from a non-techy area, so forgive my ignorance). Almost none of the short films are base model/entry level stuff like Rebel T3.

I did find some videos where people shot test footage, or shot films. But most films used expensive cameras.

Here is an example of a documentary short I found in the screening room. The person used a canon rebel 1100 d. The opening shots look ok, but the interviews don't look as nice.
(I don't mind rough/ unpolished visuals on documentaries---a film like Dark Days was great, for example. So it doesn't bother me, but I'm using the visuals as a broader example.)

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=40566


What is the big difference between a low end camera such as the rebel, and something like the 5d?

Why do so many filmmakers use these cameras?

----------

Last thought....

I was scanning Vimeo for short films and came across this one. The story is not amazing, but its fun ....what I liked was the look. It has a really nice look to it.

How is something like this achieved?

Is this color correction? Lighting?


http://vimeo.com/41627777

I know that this is a thread about image quality, but don't dismiss the importance of the sound of a film. The audience will forgive a lot visually if the sound is solid.

"Sound is half of the experience."


Sorry, but I always have to chime in.

What is the big difference between a low end camera such as the rebel, and something like the 5d?

Click to expand...

Sensor size, bitrate, quality of image, the ability to shoot raw, access to equipment and accessories etc. Now the lower end camera can still shoot raw at a lower (and not really usable) resolution. Move even higher and you end up with cameras that can capture even more data. This gives you options in post production.

Why do so many filmmakers use these cameras?

Click to expand...

They're cheap which increases accessibility to these cameras. If everyone has one, everyone can use them.

Is this color correction? Lighting?

Click to expand...

It looks like a stylistic color grade to me. Lighting is always important to getting the image captured and contributes to the overall effect.

HowTheyDoThat said:

When I have searched youtube and vimeo for short films most are Canon 5d, 7d, and other higher end DSLR. (I'm coming at this from a non-techy area, so forgive my ignorance). Almost none of the short films are base model/entry level stuff like Rebel T3. [...] What is the big difference between a low end camera such as the rebel, and something like the 5d?

Click to expand...

Most of the differences are in build quality. The 5D/7D are bigger, heavier bodies and much more robust than the rebel line, more magnesium and less plastic. They're environmentally sealed to keep out dust and moisture. They also have features which make them perform better as tools for photography - better/faster autofocus sensors, higher burst rates, faster card interfaces to support those burst rates, and higher resolutions.

From a standpoint of the camera's base video functionality though (leaving aside things like raw that require third-party hacks) there's not a huge difference between the low and higher-end canon DSLRs of that generation. The 5DmkII has a larger sensor, which helps it perform a little better in low light, but it's entirely possible to achieve similar results with any of them.

Lenses can make a significant difference, and good lenses often cost 2-3x or more than a body like the t3i. So you'll get a lot of people using the kit lens or something similar - basically a cheap zoom with a slow minimum aperture. These lenses often have visible distortion, no stabilization, and the slow aperture makes for worse low light performance and greater depth of field.

Combine those limitations with limited experience and skills in things like composition, lighting, audio, etc, and you're going to see worse results in general with the entry level cameras. It doesn't mean the camera isn't capable of good results, it's that as entry-level cameras they're more commonly used by people without the experience to get the most out of them.

Here is an example of a documentary short I found in the screening room. The person used a canon rebel 1100 d. The opening shots look ok, but the interviews don't look as nice.

Click to expand...

I think the composition has a lot to do with it - framing someone up like that with their head almost dead center is a common beginner mistake, and it just makes the subject look small. The light is also very flat so the contours of the subject's face get lost, and the background is bright so the subject looks dark. There's a lot of depth of field, so the background is mostly in focus, and there's a lot going on back there so it competes with the subject for the viewer's attention.

But the sound also is a big part of it. They were likely using a camera-mounted mic, so the subject's voice is competing heavily with the background noise. Since the voice isn't very present it doesn't command the viewer's attention; combined with the similar problems in composition it creates a situation where the viewer's attention isn't focused on the subject at all, and the subject is in competition with their environment.

Here's an occupy clip from a project I worked on shot under similar conditions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nt7Q0yZ4BY

This was part of a low-budget feature doc project - our entire crew was just me and one other guy on camera (shooting on 5DmkIIs, but could just as easily have been t3i, 60d, etc). We didn't have a dedicated sound person, so we used lavs on the subjects which allowed us to keep their voices much more present than the background. Even then there's plenty of room for improvement - notice how their voice levels change as they turn their heads? A dedicated boom op could have kept the mic distance more consistent as they moved, and a shotgun on a boom overhead would have picked up even less of the ambient sound than the omni lavs did. On the visual side we always kept one camera wide to get the group while the other focused on close-ups of whoever was speaking - that allows us to both cut the less interesting parts of the dialogue, and focus in on the speaker for emphasis on what they're saying. We also used variable NDs on the lenses so that we could keep the apertures open and create some separation between the subjects and the background where possible.

In order of importance I would say:
Script
Sound
Lighting
Set Design
Costuming
Quality camera/lenses
Good post production

There are probably some others in there too, but those are really pretty key elements. Script first, because without a solid script you're still going to wind up making something that is crap -- it might look and sound amazing, but it'll still be crap. Sound next because, yes it's that important. Lighting is really probably about on par with sound, but lesser quality imagery can be forgiven if the sound is killer... But lighting is more important than other aspects because lets face it, at the end of the day capturing an image is about capturing light, and lack of light. You're painting with light when you prepare a scene for the camera, failing to do so is stupid -- and sadly something a lot of beginners, and some not-so-beginners ignore. Next to sound and a good story to tell lighting is the MOST important thing about image capture. Period.

The rest reinforce that and crank up production value. But good sound, and good light are absolute MUST have items.

ItDonnedOnMe said:

framing someone up like that with their head almost dead center is a common beginner mistake

Click to expand...

Or a Wes Anderson staple..

Well, when he does it... he does it with style!

great responses. thank you very much.

ItDonnedOnMe---I see what you mean. After you mentioned it I noticed this in a documentary I was watching. The subjects were placed to the right of the frame and it was shallow focus. I had noticed the depth of focus issue, but had not been aware of the importance of composition with interview subjects.

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

I came across an article about the Canon 7D. The article featured quotes from Mike Figgis.


He was enthusiastic about the 7d, saying in effect it would allow people to capture "film" quality images. Other digital cameras, he complained had a "horrific" "massive" depth of field.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/canon-eos-7d-a-new-lens-on-the-scene-2222887.html


Two questions:

1----Why is deep focus no longer "fashionable"?

If a the background is uncontrolled and chaotic as in the first set of interviews I linked to, then yes, there is an issue.

But in films it used to be used...Wells to Kubrick.

I don't know how popular it is now. The aforementioned Wes Anderson uses it, and Scorsese on occasion, but I don't see it much. It certainly requires more composition and probably lighting etc....but is there an issue where it's become associated with an amateur aesthetic?


2----Why the 7D? I did a quick search and saw several feature films shot on 7d but could not find examples of the 5d. I looked at some footage on youtube and did not see much of a difference.

I found this article which suggests the two are better at different things: low light, slowmo, etc... I don't know, the video looked good though and it used both cameras.

http://lightsfilmschool.com/blog/canon-7d-vs-5d/2173/


Last question:


I have gone back and looked at the tech specs on some films that i liked the look of and see a wide range of cameras: Upstream Color (Panasonic 6h2) Sound of My Voice (7d) Absentia (5dm2) Tiny Furniture(7d)

Suppose you assembled the same actors, script, director, etc.....except you had zero lighting department. How different would these films be? Is the majority of the final image a result of on-set lighting and post color grading? Just how important is the camera?

When I watch a film---pre Drinking Buddies...by Swanberg(some other mumblecores as well), it looks like someones just filming it the fly....it does not look "pretty". Which I don't think he would take as an insult. It's in the same vein as some of early cassavetes. But it is not "pretty".

Is it possible to have a "pretty" image with only available light? I've seen stills of Michael Mann shooting some footage and it looked like a limited setup, but maybe the improvement comes in post?

Going back to pre-digital, you have Herzog in the Jungle filming without the use of much lighting and he was able to get beautiful shots. And I don't know how much lighting Malick used, but he was also able to get some amazing stuff in outdoors settings.

Will Vincent said:

Or a Wes Anderson staple..

Click to expand...

Intentionally breaking the 'rules' for narrative purpose is entirely different to simply not knowing the 'rules' to begin with.

The best camera in the world will never make up for inexperience.

jax_rox said:

Intentionally breaking the 'rules' for narrative purpose is entirely different to simply not knowing the 'rules' to begin with.

Click to expand...

Uhyeah. I'm quite aware.

Will Vincent said:

Uhyeah. I'm quite aware.

Click to expand...

I know you are. Just some advice to the kids who wonder why their work doesn't look like a Wes Anderson film when they frame up for center and shoot 4:3

HowTheyDoThat said:

1----Why is deep focus no longer "fashionable"? [...] But in films it used to be used...Wells to Kubrick.

Click to expand...

It's a function of choice and available technology.

Traditionally, shooting on film, deep focus was hard to achieve. Slow film stocks required a lot of light to enable the use of apertures which would produce a deep depth of field given the imaging area of 35mm film. Achieving deep depth of field was a specific, and laborious/expensive, decision - employed only by a few filmmakers trying to create a distinctive and unique look to their films. Thus, shallow depth of field became the normal aesthetic associated with mainstream feature films.

Traditionally, video was the opposite. The tiny area of the sensor meant that deep focus was the norm, and it was difficult & expensive to achieve shallow depth of field. The deep focus of video became associated with television - news, sports, sitcoms, soap operas, etc.

So you ended up with shallow depth of field being associated with high-end productions shot on film, and deep depth of field associated with low-budget productions shot on video - because on either side achieving the opposite aesthetic was difficult and/or expensive.

When large-sensor video cameras became available & affordable everyone who couldn't previously achieve the shallow DOF, cinematic look jumped on them. It's arguably pushed things to the other extreme - the overly shallow, barely in focus look has become associated with very low budget filmmaking. At the other end of the spectrum you get a few people like Michael Mann who have taken advantage of the increasing light sensitivity of these cameras to achieve deep depth of field without having to light the hell out of a set.

I think we're reaching a point where things are starting to level out - you no longer have to choose shallow or deep focus based on the limitations of the technology you are working with, it simply becomes a creative choice. We'll likely see more deep focus at both the high & low end of the production spectrum, based entirely on what's most appropriate for the scene.

2----Why the 7D? I did a quick search and saw several feature films shot on 7d but could not find examples of the 5d. I looked at some footage on youtube and did not see much of a difference.

Click to expand...

The 7D sensor size - APS-C - more closely matches the size of traditional 35mm cinema film. Thus, if you are going to shoot on a large production, and want to be able to use the cinema lenses you are accustomed to (rather than photography lenses) it makes more sense to use the 7D rather than the 5D.

HowTheyDoThat said:

Here's a really basic question.

If you want to get a "film" look (or maybe polished, is a better word) how important is the camera?

Click to expand...

When starting out, you want to learn the techniques instead of buying the best tools. Give a terrible painter good paints, there's a good chance it's going to look poor. Give an amazing painter okay paints, you'll probably get a good painting. Start out with more basic tools, and work your way up as you develop your skills. So, it's not only the camera, but how you use the camera. Another thing that I thought would be worth pointing out is that different cameras do different things. A Go-Pro is better than an Arri Alexa if you're doing a run and gun shoot in an area with a lot of water. An Arri Alexa is better than a Go-Pro if you're doing highly complicated green screen work. So alongside learning technique, learn how and why you choose certain tools.

[QUOTEI've seen people comment on the fact that its not the camera, its the lighting, color grading, etc....

Is that really true? [/QUOTE]

Camera is a factor in the quality of a film, no doubt. But people exaggerate the importance of it and disregard other aspects of film that are just as, perhaps more important. Lighting, sound, costume, location, post color work, the editing, makeup, etc. affect films more than people realize. Camera is much less important when you look at all of the factors that make a film look and sound nice.

HowTheyDoThat said:

A movie like Festen(celebration) didn't "look" beautiful, but it worked. Other times, though, a film does seem to suffer.

Click to expand...

I know you mentioned it, but I highly recommend "Upstream Color".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U9KmAlrEXU
Also, check out 28 Days Later, Monsters, and Pi.
It takes skill to get good image out of a less expensive camera, and some films do suffer. You just have to improve your skill and utilize your tools & resources within your limitations.

When I have searched youtube and vimeo for short films most are Canon 5d, 7d, and other higher end DSLR. (I'm coming at this from a non-techy area, so forgive my ignorance). Almost none of the short films are base model/entry level stuff like Rebel T3.

Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hcxIOZoFVo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVgdqZCgmNo

What is the big difference between a low end camera such as the rebel, and something like the 5d?

Why do so many filmmakers use these cameras?

Click to expand...

The 5D is a better quality camera... it shoots nicer images and can get great results when you use it. Lower end cameras like the rebel don't have some of the capabilities that, say, a 5D have.

How is something like this achieved?

Is this color correction? Lighting?

Click to expand...

Great choice of shots, good framing, good direction, good blocking, good lighting, good soundtrack, good color correction, good editing, good pacing, and a funny idea.

Alcove Audio said:

I know that this is a thread about image quality, but don't dismiss the importance of the sound of a film. The audience will forgive a lot visually if the sound is solid.

"Sound is half of the experience."


Sorry, but I always have to chime in.

Click to expand...

HowTheyDoThat said:

1----Why is deep focus no longer "fashionable"?

If a the background is uncontrolled and chaotic as in the first set of interviews I linked to, then yes, there is an issue.

But in films it used to be used...Wells to Kubrick.

Click to expand...

It's still present, it's just that shallow depth of field is something that people beat to death because it's considered cinematic, and it hasn't been very accessible at all until the rise of video-capable DSLRs. It's a very helpful tool, though it's a bit overused.

2----Why the 7D? I did a quick search and saw several feature films shot on 7d but could not find examples of the 5d. I looked at some footage on youtube and did not see much of a difference.

Click to expand...

Check out this site: http://shotonwhat.com

Suppose you assembled the same actors, script, director, etc.....except you had zero lighting department. How different would these films be? Is the majority of the final image a result of on-set lighting and post color grading? Just how important is the camera?

Click to expand...

They would look completely different. Most would be horribly unusable and poor looking. And yes, lighting and color grading is a large component.

Is it possible to have a "pretty" image with only available light? I've seen stills of Michael Mann shooting some footage and it looked like a limited setup, but maybe the improvement comes in post?

Click to expand...

Fix it in post isn't a great attitude generally. Know your limitations and abilities.

Going back to pre-digital, you have Herzog in the Jungle filming without the use of much lighting and he was able to get beautiful shots. And I don't know how much lighting Malick used, but he was also able to get some amazing stuff in outdoors settings.

Click to expand...

Exterior lighting is different from interior lighting. Generally you're trying to utilize the natural light through things like reflectors and sometimes even cookies.

HowTheyDoThat said:

Is it possible to have a "pretty" image with only available light? I've seen stills of Michael Mann shooting some footage and it looked like a limited setup, but maybe the improvement comes in post?

Click to expand...

It's entirely possible. It's also entirely possible to have great looking images with very simple lighting setups. It's very much like your original question about cameras - does the lighting equipment you have matter? The answer is similar as well - better equipment can deliver better results, but it really comes down to the knowledge and skill of the person using it. It's certainly nice to have a fully equipped grip truck and all the lights you want, but if you don't know how to light it's not going to make a huge difference. At the other end of the spectrum, someone skilled at lighting could likely work with the existing lights in a setting to get very good results. Part of that would include selecting appropriate locations based on their available light - i.e. if you're trying to shoot a romantic scene, it's going to be much more difficult to make it work in an office with nothing but overhead fluorescents.

Just thought of this clip - I think Christopher Doyle is one of the masters of available light, and the films he did with Wong Kar Wai in the 90's are some excellent examples of beautiful images shot with available light. The way he talks about neon light in this clip - "it's like the difference between a whore and a wife", etc - you can see that although he's not setting up lights for a lot of these scenes, he's actively seeking out the settings that have the existing light to achieve the correct mood and look for a shot. It's more like an act of curation than construction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97GwbI27w10

excellent response again.

ChimpPhobiaFilms

shotonwhat...great link, thanks.

The two video examples were very good. Particularly the boxing one. I really like the outdoors scenes---jogging, on bridge. Some of the indoor stuff was a bit dark. But the outdoors shots were really great.

I'm assuming this(the outdoors stuff) is done with available light? When the DP filmed this, is this what he saw through the monitor/screen? Or do you think it was altered later?

Watching the videos led me to a video on Magic Lantern. Should I assume that most people who shoot films (of any length) on a DSLR are using this?

-------
ItDonnedOnMe

thanks for the Doyle link. I remember seeing his films with Wong Kar Wai years ago. The only one I saw more than once was In the Mood for Love. But I recall liking the look of Chunking Express. I associate neon with modern Chinese movies, which is probably informed by his and others stuff, so it was interesting.

When he is filming street scenes, is he shooting without any "extra" light at all?


to go back to Michael Mann---in two of his last features (Miami Vice and Collateral--didn't notice this in Public Enemies) it has a very "digital look", especially the night scenes, but it looks really good.

I'll use Miami Vice as an example(having seen it again most recently)
the "grainy" look was apparent in:
-the opening club scene
-the nighttime highway chase--chasing down their C.I.(John Hawkes)
-the shootout at the end

here are three small clips I was able to find:

Club ( 43 seconds)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqQ70nNhEag

This looks more "lit" than some of the other club stuff, but its as good as I could find. For example, the two actors faces look lit. Probably other stuff I'm missing.

Car Chase ( 19 seconds)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhdYlGuHaaw

This, on the other hand, looks less lit. Something apears to be lighting the actors faces, but the exterior shots and "out the dash" look unlit.....is this a case where they are using only available light?

Shootout (3.18---a few seconds gives you the idea)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooGf99HGmeI

I believe the uploader altered the sound, but i'm referencing it for visuals only, so it shouldn't matter.

I can't figure this out. There looks to be lots of light and dark spots....like a use of available lights (security floodlights, etc....) but you can make out the actors faces often, which suggests dedicated lighting.



-----

If a film were to be shot using only "available" light....would there still a lighting person, or would the cinematographer work solo?

Would a lighting person be needed to source the lights, do other things?

------

If I recall correctly from a book I read on Kubrick years ago, he lit Barry Lydon using only candles, etc....no lights. If this is true, is that considered "available light"?

Therefore, if there is a lamp in the scene, and it is the sole light source, would that be "available" light.....basically any light in-scene is available?

If I recall correctly, In The Mood For Love doesn't seem to rely heavily on existing lighting. Happy Together has quite a bit of it, but Chungking Express and Fallen Angels make the most extensive use of existing lighting - I'd guess that 70-80% of the shots in those films don't use any additional lighting. But they've specifically selected a setting for their locations where there are a lot of lights, and a lot of mixed lighting, and then positioned the actors within them to take advantage of the light that's there.

Michael Mann's stuff is less clear to me - I think he's setting up a lot of lighting, but it's not the level of lighting you'd see in a more typical film. Part of his use of the digital cameras is their ability to pick up low ambient lighting of an environment, so he doesn't add enough light to overpower that - just to augment it. For instance, in the club scene you can see as Colin Farrell approaches the bar there's a bright spotlight hitting the bar directly. Once he gets there and starts the conversation it's the diffuse light reflected off the bar from that spotlight that lights their faces up - there doesn't appear to be any other sources of light reflecting in their eyes. Now I'm pretty sure they specifically put that spotlight there to create that lighting situation, so while it could be considered 'existing' lighting in terms of the scene it's still been set up specifically for the shot.

The car scene looks like it's all existing lighting for the exterior shots. There's some additional light added in the interior shots - likely the same EL panels he used for most of the cab shots in Collateral. It's just enough so that when the streetlights move off their faces the face is still visible. However the one closeup of his hand working the shift paddles clearly has a stationary edge light providing a contour to the hand - that's certainly an additional light added for the purpose because it doesn't change with the vehicle movement and there's no existing source in the car that would look like that.

The shootout scene has a lot of light - far more than I would expect to naturally exist in the location. In fact you can see that out beyond the boundaries of the area where the action is taking place the shipyard is very dark, so I'm certain they lit the area specifically for the scene. You can also see round light sources reflected off of glasses, windows, cars, etc in many of the shots, most likely from additional lights brought in close to add fill to the actors. I'd say it's a good example of 'naturalistic' lighting - it's entirely artificial, but it's been constructed in such a way that it appears natural to the setting. Most of the light appears to come from high offscreen, as if from arc lights on tall poles of the type you might find in an industrial setting, but I don't think it's the actual lighting that's normally at that location. That's the more typical type of setup you'll find in hollywood films going for an 'existing light' look - a lot of work goes in to setting up the lights to make it appear natural.

HowTheyDoThat said:

Therefore, if there is a lamp in the scene, and it is the sole light source, would that be "available" light.....basically any light in-scene is available?

Click to expand...

I guess that's the real question - what really is 'available' light? Lights visible in the scene are generally referred to as 'practicals', but larger productions they're usually not just standard lamps you might find in a home, and they're rarely the actual source of light for the scene. They're often just there to provide motivation for the larger light sources that are positioned outside of the frame to provide enough illumination. So you might see a lamp on the table lighting the actors in a wide shot, but when you shoot the closeup the light is coming from a large diffused light placed just outside of the shot. That light's been positioned exactly right for the particular camera angle you're using for the close up, rather than just left where it was in the layout.

So if you're really trying to just use the available light sources in a given environment you're still going to have to do a lot of moving them around in order to get the appropriate lighting for each shot and angle. If you can't move them around (an exterior street scene for instance) you're going to have to try and position the actors appropriately to make the camera angles you want work in terms of lighting - and you're going to have to select environments that have sufficient lighting to cover all the necessary angles. So either way you're still having to put a lot of thought and effort into getting the lighting right, even if you're not bringing in additional lighting equipment. On the one hand it may be less expensive and time consuming than doing complete setups for each scene and shot; on the other hand you've got less control over the light so it's going to take a lot of additional effort to make the existing lighting look 'good'. If you can bring in any additional lights, even on a limited scale, it will give you a lot more control over the final results.

When you don't put in that effort - and just shoot under whatever light happens to be available wherever you've decide to shoot - you end up getting inconsistent results at best; you may get lucky with some shots but not most, and the combination of the two will bring the whole aesthetic of your project down.

If I recall correctly from a book I read on Kubrick years ago, he lit Barry Lydon using only candles, etc....no lights. If this is true, is that considered "available light"?

Click to expand...

Unless he happened to find a set that had a bunch of lit candles just sitting there (he didn't) I wouldn't say it's "available light". It's just candles, true, but the candles have been placed there specifically for the purpose of lighting the scene. It's different than deciding to shoot a scene in a church and having your actor stand over the rack of votives that are already there. Kubrick could move the candles around to accommodate the angles he wanted; in the church example you have to block the scene and select your angles based on the existing position of the candles. But it's a good example of how artificial lighting doesn't necessarily mean bringing in thousands of watts of lights and a full grip crew; it just means constructing a lighting setup to accommodate your scene, even if it only requires a few lights (or candles).