Does my new DP have a good way of doing night shooting?

[harmonica44]

He says he would rather shoot at night rather than doing the whole day for night thing, and night looks a lot better and is more convincing. However I plan on doing some chase and fight sequences, in areas of the woods, where not much light, other than the moonlight, is going to be around. He says it would be much better to use the lights I have, and just use a 1.4 lens for it. My previous DP tried using the 1.4 at night for action, but couldn't keep it in focus, saying there was not enough DOP.

So my new DP would have to keep refocusing during the fights and chases. This would have to be done by a second person while my DP operates the steadicam. He said he would have no problem with that and that the motion blur will mask a lot of the noticeable constant refocusing, to the audience. Should I do it all at night?

I also want to do some night scenes in the city, that are continuous, with the woods scenes, just outside the city. I want shots of buildings with the lights inside turned on, as if it were night. Same with the lights of the street, and the lights on the cars, on the streets. So I am thinking I would have to shoot those at night for sure, and either shoot the woods scenes during the day and make it look like night, or during night. So should I do day for night for the woods, and make it match the look of the continuous night scenes in the city, or would it match better if I did it all at night, and just keep constantly refocusing during the fights?

 

[harmonica44]

Mirrors as you put the mirror down and shoot what's in the mirror, since the lens is too long to capture a wide enough shot on it's own. In this case 1.4 not being wide enough the shot.

So let's say these hitmen are walking into the trees looking for the good guys, and the good guys see them coming. They will be walking in a group, and seen from the good guys' point of view as they are hiding. However, since I am shooting such shallow DOF at night, I will not be able to focus on all the hitmen. How would you decide which one to focus on, or should none be in focus, since there is no main one that should get more attention?

 

[jax_rox]

Or you could just walk three feet backwards....

Which one to focus on, or whether to have all/none in focus is a decision for you and your DP.

Why don't you hire a genny and light up some parts of the wood..?

 

[harmonica44]

I could walk three feet backwards, but this is suppose to the point of view of the good guys' who are hiding, and not moving, so emotionally, the camera shouldn't move, since they aren't. At least for this particular shot I am figuring out. But even if I moved it back, they still will not all be in focus, the focus, may go from one to the other, but still not all.

I have lights, but still not enough to create that wide of a DOF yet. Trying to figure out how much I would need.

 

[jax_rox]

Putting up a mirror doesn't change your depth of field...

I'd probably get a 1.8k HMI and a fog machine. Maybe stick a 1/4 silk in front of it depending on whether the Director wanted a 'softer' moonlight feel or a hard shadows type moonlight.
But I mean it depends on the mood you want to set. You could light it with dedos on battery packs. Or you could light it with tweenies, or you could light it with a 2.5k HMI. Or you could light it with a 9-light maxi brute. It all depends on the look/feel/mood you want.

 

[harmonica44]

I meant to get the image to reflect in a mirror then shoot the image in the mirror to get a wider shot. But that won't work since the camera has to move around a lot since it's a fight scene, and the mirror cannot move with it.

We went out and practiced, and aside from the 1.4 lens we will also have to use a much longer range 300mm lens for a few shots. This is going to be a problem cause the 300mm does not come in 1.4, so I will have to raise he ISO way up to 6400 to match the shots from the 1.4 lens. So the 300mm shots will be a lot noisier, noisy to the point of unconventional. And the noisy shots will not match the more clean shots from the 1.4

Is there a better solution here? Thanks.

 

[jax_rox]

Lights.
Shoot during dusk.
Shoot in a different location that has more light.
Change the scene
Cover it with different focal lengths.

Here's the thing: There's nothing that is going to magically make everything work all of a sudden..
We've all given you ideas, at the end of the day you can either do it and do your best to make it work or you can change it and compromise on your vision to make it work. Filmmaking, especially at low budget is all about compromise.

 

[harmonica44]

Yeah but dusk is not enough time and I don't think the actors would appreciate a scene that could take two days to shoot, having to take one hour a day, till it's done. Plus having to do that could lead to continuity issues a lot more easily. Well since I have to compromise, is it worth getting the near perfect shot if it means a lot more noise? Or I guess what I could do is just use software like neatvideo, to de-noise the shots that were shot with the 300mm. I have to make sure all the characters look the same though, since neatvideo makes them look younger and different.

We've tried lights but for the wide shots you have to move the lights so far apart, that at night, the camera does not pick up the lights from in the wide shots. If I shoot the shots real tight the audience will not get a sense of geography, since it's an action, chase scene. They will not know where the characters are, compared to each other, so I need some wide shots to establish that.

 

[Will Vincent]

I hate to be the downer of this party, but...

It's a chase scene at night, in the woods.. yes? Why does the audience need to have a sense of geography? Omit it, the audience will feel lost in the woods along with the protagonist, and you'll have an easier time heightening tension.

As for the rest.. I agree with the numerous people who've already said it.. test test test.

I suspect you don't have enough lighting for a full night shoot, most people don't. Further, since you don't have access to the lenses you'd like to use without buying them. You should probably give this scene some rethought.

 

[WalterB]

About actors showing up for 1 hour to shoot during dusk:

1) You'll need them for 2,5 or 3 hours. Before it's dusk you can rehearse the shots. And before that everyone needs time to dress, prepare, do makeup, etc.
2) With proper planning you can use the morning and afternoon for other shots. This way people don't show up for 5 shots, but for a day of shooting.

3) Yes, continuity is important. Taking notes and pictures can help a lot. Having someone to keep track of continuity might be helpfull.
The weather could be a problem, that's true. Sometimes you just have to make decisions about what to shoot based on the weatherforcast.

4) The noise question pops up again. By now you should have found out, it won't work.
5) 300mm? On a rebel? That's like 500mm. Do you need such 'telescope'-shots?

6) If you want to shoot at night, but still want clear wide shots to show it's in the woods: shoot the wide shots during dusk and keep them at the start of the scene. Like they enter the woods during dusk. The light deminishes as the scene goes on.

7) I'm not saying you must do it this way. You've been given all kinds of ideas and advice. Hopefully, you learn to think 'flexible'. You are looking for 'how can I do it perfectly the way I want it without budget?', but you should ask yourself 'in what way can I make it as perfect as possible without a budget?'.

 

[knightly]

You are looking for 'how can I do it perfectly the way I want it without budget?', but you should ask yourself 'in what way can I make it as perfect as possible without a budget?'.

Or... "in what way can I gather more budget?"

Day for Night is easier in the woods just frame the sky out and the trees to all the heavy lifting for you... add blue, desaturate, darken... done.

 

[harmonica44]

Sure. I could do that but these scenes also are continuous back and forth with outdoor scenes that are shot in the city, where the woods are outside of. I can't shoot the city for day and make it night, because all the lights and street signs will not be bright and turned on, since it's day of course. So I would have to shoot those parts at night as well, in which case, day for night in the woods may not match.

 

[Will Vincent]

Color grading tools are very powerful... shoot some test footage and play with color grading.

Get night footage of the city, and day for night footage in the woods. It doesn't have to match perfectly, they're different locations, so one would expect them to look different anyway.

At the end of the day, filmmaking is nothing but a series of compromises. Which compromises you make ultimately determine the outcome, but at the end of the day, if you can't afford to do it right you'll end up with a subpar product that is a waste of time for everyone involved.

So, I see three options available to you:

1. Test test test.. play with color grading, and find something that's workable.
2. Rewrite the script with scenes that you can afford to shoot properly (ie: does it *have* to be at night?)

Or
3. Put the project on hold, and gather more budget.

 

[harmonica44]

I'm worried about matching as in noise more so. Let's say the city footage doesn't have much noise, but the woods footage, has significant more. Audiences will find this distracting. The de-noiser programs seem to be a joke, as they just make everything look synthetic and create other problems. I could add noise to make it all match but in order to make good impressions, I would really like to avoid it.

It kind of has to be night. In this city part, the guy is breaking into a secure government building office safe. And if he were to walk in and do that in the daytime, he would be caught much more likely, so it makes sense for him to do it at night. And plus since this is overall, a horror movie, night just makes the atmosphere more effective for the genre.

As for shooting so the characters are hidden in shadow, I don't know if that's a good idea, because then we cannot tell them apart, especially if they are fighting. Unless you hope that you can tell just by the shape of the shadows, but the audience will have to squint just to try to determine who is who in the fight.

I am also totally up for getting more lights and it's what I want but I have no idea which lights will do the trick and I don't want to buy and then find out I bought the wrong kinds.

I have also played with color grading to make it brighter, if that's what you mean, but that just makes it look more noisy.

 

[Lucky Hardwood]

With the 300mm lens, why do you need such a long lens? Is there a physical barrier to getting the camera closer to the action?

 

[jax_rox]

Let's say the city footage doesn't have much noise, but the woods footage, has significant more. Audiences will find this distracting.

Not necessarily. It really depends on the level of noise. Jumping from ISO 100 to ISO 25,000 is probably going to be jarring, but if you keep things in relative check you shuold be okay. Keeping things matching within a scene is more important than from scene to scene. From scene to scene generally comes from your colour grade and can often change (you might have one happy bright scene cut to a dark gritty scene for example), whereas keeping things matching within the scene is imperative.

The de-noiser programs seem to be a joke, as they just make everything look synthetic and create other problems. I could add noise to make it all match but in order to make good impressions, I would really like to avoid it.

Yeah, de-noising doesn't work as well as de-graining because noise is generally consistent rather than random like grain. Most de-noising software creates banding. There are some expensive programs that analyse surrounding pixels and try and make the 'noise' parts match, but again the results vary and it's generally a slow process.

It kind of has to be night.

Night can be done either at night, or day-for-night. Day for night is much more difficult, but can actually look better and can be cheaper in the end as you don't need to bring in 5k lights to light up entire areas. Or you could shoot at night and bring in lights. Or bump your ISO ridiculously and run into the noise problem you speak of.

I don't want to buy and then find out I bought the wrong kinds.

Rent. You could rent HMIs for three nights for the cost of one single fresnel fixture and the best part is, you could rent what you think you might need for one day at a relatively cheap cost, see what works and what doesn't and you haven't bought lights you don;t need or don't like.
The other thing to think about is powering lights in the woods; you'll most likely need a generator and then if you're thinking of getting sound, you'll probably want to run distro (don't do this yourself).

Lighting night can be done as many ways as you want. I've had moonlight coming from a single softened HMI with the camera set to Tungsten. I've had moonlight coming from an HMI with a Lee 205 and 213 on it for a slightly different moonlight look. I've backlit the crap out of people and just slightly filled their face with a low-powered light to get the tiniest bit of detail. I've used 4k HMIs to light entire areas at night.

It all depends on the look/feel/mood you want.

 

[PaulGriffith]

There are a lot if new LED lights that are pretty killer and can run off batteries. Ikan has a line of LED fixtures ranging from smaller camera/mount ones to monster 1000 bulb fixtures that still weigh next to nothing and will run for over 2 hours non-stop/full brightness on camera batteries.

Worth looking into. One of the larger fixtures ($500ish) just off camera might give you your moonlight feel in the middle of the woods with no generator.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. I checked out the movie equipment rental store and they don't have lights that run off battery, unless these lights are so new, they wouldn't have heard of them yet. What are the names of these new lights, so I can look them up and see if anyone has them? I googled LED lights for movie shooting but a lot of sites do not say if they need a generator or not, or if there are any catches. That's the thing, if I can't rent, I have to buy to play around with it, and everything I have botten so far has come with a catch that did not find out till using it.

But some shots may require the 300mm lens cause, I would like to do some rooftop shots where I can zoom but I guess I don't HAVE to have it, if it's not possible at all. Perhaps I can shoot at 6400 ISO, then de-noise it and hopefully it will match the footage from the 1.4 lens, but I can still tell a bit of a difference so far.

I don't mind dark shadowy lighting, it's just that sometimes silhouettes, in an action scene can look kind of corny. The DP who was interested before, said the best thing to do is use natural lighting as it will be all micro-budget run and gun shooting anyway, and natural lighting gives me less to have to deal with. And to use a 1.4. lens and keep constantly rack focusing during the action scenes. I haven't been able to find a focus puller who can tell who is in focus and who not during action scenes though, cause of the motion blur.

Me and the DP have tried some natural lighting shots with the 1.4 though, and I must say, I do think it looks effectively creepy in a good way. The only thing is though is that it still looks kind of home video-ish. I mean will people look at it and think it's amateur to shoot at night under natural light, even if the DP has experience and has done hired work before... Plus at 1.4. there may still be noise in the black shadow areas, which means I may have to add noise in other scenes, just to get a match. Is there a way to avoid noise over black shadows while DSLR shooting on location, or is that just a given, if you want black shadows?

 

[PaulGriffith]

Okay thanks. I checked out the movie equipment rental store and they don't have lights that run off battery, unless these lights are so new, they wouldn't have heard of them yet. What are the names of these new lights, so I can look them up and see if anyone has them? I googled LED lights for movie shooting but a lot of sites do not say if they need a generator or not, or if there are any catches.

They aren't that new. I actually just reviewed some in another thread here: http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=42521

They're more expensive than tungsten, but not more expensive than tungsten AND a generator.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks they look pretty interesting.

 

[jax_rox]

Rent some cinema EF lenses (like Zeiss CP.2s), and a production kit for your DSLR that includes a follow focus. An experienced focus puller could do it, but it's pretty damn tough if you're using Canon still lenses, especially without a monitor for your focus puller.

If you're happy with the shallow focus look, I'm not really sure why you wouldn't go for it? Get your operator to pull focus..?

Or, light the damn thing.