An Early Theory of RED Lighting

[Ben Feuer]

:disclaimer: I haven't gotten my RED yet ... hopefully soon!

I've looked at pretty much every still and every piece of footage on this forum (and a few elsewhere), and I think I'm starting to get a feel for the RED's style. It seems to me that the combination of really good latitude and low light performance and the naturally subdued color of the RAW workflow lends itself to a certain type of shooting.

Stu and OffHollywood started talking about this when they discussed exposing for maximum dynamic range. But I think, judging from what we've seen, that RED is the closest camera yet to representing the human eye.

Think about it. Most of the nicest shots on the forum so far have been naturally lit shots with few (if any) setups. The more staged looking shots have all been indoors, shot with traditional studio lighting. Now, I'm sure you can make the RED look good with studio lighting, and I believe people will in time. But most of Crossing the Line was outdoors, a lot of the Digital Cinema Society stuff was outdoors, Billy Summers' night shot of Hollywood Blvd, Shawn Nelson's stuff...these were all stunning.

So I propose to people lighting indoors with their REDs - try to use daylight if it's available, and to simulate it with blue gels if it's not. Use more diffuse light when possible, lots of bounce, and take advantage of all that 4k detail to use the entire environment, rather than letting areas fall off to total black.

I'd love to hear other theories from the board, or comments from people who've been lighting with RED so far!

[David Mullen ASC]

The RED camera, though it has a wide latitude, still has less exposure range than what color negative film can capture, so natural lighting looks just as good on film as it would with the RED camera. There's no technical reason why either would "prefer" to be shot in natural light; it's just that the more exposure latitude you have, the greater range of luminence you can capture and work with in post. And natural light isn't necessarily always higher in contrast -- an overcast daytime exterior, for example, has a limited exposure range to deal with.

[Greg M]

dont fool yourself, good lighting (either natural or man made) is essential to good images...along with of course composition and those other "little" details. The cameras technical prowess will never change this.

[Ben Feuer]

I don't know where I mentioned that "good lighting" is no longer necessary; that's blatantly untrue and is not what interests me about the RED footage.

Every new format, be it 16mm or super 35 or what have you, seems to "prefer" certain types of shooting to look its best. For example, in the 20s soft focus and shimmering backdrops were accepted as realistic. Everything had to be lit naturally or with huge carbon arcs et cetera.

But as technology has progressed we've seen realistic lighting come to resemble reality more. It's probably partially a matter of taste, but at least partially it's because of the improved detail and resolving power of the technology.

My theory is that some of the more *stagy* lighting techniques that work well in film don't work as well in RED, because it's more like a DSLR. So practicals, china globes, bounce cards and softer lights like Kino Flos may work better compared to Fresnels and 1k's.

That's all I was saying.

[Greg M]

I don't know where I mentioned that "good lighting" is no longer necessary; that's blatantly untrue and is not what interests me about the RED footage.



sorry, misread your post.

But to your point realize that as technology evolves, so does lighting technology and the ability to create light that looks more natural.

[Kjetil Haugen]

On the subject of lighting...

I happened to attend a seminar yesterday with a very capable DP from Taiwan named Mark Lee. He had been in town for a week doing a workshop for our most prominent DP's, showing them some tricks he'd learned over the years. A very intelligent and humble man.

He mentioned something about working in Hollywood. He said that he was given 7 (or something like that) trucks of equipment... without even asking for it. The stuff he really wanted, they didn't have, which was inexpensive light tubes etc. So he had to "make due" with all this expensive equipment...

Of course this has nothing to do with lighting for digital, but I thought I'd share this as food for thought. Lighting doesn't have to be that complex.

Here's a clip by the way from "Three Times" that he also discussed in the interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFGuYzGP7e4

[Kevin Halverson]

Having just concluded a series of test with the RED I can assure everyone that it comes extremely close to its theoretical dynamic range for a 12 bit system. This is very impressive and really does nearly equal what the best of negative film can achieve, however, there is a really big difference that should be understood by all that work with RED and come from a film background.

Film, has a reasonably linear region in the middle of its exposure range, but the two extremes, the so called 'heel' and 'shoulder' are far from linear. It is this departure from linearity that makes negative film more forgiving. The curve at the top end of the exposure is so steep as to make it very difficult to ever fully "clip" a negative as there are always a few bits of silver that just don't want to trip without a huge amount of persuasion. Digital acquisition on the other hand is highly linear (at least the sensor portion of the signal chain) and you can almost be assured that every photosite is going to clip at nearly the exact same point.

The same is true on the bottom end of the exposure scale. Film again is a bit more forgiving in that its response in the shadows is compressed due to the non linearities, this will give negative film the perceived advantage in terms of shadow detail as it will represent shadows which might be highly contrasty as slightly less so and this leads to the perception is that with film there will be more "detail" with the same given average exposure compared to a wide dynamic range digital system.

What this all means is that, even with similar dynamic ranges, digital still has to be lite as if it didn't have as much dynamic range (slightly flatter) as film, due to digitals more linear response characteristics. Understanding these fundamental differences will go a long way toward helping someone make the transition in terms of their lighting choices.

[Seung Han]

I agree...for indies. I think the downfall for a lof of indies is that stage lighting which looks terrible on film or video. I think indies that use and control natural light can look better.

Throwing money at this issue for talent and equipment usually works.

[Noah Kadner]

Yup- so many indie filmmakers believe that digital=easier to light than film because it's electronic. In reality, your lighting has to be a lot more carefully controlled because your contrast range is more limited than film. So if you don't know what silks, NDs, fill light, flags, etc are- time to bone up.

[jbeale]

If you're looking for a well-illustrated online reference for some lighting tools and techniques, check out http://efplighting.com/

This is aimed only at EFP / ENG type lighting, but many of the principles are general. The nice thing is there's many photo illustrations and matching lighting diagrams, showing exactly what the addition of the second, third, fourth light do to your subject. They also show outdoor setups with silks, nets etc.

[Jason Murphy]

On the subject of lighting...

I happened to attend a seminar yesterday with a very capable DP from Taiwan named Mark Lee. He had been in town for a week doing a workshop for our most prominent DP's, showing them some tricks he'd learned over the years. A very intelligent and humble man.

He mentioned something about working in Hollywood. He said that he was given 7 (or something like that) trucks of equipment... without even asking for it. The stuff he really wanted, they didn't have, which was inexpensive light tubes etc. So he had to "make due" with all this expensive equipment...

Of course this has nothing to do with lighting for digital, but I thought I'd share this as food for thought. Lighting doesn't have to be that complex.

Here's a clip by the way from "Three Times" that he also discussed in the interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFGuYzGP7e4

Mark Lee Ping-bing is, for my money, the greatest cinematographer working out there today. That's so awesome that you were able to have a seminar with him. Where did this seminar take place?

[Kjetil Haugen]

Mark Lee Ping-bing is, for my money, the greatest cinematographer working out there today. That's so awesome that you were able to have a seminar with him. Where did this seminar take place?

In oslo, yesterday. We watched a recent film of his and he talked about his previous work, and DP'ing in general. Got to see some clips etc. As an example of early work they showed a fight scene with Jet Lee in "The Legend 2" from 93. He seemed really embarassed by this. Don't know why. It was awsome!

A very inspiring session I must say. Wish I could have been at the workshops also...

A director had previously said to him that he has no style. To that he replied: If I have a style, then the director has no style...

[Jay A. Kelley]

With people like David talking about lighting, I feel a little stupid.. But here it goes.

I have always shot digital, since way back in my Cal-Arts days. And I have a special relationship with clipping & crushing. There are a lot of different kinds of blacks and whites in digital, and how you handle them will give you effects around the edges of them.

Let's say it's a night shoot, you are shooting the corner of a brick building, and the wall facing camera is lit. But the street on the other side is not. It's a low budget gig so there's no brute lying around to wash down the street. The fall to black will be sudden and that space between the lit brick and black won't "feel" right in digital. Film will feel a little more natural, perhaps even picking up a little bloom, or some atmosphere. Digital sometimes will just fall off and stay there.

Now at this point it's up to the director, but if I have a say, I'll want to break up that black space. There's nothing wrong with letting your picture fall into unrecoverable blacks in some cases, if it supports the compositon. And in the end that's the magic. I don't want to light that black area as much as I want to make it a part of the compositon. If that void is "saying" something, they I may put one single object in there, about 50 ft away, or even 100ft, and throw a small amount of light on it.. That can make all the difference for me.

We will all have to get a feel for what RED will let us get away with before it goes Bonzo, and I will be very careful what I decide to toast in my frame for fear of taking choices away from the colorist. BUT, if my compositon calls for a blown area, or a crushed one, then so be it.. That call is my job.

Jay

[David Mullen ASC]

"Stagey" lighting isn't more or less appropriate for film anymore than it is for the RED camera. It all depends on the look and style you want to achieve. If you want to use a lot of natural light, you can do that with either format, and if you want a theatrical look, you can do that too with either format. But I don't buy the notion that "fake" or stylized lighting somehow works "better" on film, or conversely, that natural light works "better" on the RED.

Lighting is lighting, other than the technical adjustments you make to account for the exposure range of the format or any post processes you want to apply that affect contrast.

If the lighting in something shot on the RED looks bad, it's because it's bad lighting and would look bad on film or HD or DV...

[Steve Sanacore]

To all the digital newbies... forget video ... this is a whole new world...

I have been shooting stills for over 20 years and made the switch to Digital a few years ago. So I have been through all this already. That is why I am so excited about RED's camera. And I can say is that "lighting is lighting" - sure there are differences in the curve of highlights and shadows between a CMOS chip and film, but it's only in deciding exactly where to put your exposure, not in soft or hard lighting. You can do wonderful work in either medium. It's all up to the look you want to achieve and how you go about getting it by using light and shadows to create the image. That has not changed.

[Mark Crabtree]

Using a dark contrast filter, which blocks up the lower light levels of a scene to the eye, helps you quickly assess if there are areas in the scene illuminated at too low a level. Even though this is most effective working with lower ISO stocks, using this filter can help identify areas where dynamic range is too high and fill is needed. It's very freeing to not be glued to the camera monitor/finder when judging lighting of a scene. Sometimes I look at a scene while squinting to check for non illuminated areas or one area which seems too bright. Yes, a spot meter is more accurate, but using your eye can be a quick way to be vigilant of high contrast scenes and do something about the lighting before you depend on a fix in post which may result in unpleasant noise in the shadows or clipped areas. I think we all agree from the info in so far that the Red One does not have quite the latitude of film. Well, my VariCam does not quite have the latitude of film either, but I make spectacular images with it because I understand it's limitations. And based on images posted from the first batch of Red cameras VariCam is a toy compared to the Red One. I will have to do a lot of testing but I am confident I can find the limits of the Red One sensor for my tastes, and will light my scenes to stay within them or not depending on the effect I need to achieve. And yes I am aware that there will always be those situations which are the worst of all posibilities and you still have to shoot. But understanding the limitations of the camera can help you minimize greatly the downside of difficult situations.

I agree completely with David that lighting is good or bad. I think it is judged by the lens. Either the lens of the camera or directly by the lens of the eye. The sensor, whether CMOS, film or retina is irrelevant. The light will do it's job, creating mood and texture with puposely placed patterns of shadows and light in a subjectively flattering way, or it will be random, illogically placed or poorly controlled resulting in an image that is very unpleasant to view regardless of the high quality/high resolution of the sensor or film stock that captures it. Lighting is an art, best learned through observation and experimentation which never stops.

[One Films]

Big thanks to kmuse for taking this conversation out of the abstract and comparing his first-hand work with RED to his obvious experience with 35mm.

That post, detailing the high tolerance of film's shoulder and heel is especially valid when you consider the post-production pipeline that the footage is going to be put through eventually.

Too many of these discussions seem to assume that raw footage from the cameras is going to end up on TV screens and in theatres, but capture is the first step of many in creating an aesthetic.

That's why, in the last few years, I've become hyper aware that it's important to shoot on set with an understanding of how the final telecine/grade or DI is going to work hand in hand with what you're gathering. That means that 35mm film gives you an astounding comfort level specifically because of the high tolerances it has at both ends of it's lattitude spectrum. It's an insurance policy that no digital camera will physically match.

From all first-hand accounts and posted footage—RED is amazing, but it's also important to know it's limitations so that you can avoid any surprises in post. I'm officially sold on RED, but think it's essential to hear specifics from people experienced in both mediums on how the two differ!!!

And yeah—David's point is dead on—good lighting is good lighting!

[Brian Ferguson]

This discussion reminds me of a great system "The Zone System"
Started by Edward Weston and Ansel Adams and the like, they constantly tested negative stocks and decided where to place the exposure and pushed or pulled their processing to get the desired result. I highly recommend the "Zone System Manual" if it is still available.

I think based on my experiences in lighting both Frankie and Red One shots in the last year the most important thing is teaching your eye how to see like the camera does. That can only be done by testing and experimenting. I think the Mysterium sensor has more "toe" than "shoulder" i have always seen more detail in the shadows than any other digital format I have used.

Learn where you want to place "middle grey" and you will get the shots you want. Also learning that the viewing system is a great guide for exposure but not exactly what you are going to see in Red Alert. Very analogous to shooting film, you shoot for the transfer/post.

[dalemccready]

Personally I think what is being disussed should more accurately be referred to as exposure rather than lighting.

Good lighting is whatever suits the project, script and whim of those involved. But the camera can certainly demand a tailored exposure.

I'd like to shoot something much like "One From The Heart" on my Red as well as naturalistic work. I don't see why a stylised work wouldn't suit the camera if executed well.

I know it's been hammered over again and again, but for me I light to make the shot look good to my eye. The camera is not involved in that stage other than defining the box that forms the composition. But I'll certainly be biasing the exposure one way or another when it comes time to record.

[Fix]

I am waiting for those high contrast shoots of bright day lighted snow in contrast to black rocks. I do believe RED can handle it pretty well. I guess Mcgregor’s last shoots in salt flats Utah gave us a pretty good idea of what to expect, but it would be nice to see some real test concern this matter. Have any of you 50#’s experienced this?

[dalemccready]

I suppose unless you are there at the testing it is hard to reference the values of a high contrast shot.

Perhaps we need a test still frame that has overlays of spot readings on it. such as F22 for a bright highlight or F8 for a light wall, F4 for a skintone etc. At least that way it can be discerned what the original conditions were before the camera captured it.

[Fix]

I suppose unless you are there at the testing it is hard to reference the values of a high contrast shot.

Absolutely. But right now I don't have a RED. A couple of clips7grabs could give us some impression.

A real interesting subject in one of the other threads, about ND filters concerning bright conditions, raised this to my mind. Do you need to put on 3-4 ND's too save the day? I surly hope not.

Norway can be a pretty bright place some times.

[Kjetil Haugen]

Absolutely. But right now I don't have a RED. A couple of clips7grabs could give us some impression.

A real interesting subject in one of the other threads, about ND filters concerning bright conditions, raised this to my mind. Do you need to put on 3-4 ND's too save the day? I surly hope not.

Norway can be a pretty bright place some times.

Norway, a bright place?? Not this summer....

Something to keep in mind about ND's is that you only need to think in higher numbers. 0.3, 0.6, 0.9 is the norm for shooting outdoors with film, but you rarely run outside with a 320-500 ASA stock, so something like 0.9, 1.2, 1,8 would be a more suitable ND kit to bring with your Red. That makes sense at least.

Where in Norway are you?

[Fix]

Norway, a bright place?? Not this summer....

Something to keep in mind about ND's is that you only need to think in higher numbers. 0.3, 0.6, 0.9 is the norm for shooting outdoors with film, but you rarely run outside with a 320-500 ASA stock, so something like 0.9, 1.2, 1,8 would be a more suitable ND kit to bring with your Red. That makes sense at least.

Where in Norway are you?

It can be a bright place, like skiing up in the mountains around spring time with sun on top in a clear sky. I know that many are in for a challenge in those conditions concerning high contrast situations. Myself included.

Your suggestion regards ND's sound interesting, I would love to see the difference in action. Hope someone can show us some test on this matter with a RED soon.

I live in Molde. Summer was pretty good up here this year. I know that didn't count for “soerlandet og oestlandet” though. So I get your point.

Well render is on and I'm going to bed. Out

[David Mullen ASC]

Contrast is not really unmanageable in full sunlit open areas like in the desert or the beach (unless glaring off of water) where there is maybe a four-stop difference between the sun and shade -- where it goes over the top is in broken-up areas with heavy shade, like in the deep forest, or indoors where there are small areas in full sunlight but otherwise, heavy shadows. In those scenarios, you can have a huge exposure range to deal with.

[Fix]

Contrast is not really unmanageable in full sunlit open areas like in the desert or the beach (unless glaring off of water) where there is maybe a four-stop difference between the sun and shade -- where it goes over the top is in broken-up areas with heavy shade, like in the deep forest, or indoors where there are small areas in full sunlight but otherwise, heavy shadows. In those scenarios, you can have a huge exposure range to deal with.

Or some sort of glaring from bright white snow. I know these conditions are not a huge problem, if you manage to control the light flood reaching the lens and presumably the chip inside.

There have been a couple of clips with some strange artifacts from sun glaring. I know this is something they are dealing with and probably manage to solve. Nevertheless, I would love to see a test shoot from conditions like these to see how RED stands up to it. Thats all. Maybe some of the 50# have all ready tried this and have some opinions?