Big Love: Season Two
Posted 12 December 2007 - 02:11 AM
Technical info: 4-perf Super-35, framed for 16x9. Shot mostly on Cooke 20-100mm zooms, some Panavision "Z" series primes (Zeiss). Kodak 5212 100T outdoors, but otherwise, mostly Kodak 5229 (Expression 500T). Later episodes used a mix of light diffusion on closer shots, either #1/2 Black Diffusion-FX, #1 GlimmerGlass, or a fine net. The Expression stock has a somewhat softer, powdery look, a little like Agfa.
I'll begin with some frames from the backyard set, shot on a soundstage:
At each end of the soundstage, I have Dinos to create a backlight. Overhead are spacelights. On this last frame, though, I wanted a toppier backlight so I extended a 20K on a small condor with an articulating arm to get over the porch trellace and create that shadow pattern on the side of the house.
Posted 12 December 2007 - 02:14 AM
This first one cuts with a wide shot made at dusk outdoors (this was not on a soundstage) so I had to fake a dusk look when I got to the close-ups at night, throwing soft blue light on the background. I armed a Kinoflo with daylight tubes over the car door to get the soft light on the door sill.
Posted 12 December 2007 - 02:27 AM
Posted 12 December 2007 - 03:00 AM
I shot about a fifth of #1 (Jim Glennon's episode), and quite a few little pick-ups in #4 (Haskell Wexler's episode), not really whole scenes. Otherwise, in each of the later episodes starting with #7, once Bill Wages was hired to be the co-DP, there often is one scene shot by the other DP because of scheduling. We try to match each other's approach and ask each other how they would light it.
There is one scene in the last episode that I originally shot... but Bill Wages had to reshoot because of a dialogue change, so he matched my original lighting set-up. That creates an odd conflict about whether I can put it on my reel, since I didn't shoot it, but it's almost a perfect match to how I originally shot it...
I also shot two out of the three short films on the disk ("Moving Day" and "Meet the Babysitter"), made originally for the internet.
Bill's episodes (#7, 9, 11) were shot with his special net filter, which I borrowed for a few scenes in my episodes after that (#8, 10, 12) but I mostly stuck to the #1 GlimmerGlass in my episodes. Before #7, we shot mostly clean except for close-ups where I used the #1/2 Black Diffuson-FX, mainly starting on Episode #3, a few shots before that. Bill also preferred sticking to the Expression stock even for day exteriors, whereas I switched to the 100T stock unless I was going to lose the light.
Bill taught me a lot about soft bounce lighting, plus the use of Source-4's for bouncing and to create hot slashes of light. I was doing that effect on all my episodes though, with flags and PAR's mainly, but it was easier to do it with the Source-4's later. Working fast was an important consideration. In this scene, I was able to sneak some Source-4's off-camera in the wide shot to create slashes of hot light falling onto the table, and then use them in the close-ups:
Posted 12 December 2007 - 03:23 AM
I've been particularly interested in the issue of multiple DP's on a single show for awhile, and the collaboration or communication and design that goes on between them. I've done a fair amount of 2nd Unit DP work where I take some pride in emulating the DP's style, and I have also replaced DP's for TV shows where I have to inherit a style or technique and slowly evolve it into my own. In both cases I've taken a slow approach and look to the director and producers for feedback. It's always interesting to hear the "unspoken mandates" about how the show should look, especially when you're not given any...
I'm curious what your experiences with that have been.
Posted 12 December 2007 - 03:35 AM
The main bit of stylization is that the home scenes are timed brighter and more saturated than the polygamist's compound in the hills, which is timed to be drab and darker. That's an approach that started with Season One.
Trying to find the "art" in this mundane setting without drifting too much into stylization or artsiness is the challenge. The frames I picked are not necessarily typical of the generally straight-forward look in the office scenes, the hardware store, etc., I wanted to pick something that had more of a distinct look. The show is so subtle in some ways in tone and humor, rarely is anything pushed or forced. So the look has to be grounded in naturalism (while being flattering... and while dealing with the fact that half of it is shot on soundstages.) I've been trying to think in terms of the kinder, gentler look of Nester Almendros, Sven Nykvist, David Watkin, people who could create art with a soft gentle light. It's hard to be that subtle.
Posted 12 December 2007 - 04:57 AM
Posted 12 December 2007 - 08:04 AM
Some of those shots are veering into Gordon Willis territory! Looks great, though. You definitely sell the backyard scenes as real exteriors - since I haven't seen the first season, I'm curious now to see how your approach differs. I think you mentioned before that you wanted to get in those hot slashes of hard light to mimic real uncontrolled sunlight. I think the only thing that might give the game away is the size of the shadows the actors cast on the ground, since I guess in real sunlight they'd be smaller because the sun is a smaller point source than the units you had. I also remember you saying that the ceiling of the stage was rather low, so I guess you were not able to put the lights as far away as you wanted. Were you ultimately happy with how the scenes turned out, or are there things you'd like to change?
I've been trying to think in terms of the kinder, gentler look of Nester Almendros, Sven Nykvist, David Watkin, people who could create art with a soft gentle light. It's hard to be that subtle.
I'm also curious how much you were allowed to vary your lighting style from the DP shooting the other episodes - what would you say the basic guidelines for the show are, in terms of lighting* and lenses? Have you felt like you've ever gone too far in deviating from the show's look, and if so, when and how?
* EDIT: Oops, I guess you answered that part already in the previous post. Never mind.
Edited by Satsuki Murashige, 12 December 2007 - 08:06 AM.
Posted 12 December 2007 - 11:41 AM
Bill Wages is better at creating really natural-looking soft light with some contrast, but oddly enough, he was also less likely to stick to the reality of where the windows and sources were, if they were off-camera. He'd hang this big bedsheet and bounce light off of it from wherever it looked good, even if the windows were on the opposite side of the room. I'd be more likely to stick to the logic of the room, so a scene might be front-lit because of where the windows were.
I also noticed that the actors' skintones looked better from bouncing tungsten off of this bedsheet than when I was using Kinoflos, so I started using less of the Kinos.
I was a little more insistent on using eye lights and/or low fill for the eyes to get rid of some of the imperfections, whereas he tended to just make the key softer. This combined with the net diffusion created a softer gentler look starting on his first episode, #7 (the one where Margene is visited by her mother, played by Bonnie Bedelia.)
Posted 12 December 2007 - 05:35 PM
Posted 12 December 2007 - 07:04 PM
I imagine that there's greater variation in how the two DPs would suggest covering a scene than in the lighting - do you also try to stick to certain guidelines there as well? I remember you were talking before about setting up a shot with Bill Paxton where there complementary action going on in the background and not being able to shoot it the way you wanted to because Bill wouldn't go for it. How do you figure out the best way to cover each scene and also factor in consistency with the previous episodes?
Posted 12 December 2007 - 07:51 PM
Thanks for the reply David.
I imagine that there's greater variation in how the two DPs would suggest covering a scene than in the lighting - do you also try to stick to certain guidelines there as well? I remember you were talking before about setting up a shot with Bill Paxton where there complementary action going on in the background and not being able to shoot it the way you wanted to because Bill wouldn't go for it.
No, that's not correct -- in that particular case, Bill questioned the naturalness and logic of the staging from a character perspective... but he went for it in the end. Being a talented director, he more than understands what value a certain composition can give to a sequence. But as an actor, he is right to mention when he feels a certain move or staging seems unnatural or forced. Especially on a show that is performance-driven as this one is. But sometimes a certain complex composition of separate foreground and background action simultaneously in the same frame can be more efficient from a storytelling perspective, plus it enhances that somewhat circus-like feeling that is Bill Henrickson's life as he juggles several things at once.
Basically the lighting has to feel natural and yet be flattering. That's the main guideline. And the home life is generally "up" and the compound life is generally "down" visually.
How the DP's go about that ends up being similar, afterall, we're working with the same crews, same lighting package, same sets, same actors, etc. I think we also steal from each other, or to be more honest, I watched everyone's dailies and stole whatever I liked.
Where we varied were on things like creating a soft light with a bounce or with our Chimeras or with our Kinos, especially in the kitchen scenes. And to some extent, I kept modifying my solutions to the same set over the season, particularly that darn kitchen set where the windows weren't quite in the right place for the action, forcing me to use top light in the wide shots sometimes, which didn't work so well in the close-ups. That and the big dinner table scenes where soft top light was the only real solution for night interiors where we were covering multiple characters with multiple cameras.
Normally every scene would be blocked with the actors and then we'd work out camera coverage from that, so the actors moved around where they felt unless the director had some very specific shots he was trying to achieve. We'd then set marks and the actors would leave while I lit the set. Sometimes I'd use the stand-ins and a lens on a finder and just tweak the actor's marks for different dolly positions. The idea was to cover the scene somewhat fluidly and loosely, then get some coverage, but generally scenes played best in a moving medium shot rather than a bunch of close-ups.
Posted 13 December 2007 - 12:57 AM
Here are some photos of the set, before production began while they were finishing up the touch-ups, and then during my first set-up in the backyard. The point is to show you that the Dinos were positioned behind the wings of the two houses at each end of the backyard, on scissor lifts.
The problem was that the Dinos could not get high enough to tilt down into the yard of the nearest house, because of the roof shadow. So here, I added a 5K on a plywood sheet placed on the roof of the porch trellace so I could get the backlight to fall closer to the house and thus hit Barb in this position. I gelled it with 1/4 CTO to warm it up:
Usually I opted to shoot in backlight, but here is a case where I armed a 20K overhead more to get the shadow pattern of the trellace, then threw a 4'x4' frame of diffusion on top of the trellace to soften/shadow the hard light that would be hitting Barb.
Posted 13 December 2007 - 01:10 AM
...He'd hang this big bedsheet and bounce light off of it from wherever it looked good, even if the windows were on the opposite side of the room.
I feel a lot better about my own personal kit now that I heard this. I always carry around a big cotton bedsheet for multi-purpose. Whether it be as a giant "silk" for creating a large diffused source, placing it behind a window and blowing it out, or just hanging it up for bounce. They're very versatile, and cheap
Posted 13 December 2007 - 01:23 AM
What's great about the bedsheet trick is that anything, any area, in the room can become a light source just by draping it with a white bedsheet and reflecting some light off of it. Bill Wages is also fond of taping or stapling pieces of white card around the set and hitting those with the Source-4's. I could always tell when Bill had been shooting on one of the sets by the remnants of white cards here and there, dangling from the ceiling, taped to a wall, on the side of a piece of furniture.
Posted 13 December 2007 - 01:29 AM
The frame is also an example of the work in getting the backyard in the background to be reasonably overexposed. I felt that I had to get the backyard at least three stops brighter than the interior to be believable, which wasn't always possible because of the T/3 limit of the zooms.
Posted 13 December 2007 - 04:27 AM
Posted 13 December 2007 - 11:53 AM
Since I had to shoot at T/3, I generally lit day interiors to a T/2.8, which got the background reasonably overexposed-looking, though the Expression stock actually held everything, even five stops overexposed or more, if you transferred it with the subject "down", which is what happened in dailies, since the colorist was not allowed to let anything get clipped.
I spotted the 20K's and whatnot on any tree or fence in the background seen through the windows.
Now when I was outside in the backyard, I lowered the intensity of the overhead spacelights down to a T/4 so that the hard light from the 20K's and Dinos would read relatively hotter in comparison -- to match real life outdoors conditions, I needed the sun and the shade to have at least a three-stop difference, more if possible. I could have dropped the overhead grid even lower, but since it was on a dimmer, it would start to get too warm in color temp compared to the Dinos and 20K's.
Ideally I could have lit the backyard with the correct balance AND be three-stops brighter than the interior, so I could realistically Steadicam from indoors to outdoors and back again and do a stop-pull on the lens, like in real life. But since I had to lower the spacelights down to an T/4 to balance correctly with the "sun", when the backyard was lit correctly for being outside, it wasn't bright enough compared to the interiors, unless I switched to primes and lit and shot the interiors at T/2 or less to create enough of a difference. When the camera was only inside, then I could just turn on everything outside and blast more indiscriminantly, just to get the intensity up.
Posted 13 December 2007 - 01:08 PM
Posted 14 December 2007 - 01:33 AM
In this case, I put 1/2 CTO on the windows:
Here I put Full CTB on the windows: