Urgent help for short film
Posted 08 November 2005 - 11:08 PM
Im shooting a scene for a short film next Tuesday 15th. I`ve been having some trouble deciding on how to get the results I`m after. The short was entirely shot on DV but the final scene, an interior sex scene in wich all the intrigue is finally revealed, will be shot on 16mm using an Eccalir, running at 75 fps to higlight the sexuality of the scene. The two characters involved in the scene are having sex while fooling around whith a polaroid camera. We are trying to achieve a morning look in wich all the set is barely exposed by the little light coming across the closed blinds but allowing the viewer to notice the movements of the actors. We?ll be doing closed shots, like close ups and detail shots of other parts of the actors bodies and we are triying to use a soft and flatering to the skin source that could wrap the actors and go in to shadow very rapidly(¿this is called fast fall off?), like the Kodak vision 2 stock advertising in wich a blonde woman somking, I?ll try to get that photo.
I?ve been reading some posts and this seems to be an option to achicve the morning look, except for the the hard source for edging part:
*For me, I love a large, soft source really far away (I mean REALLY far) through a window. The light becomes hard again at these distances, but retains a beautiful soft quality, with very little fall off. I then cut this was several branches at different distances, slightly moving as David describes. I then take a very hard source (a xenon into a mirror being my favorite) and allow a "chunk" of this light to edge things out a bit, or just add some "excitement" to the set.
¿Is little fall of what I?m after?
That is one isue, here comes the tricky part. We want to somehow emulate the flash of the polaroid flashing the actors faces upto the correct exposure. Something like the code-46 scene in the disco where the actors are flashed by a stroboscope light.
We did some tests, we used two 300 fresnels through a full cto to light the subject and the set two stops under, and a 2k fresnel with a cardboard that we moved infont when needed in order to achieve the effect of the flash. The problem was that we almost fried the talent and the result did?nt look very nice.
As we are students we only have budget for some basic lighting: 2x 300 watts fresnels
2x650 watts fresnels
2x250 watts tota.
We are shooting using fuji F-250T tungsten stock.
Any help will be enormously epreciated.
Thanks from Chile
Posted 13 November 2005 - 03:27 PM
Posted 26 November 2005 - 08:47 PM
I'm afraid you don't get it. Sure the film will be passed faster. Sure it will need more light, but it's not
since the film will still be used/projected at 30 fps. It's a slow motion effect, so that it will not "do the same" as if it was shot at 24 or 30 fps. It will create an aesthetical effect.
Wasting ALOT of money for something thats not that important
Posted 26 November 2005 - 09:28 PM
Posted 26 November 2005 - 10:41 PM
If you shoot at 6 to 9 frames per second and transfer at 6 to 3 frames per second you will get a slo mo effect that will be very strob/ blurry like .
The advantage is you increase the effectiveness of your lights because you have the effective exposure of 1/12th of a second-which gives you very nice motion blurr. So in effect you quaduple your lighting.
Also 100ft lasts 10 minutes so 400 feet will last 40 minutes at 6FPS. When I do this I go to a transfer house that bills by the foot not by the hour.
You got to think outside the box when you do not have resources.
Edited by asparaco, 27 November 2005 - 08:28 AM.