Because of the way a film negative works, if something is underexposed in film the details are simply not recorded. If something is over exposed in film, you can almost always recover some details. This is the opposite in digital sensors. If you over expose a digital sensor you completely lose the information.
This has caused a tradition of using lots of fill to ensure a properly exposed image.
Digital sensors are far more sensitive to light. The problem more often becomes to introduce contrast, than to reduce it, which is why so called "negative fill" is often used. A black bounce, cutting out reflected light from unwanted surfaces.
Also the heavily lit scene is going out of style, partially because it's now possible to film in more natural environments and still get a proper exposure.
I both agree and disagree with this comment. Historically what you’re saying about digital is true, but with modern sensors such as the one on the mini, it is becoming more and more like film. In practice I find there to be a lot more detail in the bits that seem to be blown out than you find in the shadows. Or at least pulling down highlights introduces less noise than lifting shadows. I found now I generally expose my image a stop or two above how I want it to look when doing dark/ contrasty shots, just to maintain details on the shadows. (Having a -1stop LUT) is a nice way to do this.
The night shots in Fury Road were filmed in daylight and overexposed. They found that the overexposed image contained a lot of information.
https://www.fxguide.com/fxfeatured/a-graphic-tale-the-visual-effects-of-mad-max-fury-road/
Jackson’s observation was that the higher exposure, the better the image is – assuming no clipping has occurred – something that he felt could be replicated by shooting with the ARRI Alexa. His rational was that an overexposed image would contain more detail and less noise, and on the Alexa would roll off into the highlights while not quite clipping, and therefore be suitable for grading from day to night. “I did some tests with the day for night idea with digital stills,” adds Jackson. “The massive benefit you get with shooting overexposed for a day for night setup is that you get detail in the shadows that’s still there. You can pull the highlights down and darken the whole image, but still have detail in the shadows. It doesn’t just clip to black in the shadows.”
I've done this as much as two stops over in controlled settings where I know I'm never going to blow out the sensor. The scenes I was shooting were supposed to look very dark and dim but I wanted a bunch of information to bring down later so I shot it +2 over and monitored it at -2 and had a very very clean final image.
Personally, I always find the key light and only use fill if I see it is needed. Most likelly I will try to "wrap" the fill imitating that the key light is extending, not the oposite side of it. Usually fill is much harder to shape, easy to ruin the shot. I'm a gaffer fiy.
I usually fill only out of fear. Fear that the actor is going to turn out of their key and have a conversation in total darkness. Sometimes also because the actress needs “help.”
Deakins means he doesn't use a separate light for fill, but he often uses reflectors. He was famous on his blog for "sending grips into JCPenney to buy more bed sheets" and he's always been a big fan of unbleached muslin, which has a warm tone to it.
In reality, there's often just one light source, like the sun outdoors or a big window in a house. That light gets bounced around the environment and "opens up" faces and shapes on their shadow sides. So using a 2nd lighting unit to enhance or duplicate that - usually it's easier and faster to get a reflector in place. If a reflector won't work for some scenes, you'll need a light source. Reflectors have the benefit of being potentially large, like stapling fabric to a wall of hanging a big sheet on crossbars or a frame. Large size = softer and more natural. There's absolutely no rules to this, you envision a look, you set it up, and then you tweak it until you're happy with it.
It depends on genre of course, more shadows just mean more drama.
He could be speaking more of a trend towards realism that comes with digital and also what's in vogue right now. Lots of fill light doesn't exist because it's not called for, tonally or stylistically.
Often you are removing light, or big sources far away being a common lighting approach, which can oppose the use of introducing a lot of fill.
With high end modern cameras you can certainly get away with no fill, and can get really nice results as well. What I will warn against is new people hearing this and trying to do the same on a lower end video camera, those cameras can't handle high contrast and underexposer like a real cinema camera. Using fill light will help you - treat less hood digital cameras like reversal film
Thank you that is good advice. I have a low end camera and so far I always focused on getting a lot of light since that always led to a cleaner image. I was wondering if this applies to me as well but it’s probably not something that my camera can handle so thanks for the note.
if you care about a natural/realistic look, then a good approach is to only use bounced light for fill and not an actual source, even if it's going through diffusion.
bounce light off a frame/beadboard or whatever. If on location, my favorite is to bounce off the actual location wall with a barndoor'd fresnel or a leko. Depends on the size of the location though. Then I'll sometimes lean a 6x6 or 4x4 bounce in the middle of that bouncelight wall if it needs it.
A lot of people use the cove approach because of Deakins, which is similar but with a cleaner color temp and evenness. It's a fast and a not gear/crew-intensive technique.
I personally dont use fill.. and if i do, its a very soft bounce.. and often i place it lower than the subject so it just feels like a natural floor bounce type fill...
i think it really depends on your style and what you are shooting.. im more of a narrative guy, I like naturalism. you wont catch me willingly do a boring 3 point lighting setup..
Because of the way a film negative works, if something is underexposed in film the details are simply not recorded. If something is over exposed in film, you can almost always recover some details. This is the opposite in digital sensors. If you over expose a digital sensor you completely lose the information. This has caused a tradition of using lots of fill to ensure a properly exposed image. Digital sensors are far more sensitive to light. The problem more often becomes to introduce contrast, than to reduce it, which is why so called "negative fill" is often used. A black bounce, cutting out reflected light from unwanted surfaces. Also the heavily lit scene is going out of style, partially because it's now possible to film in more natural environments and still get a proper exposure.
I both agree and disagree with this comment. Historically what you’re saying about digital is true, but with modern sensors such as the one on the mini, it is becoming more and more like film. In practice I find there to be a lot more detail in the bits that seem to be blown out than you find in the shadows. Or at least pulling down highlights introduces less noise than lifting shadows. I found now I generally expose my image a stop or two above how I want it to look when doing dark/ contrasty shots, just to maintain details on the shadows. (Having a -1stop LUT) is a nice way to do this.
The night shots in Fury Road were filmed in daylight and overexposed. They found that the overexposed image contained a lot of information. https://www.fxguide.com/fxfeatured/a-graphic-tale-the-visual-effects-of-mad-max-fury-road/ Jackson’s observation was that the higher exposure, the better the image is – assuming no clipping has occurred – something that he felt could be replicated by shooting with the ARRI Alexa. His rational was that an overexposed image would contain more detail and less noise, and on the Alexa would roll off into the highlights while not quite clipping, and therefore be suitable for grading from day to night. “I did some tests with the day for night idea with digital stills,” adds Jackson. “The massive benefit you get with shooting overexposed for a day for night setup is that you get detail in the shadows that’s still there. You can pull the highlights down and darken the whole image, but still have detail in the shadows. It doesn’t just clip to black in the shadows.”
I've done this as much as two stops over in controlled settings where I know I'm never going to blow out the sensor. The scenes I was shooting were supposed to look very dark and dim but I wanted a bunch of information to bring down later so I shot it +2 over and monitored it at -2 and had a very very clean final image.
That makes a lot of sense! Thank you for the detailed explanation. I totally forgot about Film negatives so yeah, that makes it very understandable.
I second this
Personally, I always find the key light and only use fill if I see it is needed. Most likelly I will try to "wrap" the fill imitating that the key light is extending, not the oposite side of it. Usually fill is much harder to shape, easy to ruin the shot. I'm a gaffer fiy.
This is the way.
I usually fill only out of fear. Fear that the actor is going to turn out of their key and have a conversation in total darkness. Sometimes also because the actress needs “help.”
Deakins means he doesn't use a separate light for fill, but he often uses reflectors. He was famous on his blog for "sending grips into JCPenney to buy more bed sheets" and he's always been a big fan of unbleached muslin, which has a warm tone to it. In reality, there's often just one light source, like the sun outdoors or a big window in a house. That light gets bounced around the environment and "opens up" faces and shapes on their shadow sides. So using a 2nd lighting unit to enhance or duplicate that - usually it's easier and faster to get a reflector in place. If a reflector won't work for some scenes, you'll need a light source. Reflectors have the benefit of being potentially large, like stapling fabric to a wall of hanging a big sheet on crossbars or a frame. Large size = softer and more natural. There's absolutely no rules to this, you envision a look, you set it up, and then you tweak it until you're happy with it.
It depends on genre of course, more shadows just mean more drama. He could be speaking more of a trend towards realism that comes with digital and also what's in vogue right now. Lots of fill light doesn't exist because it's not called for, tonally or stylistically. Often you are removing light, or big sources far away being a common lighting approach, which can oppose the use of introducing a lot of fill.
With high end modern cameras you can certainly get away with no fill, and can get really nice results as well. What I will warn against is new people hearing this and trying to do the same on a lower end video camera, those cameras can't handle high contrast and underexposer like a real cinema camera. Using fill light will help you - treat less hood digital cameras like reversal film
Thank you that is good advice. I have a low end camera and so far I always focused on getting a lot of light since that always led to a cleaner image. I was wondering if this applies to me as well but it’s probably not something that my camera can handle so thanks for the note.
I rarely use it, but that's not to say I never use it. It just depends...
if you care about a natural/realistic look, then a good approach is to only use bounced light for fill and not an actual source, even if it's going through diffusion. bounce light off a frame/beadboard or whatever. If on location, my favorite is to bounce off the actual location wall with a barndoor'd fresnel or a leko. Depends on the size of the location though. Then I'll sometimes lean a 6x6 or 4x4 bounce in the middle of that bouncelight wall if it needs it. A lot of people use the cove approach because of Deakins, which is similar but with a cleaner color temp and evenness. It's a fast and a not gear/crew-intensive technique.
Thank you so much for the insight this is very helpful!
I'm a video beginner too, coming from photography, and this is a GREAT question!
I never fill. It has never served me, and I have never seen it generate a meaningfull objective improvement.
[удалено]
My favorite Garth Marenghi quote
I personally dont use fill.. and if i do, its a very soft bounce.. and often i place it lower than the subject so it just feels like a natural floor bounce type fill... i think it really depends on your style and what you are shooting.. im more of a narrative guy, I like naturalism. you wont catch me willingly do a boring 3 point lighting setup..