Archival Show Footage

[Skervald]

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to post this but here I go anyway.

I work for a growing organization that, until I was hired about 10 months ago, had no one with any technical knowledge on staff. Sets, sound, and lighting were all done by volunteers with little to no theatre background. It would seem that most of them knew just enough to be dangerous but that's another post. I'm working very hard to raise our technical game as quickly as I can and for the most part, I have excellent support.

One of the areas I am frustrated by is critiques of my lighting designs. I can handle criticism and would love to improve. My problem is that all judgments and opinions are based on the archival video we shoot for a production and not what the design looks like in real life. We typically hire someone to shoot this video.

I have a background in still photography and I know very little about video but here is my theory. I think the problem is in how the video is shot (auto?). Most of the complaints are "It's too dark" and, "I can't see ____." Obviously the camera isn't as good as the human eye at adjusting to light levels. I think the camera adjusts to the brightest area on the stage and everything else looks dark or it adjusts to the dimmer areas and the bright areas are overexposed. The human eye is much better at doing this and can see the bright areas and the darker areas simultaneously.

My questions are three:

First, is my theory correct?

Second, is there a better way to explain the problem to a group of very non-technical people without sounding defensive?

Third, are these video people clueless as to how to shoot theatrical productions or is this just how it goes?

 

[Vega]

I would say that the camera is exposing for whatever is taking up the most space in whatever it's looking at, so yes, you're rather correct in your theory. I'm not sure that there's much I can do for part 2, As for three, it may be that your videographers have no idea of how to shoot theatrical shows, and it may also be that you're using relatively low-grade consumer equipment, but without seeing the equipment, there's no way of knowing.

 

[Skervald]

Thanks for the reply!

and it may also be that you're using relatively low-grade consumer equipment, but without seeing the equipment, there's no way of knowing.

Did you mean that the people we hire to create the video might be using low-grade consumer equipment or my lights might be low-grade consumer equipment? I haven't paid too much attention to what they shoot with but I can tell you that they are DSLRs.

 

[xander]

Lighting for live production and for the camera are two completely different things. It is possible to make both look good, but it takes a conscious effort. Personally, I feel the biggest issue in your entire post is that people are critiquing your lighting design from watching the archival. You are designing from the eye, for the eye. One, archival footage is exactly that, for the archives, so why are people watching it regularly? Your company needs to make a decision, are they making live theater or are they shooting movies? Two, if they want their "archival" footage to look better, then there needs to be a conscious effort to make it so. They should hire professionals that know how to film live theater and they should let you adjust your lighting so that it looks its best on camera. Three, if you are the first technician they have ever hired, why are they wasting precious money on recording what is undoubtedly, small town community theater. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with community theater, but why does there need to be a record of everything it does?

My $.02
-Tim

 

[Skervald]

Thanks for the validation, Tim. "designing from the eye, for the eye." I may use that quote in future discussions if you don't have objections.

I agree with you on the archiving. I don't think it's necessary for every production. The footage is typically used soon after a show closes as part of the post mortem process and then forgotten on a shelf somewhere. We're a small performing arts center but we also provide an integrated curriculum of dance, voice, and drama. Our productions are open audition but most of the cast comes from our classes. So you're correct. It's essentially community theatre with more emphasis on training and technique. Some of our students may want video for their portfolios but they're the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Les]

Thanks for the reply!



Did you mean that the people we hire to create the video might be using low-grade consumer equipment or my lights might be low-grade consumer equipment? I haven't paid too much attention to what they shoot with but I can tell you that they are DSLRs.

Don't worry, they don't make consumer-grade theatrical lighting .

It might not even be that they're using low-grade equipment. Cameras tend to focus on what's bright, the iris adjusts to it, and everything else is lost. Your company needs to do a bit of research before they go criticizing. Are they a "board of directors" by any chance? That's one reason I rarely touch community theaters anymore. Usually they're just a bunch of people with lots of money and no real experience.

Also, yes there is a big difference between lighting for video and theatre. Video likes high intensity, high color temperature. Pretty hard to have your cake and eat it too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Vega]

Les is correct, I was referring to the video gear, not your lighting.

 

[kiwitechgirl]

We film productions for cinema and DVD release, and they have to be re-lit (usually made brighter) for the performances that are filmed. As so many people have pointed out, lighting for a live audience and lighting for the camera are two completely different things.

 

[JohnD]

The second part of your question is the important one, reaching an understanding without you becoming defensive. This is a great opportunity for you to hone your people skills. You might explain to them about how video is a different medium than live with much different needs. I used to get really annoyed with BBC sitcoms, they would do the bulk of the show in studio with video, and cut in location material shot on film, very disconcerting. Then there is the story from the early days of movie-making. It involved Cecil B. DeMille and Sam Goldwyn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rembrandt_lighting
I should point out that in addition to the standard McCandless multi-point technique, I do also have a fondness for single point lighting on occasion.

 

[LizDC]

Regarding your third question, good video is expensive to produce, especially in a theatre venue. I shoot mainly archival show footage, so I bought a camera specifically with low-light capability and HD in mind. It doesn't render colour perfectly, or light fall across distance, but it's good enough that I can show what I meant.

I've shot with a lot of different cameras, some far more expensive than my own (incidentally a Sony HXR-NX5U), and you start getting a lot of grain and very little colour or light rendition, especially with darker settings.

People are 'dumb' in one sense, but in the other, the people who professionally film concerts and films make it look easy. Anyone can watch a TV show and say "well that's lit perfectly, why can't you do that" but as others have mentioned above, they've lit specifically for film. We once did a photography/footage run of a musical I was LDing and we were working with the photographers the whole time to boost brightness and colour so they could capture what everyone in person could see.

Truly it comes down to the right gear, and knowing how to use it, which isn't exactly useful.

 

[Dan0010]

Not sure if I missed this. but the best way to show non-technical people the difference is do it live in front of them and then show the footage from a recording that they just saw (so basically as they see your lighting have a camera record it also in the same manner).

Have them compare and contrast so take a look at the stage and then take a look at the screen. They'll realize what you're talking about or at least hopefully understand it a little better.

Also I agree with a couple of posts you can't just have some guy with a camera he got at Circuit City (or other big box store) and expect it to be the same experience. Any camera crew or guy (however you have it) who worth the money is going to come in early or some time before (more time the better) and scope out the setup and probably work with the crew on audio and lighting setups so he/they know how to setup and get the best quality.

I'm lucky enough that the majority of the time when there filming it not a play or lighting is set in stone so when the camera people show up we have enough time to go over lights and adjust for people in room and camera.

 

[Skervald]

Thanks for all the support and great advice, everyone! It's really great to have a group like this. I value the expertise, unvarnished opinions, and willingness to share it all.

 

[Dionysus]

The auto adjustments on most cameras work the same. They average the metering points, and adjust to 18% grey.
Wait one second, usually like 90% of the stage is "black".
This sends the auto exposure and auto focus for a serious loop.
The trick is to work in the most "manual" modes possible.
Auto focus will be haywire, so focus manually.
Auto exposure won't know what to do and basically gives up thinking you are way under exposing (think light painting in photography).
This is where good hardware comes in. Fast glass (say f/2.0) will help a lot with exposure, getting a lot of light onto the sensor. And importantly the ability to do manual exposure. Plus better hardware is likely to handle this all better.
Most cheap video cameras don't really let you manually focus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk