what going on with rock and roll tv lighting

[24seven]

for the fisrt time in a while I was able to stop and watch tv this evening and I have a question

 

when did Rock and Roll LD's stop taking care of there lights when they know there show will be used for tv

 

I managed to watch a few bits of various festivals and some sort of live music prog filmed in some warehouse in london and on every single show the lights were all over the shop the stage being completely whited out or straight in to the camera to the point wher you could not see a thing.

 

I am all for arty lights just look at depeche mode for example now that was arty lighting done well, is this the current fashion ?? ..........discuss ..........am I just being pedantic

 

 

Mark W-E

[Jamtastic3]

I think there is a certain understanding between lighting what is on stage (or off) and how that works with cameras yet cameras will set certain limitations to what is presented for a lighting engineer. I've not been in many situations where cameras are concerned but I have had my few moments where people with cameras or photographers will ask for less saturation of this and more white light of that and as a lighting engineer I can fully understand that light is seen differently on camera but it does affect my creativity (eg dramatic design, artistic approach, etc). Yet again though certain aspects of lighting can look amaizing on TV.

I do like effects such as shots cutting through hollow gobos and the odd mover just panning a wash of light through the lens but I do agree that blinders or washes straight into a camera isn't at all exciting when it blocks out what you actually want to see (ie the band).

But, the lighting design wasn't designed for the camera so does that mean that the camera is the one to blame for taking a shot in that position, at that time? I think so, as the camera operators and director should be aware of how the lights will move and how most things will be highlighted on TV.

[Andrew C]

Who are you designing for? The TV audience or those who have slept in a tent for a few days and paid a lot of ££ to stand in the rain watching the show? Given the choice, I'd go for the latter.

[paulears]

Although things are nowhere near as bad as they were when cameras were less sensitive, what looks good to the eye is amazingly different to how it looks through the lense.

 

I've done a couple of music video shoots recently and perfectly good lighting, some quite good, design wise, just looked a mess. The real problem is still contrast ratio. A 1200W HMI follow spot is so muh brighter than the subtle wash on the less important band members - they just vanish in the murk. Another snag is that it seems wherever they get put, each camera has some kind of key in a light shade pointing straight in the lense. Moving cameras, especially once the typical stage is set is impossible as cables are under tons of gaffer, and other cables. The plea from the video people is to dim them, or set a top limit. The real level should be very low, but the audience lose it then. One shoot recently had this problem - all we needed was one song from their set, so what happened was that the band did the number as normal - in performance light, then they explained to the audience they needed to do it again for 'the video' and ran it again with a much more wash like state, with the movers and a bit of par can flash over the top. To the people there, very bland, to the cameras much more exciting.

 

I don't really think there is an answer - yet. Things have improved a lot in a few years, but the move to HD seems to be pushing barriers again, at least for a while.

 

For those camera minded. One of the pit cameras mainly dealing with the front talent, in keys or follow spots spent most of it's time at f11-16, while a camera on a jib on stage mainly doing reverses and other band member shots was at f4. A big difference! This imbalance in the light levels looks fine to the eye. The cameras just can't hack it.

[dbuckley]

Who are you designing for? The TV audience or those who have slept in a tent for a few days and paid a lot of ££ to stand in the rain watching the show? Given the choice, I'd go for the latter.

Thats quite a contentious statement. If nothing else, the wet people will be home in a couple of days, the DVD may still be selling in 20 years time... I have read that a number of LDs who do telly lots insist on a monitor at the desk position, so they can see what the camera sees...

[Bobbsy]

It's also contentious because it implies that lighting that works for TV must somehow be substandard for the live audience. Done properly, both can be happy.

 

Bob

[Nick S]

Of course, one big difference is that there's a certain degree of freedom (not a lot, but enough to help in some situations) to make minor adjustments in post to video (or perhaps to take it even further and use colour correction as an effect - this would I guess apply more to recordings specifically for DVDs rather than TV broadcasts).

[paulears]

The problem is that if it hasn't been captured then getting it back is pretty difficult. If it is present, then yes, you can process the file to alter brightness, colour and contrast, but very often the images look weak and are difficult to match. I've spent quite a while today doing just this, to match up four cameras and it is not fun! Status Quo's Pat Marks is an advocate of having a video monitor by the desk - works for him.

[Bobbsy]

It occurs that an excellent example of what CAN be done is the recent Pink Floyd "Pulse" DVD.

 

This is a recording of their "Division Bell" tour, shot at Earl's Court. The show was stunning when seen live, but is equally stunning on the DVD. I mention this was because I was lucky enough to be watching the live video feed as it happened (alas, nothing to do with the sound...the company I worked for was providing a satellite uplink to send the show to the USA) and I can assure you that very little of the quality had to do with correction in post production. The raw feed was darn near perfect.

 

...which just goes to show what can be done if you do it right the first time!

 

Bob

[woody74]

I think it comes down to intention.

 

If the show is intended to be distributed later on DVD for example, then it would be in the best interest of everybody to be on the same page, doing camera tests at sound check, etc...

 

If the show is just being picked up in random shots by the local news crew, then I say do it for the crowd.

 

Certainly there can be a happy medium, but knowing going INTO the show what the expectations of any recordings are can save a lot of headaches later.

 

-w

[paulears]

rather annoyingly, I've spent 3 hours this morning on another project with one camera op'd by a newbie cameraman, used to domestic auto everything. looking after focus, zoom, pan, tilt and elevation is a bit of a struggle without having to make exposure judgements too on his first outing. So what he's produced is pretty dark. After bringing it up to level in the editor, it looked ok - but there is a real dfference in overall quality now - noise levels are visible - very much like using the extra gain settings. So exposing for the camera is pretty critical - I have to admit I wasn't really aware the difference would be so visible, but it is. On its own, it would be ok - but not when cut with less noisy clips.

 

Live wise, we are used to rarely using at least half the fader length. off, full, and maybe a bit in between - but how about say 25-45%, or 60-80%? 70% down on my desk equates to nearly 2 f stops, more than the books say - probably my poor dimmer response. Once below 50% again, the camera really sees a difference, that the eye smooths out.

[James]

On the subject of eposure - on a live multicam recording iris, gain and black level should be controlled by the vision engineers under the guidance of the vision supervisor. Idealy no more than 4 cameras per VE.

 

The LD should without a doubt have clear view of a grade1 matrix fed with each iso and main pgm available as well as good wfm and vectorscope.

 

James

[marky]

I don't believe lighting for TV means you have any less scope for creativity, you just have to be aware of the medium you are working with, for example the use of colour - the camera will re-produce some colours differently, depth of field, camera sensitivity etc.

 

James, your point about only 4 camera's per engineer is something we are discussing at work at the moment. Most of the big live Saturday night shows only have one Vision Operator/Engineer for up to 10 camera's and manage perfectly well, but as the show's get bigger and inconsistent level's of smoke in the studio vary, it's becomming a bigger job! That is the case for a studio, but OB trucks do work in the way you describe, I'm still not sure which way is better to work.

 

In response to the OP, TV lighting, like anything is a matter of taste and personal opinion. Sometimes, time constraints can also play a major part in how the finished product looks. I think I saw a bit of what you are describing and in fact most live events that are televised look very similar. The LD will light for the physical audience, who have paid their £40 and the TV people will just have to work around them. It's a nightmare to rack, but there is nothing they can do!

If the recording is a big part of the show though, eg a DVD, there should be no excuse for it!

 

As for LD's having monitor's, it's an absolute must! How can you possible light for something, if you can't see what you're lighting for??

[paulears]

just a single racks guy would be great but I'm talking multi cam with no live mixing; just psc with editing later. I guess we could do a ppu; but no parking for a vehicle of any kind. I guess this is drifting ot a bit, but useful stuff to people who have never considered the mods you have to do for video. the number of camcorder with ccu options is getting smaller, which is a shame. plenty of one pice 1/2 and 2/3" units about but few that can do multi-role.