Just Some Bloke Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 A copy of the latest L&SI dropped through the letterbox today and I was drawn to an article by Bernie Davis (the UK's no. 1 TV lighting director) about lighting possibly the World's biggest event of 2011, in terms of world viewers: the Royal Wedding. We're used to top events being full of the latest kit so I turned to the Equipment List to see what toys Bernie had chosen to use. The list is as follows: 7 fresnels8 profiles7 PixelPars332 par cans That's it! Moving heads x 0Toys of any type x 0 The PixelPars are the only thing that wasn't available 20 years ago (I'm not talking about the exact model, just the style of lantern) and there's 7 of them! I just thought I'd mention this as I'm one of those promoting the idea that the best way to learn lighting design is with fresnels, profiles and par cans and to only add other stuff on top when it really needs it, rather than because they might be fun to play with. I shall add this to my armoury! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmeh2 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Hi And I'd expect nothing less. Besides, the CofE has banned moving lights, because they are the devil's work All the bestTimmeh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrummerJonny Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I dunno, I think it would have looked better with a rainbow strobing colour chase swinging around the Abbey, with a few flamejets and Atomic 3000's on the balcony to highlight the kissss... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bleasdale Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I agree, the job was spectacularly lit! Bernie is a great LD. However... the control he used was not available 20 years ago either. 2 Vectors running the lot, Nigel Catmur was Bernie's Programmer on the job. Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieH Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I agree, the job was spectacularly lit! I have to say I didn't notice any lighting whatsoever! Granted I did have it on in the background whilst revising, but I'd normally notice that sort of stuff. What sort of stuff can you do for a wedding? Just make sure everyone's lit? http://www.blue-room.org.uk/public/style_emoticons/default/huh.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bleasdale Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I have to say I didn't notice any lighting whatsoever! Granted I did have it on in the background whilst revising, but I'd normally notice that sort of stuff. What sort of stuff can you do for a wedding? Just make sure everyone's lit? http://www.blue-room.org.uk/public/style_emoticons/default/huh.gif Exactly my point. Nobody noticed, job done. Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmeh2 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I dunno, I think it would have looked better with a rainbow strobing colour chase swinging around the Abbey, with a few flamejets and Atomic 3000's on the balcony to highlight the kissss... Good idea, although you forgot 5 lasers coming out of the altar and the organ taking off and transforming into megatron with a million pyros firing out of his arse. Now that would have been awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew C Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 However... the control he used was not available 20 years ago either. 2 Vectors running the lot, Nigel Catmur was Bernie's Programmer on the job.Control? For one cue (OK, 2 if you count the blackout at the end) I suppose there would have been different levels on the fixtures, but ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back_ache Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 The artical is on pages 18 & 19 at http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/launch.aspx?referral=other&refresh=N0q9oL81W1i4&PBID=8918c11d-2349-4b43-a6cc-a2fdecb2f2e2&skip= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bleasdale Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Control? For one cue (OK, 2 if you count the blackout at the end) I suppose there would have been different levels on the fixtures, but ... Television.... Lots of camera.... = Lots of constant balancing! Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timsabre Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I really liked the way the top half of the walls were lit a slightly cooler colour to the lower parts and the congregation. I thought they'd done this deliberately but from the article it seems it was just daylight! Also the dappled light through the trees as she walked up the aisle - he says this was a happy accident. Also liked that amazing shot down from the tower ceiling, where all the ceiling uplighters were perfectly symmetrically positioned. (I would like to know how that camera was rigged.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigclive Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I have to say I didn't notice any lighting whatsoever! Granted I did have it on in the background whilst revising, but I'd normally notice that sort of stuff. What sort of stuff can you do for a wedding? Just make sure everyone's lit? K-ding! Perfect job. So here's my analysis of the lighting. 7 fresnels - concentrated and controllable wash of light for important bits.8 profiles - subtle framed-in illumination of features or static performers.332 par cans - a solid camera-friendly wash of good quality light.7 PixelPars - the one concession to a bit of vajazzle if required. Mostly tungsten, so only the dimmer reboot time to worry about if there's a power incident. (Desk is on a UPS.)Good full-spectrum colour rendering from the tungsten sources.All fixtures resilient to unpredictable British weather. (Give or take a bit of steam, the odd lamp-pop and possibly a small number being lost on an RCD.)TV still requires a fairly consistent wash of white light and in this event there was only one take. Sounds like the Edinburgh Tattoo lighting. Camera friendly, weather resilient but with a touch of glitz as required. Except we have the luxury of three nights of filming that can be edited together to make the TV version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daveman Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I just thought I'd mention this as I'm one of those promoting the idea that the best way to learn lighting design is with fresnels, profiles and par cans and to only add other stuff on top when it really needs it, rather than because they might be fun to play with. I shall add this to my armoury! I'd strongly agree with this. I've spent my three years at uni (just about to leave) working in the big black-box space on campus. Tons of space, fresnels, profiles and dimmers, but nothing more complicated than that. It's been great to be able to experiment, to be able to constantly get things wrong and therefore learn. It also forces you to be creative and find ways of achieving complex effects without resorting to movers. One thing I massively appreciate learning is the enormous variety of different tones you can get out of open white tungsten fixtures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Some Bloke Posted June 18, 2011 Author Share Posted June 18, 2011 The other thing I find about people wanting to use movers is that they often don't have the budget to do it properly, so what happens is they come in saying "I've hired some moving head washes". "How many?". "4". (Knowing they can't afford anything big) "Mac 250 washes with the wide lenses?" "No, Mac 300s". "Well you won't get a full wash with 4 Mac300s, whatever you do with them". So they try, it doesn't work, and you get the world's worst full-stage wash, when there are spare generics sitting in the scene dock doing nothing. If you can't do it properly with movers, then do it properly with generics instead. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie D Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 I just discovered that there was a strand on my gig... Bit late, sorry. But some excellent comments. I completely agree with how the strand started - learn to use the real lights before trying the toys. And anyway moving lights would have added nothing to this event. The analysis of the use of the lights was a little off - PixelPars lit the arches behind the altar from a position where hot lighting would not be allowed, so LED was ideal. Certainly par cans are good lights for large areas and easily rigged focussed and controlled. A few profiles for punching light into key positions such as pulpits and lecterns, and the fresnels lit under the organ loft and a last-minute addition to the congregation. And two 575 MSRs lit the bells (daylight colour temp).I particularly like the comment about just keeping the people lit. The nave must be about 50m by 15m and that is just one part of the Abbey. It was all about keeping all the people lit at the same colour temperature and same level, allowing for the daylight, keeping light out of lenses, keeping the clutter down to a minimum, and even lighting a small orchestra and keeping the musicians happy. And most of all enabling the cameras to work while not intruding on someone's wedding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.