Okay, so here's my problem:

I'm currently developping a script for a feature film I plan on shooting next summer. Because I know this is going to be a very low budget movie ($2000-$5000), I'm trying to write the script around what I can afford. The problem I have right now is that there is a relatively long section of the movie (probably around 20 minutes or so) that takes place on the side of a lake where the characters are camping, and mostly at night. But since they're supposed to be out in the woods in the middle of nowhere, unless I find a perfect location on someone's property and get lucky enough for the owner to allow me to use it, I have no electricity. Which wouldn't be so much of a problem for most of my equipment which can run on batteries, but lights on the other hand......

So, my question is:
What's the best way to light a scene that needs to look like it's in the middle of the woods, for as little money as possible? Maybe I can set up some kind of rig using battery powered work lights from Home Depot or something. Any suggestions?

Two words....

Coleman lanterns

Lol. Neat idea, but I doubt I would get enough light out of those to get a good image, especially considering I'm planning on using a DOF adapter which would cut down quite a bit of light.

Three words: Day for Night.

We shoot 30 second TV spots with a higher budget than you are spending on a feature movie.
I have to ask in all honesty, what's the point?

Rather than writing a script you clearly haven't the budget or resources to produce.
Why not write scenes you can shoot with what you have?

We shoot 30 second TV spots with a higher budget than you are spending on a feature movie.
I have to ask in all honesty, what's the point?

Rather than writing a script you clearly haven't the budget or resources to produce.
Why not write scenes you can shoot with what you have?

While I don't disagree, you know the answers to these questions as well as most here who've been on this path. Sometimes, things are just what they are.

hi david,

you have two choices....do it or dont do it......if you do it then do it right.......

bite the bullet and hire a genny......

a red head or similar to reinforce the motivated light (campfire..lantern etc).

a redhead or similar with ctb to bash through the background for moonlight and give some texture to the background.
cheers
ian

Three words: Day for Night.

What would be the best way to shoot realistic day for night in this situation? I would definitely want to get the light of the fire flickering on their faces, so I'm not even sure this would be an option... Maybe it could be shot close to dawn or dusk so that there is light, but just little enough to get shadows on their faces. That wouldn't give me much time to work with, but since we most likely will actually be camping there for the duration of the shoot, I could easily shoot night scenes at dawn, then day scenes during the day, and then night again at dusk.

We shoot 30 second TV spots with a higher budget than you are spending on a feature movie.
I have to ask in all honesty, what's the point?

Rather than writing a script you clearly haven't the budget or resources to produce.
Why not write scenes you can shoot with what you have?

To answer your last question first, that's what I'm trying to do in a way. I want to find out if there's a way that I WOULD be able to do it before writing the script. Right now I have only an outline of the story, so I would rather find out now that I need to cut something before actually writing about 20 pages for nothing.

As for "what's the point?", there are many reasons.
First and foremost, I want to make a movie, and I'm not letting money stop me. Maybe that's a little foolish, but it isn't so ridiculous that it couldn't work out. In fact, right now I'm reading a book about someone who made an award winning feature film for under $2000. I don't expect to win awards, hell, I don't even expect to make a profit. But at least by setting the bar high I might turn out something good.
Second, not everyone can afford to spend more than that on a movie. Considering this is my first feature, I'm not very likely to get much financing for this anyway. Whether I do it now or ten years from now, the results are likely to be the same. I may as well get my first feature out of the way so that next time around I have something to show what I CAN accomplish.
Third, I own most of the equipment I need, and know many people who would be willing to work for free. Maybe some of them don't have the most experience, but a large chunk of the budget would be going to hiring a more experienced DP. The way I've been planning everything, I should be able to manage with only a couple thousand dollars.
Lastly, as I've said, I don't expect this movie to go far. If it does, great. But what I'm really trying to do is gain experience, create a work of art, and most importantly, prove to myself that I can do it.
Yes it's a big project, but I would rather aim for "great" and only get "good" than aim for "mediocre" and get just that.

I think Mr. Jones' point is that you could make an INCREDIBLY compelling 15-20 minute film that would showcase everything you could do, and would likely stretch your rather meager budget a lot further. Anyone with experience watching and rating films and filmmakers can tell inside 10 minutes if you've got what it takes.

I think it's a LOT easier to get financing for a feature, if you show a KILLER 15 minute short. Look at that short like the writer looks at the outline of the story. All the basics are in place, and it comes together, but lacks depth. That's what a short is. Or do an episodic. Produce a series of 5-10 shorts that come together to make a cohesive story. And shoot them as you've got time and resources.

The idea of shooting away from electricity is somewhat romantic, but even for Hollywood is a daunting and expensive task. You have to bring EVERYTHING. Shooting day for night is really the best solution, and if you're lucky, you'll get maybe 30-60 minutes where you can make things really work. Assuming you can get some diffuse days. There's just so much grip work to be done to get it right.

Can you make a feature for $2k? Sure. Will it be any good? Doubtful. Maybe if you own all the gear, shoot in one room, don't pay anyone, do the post yourself, etc. But this absolutely flies in the face of why you set out to make a film in the first place. It's supposed to be a fun, collaborative experience where everyone gets something positive from it. If you go into it without adequate budget, you're just tying everyone's hands. I've been there, and done that. I loaned nearly $20k of gear to the last "filmmaker" who wanted to make one of these films with no resources. Never again. It creates just tremendous feelings of ill will on the set if you're not careful.

Day for night seems to be your only go.

My personal preference would be to shoot the wides which include the burning fire around sundown so that the firelight burns brighter in the image and the forest environment background darkens down.

I am led to understand that late daylight on a subject is cooler but the sky backgrounds which include the sun become warmer.

To get the firelight flicker in day-for-night for close-ups, you might be able to use a mirror to harvest sunlight, a bit of diffuser and some orange gel to shine it through and a dingle between mirror and diffuser. It would likely have to be held close to the subject and you might have to screen the subject from direct sunlight with a diffuser to allow the mirror light to dominate as key and the sunlight as fill. You might need two layers of diffuser for the sunlight or even shade the sunlight off the subject and use a whiteboard for fill. The background would have to be dark forest.

One of those round flexible gold reflectors might be nice to try instead of the mirror and gel and mighty confer the firelight flicker by simple movement and rapid folding to concentrate patches of light or use the dingle as already mentioned. Dingle is as simple as a leafy branch being held or shaken gently in the lighting path.

You might set the camera whitebalance for tungsten lighting, use a deep red gel for the mirror light and balance the red back to orange in post to accentuate the blue, then desaturate or gain down the blue channel to lose most of the blue.

For tight close-ups in real darkness, you might get enough light out of 12V swimming-pool dichroic lights with 50watt globes in them. I have had adequate though not brilliant results using them in an aircraft cabin in flight for daylight fill. To be if any use, they have to be about between 12" and 18" from subject. To close and they hotspot the subject even when diffused, too far away and they are too dull.

I dressed the glass panels with 5 micron aluminium oxide in a water slurry on a sheet of glass to make a fine frosted diffuser surface.

Two will pull a car battery flat in about 40 minutes. You might be able to use CFL workshop lights with an inverter. Power enurance likewise will be your problem with them. There is an image of a small swimming pool light which I have linked to. In the image, the light has also been blue gelled.

Any of this you would have to shoot tests with beforehand as you will have enough on your hands shooting on the day without experimenting, frustrating yourself and the talent trying to make something bad work better.

Real cinematographers and DPs who may reply here, you should take heed of versus my comments as I have no qualification to make them.


Credit where credit is due in image.

Left. Cameraman. Steve Rice. Right. Actor. James With. Character car. GMH Holden HG Monaro. Camera on end of stick. SI2K Mini head.

Ok,

Since we've advised you that this is probably not the best idea, here's how I would do it on a budget.

1. For the firelight scene, build a real fire. Duraframe logs. Buy about 2 cases worth. Build use 4 or 5 in a circle to get something to shoot across.

2. Everyone gets both a headlamp (Petzl or similar) and a Propane lantern. The lanterns will set you back about $40 each, and the Petzl's about $25 each. Now you have light on every actor's face, and you have handheld light on the actor's body that should be strong enough to read on a decent digital camera.

I'd hang a few lanterns on the treeline to give the suggestion of the forest and keep some shape on the background. I'd establish the master about 45 minutes before sunset so we can see everyone in camp, how it's laid out, etc. Do all your "heavy lifting" before the sun sets. Then you can get into close ups and mediums after the sun goes down and the drama begins to build. You won't have enough light to shoot wide unless you time your shoot for a full moon, and you live with the "pools of light" created by the lanterns.

Keep the camera movement to a minimum as with this little light, you're going to be wide open on the lens, maybe shooting with the shutter off, etc. It's not going to be easy.

To give some perspective on this, there is a scene from "The Dark Knight" (batman movie) that takes place on top of a building. On the room. The gaffer had to come up with a way to light this scene that allowed for a 360 degree camera move. They ended up building a counterweighted truss system from which he hung 4, 4-bank Kino setups. Now a single 4-bank Kino is typlically used as an interview keylight. They used 4 of them as an overhead soft source to light 3 people in a tight circle.

What you are trying to accomplish here is very difficult even with good resources. I'd like to try it just to see if I could pull it off. It's going to stretch your DP most likely, so be prepared to give them all the support you can.

Sam's club (and I'm sure other places) have inexpensive gas generators that cost not much more than renting one for a week ~$800 for enough amperage to run 3000watts of light, which is pretty low for a night scene, but a light behind the actors hitting the trees and gelled to moonlight, then a two point setup for the actors to provide enough light to read, yet suggest darkness in the middles. Key gelled orange, rim gelled moonlight/blue... no fill. Flicker made by waving stuff in front of the keylight.

On these extremely low budgets, something always drops off the edge and you have to make smart compromises.

If you're fighting for light levels, I'd drop the 35mm adapter on the night scenes, you can drop in a light promist filter to match the slightly diffused look rest of the film using the adapter if that's an issue.

Clever use of practicals is a good method for shooting this and you can use the last moments of twilight (according to taste) for the wide shots. A generator would ideal, just be aware of noise if there's dialogue, so you may have to place it a reasonable distance away if it's not silent running. Batteries tend not to last that long for lighting, so you need to test them to discover how you're going to last through a night's filming.

Day for night is another option, but you have to decide if the flickering firelight is really that important to your story. The downside being the audience are aware of this particular trick and it doesn't always work, but it can be effective in the right scene.

Even with large budgets you don't get everything you want.

If you are in a very dense forest, day for night might work. If any patch of sky or thin forest gets in the shot, the effect is ruined. How much will it cost in time and software to fix all those shots with sunlight in the background? I would light it with fluorescents or LEDs powered by deep-cycle 12V batteries. I have an Optima marine battery that is non-spillable absorbent glass mat that can put out about 50 watts for several hours. Get a big battery and small inverter for each daylight-color light and you can then shoot at night with real fire and practical camping lights. This way it will look like night because it will be night. Get one 2700K fluorescent and shoot it through the fire at your talent. You will need to gel it down with full CTO to get closer to the color of fire. Put a couple of lights on trees in the background coming in from the side and backlight your talent with a daylight hairlight to fake the moon. Watch out for reflections or hot spots on shiny objects like cars as any really bright highlight will give away the source and the fact it isn't really moonlight.

Forget the 35mm adapter at night. You would be better off not using it and just opening the iris on your cam. Underexpose a bit to make sure there are no blown highlights at all.

If you are shooting by a lake, you can fake moonlight coming off the water by having a super large soft daylight source come from the direction of the lake. It will spill on the foreground so this will only work for medium or tight shots.

Cart before the horse . . .Again? The story/script is king. Without a complete, interesting and dynamic story everything is guaranteed to suck. Why or how would anyone try to save money on scenes that have no content or story to portray?
Write or get the story first. If the story doesn't stand on its own (without production) what's the point?
After the story is in place and the scenes are decided, then get creative, very creative, in how to produce those scenes with little or no budget. You might be surprised how much a good story helps the scenes.
Crap that is produced cost effectively is still crap.
Gary

Cart before the horse . . .Again? The story/script is king. Without a complete, interesting and dynamic story everything is guaranteed to suck. Why or how would anyone try to save money on scenes that have no content or story to portray?
Write or get the story first. If the story doesn't stand on its own (without production) what's the point?
After the story is in place and the scenes are decided, then get creative, very creative, in how to produce those scenes with little or no budget. You might be surprised how much a good story helps the scenes.
Crap that is produced cost effectively is still crap.
Gary

I get your point, but if I write it without considering how it COULD be done, I'll most likely end up with a script I can't produce.

I won't get into the discussion about script before planning production but I'll say I can see both sides. Concerning the original topic, I'll add that I think there is something that would make our lives easier is a 12V generator. If 12V batteries could be charged rapidly between breaks and setups, lighting in remote locations would be much easier. 12V batteries can power lights for a while, but not for a whole night unless you bring 600 pounds of lead. Regular generators don't put out much 12V so energy can't be stored and used silently off batteries and an inverter. Perhaps something like a Honda eu1000i (very quiet 120V) and a really long extension cord is a more practical approach. A couple pieces of plywood to make a sound shield would weigh a lot less than a bunch of batteries.

I agree with the lanterns, but I would also consider adding a fire and looking for a full moon...
For example:

The problem with the moon is that it is impossible to expose it and normally-lit subjects at the same time. The moon itself is very bright and blows out. The other huge problem with shooting with moonlight is that it comes and goes with clouds and it tracks across the sky noticeably over the time it takes to shoot a few scenes. I might do an establishing shot where I split screen the moon properly exposed with a campground lit with fake fire, but I don't think it is feasible to get a decent sky along with a campground with artificial light. Perhaps gradual ND filters for the establishing shots would do?

Having the moon perhaps works in some wide shots, but it's unpredictable unless you've got an astronomer on board and it will quickly move out of position. Compositing the moon in can be planned for, otherwise there's a lot of chance involved.

hi david,

speaking from experience my best advice would be to keep it simple....
night shoots are hard work.
i gaffed on the feature VAN DIEMANS LAND and we had seven nights of shooting campfire scenes......all at different locations.
the only motivation for the light was the campfire
we lit that with six 200w globes covered with cto scattered around the fire
a redhead with cto thru a 6 x4 frame of half white diff, all running thru 2 flicker boxes.
and a 1.2 hmi punched thru the background for detail
all this we ran off a small genny.
simple.
cheers
ian

Guys Guys. This fellow is looking for advice to help him and everybody just wants to talk about equipment or the endless possibilities that people have tried or just heard about.
David, to answer your response "I get your point, but if I write it without considering how it COULD be done, I'll most likely end up with a script I can't produce."
1st there is a story then there is a script. If you take the time to study each scene in the script and how you can produce it to get the effect that you want you will also see the potential of how to produce it cost-effectively. That's the entire reason to plan out the scene, the entire movie or whatever you're shooting. Yes it will take time to study each scene even make storyboards showing how you will portray the story based on actors, location, props, clothing/costume and yes the lighting. My point is to first understand the story and then decide how you can produce it. If you take the time develop the plan for each scene (before moving on to the next) you will create a blueprint of exactly how to shoot it and what you will need. Oh and if you're writing the story, you should most definitely write it without consideration of how it will be done. A good story can be produced much easier than trying to make a crappy story good using production techniques.
Gary

hi gary,

thats probably because i am a gaffer....
and this is a lighting forum............
maybe david should post in the scriptwriter forum....

its my job to make the scriptwriter look good.................

cheers
ian

There's no problem about seeing if something is possible on a particular budget, I don't know if he's wearing a producer's hat or the writer's. The story itself is different to the technical aspect, my one thought on 20 mins in a camp site is that there better be a lot happening around the fire to make this interesting.

Guys Guys. This fellow is looking for advice to help him and everybody just wants to talk about equipment or the endless possibilities that people have tried or just heard about.

Actually, that's kind of what I wanted :P
I appreciate any advice, but the main reason I started this thread is to figure out how to light the scene.


There's no problem about seeing if something is possible on a particular budget, I don't know if he's wearing a producer's hat or the writer's. The story itself is different to the technical aspect, my one thought on 20 mins in a camp site is that there better be a lot happening around the fire to make this interesting.

Haha. Don't worry, it's not all around the campfire. In fact, those 20 minutes I spoke of involve several scenes, some of which are during the day. There will only be one long part around the fire, and that will be about 5 minutes long. There are a few other short scenes, but since I've already figured out how to light them, I didn't bother mentioning them.
As for the rest, I'm writing, directing, and co-producing. I know it's a lot, but I've handled more (on smaller projects, obviously), so it shouldn't be a problem.

hi david,

maybe if you had stated that in your first post it would have saved everyone

the angst.

cheers
ian

hi david,

maybe if you had stated that in your first post it would have saved everyone

the angst.

cheers
ian

haha. Sorry guys.
Either way, I got plenty of good ideas from your replies. If you guys have anything more to say, keep it coming. I really appreciate the input.
It's going to be pretty hard to get those scenes in the dark, but I'll be doing some extensive tests long before scheduling the shoot.

For the other scenes I didn't mention, there's one where the characters are in canoes at night with a couple of lanterns. I'm thinking it's going to look pretty neat with the lanterns reflecting in the water and everything. For that scene I don't want it to be too lit either, so the lanterns should be sufficient. It's actually my opening scene. It's going to start off with a fairly wide shot of the dark lake with the only light coming from the lanterns.

Ian.

Thanks for the share on how it "was" done versus what might be. Regards from here in the west.

hi guys,

hi there bob....another aussie......great to hear from you

seriously david if your budget can stretch you should invest in a gaffer.

they will have everything you will need and it would take some pressure off you as writer/dir/prod....

believe it or not they are not all as grumpy as me and if you catch one between jobs they might do it cheaply.
i like the idea of the lanterns...might have to do some experimenting...

cheers
ian

Hey Ian, What started this is he starts out by saying "I'm currently developing a script . . ."
Gary

hi gary,

my apologies mate you are right. i went back to davids first post

and read it this time.. sorry about that, the lighting forum threw me

being a gaffer the closest i come to writing anything is when i pay for something by cheque.

thought i would encourage david to use a gaffer (get some work going
for my fellow gaffers in the states....haha...

cheers
ian

Well, I'll definitely try to fit that into the budget. What I was thinking actually, is to work out the budget so that I give my DP an allowance of sorts to spend on the lighting and camera departments, including hiring crew members for those departments. Of course every decision will have to be approved, but I'm going with the assumption that my DP will be more familiar with what we need and the people who can get it done for cheap than myself.

Hello folks.

This is a confusing thread.

If the intention is to hire an experienced cinematographer as stated, he or she will have a specific approach that they will want to take to light these scenes. Asking for everyone's opinions on how they would do it is basically counter-productive to the process. Let your cinematographer do his job, which is to interpret your desires for how you want the scene to look and figure out how best to do it given your budget.

If the story you are looking to tell absolutely needs to be set at a remote campsite, so be it. Consider that it might cost you a bit more than your intended budget to achieve and decide whether it's worth it, as it's going to be your money.

The single technical factor that sticks out to me is that you are intending to use a 35mm adaptor. Knowing that you will be working with small units for those night scenes, you will be far better off using a DSLR to shoot this portion of the film as they are several stops more sensitive and require a fraction of the light as an adaptor equipped video camera. Chances are your DP may even own one (they are getting pretty ubiquitious).

I'll echo what Charles said and add that if you already have a camera and the 35mm adapter that you might just consider not using the 35mm adapter during the night scenes. The background will be dark so you won't need the shallow DOF anyway. Try using a promist filter or the like instead to get a softer overall effect. You will be losing resolution if you crank up the gain so softening may also be unnecessary. An important part of keeping the budget low is to use equipment already available. If you don't already have the camera, the HDSLR route is the way to go for low-light shooting. That is a great way to go but there is a steep learning curve and you will need a fast lens or two.

The method I describe using a 12V deep-cycle battery is not simple speculation. I did this as early as 2005 for a film called Plastic Leis that was shot partly at night on the streets of Waikiki and Waikiki beach. The beach scene had absolutely no exposure in the area we were shooting although street lamps are visible in the background. I reversed what you would do for the campfire and matched the hairlight with the orange sodium street lamps. I used a huge diffuser to cast fake moonlight coming from the direction of the water. At this moment, I only have this horrible picture that was greatly darkened somehow in converting to a still frame. The original video looked fine and was shot on a Sony FX1 which is not so good in low light. This was all done with less than 100W of fluorescent light.