- Watch the full sequence
- Do a first pass
- The Pixar example
- The Dreamworks example
- How far can you go ?
- Character Lighting
- Lighting upstage and downstage
- Natural Character Lighting
- Natural Lighting vocabulary
- Dramatic Character lighting
- Character Light Roles
- Key light
- Top light : A big surprise from Mr Deakins
- Bounce light
- Ambient lighting
- Eyes lighting
- Gender lighting
- Rembrandt lighting
- Psychology lighting
- Color schemes and harmonies
- Constrain of lights
We have seen in the previous chapters the key points of a solid light rig for a sequence. It should give you pretty good results IF the previous departments have worked correctly : shot’s locations are consistent, surfacing is solid and set dressing is reliable.
So you are maybe thinking that all these concepts are neat but what about shot lighting ? What should a lighting artist take care of when he opens his shot ?
Watch the full sequence
We have seen in Chapter 5 that many artists do not watch the sequence nor listen to dialogues before lighting. So as a shot artist, don’t make that mistake. It may give you an edge and help you in your work. Here is a non-exhaustive list of questions one should ask before opening a shot :
- Which light rig will you use ?
- Which master should you match ?
- Has the light rig been explained to you ?
- Have you read the wiki ?
- Have you been briefed properly ?
- Has any shot next to yours been lit already ?
- What about continuity ?
- How long is your shot ?
- Is the camera moving ?
- What’s the action of your shot ?
- On which frame(s) should you work interactively ?
Do a first pass
How does the shot look like with the lights out of the box ? At Animal Logic, we were able to test the rig on as many shots as we wanted very easily. Some shots would work really well with the default rig and some would need improvement.
Before starting changing stuff, grab your lead :
- Is there room for improvement ?
- Which direction should we go ?
- Rotate the key ?
- Fake a bounce ?
- Add a blocker ?
As a lead, I really want to put my energy where it is worth. If the shot is 15 frames long, how much time are you willing to spend on it ? On Lego Batman, Grant was really clever about that. You want to keep the spirit of your team high. Don’t bother them with some pixel f#ck that no one would ever notice.
Be proactive. Even if you are a junior and “just” copy/paste shots, you can make a difference by solving issues, asking questions and gathering information.
I generally start by analyzing and optimizing the shot since each artist is responsible for his own shot’s render time. Your lead (or the person in charge) should normally make sure that render times are not too expensive when the master lighter prepared the sequence. But you can still watch out for :
- Can you remove useless geometry ?
- Are there any lights you could turn off ?
- Has sampling been set correctly ?
- Can you disable SSS or displacement on background elements ?
- Is light culling an option ?
One thing that is important to notice with quadratic attenuation is that diffuse decays faster than reflection. This is a physically-based behavior. This is why you have to be extra careful if you turn off lights in your shots. You may think they are not influencing your shot but they could bring some extra reflections.
There are lots of advantages from having faster render times. You will get priority on the farm (Darwin system) and if something goes wrong and you have to render again, it is less of a big deal.
The Pixar example
I cannot think of a better example than the one provided in the Khan Academy about Shot Lighting at Pixar (from 0:10 to 1:40).
In this slide, I will compare successively Master Lighting and Shot Lighting on the same frames. Let’s have a look :
The slide above is a perfect example of what we can do in shot lighting. It really takes a great eye and a lot of experience to improve a shot with this level of complexity : huge camera movement, many vehicles and some effects.
I was really impressed by the improvements done on this shot. You must have a great sense of cinematography to come up with notes like that. I guess that practice makes better. The rest is literature.
The Dreamworks example
I got the following example from Dave Walvoord’s paper and I thought it would be interesting to have a look at. It is exactly the same pattern as the shots from Cars 3.
© 2019 DreamWorks Animation All Rights Reserved.
How far can you go ?
Before going to Animal Logic, I had a few rules when it came to Master and Shot lighting. I naively though that Master Lighting could be self-sufficient IF done properly. You could rotate the lights to adjust a bit and that was it. Until I worked on this sequence :
Warner Bros. Pictures and Warner Animation Group, in association with LEGO System A/S, a Lin Pictures / Lord Miller / Vertigo Entertainment production
On Lego Batman, each shot was possibly a new master on its own : we could add blockers, create some new lights and even change their color. I have to say it took me a while to admit it. I was so sure that we should never change temperature between shots. When you actually can. In a way, it really opened my mind on the lighting possibilities of a shot.
The truth is that shot lighting is a cultural thing : it depends on the project, the art direction or your lead. Some supervisors are really conservative about the relationship between a master and a shot. And some are not. My advice would be that YOU should adapt to the project. Not the other way around. Grant gives so much freedom to the artists that it can be unsettling if you are not used to it.
Sometimes during the lighting process, you get emotionally attached to your Master Lighting but you have to accept that eventually it will get tweaked, changed and hopefully improved during shot lighting.
If I simplify things a bit, I can make the following assumption : a big part of shot lighting is about character lighting. There are actually some very good techniques on how to give shape to a face, how to get wetness in the eyes and make the character alive and believable.
I was lucky enough to learn most of these techniques at Ilion studios, on Planet 51. A great effort had been put on giving the characters’ faces a nice shape.
Copyright © Sony Pictures/TriStar Pictures 2009
Here are some recommendations when it comes to character or portrait lighting.
- One should avoid any harsh shadow. Faces should look smooth and soft.
- One should avoid any flat lighting. You want to give shape !
- One should avoid any black areas. Don’t scare the children !
- One should avoid multiple shadow directions. It never looks good.
- One should avoid to cut the face in half. It looks artificial.
In the Version 2.0 of this book (release in September 2020), I will put more examples to illustrate these recommendations.
Lighting upstage and downstage
In Chapter 5 we have seen that Master Lighting should not be camera-dependent. It is pretty much the contrary for shot and/or character lighting. You really should make the best lighting according to the camera angle.
Copyright © Fox Searchlight 2010 / Copyright © Dreamworks Pictures 2015
I have learned about the terms “Lighting Upstage” and “Lighting Downstage” in this video. Maybe it is just me but I like when lighting concepts have a name. It makes my job easier. It has been brought to my attention that the terms “Short Light” and “Broad Light” are also used. I also read about “Far-side key” and “Near-side key” in this very interesting pdf.
A very good example of character lighting, similar to the one we have seen in Hugo, would be the lunch sequence in Munich. (Director : Steven Spielberg, DP : Janusz Kamiński) It is amazing on how they turned the Sun on every shot to never be caught in a Lighting Downstage situation.
I also remember a desert sequence in Planet 51 where the sun would have a strong impact on Lem, the main character. It was probably a continuity choice but not very pleasant to the eye.
Natural Character Lighting
Yes you can totally use some natural lights for your character. If you have an exterior daylight scene, I encourage you to share the same natural lights for both your character and set. It will keep your light rig simple an tidy. It is also a very good way to know if your surfacing is correct. Let’s have a look.
Natural Lighting vocabulary
Most lighters use dramatic vocabulary for their light names : “Key”, “Rim”, “Bounce”… But we have seen in chapter 5 that there is a great advantage in naming based on light categories.
For natural and practical categories, naming lights by what they are rather than what they do makes a lot of sense. Their names will not depend on the camera angle. Here is an example :
This struck me while working on The Star. We had a daylight sequence and during dailies, we were asked to change the key in one shot and the rim in an other shot. When actually they were the same light : the sun.
It is a very rare to only stick to natural lights for a character. Even in a feature film, like Redemption Road, they would use some big studio lights in an exterior daylight sequence.
Copyright © Paramount Vantage 2008
Therefore we can now move on to Dramatic lighting for characters.
Dramatic Character lighting
I have to admit that the Dave Walvoord’s paper quite impressed me. I never heard about edge or wrap lighting before reading it. Even if I had actually been practicing this technique since Planet 51 (2009).
From Dave Walvoord : Wrap Lighting is really the art of making multiple lights appear to be one light. The audience should not notice that two lights are being used to represent the sun. […] the overall effect is that there is one consistent light in the scene.
© 2019 DreamWorks Animation All Rights Reserved.
We can see in this example that vocabulary is very important in lighting. We could argue all day if the edge is actually the sun or if the wrap lighting is a sun soft or a fill. Each studio has its culture and lighting is a religion. Everyone believes what they want.
Dave Walvoord asked me to explain that the Wrap Lighting Technique has actually been introduced at Dreamworks by Roger Deakins.
Three point lighting
Three point lighting is just a sub-category of Dramatic Lighting that most students know about. There is a great article by Eduardo Martin on this topic. Character lighting will never be as easy as throwing three lights in the scene and hitting render. It requires time and attention.
There are a few things I would like to specify about this article. It starts with this great introduction :
Most of the images we see in live action films, photography portraits or animated films have some kind of a three point lighting although in many cases those lights are so well balanced that it is quite difficult to differentiate them as they end up working together as a whole. This is specially true when it comes to key and fill lights where many times the transition from one to the other is so smooth that it seems that there is only just one source of light when in reality there are many fills that we don´t perceive. […] I will focus on character lighting as that´s where three point lighting usually happens, as lighting a set would use a very different approach.This is very true and reminds me of the Wrap Lighting technique by Roger Deakins, described in Dave Walvoord‘s talk.
Character Light Roles
Edu‘s article then goes on with a pretty good description of Light Roles (or Light Functions as Sharon Calahan may call them). Do not hesitate to check them ! I have tried to add a bit of extra information.
In my opinion the best definition of a key light comes from Pixar :
Key is the main shaping light in the sceneFrom the Pixar Khan Academy.
The key is the most important light of your shot and it will often be the strongest. But not always. Like in the example below from Schindler’s list” (Director : Steven Spielberg, DP : Janusz Kamiński).
Top light : A big surprise from Mr Deakins
We have seen in Chapter 7 that this technique is a must. I have used it for years and it has always given me good results. I love so much this trick ! We have probably used it on 80% of Planet 51’s shots. It was like a refrain at Ilion and was very much part of our culture there.
And I have always thought it was a must-do on every PBR cartoon movie… Until Siggraph 2019. My biggest surprise reading Dave Walvoord‘s article was the use of top light on “How to train you dragon“. They just removed it !
© 2019 DreamWorks Animation All Rights Reserved.
This rule of avoiding top light on characters is primarily for humans. Dragons are different in that top and bottom light work very well on them. This has to do with the fact that dragons are horizontal creatures while humans are vertical. Top light can help group a dragon’s wings with its bodies as a later example will show.
Roger Deakins explanation
This is a very interesting topic as I did not expect that at all. Removing the top light from characters ? Bold. I actually wrote to Roger Deakins about it. Here is his answer :
There is top light and then there is top light. I understand that it is useful when you are creating a ‘real’ 360º environment light but to make it the primary source for a character is not always so great. I find that there is a tendency now in animation to try to mimic an environment lighting that may be realistic but is not necessarily the most complimentary to the shot. For instance, do you like the effect of the light on the face from the top light in the image you post ? In the end it is all subjective.
I know this has confused some readers so I will try to explain better. My personal experience with Hollywood has been limited to saturated and High-Key lighting. In this context you kinda throw lights everywhere.
How to train your dragon is different from the typical Hollywood project. There is no arbitrary fill, dark shadows and contrast are allowed (Low-Key lighting). In this context Roger Deakins did not feel like using the Top Light.
Please note that he is talking about to make it (the top light) the primary source for a character. I agree with him and I would suggest to use it essentially to support or enhance the environment.
Like he said : In the end it is all subjective. It really depends on the look you want to achieve. And if you are not sure, try it. You may like it or not.
I love this paragraph from Edu’s article. It just sums the Bounce situation very well.
In Computer Graphics you may already get some GI bounced […] in your characters from the set but there is nothing wrong on cheating extra lights on top of those for artistic purposes. In fact set lights are most of the time insufficient to illuminate the characters properly and the Lighting TD/artist usually has to add extra lights to shape them.Amen to that !
It is very common to enhance the GI with some area lights.
Some supervisors or studios just hate it. They only want the real bouncing to happen. I personally think that creating lights to enhance the Global Illumination (GI) is a win-win. You get better shaping on the characters and your render will be less noisy.
Eduardo Martin uses in his article a little tool called Virtual Lighting Studio. If you want to play with some character lighting in real time without any 3D software, you should give it a try ! There is only one thing I would like to mention.
The Ambient used in the Virtual Lighting Studio should be used with care. Never never never never use Ambient lighting in a real shot. Most modern render engines do not allow it anyway.
We have all the features we need to make beautiful renders. We don’t need Ambient anymore. This is why I have replaced it by Sky (or Environment) in the following breakdown.
Virtual Lighting Studio is fun to play with but it has its own limitations. Therefore it is quite difficult to get any reflection in the eyes (see previous image). In a shot you should pay extra attention to the eyes as it can bring so much life to a character.
From Sandip and Matthias : Unless you are lighting a dead or defeated character, you want an highlight in his eyes.
I did not think I would make a paragraph about eyes lighting but once again, Sandip Kalsy and Matthias Menz changed my mind. They really pushed the theorization on lighting to its climax.
On most PBR movies, reflections in the eyes should come automatically from the light hitting the set or from an HDR. If there is a sun impact on a wall, I would expect to see it reflected in my character’s eyes.
I never create special lights for the eyes. Those times of CG are over. If you have lit your set and character correctly, reflection in the eyes should come naturally (if surfacing is correct).
Tron Legacy example
Copyright © Disney 2010
The lack of reflection makes the character look dead and CG-like. This actor is worth millions of dollars ! You better not f#ck up the way he looks.
Eyes and psychology
Now let’s go one step further. Buckle up because this theory from Sandip and Matthias just blew me away ! In most projects I have worked on we need the eyes to have shape and nice highlight. But what if you could reflect the character’s mood into his eyes ? Could we change the highlights based on his feelings or his thoughts ?
- Is your character angry ? Highlights in his eyes would be sharp and strong.
- Is he thinking ? Highlights would be bigger and dimmer.
Eyes and gender
Sandip and Matthias also had a crazy example where they would use Caesar’s face and by only changing the size of the specular in the eyes, it would turn Caesar into a female. Insane. Just changing the size of the highlight would make Caesar a male or a female.
I have tried to reproduce the example with beautiful model from Adam Sacco. Unfortunately I wasn’t as successful as Sandip and could not match perfectly his example. Anyhow it kinda makes the character look more open or vulnerable.
Model and textures by Adam Sacco.
Since we are now talking about specular size, light angle and gender, we can move on to the next topic.
Should we light differently males and females characters ? I actually never thought of this until I met Sandip Kalsy and Matthias Menz. Let’s have a look at The illusionist (Director : Neil Burger, DP : Dick Pope).
These two shots follow each other in the sequence : Jessica Biel is more front lit than Edward Norton. Softer lighting makes her face looks prettier. I have never seen anything like this on an animated movie though. But it is still interesting to observe.
When you think of it, softer lighting like a big area light actually gives a bigger spec. So you can definitely see a pattern between Caesar’s face and The illusionist. This theory is also being discussed in a book called Sight, Sound, Motion : applied media aesthetics by Herbert Zettl.
I am not saying here that all women should be lit with a soft lighting. NOT AT ALL. You can definitely play with these beauty standards by lighting a big tough guy with soft shadows and big highlights in the eyes if the story asks for it.
I cannot talk about portrait lighting without mentioning the famous Parisian studio Harcourt. Check their work, it’s really good !
I am not a big fan of recipes but I am going to quickly mention Rembrandt lighting since the concept is quite famous.
Rembrandt lighting is characterized by an illuminated triangle under the eye of the subject on the less illuminated side of the face. It is named for the Dutch painter Rembrandt, who often used this type of lighting.From Wikipedia.
I have tried to replicate some Rembrandt Lighting on the CG model Josie. It was surprisingly hard ! How many lights did I have to use ? A lot !
I rotated the head and the eyes a bit because the frontal setup was killing me. I have used in total 8 lights !Without a proper reference, it would have been much more difficult to do.
Should we light differently according to the character’s personality ? I have personally never experienced it on a PBR cartoon movie but I found it very interesting. It is kinda mentioned in the Pixar class from the Khan Academy. Let’s have a look :
These are simple and efficient concepts. But I am not a huge fan of these ready-made recipes. They can kill your creativity. Let’s have a look at more complex approach. It comes from the Schindler’s list (Director : Steven Spielberg, DP : Janusz Kamiński).
The whole concept is about lighting differently the protagonist Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson) and the antagonist, Amon Göth (Ralph Fiennes). Lighting based on character’s psychology… Really impressive !
© 1993 Universal Pictures All Rights Reserved.
Of course frontal lighting will appear to a majority of viewers as friendly in a PBR cartoon movie. But is also interesting to explore different directions, like in the movie 127 hours (Director : Danny Boyle, DP : Anthony Dod Mantle and Enrique Chediak).
Color schemes and harmonies
We have seen a bit about this topic in Chapter 2 but I thought it would be interesting to illustrate it with a more graphic example.
The complementary scheme is probably the most used in animation nowadays. It is simple and easy to read which fits our medium requirements.
Constrain of lights
A question that I have been asked several times : should I constrain my lights to the character ? I have seen both setups. So I would say : it depends.
Back in the day because of shadow maps we would constrain our lights to optimize their resolution. This is no longer necessary. The only reason to constrain a light would be if you want to maintain a certain lighting effect on a character as he is moving.
Constrain in The Star
Here is an example from The Star (Director : Timothy Reckart, Art DIrector : Sean Eckols). We were asked to maintain the bounce light on Mary (in the first shot) and Bo and Ruth (in the second shot).
We decided to constrain the bounce light (a disk area) to the character. Three main difficulties were :
- Every time we received an alembic update, the constrain broke.
- We had to be extra careful with lights penetrating the ground.
- Choose carefully to which body part or locator you want to constrain.
No constrain in Ninjago
In the next example (I worked on the last eight shots) we chose a different solution.
We have seen in Chapter 4 that this sequence uses mainly natural lights. But I also added some area lights in strategic places to enhance the bouncing. They were not constrained to anything, so depending on the character position, they would have more or less effect.
There is a great advantage to this : spatiality. We have seen many examples in this book where I encouraged you to put practical lights in their physical location. It will ground your scene into some plausible environment. So we could almost come with this rule :
Practical lights should not be constrained since they belong to the environment but dramatic lights can be in order to maintain a certain effect (like a fill or a shatner light) on a character.I hope that makes sense.
Shatner light in Skyfall
A “Shatner” light […] is the nickname that our Art Director Grant Freckelton coined for a bar of light across the face or eyes of a character such as was somewhat over-used on the original Star Trek for Kirk closeups.From Craig’s blog.
Care is needed when using a Shatner light – it is easy to descend into cheesy cliche (and we did this deliberately on The Lego Movie). The bar of light can be more or less sharply defined, or even abstracted as a soft pool. The general rule is, the sharper the dramatic emphasis, the sharper the Shatner. Whether in the sharp or subtle form, this technique allows a clear read of a dramatic moment without resorting to a full frontal light, and coupled with rim lighting can be visually pleasing.Great explanation from Craig.
There is a shot in Skyfall (Director : Sam Mendes, DP : Roger Deakins) where James Bond enters in a Shatner light. This is a very cool effect that you would have not obtained if you had constrained your lights.
In this chapter I have tried to describe Shot and Character Lighting. Here are a few links if you want to dig a bit on the subject :