SF M4 Devastator on CSI: Las Vegas

I've got CSI: Las Vegas on TV right now and the main CSI detective (what's-his-name) appears to be using a Surefire M4 Devastator with non-crenallated bezel. Kinda big for a CSI Investigator. Maybe somebody needs to turn the show's producers on to CPF. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Keep watching, he might whip out a 6P or even a scorpion before the shows over.
Topper /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Love how they use an M4 to examine stuff under 6" away.

Nothing like the right tool for the right job /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif

[ QUOTE ]
madecov said:
Love how they use an M4 to examine stuff under 6" away.

Nothing like the right tool for the right job /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crackup.gif Good point. It's ridiculous.

Yep, I see M4's and TL3's on that show all the time, for looking at stuff a few feet away. They do use scorpions and L4's too. They could use some flashlight consultants, that's for sure.

I have an M4 and actually it's not so bad indoors, although obviously it really comes into it's own when you need throw. What they need are beamshapers on their M4's /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I suppose they get their lights provided for free by Surefire and Streamlight and have to use what they have when they need em. Sometimes it seems like the beam doesn't exactly match the light either. Ever see a maglite on TV with a P60 type beam pattern...lol.

[ QUOTE ]
madecov said:
Love how they use an M4 to examine stuff under 6" away.

Nothing like the right tool for the right job /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you seen "Alien Vs. Predator"? In that they use a Maxabeam the same way /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/duh2.gif

Gotta love CSI. The only show where all the main characters use flashlights when shown in the opening credits.

BTW, there are a lot of changes during the show. They are rerunning the show on our local UPN station right now, and I noticed that at the beginning they used Streamlights (Scorpion and Stinger) exclusively. Then they started using the M4 occasionally. Then, they ditched the Stingers, and used the M4 and the Scorpion (especially Grissom used to love the Scorpion). Lately, they start using Surefire (especially the M4) more and more.

Also, on the CSI:Miami I watched recently, the hot gun-chick (Emily Proctor as Calleigh Duquesne, yes I admit that she's one of the reasons I still watch the show) used what looked like an L4. Weird that, the film people seem to prefer incans (since film seems to be optimized for incans in its color response).

Can you say PRODUCT PLACEMENT?

I have to believe that the use of lights on these shows involves a corporate consultant of some type!!

Bill

When filming it is not usually nearly as dark as it appears on our TV sets. The camera filters out the light, or the footage is digitally graded.

This is why you can use an M4 etc and not blind yourself on set - because it isn't actually dark!

One of the reasons SureFires are used is because their beams look so good on film.

Size15's, that is not necessarily true anymore. It's true for the majority of film shoots, but not for a lot of the dark scenes. Film sensitivity has made a huge leap forward during the 90s.

Proof: Compare close-ups of actors in a series from the late 80s (say, Star Trek TNG 1st season) to a similar shot from the late 90s (say, Star Trek Voyager 5th season). In the former, the pupils are pinpoints, in the latter they are dilated, showing that the brightness levels on the set were quite low.

In fact, after listening to some commentaries, modern flashlights (mostly Surefires, as far as I could tell) are bright enough to get good film exposure with the flashlights alone, with no surrounding stage lights. It's not done routinely. It's mostly done for effect, such as establishing shots. Even if they use stage lights, I'm under the impression that brightness levels have dramatically decreased genrally during the 90s.

Fair enough. It's always good to learn how things have changed.
Still, the use of high output flashlights for tasks we would normally use a single-cell flashlight for would indicate the light is either needed on set, or on camera.

Al /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Of course in CSI they are all really closet flashaholics - I mean they show up at a crime scene - let's say a house. Everything is dark. All the cops are standing about - taking notes, pictures, etc. At some REASONABLE point, why not turn on the lights? Hmmmmm

You could have a psycho bomber man that could have filled his interior walls with explosives and the switch will blow the house up....

I liked the early Xfiles before it got dumb. They would light an entire scene with a single flashlight. "Tell David and Gillian to shine the light at the ground more so the reflection will light up their faces....."

[ QUOTE ]
elgarak said:
Size15's, that is not necessarily true anymore. It's true for the majority of film shoots, but not for a lot of the dark scenes. Film sensitivity has made a huge leap forward during the 90s.

[/ QUOTE ]

This might be true, but it has been offset by the trend towards finalizing the "look" of the movie in post, instead of in-camera. Anybody who now takes digital pictures with the *intention* of finalizing the image in Photoshop, instead of relying on in-camera work, is doing the same thing.

Directors of photography usually prefer to shoot with a full range of lighting, often brighter than the expected final look, in order to retain a full range of tones in the source footage. It's easier to take well-lit footage and darken it to taste than to try and pull detail out of solid shadows because you didn't shoot bright in the first place.

Brighter lighting also expands the DP's options with regards to film grain, film speed and aperture/depth of field. Again, with the trend towards finishing in post, such things as grain are usually done in the Avid, Flame etc. instead of in-camera. That means clean, smooth, sharp source footage -- which demands small aperture and low-speed film. It's usually the lighting that keeps the shutter angle (analogous to the shutter speed in a still camera) reasonable.

Faster films (and shooting digital) notwithstanding, the dynamic range of on-set lighting still leaves regular household lighting -- let alone flashlights -- in the dark. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Besides, all productions have a cutoff point for accuracy; why spend money on getting something right that less than 1 in 10 of the audience will notice or care about? Gun enthusiasts have a field day pointing out unrealistic/unsafe gunplay all the time; why should flashlight geeks be any different? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif