Choosing Your Lights (...not what you think)

To the untrained eye, there is only color temperature between the various lights that we use in the motion picture industry. HMIs appear to be "blue" or daylight balanced; tungsten seems "warm" and "orange" resembling indoor lighting; fluorescent lighting seems to have a sickly green cast or sometimes a hint of magenta in them, etc. All of these observations are accurate, however there are a few other ideas you should think about when choosing which lights best fit your situation.

Before we talk about the actual units, let's talk about color temperature. Color temperature, in the film industry, is measured on the Kelvin scale, named after British physicist William Kelvin. The scale is based of of his findings when he heated a block of carbon. The block changed colors from a warm red glow to a bright yellow and eventually to a screaming hot blue color. Read about it here: http://www.3drender.com/glossary/colortemp.htm.
We use the Kelvin scale to measure the color temperature of a light. Film has two effect color temperature ratings, 3200ºK(tungsten/indoor film) and 5500ºK(daylight film). Now, the lower the number the "warmer" the color looks and the higher the number the "cooler" the color looks. Indoor lighting is estimated around 3200ºK and daylight is estimated somewhere around 5500ºK, hence the color ratings of the film stock. An important thing to note is that the Kelvin scale is NOT LINEAR. This means that a 200º change in color temperature at the higher end of the scale is not the same color shift in the lower end of the scale. The lower you go on the scale, the more dramatic each degree change is. I will address this idea when I talk about each light source.

HMIs:
HMI stand for Mercury, Medium Gap Arc, and Iodine. These are a daylight balanced light, so they are 5500ºK. There are many issues with HMIs, but I will only be addressing the color temperature and light quality issues. HMIs are gas discharge light, meaning an electrical arc is used within the bulb to pressurize the vapors inside the bulb which provide the light. There is, however, a shift in color temperature based on the life of the bulb and the integrity of the gasses inside... meaning the temperature will change over time. This is just one of the many problems with HMI units, however, there are steps you can take to compensate for these changes.

HMIs burn at about 70% light energy, 30% heat, translating into a lot of light per watt. They are very efficient lights with a lot output in contrast with a low(er) amperage draw. But there is often an unnatural cast to these lights. They often have a sharp specular reflectance on skin, causing an even bigger problem on oily skin. We have gotten used to seeing them light actors in movies, but there is still a subconscious disconnect to our eyes that we may or may not be aware of. This is the result of the electronically created light source. An HMI's light is the result of an electrical arc, an artificially created light source, which our eyes pick up on even if we don't recognize it. There is an inorganic characteristic to HMI light that has the potential to be exaggerated on skin tones.

Fluorescents:
Fluorescents are also gas discharge lamps created by an arc of electricity. Again, this inorganic light quality can be seen under these lamps. Now, they do come in a variety of color temperatures(3200ºK, 4700ºK, 5500ºK and more in between) but there is also a risk of a green or magenta shift in them. This is due to their interrupted nanometer spectrum( http://www.cameraguild.com/technology/kelvin.htm). This artificially created light source attributes to why people sometimes feel uncomfortable or even develop headaches with long exposure under fluorescent lighting. Again, power cycles and the hertz rate and voltage factor in to this problem as well.

Some people use fluorescent fixtures as fill light to raise the ambient light in the shadow areas, however, you run the risk of an extra shadow(any time you add a light, you add a set of shadows) as well as the risk of an artificial looking fill light. However, these lights can be used to great effect to simulate a computer screen glow, a monitor glow, overhead fluorescents or other types of artificial illumination.

LED:
LEDs are the latest addition to our lighting arsenal. They have have many of the same attributes that fluorescents so in terms of looking like an artificially created light source with the feeling of a heavy specular hit. For some reason these lights look sleep and "greasy" to me on skin tones due to the artificially created light. They have advantages much like fluorescents in terms of amperage draw and low heat, but they are not the most flattering lights on skin tones.

High Intensity Discharge Lights:
These lights include Sodium Vapor, Metal Halide and Mercury lamps used for lighting parking lots, buildings and other utility lighting situations. These lights vary in color temperature and often have other colors(greens and magentas) mixed in creating a generally unpleasing looking light. However, these lights work well for gritty lighting situations set in industrial locations. Again, these lights are pressurized vapors in an envelope stimulated by an electrical arc, so they also look a little artificial on skin tones. However, they do put out a lot of light and can achieve some incredible and unconventional looks.

Tungsten:
Tungsten in the oldest, and in my opinion best looking light used today. Tungsten is 3200ºK and used for indoor film. The word "tungsten" refers to the material used as the filament for electric light bulbs. If you want some more information on the mineral, please click here: http://periodic.lanl.gov/elements/74.html If you would like to learn about the electric light bulb, please visit the following links:
•http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bllight2.htm
•http://www.howitworks.net/how-light-bulbs-work.html
•http://home.howstuffworks.com/question151.htm

Why does tungsten look so good, in my opinion? It's simple, really... electricity is introduced to the tungsten filament and the filament glows as it burns, releasing heat and light. It's a naturally created light source, reminiscent of flame or fire light, and because of this it appeals to our base sense of illumination. We have gotten used to tungsten filaments for the 120+ years we have had electric illumination(tough a lot of people are opting for compact fluorescent bulbs in their homes now) but we also have an ingrained pre-history of naturally occurring sources of light with our use of fire and flame. Tungsten feels better to our eye on skin tones and faces and seems to have better wrapping ability without giving a harsh specular highlight on the surfaces being hit by the light.

I try to use tungsten as much as possible, though it is not always the most efficient, because I feel that I can get better results and can control the lights easier without having to worry about any light quality issues.

PhillM tip-of-the-day:
If you need to scrim down a softlite, just get a 1K scrim and lay it on top of the safety screen of the soft light lower the light level. However, be careful- because the softlite is a bounced light, the scrims won't have the exact same effect of your foot candles(there is only a slight discrepancy) as they would if you were using them in the traditional sense.

Cube Tap- "It Was a Good Day"

This is what happens when electrics have too much time on their hands. But at least he's getting stuff done hahahahah.

PhillM tip-of-the-day:
Remember that there isn't always consistent work in our industry, there are constant peaks and valleys. Make sure that you save your money when there is a lot of work, because sooner or later the industry will be slow and you want to make sure you have the money to ride it out.

Light Meter Versus Picture Monitor

This article is a little old, but I find it very interesting...

"LIGHT METER VERSUS PICTURE MONITOR

The key to achieving consistently good results in lighting for video is using a light meter in the same way one does in lighting for film. The idea that a picture monitor on the set makes lighting for video faster and easier is one of the great fallacies about video. In fact a picture monitor is a very unreliable and inefficient tool in lighting.

First of all, a picture monitor requires that the camera be fired up and shooting the composition that is being lit. Prelighting a set or lighting while the camera is being set up or adjusted is impossible if one is dependent on the picture monitor.

Second, picture monitors, especially the type one is likely to have on the set as opposed to in the van or near the recorder, are notoriously unreliable. Setting up a picture monitor is to some extent a matter of subjective evaluation of the image it is displaying, and the image on a monitor may not be an accurate indication of what is actually being recorded. A picture monitor is comparable to timed dailies with no indication of the printer light. It shows you one way the scene can look, but it does not really tell you what with.

Moreover, a picture monitor does not really enable you to do consistent lighting from one setup to the next. The picture monitor tells you nothing about how the levels compare to those in a previous setup. It is entirely up to your memory to compare what you see to what you saw earlier.

Consulting a picture monitor to evaluate lighting will probably require walking back and forth from the set to the monitor repeatedly during a setup-unless you abandon the set altogether in favor of a work station near the monitor from which you instruct your crew via an intercom. Neither is a very efficient procedure. The best place from which to light a set is on the set and next to the camera or the position where it will be placed.

Generally, if you ask the production company to provide a monitor for you on the set, you will get a modified home receiver or the monitor that has received the least maintenance. Even if you bring your own monitor, the ambient light levels on the set will wash out the picture so much that you cannot judge contrast in the image.

It is also inadvisable to become dependent on a picture monitor for lighting, since there will occasionally be times when it is not possible to have a monitor. When the camera is battery powered, for example, it will probably not be possible to have a picture monitor; but you may still have to light.

Using a light meter that you can carry around with you as you work is really the simplest and most efficient method of lighting. Using a light meter properly also ensures consistency from scene to scene. When you are lighting a set, the video camera and picture monitor are really just the world’s most expensive and clumsy light meter.

There is another problem associated with the use of a picture monitor as a tool for evaluating lighting. It tends to invite lighting by committee. While a good monitor may promote constructive discussion of lighting in some instances, there are also plenty of instances where discussions of the lighting based on what the scene looks like on the monitor may be fruitless and counterproductive.

If you are still unconvinced about the use of a picture monitor in lighting, consider the following: Anyone who shoots video will at some point inevitably have to insist that the producer or the client ignore the way the image looks on the monitor. You will know that it is not an accurate indication of the image you are recording; but if you yourself have been referring to the monitor while lighting, your ability to persuade them that it is unreliable will be considerably diminished."

*This article was taken from the Spectra Cine Inc. website.

Here is the article: http://www.spectracine.com/Spectra_Pro_4_artical_3.html

Here is the PDF file of the article: http://www.spectracine.com/Pdf/LightMeter_vs_PictureMonitor.pdf

If you don't have Adobe Read 7.0, here the the link to download it: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=10&platform=Windows

PhillM tip-of-they-day:
Please, please, please keep in mind that the monitor(even when properly calibrated) is not an accurate source for color, exposure or framing... and sometimes it's not even an accurate representation of the actors performance, either. Trust your Cinematographers, Gaffers and your Camera Operators... we have a hundred year history of filmmaking, ninety of which have been successfully, dramatically and beautifully executed without the use of monitors.

RED Fever

I found some Anti-RED ads online. I thought they were pretty funny...


This one is simple, to the point.


Same thing, version 2.0.


This on is creative... I like it.



This one is just silly.... but I still agree with it. Hahaha!

I have to admit, after being on several shoots with the RED and having most of them go horrably wrong on the camera side... I have to agree with going against the RED hype. Film is still way better!

PhillM tip-of-the-day:
When the RED heats up, sometimes the distance between the back of the lens and the digital censor changes with the expanding metal of the camera... this dramatically effects the focal distance, so be careful.

The Film Re-Revolution

Now, there has been a lot of talk recently about the new digital wave and the replacement of film as a strong, viable medium. Most of the people who know me or my brother know that we are both film snobs and proud of it... and though I will try to keep my emotions out of this debate, it is hard to when the idea of making movies on film with the intention of theatrical exhibition was the driving force behind the choosing of my career. So, please indulge me and let me get the ranting and raving out of the way first...

I LOVE film, it is more flexible, better looking, longer lasting and simply easier then any digital format at this time. Does this mean the digital formats have no place in creative artistic expression or the motion picture industry? Absolutely not, digital formats and the advancing technology have a tremendously important role to play in our industry as well as other art forms and industries. However, there are many myths that the general public or uniformed filmmaker have bought into which have the potential to cause serious harm to our industry.

Almost every cinematographer I meet says the same thing, “If I could shoot on film then I would.” I say to them, arm yourselves with the knowledge and the logical reason to educate your directors and producers on the benefits of film. The power is in our hands and we must demand quality in our industry and in our art form. However, this isn’t always just a decision of emotion but a decision of facts and numbers. I have decided to write down a few of my arguments to help arm our pro-film cinematographers in order to help then spread the message of the new Film Re-Revolution.

(1) Film is more flexible then digital. Yes, you can do a lot in the digital post-production world these days, but the extent of what you are capable of doing is still limited by one thing… the initially captured information. The limiting factor still comes down to what you captured on the day… on set. True, you can do a lot in post to save an otherwise worthless shot, but you can’t completely fix a bad looking image.

You always try to make sure to keep most of the lighting in your frame within an acceptable range of under and over exposure to your t-stop, but there is a certain point within the film curve where you long have visible information in the shadows or highlights. However, even if an image is so over exposed that parts of it are blown out, there are still ways to retain the information in the highlights through various printing techniques. Now the problem with the digital curve is that at a certain point on the top end of the curve, the range plateaus and flat lines, meaning there is a point where no information can be pulled from the areas that are blown out. This point of no return is much lower on the digital latitude curve then it is on the film latitude curve. You have more flexibility to save a shot with a film negative then you do with digital acquisition.

On the flip side, though digital mediums were originally designed to handle low light situations, there is still the high risk of image noise in an under exposed image while capturing on a digital censor. Film is much more tolerant to retaining a range of exposures so you can still get an acceptable and usable image even if you under or over expose your image.

(2) Film is still better quality then any digital on the market today. Seriously… the idea of HD, 2K and 4K resolution is, exactly that- a measurement of resolution. 4K is about 4096×2304 pixels in resolution.
There are some digital camera that now capture in 4K and there are plans to go past that into 8K or beyond… but, right now 4K still cannot compare to the image quality of 35mm film negative(4K does not equal 35mm film, look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_film#Resolution).
And when there finally is a digital camera that can match the image quality of 35mm film negative, then we’ll just move on to 60mm. And even when the resolution of digital technology reaches the quality of 60mm, we’ll just start shooting IMAX (70mm sideways=larger negative space).

Another thing to consider is the physical and technical make up of how each medium is captured and how that translates to the perception of our human eye.

The digital image is, obviously made up of a square matrix of square pixels. This matrix takes the curved lines captured by the lens and organizes them into a pattern made up of squared parts, which, when expanded, creates the illusion of a curved shapes. This idea, no matter how small the pixels get, still goes against the fundamental microscopic make up of our environment(very few straight lines exist in nature, of course). This clearly posses a very distinct problem in creating a natural looking image.

I mean, have you even wondered why some movies, commercials or TV shows look just slightly different to your eyes? You can’t seem to put your finger on it, but you know that there is something there…? Well, this can be attributed to how our human eye works. On the back surface of the eyeball sits the retina, covered in color and contrast receptors that allow us to see and interpret light, thus allowing us to see and recognize shapes. Essentially all we are really seeing are the reflection of light on objects and surfaces of the world around us. This light reflection travels trough the iris and pupil and hit the back of our eyeball. The light receptors which capture this light is a random pattern of cone shaped receptors and rod shaped receptors. The cones detect light color and the rods detect contrast(black, white or shade of grey).
•http://kidshealth.org/kid/htbw/eyes.html
•http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye#Rods_and_cones

Celluloid works in a very similar fashion. There is a polyester film base with layers of light sensitive film emulsion on it. The film emulsion faces the gate(the hole in which light passes from the lens and hits the film). The emulsion is light sensitive plasma made up of a gelatin that holds tiny particles of silver halide crystals, which react when exposed to light. This gelatin is a random mix of these silver halides, not a matrix of straight lines. This process of expose makes the projected film image feel more natural, realistic and akin to our human eyes.

The digital image will always, subconsciously, look different then our eyes because of the squared matrix in which the image is captured and then displayed with.

(3) 100 years, and beyond! Film has a 100 year known shelf life. I say known because, well, to be quite honest, film has only been around for a little over 100 years. We don’t actually know the maximum lifespan of a celluloid negative, but we have hit the hundred-year mark. Obviously new advances in technology and preservation techniques will further that estimated time, but, for now, 100 years isn’t too bad.

Digital… well, it’s a bit shorter then that. Right now, the longest estimated shelf life is 15 years. Now, it’s not simply a numbers game… It gets a little more complicated then that. You see, because technology is moving to quickly now, a concept known as technological obsolescence has come into play making it harder(economically and practically) to store the digital information. This is because every few years, when a new system, file type, or program comes out- the entire catalog of information must be taken off the shelf and reformatted so it can be used and accessed in the future. For more information on this, please download the 2007 Digital Dilemma Report put out by the Sci-Tech Council of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences:http://www.oscars.org/council/digital_dilemma/index.html

(4) “But with digital I never have to worry about flashing a roll of film accidentally or those other problems ever again!” …flashing a roll of film, for all you none filmmakers out there, is when a roll of film is accidentally exposed to light before it’s been processed. Basically this means that you will end up with a white image unusable and unsalvageable.

Yes, with new technologies come faster processors, smaller file sizes and quicker data transfer, but there is anther side to this technology revolution that is not talked about. Both film and digital have an even number of physical threats that can affect the capture or preservation of the information. A film can might get flashed accidentally, the film can be put through an x-ray machine, the film lab could screw up and the developing bath could disintegrate the emulsion. But a digital capture runs the same physical risks that film does. A hard drive could be dropped on accident, a hard drive or laptop could get crushes by the camera truck, a magnet could accidentally pass over the hard drive or P2 card, or the DIT could accidentally delete the files as he transfers them to a film labs’ data storage system. Digital filmmaking does not sidestep the physical risks we run(and always try to minimize) while making our film.

Now, there is the other category of harm that could befall digital data… this is what I call the “non-physical harm factors”… until I come up with a better name. These are things like… well, honestly, the unexplained corruption of a hard drive with all your raw footage on it… or a patch not working on your edit program because you started editing wit an older version f the software and it hasn’t been updated… or even something like a computer virus. These are things that you have no physical control over, risk factors that happen without warning, without explanation and without solution.

You are susceptible to water, heat, moisture and humidity, power kick outs(when a cable is accidentally pulled) and having to work with kid gloves around a delicate and sometimes temperamental camera system.

Yes, freak accidents happen with celluloid, too, but because it is a tangible medium, there are always tangible explanation and most often tangible solutions to the problems we face. My question for all directors and producers out there is this: why do you choose to put your film, your art and your money in the hands of an inconsistent and accident prone medium that has not been properly tested and stabilized? You’ve worked had on your story, on your idea, with your actors and with your sets to get them just right… why not use a format that allows the minimum amount of risk, the maximum amount of quality and longest shelf life of any motion picture technology to date?


(5) Digital is not always worth the cost. It takes a lot more money then people think to make a digital moving image to look as good as film… so much more money that its cheaper to just soot on film. A lot of people think that they eliminate a lot the cost of production by shooting on digital when, in fact, this is not the case. Yes, they don’t pay for processing or film stock purchasing, but these costs get made up and compounded in the digital post-production many times over.
You still need the same number of camera crew members(1st AC, 2nd AC, and loader) to keep the convoluted digital workflow going. The loader’s responsibilies are pretty much the same as with film, only instead of downloading a magazine, they are downloading P2 cards and hard drives. (*a quick note about the RED camera. A new problem that has come up is that the camera overheats so much that the flange between the censor and the lens moves with the expanding metal, changing the focal distance dramatically)

A lot of people also think that they need to rent fewer lights with digital acquisition. I can tell you from many years of experience that this is simply not the case, in fact, you often need more lights to get the image to look anywhere near the clarity of film. The size of lights and the theory behind lighting is based on a doubling and halving method(each f-stop is measured in half or double the amount of light of the preceding stop). Lighting for film is an exact science with inexact creativity. Digital censors at of the writing of this article do not react to light in the film does, rendering the exact science of our current lighting systems useless. All of a sudden I find myself having to call for a light two or three times larger then that I would normally call for because I know that the Director of Photography will end up asking me for more light. I have also found myself in situations that would normally require no lighting where I have had to pull out medium to large sized units just to “bring up the ambience” so the image would not read noisy. More light needed means more lights, which means more stands and more cables, which means more crew, which means more power, which means a bigger generator. The prices skyrocket very easily!

And that doesn’t include all the technical problems that often occur that take time to fix and special techs to fix them. Time is money in our industry and we try to streamline things the best way possible. All of a sudden you loose control over your medium(creative or otherwise) because now if there is a problem with a digital piece of equipment then you can’t fix it. Now you have to send it back to the rental house and one of their certified techs has to fix it… there is no jury rigging in the digital work; you can’t just piece it together. You are now at the mercy of this technology that is supposed to make things easier for you, but it can often make matter even more complicated then they need to be.

Now, forget all of this… lets just talk about a basic principal. As much as you can, you try to treat any digital camera as if it were film. However, no matter how any times the director promises to treat the digital tape or hard drive as if it was a 1000ft film magazine, they always end up shooting more volume of footage then if it were film. now, this isn’t the director’s fault, this is merely an inherent flaw with the digital design… the idea of endless possibility and supply along with instant gratification. You can try and try and try to only do a few takes but even the best of us slip up and “waste tape”. Now, this causes a problem in post-production because you now have to spend that much more time logging footage, transferring footage, looking through the extra takes and choosing which of the 15 takes you actually like. Post-Production is arguably the most expensive part of the process and you don’t want to be stuck in a $300 an hour online edit suit editing your 4K RED camera footage while trying to decide if it is take 4 or take 12 that you like the best. I am not saying that I’ve never seen a take 12 on a film set, I am just suggesting that sometimes the forced limitations on a medium actually help to limit our choices so we can make quicker decisions and move our project forward to completion.

(6) Consistency, Consistency, Consistency. Film is simplicity at its best. It is merely light passing through a small hole and photochemically embedding itself onto light sensitive material. It’s a simple process with superior effect and the best part… it’s consistent. There are already so many things that can go wrong while making a movie, our jobs as creative artists and expert technicians is to minimize these dangers and attempt to create as much consistency as possible. Film offers that consistency.

Now, I call on crewmembers, Cinematographers, Directors and Producers alike who want to join me in this Film Re-Revolution to ask these questions and consider these thoughts. I ask you to do all that you can to present the facts and numbers and to look at all the possibilities before you discount using film due to budgetary restraints. Let’s bring back the demand to shoot on film and take the creative control back to the hands of the creative artists.

I quote the Digital Dilemma Report in saying: “The place to start is here. The time to start is now.”

Peace and Love

California, please be moved.

"Dear Generation Y" A letter from Victor Paredes

Dear Generation Y,

We can now breathe a sigh of relief: after two years of hard work and hope for the chance to build a better future, we have helped to elect the United States’ first black president. And, as the cover of last week’s Economist boldly proclaimed, “It’s Time.”

But what is it time for? At the moment, celebration. Last night, after it was announced that Mr. Obama was to become our country’s 44th Commander In Chief, the Bay Area erupted in elated enthusiasm for what we collectively hope is a change for the better. It was exciting, I must admit. Over and over again cheers from the crowd underscored our excitement. “O-BA-MA! O-BA-MA! O-BA-MA!” Drive-by wooing ran rampant and gleaming smiles of hope radiated jubilantly, welcoming the dawn of a new era.

However exciting it is to have won, we must understand that our time for celebration needs to be short and sweet. Our country is in a delicate state, both domestically and internationally: our foreign relations have been strained by a president and a people blinded by a conveniently ambiguous definition of patriotism, our own economy is weathering a possible meltdown of sorts, and the American public’s faith in its own government has dwindled to what could be construed as political depression.
So it is time for our beloved candidate to follow through. It is time for the cost of his hope-product that we so willingly purchased to be validated. And it is time for change to be implemented on the national stage. Yes, we bought into the campaign rhetoric, but we are not blind…we expect results.

In the same vein, it is also time for us to follow through. Please don’t regard this victory as a socioeconomic fix-all. Don’t repeat the very recent mistake of embarrassingly declaring “mission accomplished” when our fight has just begun. We must keep ourselves politically active or we belie the very principle of our own message. Let us not hollow the promise that we so adamantly made to our candidate, to our country, and to our fellow Americans. Let us move our oft repeated “yes we can” to the more actionable “yes we will” so that we can tell our children, without crossing our fingers, “yes, we did.”

Sincerely,
Victor Paredes

http://www.janusbean.com

I promise I will be back to film related postings soon :)

Yes We Did.

Tuesday, November 4th, 2008
Chicago, Illinois

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.
It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voice could be that difference.

It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

It's the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.
It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.

I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he's fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation's promise in the months ahead.
I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on that train home to Delaware, the Vice President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.

I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nation's next First Lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House. And while she's no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure.

To my campaign manager David Plouffe, my chief strategist David Axelrod, and the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics - you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you've sacrificed to get it done.
But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to - it belongs to you.
I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington - it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.

It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory.

I know you didn't do this just to win an election and I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime - two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor's bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.
There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers - in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.
Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House - a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, "We are not enemies, but friends...though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection." And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world - our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down - we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security - we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright - tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.
For that is the true genius of America - that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing - Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America - the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.
At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.

When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "We Shall Overcome." Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves - if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time - to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:
Yes We Can.

Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Barack Obama
November 4th, 2008
President-Elect of the United States of America

Yes We Can!

Yes We Can!


This is funny...


PhillM tip-of-the-day:
Vote! Just vote!