Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[Martin Stevens]

Hello David,

I have always disliked the term "negative fill".

Do you know of an alternate name for it, or perhaps even the different historic names for it?

I wonder what "negative fill" was called back in the good old days? I keep thinking that it is a fairly new term.

[David Mullen ASC]

Old film stocks, printing systems, and early video were all so much more contrasty that I doubt there was as much call for negative fill, they were fighting for positive fill!

The terms has been around for thirty years at least as far as I know, I was using it in film school. I think the alternative is just to say "I want to flag or block the ambience or bounce light".

[Martin Stevens]

Old film stocks, printing systems, and early video were all so much more contrasty that I doubt there was as much call for negative fill, they were fighting for positive fill!

The terms has been around for thirty years at least as far as I know, I was using it in film school. I think the alternative is just to say "I want to flag or block the ambience or bounce light".

Thanks!

I will continue to say "let's reduce the fill light etc.".


Merry Christmas, David!

[Ignacio Aguilar]

Hi there David! Happy new year, I hope you're doing well.

I'm about to start another feature film and I would like to try a meter that reads footcandles. A really simple, but reliable one. It doesn't matter if it has another features, but I would like to work with that scale and be able to make myself a quick idea of the levels of each light and setup.

I was wondering if you use this tecnique, or still use it in digital. With RED cameras I find the histogram very useful, and I use the false color or video check for fine tuning. But it would be nice to go back to the roots and do some metering as well.

I'm also hearing recommendatios for particular models that will do the job (not the expensives ones), if David or anyone else have any suggestions I'll appreciate it!

Regards, Nacho.

[Hal Long]

Hi Ignacio, Sekonic and Spectra-Cine make great units. I had the Spectra IV which I loved for about 15 years before it was stolen. It's a simple incident meter but very reliable with lots of film-oriented options and easily calibrated. I've used the Sekonic 758 Cine ever since. It's been nice and has incidence and a spot meter, which is nice. Can't go wrong either way.

[M Harvey]

I'm also hearing recommendatios for particular models that will do the job (not the expensives ones), if David or anyone else have any suggestions I'll appreciate it!

Nacho- Hal's reply is a good recommendation, those seem to be the standards among those who use meters in my experience here in New York.

If you're looking for something at a bargain price, a lot of photographers still love the old Minolta incident meters. They don't display in footcandles but, if you're interested simply in measuring ratios (and you don't mind using a shutter speed approximation instead of shutter angle), they're simple and great.

[Ignacio Aguilar]

Thanks for your replies!

[Troy Bakewell]

Hey David.

I apologise if this question has been covered before. I've tried to google the answer and just can't find a definite number.

In the end, how much more does it cost to shoot 35mm film vs digital. Can it be broken down to a per minute rate to cover the costs of film stock, processing, scanning etc?


I know many have argued that film isn't significantly more expensive but I just can't believe that. Everything in the film process is much more expensive correct?

If it could be broken down to a cost per minute the camera is rolling it would be helpful.

Thanks in advance.

[Michael Hastings]

I'll let David chime in on the cost for film - but it would seem that the cost per minute for Digital is near zero since the media is reusable and the only true sunk cost per minute would be the cost of electricity to charge the battery (pennies). That further complicates the issue with digital since you can shoot more and longer takes without additional media costs.

Beyond that you simply have the cost of maintenance and depreciation of the camera and media which is essentially indeterminate because it depends on what you pay for the camera equipment and the cost per minute is based on how much it is used - and that issue is the same for any camera - film or digital.

From there you really would get into all the other costs of the production and it seems like the idea that shooting film is not much more expensive is based on the idea that on major features all of the other costs (cast, crew, lighting, sets, insurance, travel, hotels, etc) dwarf the cost of the camera and media so it doesn't matter much if film cost and processing is 1% of the overall budget and digital is 0%.

The difference becomes important mainly on small or micro budget films.

[dio Zafi]

I'll let David chime in on the cost for film - but it would seem that the cost per minute for Digital is near zero since the media is reusable and the only true sunk cost per minute would be the cost of electricity to charge the battery (pennies). That further complicates the issue with digital since you can shoot more and longer takes without additional media costs.

Beyond that you simply have the cost of maintenance and depreciation of the camera and media which is essentially indeterminate because it depends on what you pay for the camera equipment and the cost per minute is based on how much it is used - and that issue is the same for any camera - film or digital.

From there you really would get into all the other costs of the production and it seems like the idea that shooting film is not much more expensive is based on the idea that on major features all of the other costs (cast, crew, lighting, sets, insurance, travel, hotels, etc) dwarf the cost of the camera and media so it doesn't matter much if film cost and processing is 1% of the overall budget and digital is 0%.

The difference becomes important mainly on small or micro budget films.

+1

hey Troy

I'll just tell you from a micro budget perspective until Dave comments
(for me)
with 16mm I was getting about 11 minutes for 340$ including everything you mentioned

35mm around 4 minutes for the same price

(if you use short ends you can get it even cheaper)

this was for commercial spots where if you were renting a digital camera it did turn out to be cheaper on film (depending on shooting ratio)