Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[Michael Panfeld]

But this works because the 4-perf 35mm negative is roughly 4x3 and the anamorphic lens has a 2X squeeze.
........
I'd only use regular anamorphic lenses on a Red One or other 16x9 sensor camera if I wanted those odd lens artifacts.

Hopefully, in about 1 year, the 4x3 RED Monstro sensor will be out. When this happens, anamorphics will once again make sense from a technical image quality basis, right David?

Also, would anamorphics make sense with a 35mm adapter, as the intermediate screen in the popular Brevis, Redrock, and Letus units is generally about the same size as the Monstro sensor (24 x 36mm)?

Thanks

[Oli Williams]

Hi David, just wondering what you thought of this for lighting on the go?
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39546

Many thanks,

Oliver Williams

[David Mullen ASC]

Hopefully, in about 1 year, the 4x3 RED Monstro sensor will be out. When this happens, anamorphics will once again make sense from a technical image quality basis, right David?

Also, would anamorphics make sense with a 35mm adapter, as the intermediate screen in the popular Brevis, Redrock, and Letus units is generally about the same size as the Monstro sensor (24 x 36mm)?

Thanks

I thought the Monstro sensor was FF35, i.e. 36mm x 24mm, which is a 1.50 : 1 ratio.

Technically the 4-perf 35mm anamorphic aperture is 1.20 : 1 with a 2X optical squeeze to get 2.40 : 1.

Anyway, I think you end up with the same issues regarding cropping the sides of the 1.5 sensor (with a 2X anamorphic lens) versus the top & bottom (with a spherical lens). The other issue is whether current 2X anamorphic lenses would even cover the 36mm x 24mm sensor (though technically they would just have to cover a 29mm x 24mm area). The 4-perf 35mm anamorphic aperture is around 22mm x 18mm.

From a quality standpoint, anamorphic should yield more quality when the sensor is nearly square and you are squeezing a 2.40 image onto it rather than cropping it nearly 50% vertically to get a 2.40 image. Right now, the only camera with a truly square sensor is the Phantom HD, followed by the ARRI D21 with its 4x3 sensor.

Using a 35mm groundglass adaptor doesn't really solve the pixel resolution issue, which is based on the sensor shape and resolution. Not to mention, those adaptors naturally have a resolution hit because you are rephotographing the image off of a groundglass projection.

[Joe G.]

Hi David,

Let's say the goal is to turn Scarlet fixed into Scarlet anamorphic 2.40. Would this adapter get us close enough:

"Century's adapter can reach to a full 33% wider angle of view, "

[David Mullen ASC]

The front 1.33X anamorphic attachments developed for 4x3 DV cameras in order to get a 16x9 image onto the sensor would, in theory, give you a 2.37-ish image on a 16x9 sensor camera, but there are so many optical tradeoffs that you aren't talking about increasing quality so to speak.

When used on a 4x3 DV camera, those attachments basically gave you a "smoother" 16x9 image (compared to cropping 4x3 to 16x9 and squeezing for SD) rather than a sharper or more detailed image, because you had increased the available number of pixels being used, but at the expense of an optically questionable attachment.

There is also a Canon 1.33X anamorphic rear extension for B4 video lenses:
http://www.usa.canon.com/html/indust...v/acv-235.html

Anyway, I don't think a simple front anamorphic lens attachment is really going to be adequate for a professional 3K RAW / 1080P camera. You'd either need actual 1.33X anamorphic lenses built or a decent 1.33X rear-anamorphic attachment created and mounted probably by a lens tech.

[Andrew Luczenczyn]

Hello Mr. Mullen

Im in the process of getting a sound stage built in my area, and I was wondering if you could pass on any stories of good or bad things youve encountered when using a space. Too hot, too cold, not enough power, no onsite storage, stuff like that.

thanks
-Andrew Luczenczyn

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm not a Gaffer, so I can't speak to the power issues of a stage adequately, but staging space is something that is often not considered, both inside and outside -- modern filmmaking involves a lot of trucks and carts, and if the production fills the stage with sets, then all of that gear has to go somewhere.

Obviously quietness and air conditioning are important, not to mention fire safety.

The ability to hang things -- greenbeds or trusses or sets, etc. -- is important and thus the load capability of the ceiling structure.

[R.ChilD]

Hi Chief Mullen! I have benefited from your posts!

On a scene we are trying to capture beams of daylight or daylight streaks (all natural light) through a window for the shot. What is the best way to go about it? We were told one of the best ways would be to have dust around the source, but that solution might not sit well with the cast. Thanks in advance sir!

[David Mullen ASC]

Most common method on a film set is to use a hazemaker, if not that, a fogger. The smoke must be evenly distributed in a draft-free room.

[R.ChilD]

Thanks a lot