Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

I believe the main problem is that it's a little disorienting. There are certain types of cuts that mimic the way we would refocus our vision in real life. Like going from a 35mm focal length to a 75mm. We do that all the time when we step into a room look around and then focus on someone's face. When a director makes a cut like that in a movie it feels natural since we make that same type of cut by refocusing our eyes every day.

Going from an utlra-wide shot to an extreme telephoto is not something that we normally do (or even can do) with our eyes. So when cuts like that our made in movies they feel a little unnatural and aggressive. Like you said, that worked for Transformers. But David Mullen doesn't make (as of yet) that kind of movie. I get the feeling from his posts that he believes that when style dominates a scene there is a risk of the narrative suffering. How much is too much (be it the shaky-cam in Bourne Ultimatum or cutting from ultra-wide to telephoto in Michael Bay films) is a matter of taste.

davide
 
You're at the mercy of wind outside when using smoke. We used what was called "the tube of death" -- a clear plastic tube with holes punched in it attached to the smoke machine, run through the woods, leaking smoke. This helped keep it diffused and non-localized.
 
There's nothing right or wrong about the style of just using the extreme wide-angles and telephoto lenses, just that those call attention to the mechanics of photography since we don't see that way. It works better in action movies and other visually-strong genres when stylization is not unwanted. I think for dramas, it has to be used more carefully or subtly, but it depends on the particular movie of course. Sidney Lumet has done movies like that, only used the extreme ends of the lenses, and for other sections, only used the middle focal lengths. So it can be motivated, but I also think it is somewhat of a slick commercial style. You lose some of the room geography too when all your coverage is on super long lenses as people move around in close-up with only a super wide-angle wide-shot as a reference to cut back to. Again, you may want that disorientation or isolation of the characters from their environment so it just depends.

Whenever I put on a super telephoto or wide-angle lens and everyone (including me) goes "wow, that looks cool!" I ask myself if the image is now becoming too dominant over the drama of the scene, because what's "interesting" about the shot is the lens being used.
 
David -

I just want to say that I think this thread is the greatest.

I sincerely appreciate your informative posts and love your work.

Thanks for being so generous with your time and knowledge.

I love to keep learning.
 
Okay, I see what you mean now. Using conservative focal lengths establishes a sense being there, so it promotes immersion. That sense of place is destroyed by cutting to extreme telephoto lenses, it's akin to the feeling created by dialogue whichs breaks the fourth wall. That extreme telephoto style feels a bit 'hip-hop cool' and tacky to me now.

Thanks for the clarification.
 
Often, when beginning a new scene, the director will start tight on an object and reveal the rest of the scene by moving the camera away from that object. When the object is important to the scene (e.g. a computer screen, revealing a character typing at the computer) the reason is obvious, but often directors will do that even though the object is not really part of the story.

So apparently they start tight for purely visual reasons. When ending a scene and cutting to a new one which is in a completely different place, it does feel less of a jolt when starting tight, but I'm not sure why exactly. Is there some general principle or guideline at work here -- what do you think about this technique and when should it be used?

Thank you.
 
considering the greatness of this thread... why isn't it a sticky? moderator? someone? :)
 
coming up on 100 pages and 1000 posts! epic.
 
So who is this David Mullen feller anyways? I just found this thread after googling my own name which is David Mullen.. Swear this guy stole my name.
 
who will get the coveted 1000th post on this thread? :)
 
Hey David, I have a bit of a petty question but I'd still appreciate an answer. What gel rolls are most useful to own if you're doing small setups on your own? I bought a roll of 216 and some frames. Should I now get maybe some half diffusion, or opal or grid or something else? I also got some tracing paper you recommended.
 
You have to be careful about the whole "begin the scene by pulling back or dollying over to the action" because often an editor will just cut that bit out, cut to the action and get the scene moving. There is an old rule about writing that applies to shooting: begin a scene as late as possible and get out of it as early as possible. Don't fall in love with slow lyrical transitions.

That said, you can sometimes get away with them at the right moment. As for whether to start tight and go wide versus start wide and go tight, it partly depends on how you shot the scenes that bookend that scene -- you don't want to use the same transitional device for two scenes in a row.

Yes, it's a visual device, a lyrical one, like tracking through some layers of interesting foreground and then "finding" the scene. The question is always whether this works dramatically for the scene, this lyrical approach. It can kill the drama if you are not careful. You really need to think of how the scene will be edited based on the action and drama described in the script. You have to understand what the scene is about.
 
Shawn Nelson said:
Hey David, I have a bit of a petty question but I'd still appreciate an answer. What gel rolls are most useful to own if you're doing small setups on your own? I bought a roll of 216 and some frames. Should I now get maybe some half diffusion, or opal or grid or something else? I also got some tracing paper you recommended.
Click to expand...

Besides 216... two degrees of lighter diffusion is useful, like 250 and Opal for example.

Besides that, one degree heavier than 216, though you can always double-up the 216. Light Grid is slightly heavier, Full Grid even more. Bleached or unbleached muslin also.

I use Half Hampshire Frost on windows sometimes to blur the view. Otherwise, it's so mild that it doesn't do much to soften a light, though it can be used to blur a shadow pattern that you've created.
 
i asked this on another thread, but wanted to hear an answer from someone here. still trying to clarify my thinking of ASA rating and Red, etc.

Is it correct in thinking then that the light sensitivity of Red's sensor is set (unless it's changed by the red wizards and therefore it comes in the form of an update/upgrade)? Changing the ASA/ISO rating on Red is for viewing purposes and not the same as changing film stock?
 
The camera does not have a gain boost function since you are basically recording the RAW signal from the sensor, so the sensitivity is what it is. So using different ASA ratings just changes the output level to the monitor, plus you have the option of opening up the shots in Redcine / RedAlert at the ASA rating you selected so they come up at the correct exposure (though you may want to open them up at a lower ASA setting and then use gamma curves while correcting the brightness in post to preserve the dynamic range recorded.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top