Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[Tai Wah Lim]

If you are framing for 2.40, there is no difference in resolution between 4K 16:9 and 2:1 modes because the horizontal resolution is 4096 pixels either way. 16:9 just has more vertical info/resolution, but that extra area would not be used for the theatrical 2.40 version, just any full-frame HDTV version, and in that case, I'm not sure you'll see a big difference once you downrez from 4K to HD (compared to cropping a 2:1 4K master down to 16:9 HD).

If I were shooting a 1.85 movie, I'd definitely shoot 4K 16:9 mode. For a 2.40 movie, I'd probably still shoot 16:9 mode now just to have more info in case I need to reframe a shot, or to make the full-frame HD version easier to make.

David,

Thanks for getting back so quickly.

You are always an invaluable source for information in the Red Forum

Lim

 

[Harry Lipnick]

If you are framing for 2.40, there is no difference in resolution between 4K 16:9 and 2:1 modes because the horizontal resolution is 4096 pixels either way. 16:9 just has more vertical info/resolution, but that extra area would not be used for the theatrical 2.40 version, just any full-frame HDTV version, and in that case, I'm not sure you'll see a big difference once you downrez from 4K to HD (compared to cropping a 2:1 4K master down to 16:9 HD).

If I were shooting a 1.85 movie, I'd definitely shoot 4K 16:9 mode. For a 2.40 movie, I'd probably still shoot 16:9 mode now just to have more info in case I need to reframe a shot, or to make the full-frame HD version easier to make.

So does this mean that most of your films now are going to DVD (and BluRay, etc.) with a taller frame than the original theatrical composition? I always though that for the most part (though I've heard of exception like James Cameron, etc.) the 16x9 home video frame would be a center crop out of the 2:35 frame. It just seems like it would be easier to protect for 1.78 within the 2.35 frame rather than a bigger version outside of it. Care to enlighten? Thanks a ton.
Peace,

-Harry

 

[David Mullen ASC]

There are still markets that don't want letterboxed footage, so you need to make 16x9 and 4x3 full-frame versions of every movie even if it was composed for 2.40. Of course, most DVD/Blu-Ray versions will have the theatrical framing on them, but what gets broadcast on an HDTV movie channel, for example, may be 16x9 full-frame.

If you shot 2.40 anamorphic on a 4-perf 35mm camera, then you don't have any choice but to extract 16x9 and 4x3 from inside 2.40 -- "panning and scanning". This makes holding important information at opposite ends of the 2.40 frame impossible.

So generally it's considered easier to work with a taller recording and have to do less horizontal panning & scanning, assuming that you protected the area outside of 2.40 for use for home video.

No one shoots 2.40 theatrical, on the other hand, and protects the composition for extracting 16x9 from the center of 2.40 -- that would lead to some really boring theatrical framing. What's the point of shooting a 2.40 movie for the big screen but framing it for 16x9? You might as well have shot the movie in 1.85. The entire point of 2.40 is to feel the expansiveness of the wider frame, to USE it.

One of the best ways though to protect for 16x9 is to shoot and record 16x9, compose for 2.40, protect the 16x9 full-frame... but have the 2.40 framelines lifted near the top, not center-extract. This allows you to have similar headroom between 2.40 and 16x9 broadcast (which can be 10% cropped from 16x9 transmitted due to overscan). Then you have an easier time protecting the area above the actors' heads, the sound man can get the mic closer to the actors if booming from above, and you just have more dead space at the bottom of the frame to protect for 16x9.

Panavision has a 3-perf (16x9) 35mm groundglass with 2.40 near common-top that they call the Fincher GroundGlass since it was made for "Panic Room":

The trouble with center extraction for 2.40 from inside 16x9 is that the headroom looks too loose in 16x9 full-frame for TV and you end up zooming in slightly and tilting the image to get rid of the excess headroom, thus losing the sides, which sort of defeats the purpose.

 

[Martin Stevens]

David,

Are you planning on writing a "Cinematographer's Secrets Revealed" book? I would love to have such a book. Perhaps you could use most of what you have already written here, but make it indexed etc.

Martin

 

[Derek Aspenberg]

Wow, I just spent a month reading this thread from page 1. Thanks so much for all the advice. This forum really is a great recourse for up and coming cinematographers. And I think we all appreciate the amount of time you've put into it. Thanks!

 

[SF Geek]

There are still markets that don't want letterboxed footage, so you need to make 16x9 and 4x3 full-frame versions of every movie even if it was composed for 2.40. Of course, most DVD/Blu-Ray versions will have the theatrical framing on them, but what gets broadcast on an HDTV movie channel, for example, may be 16x9 full-frame.

If you shot 2.40 anamorphic on a 4-perf 35mm camera, then you don't have any choice but to extract 16x9 and 4x3 from inside 2.40 -- "panning and scanning". This makes holding important information at opposite ends of the 2.40 frame impossible.

So generally it's considered easier to work with a taller recording and have to do less horizontal panning & scanning, assuming that you protected the area outside of 2.40 for use for home video.

No one shoots 2.40 theatrical, on the other hand, and protects the composition for extracting 16x9 from the center of 2.40 -- that would lead to some really boring theatrical framing. What's the point of shooting a 2.40 movie for the big screen but framing it for 16x9? You might as well have shot the movie in 1.85. The entire point of 2.40 is to feel the expansiveness of the wider frame, to USE it.

One of the best ways though to protect for 16x9 is to shoot and record 16x9, compose for 2.40, protect the 16x9 full-frame... but have the 2.40 framelines lifted near the top, not center-extract. This allows you to have similar headroom between 2.40 and 16x9 broadcast (which can be 10% cropped from 16x9 transmitted due to overscan). Then you have an easier time protecting the area above the actors' heads, the sound man can get the mic closer to the actors if booming from above, and you just have more dead space at the bottom of the frame to protect for 16x9.

Panavision has a 3-perf (16x9) 35mm groundglass with 2.40 near common-top that they call the Fincher GroundGlass since it was made for "Panic Room":

The trouble with center extraction for 2.40 from inside 16x9 is that the headroom looks too loose in 16x9 full-frame for TV and you end up zooming in slightly and tilting the image to get rid of the excess headroom, thus losing the sides, which sort of defeats the purpose.

Great tip David. I didn't think of that. I'll just move my 2.40 framelines up to have comparable headroom.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Try to make sure ALL your footage is framed the same way, and to shoot a FRAMING CHART with the crop marks matching your viewfinder guides, and put that chart at the head of each reel of the edited project until final mastering, and then keep it handy as a reference.

Lack of a framing chart has caused more problems in post than people realize, if they are shooting in a format that requires cropping to achieve the final composition.

I don't know which digital cameras allow you to move 2.40 framelines up or down, etc. When I shot my two RED movies, I was recording 2:1 so I just did a 2.40 center extraction since it was not a big difference. If I had been recording 16:9, I would have looked into moving the 2.40 framelines higher than center if possible.

 

[Harry Clark]

You could do it with a User Box in a Panasonic camera. Red now has this ability as well.
Cheers,
Harry

 

[SF Geek]

You could do it with a User Box in a Panasonic camera. Red now has this ability as well.
Cheers,
Harry

That's right. David, do you know where I could find a framing chart like that? I guess I would have to set my user frame guides to the framing chart. I guess I could also just note and tell the post guy what the vertical offset would be. Obviously this is specific to the red.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

You can just draw one on some poster board. Point the camera at a white card and mark the corners of the viewfinder frames with a Sharpie (it's perhaps easier with two people, or by putting a monitor right next to the card so you can easily look back and forth), then fill in the lines with the marker. Then shoot the chart.

Or if you are sure your aspect ratios / proportions are correct, you can generate the chart first on your computer, print it out, and then line-up the camera's framelines to it, then shoot it. It's even easier if you can adjust the framelines that the camera generates until it lines up with the chart.

Try drawing a 16x9 box on your computer with a 2.39 : 1 box inside of that, almost sharing the same sides, but the 2.39 box is raised so that there is only a small gap between the top of the 2.39 box and the 16x9 box. Print that out and match it to your camera's 16x9 framelines, then hopefully you can adjust your 2.39 lines to match.

 

[marasco ivan]

hi david,
today is an orrible day for my professionality and for my mental sanity.the most bad thing that can happen is working with a stupid director and with a producer with no money and with not very good teams.my gaffer is not my friends but a friends of the producer so he doesn't help me really in the decisions and solutions .
on sunday i have to shoot a musicvideo for a famouse songer(in italy).
we have only 6 hours for shooting a lot of sequence including greenscreen,and a sequence with a fading between one light ambient to another.
we have to shoot with canon 5d markII
the director always shoot with exteme wideangle and is always impossible to know what and in which mode he want to shoot(wich angle-wich focal lens etc).he is a director that when is in hurry take the camera on his hand and shoot in every place of the room.we have to shoot in an office room(not very beautiful,is small with orrible walls and parquet ).in the room there will be 8 peoples .the director wants the light from the windows.we don't need genny.the office has many kw.but the production with the gaffer don't want to spend time to use light outside the windows and gelling the windows even if it is the only place(there is only a door in the room.i cannot use light inside the room becouse the directore is a very stupid wideangle man and becouse we don't have time to change the light every time.also no Kino above the window .GAFFER doesn't want to work too much .tomorrow i have to give the list of my lights to the producer.i have 15 hours to think to another lighting solution.
sorry david.but this is only a vent.
but i'm curious about your reaction reading this message.also a suggestion.
best regards
ivan

 

[David Mullen ASC]

This too shall pass...

Don't know enough details to give you any lighting ideas, just that the director and you have to communicate more if possible. As for the gaffer, he works for you even if he was hired by the producer. Just be firm with him, but listen to him as well.

With such a wide-angle lens, it sounds like you should be dressing the set with real practical sources that can do some lighting for you, and use available light too.

 

[marasco ivan]

thanks david.
but the situation is really bad.i havee changed for three times my lighting plans becouse the producer didin't approve it(very simple and efficent plans for the song).two hours ago the producer have telephoned me againg.now i have to change again and i have 15 hours and for the director this is not a very big prolem.his answer was:i will do better in postproduction.
thanks again ,david.
i hope one day to meet professional and human people like you.

 

[Harry Lipnick]

There are still markets that don't want letterboxed footage, so you need to make 16x9 and 4x3 full-frame versions of every movie even if it was composed for 2.40. Of course, most DVD/Blu-Ray versions will have the theatrical framing on them, but what gets broadcast on an HDTV movie channel, for example, may be 16x9 full-frame.

If you shot 2.40 anamorphic on a 4-perf 35mm camera, then you don't have any choice but to extract 16x9 and 4x3 from inside 2.40 -- "panning and scanning". This makes holding important information at opposite ends of the 2.40 frame impossible.

So generally it's considered easier to work with a taller recording and have to do less horizontal panning & scanning, assuming that you protected the area outside of 2.40 for use for home video.

No one shoots 2.40 theatrical, on the other hand, and protects the composition for extracting 16x9 from the center of 2.40 -- that would lead to some really boring theatrical framing. What's the point of shooting a 2.40 movie for the big screen but framing it for 16x9? You might as well have shot the movie in 1.85. The entire point of 2.40 is to feel the expansiveness of the wider frame, to USE it.

One of the best ways though to protect for 16x9 is to shoot and record 16x9, compose for 2.40, protect the 16x9 full-frame... but have the 2.40 framelines lifted near the top, not center-extract. This allows you to have similar headroom between 2.40 and 16x9 broadcast (which can be 10% cropped from 16x9 transmitted due to overscan). Then you have an easier time protecting the area above the actors' heads, the sound man can get the mic closer to the actors if booming from above, and you just have more dead space at the bottom of the frame to protect for 16x9.

Panavision has a 3-perf (16x9) 35mm groundglass with 2.40 near common-top that they call the Fincher GroundGlass since it was made for "Panic Room":

The trouble with center extraction for 2.40 from inside 16x9 is that the headroom looks too loose in 16x9 full-frame for TV and you end up zooming in slightly and tilting the image to get rid of the excess headroom, thus losing the sides, which sort of defeats the purpose.

David, thanks so much. That's incredibly helpful. I know everyone's already said it, but I can't thank you enough for this thread. It's great. Have a good one man.
Peace,

-Harry

 

[SF Geek]

thanks david.
but the situation is really bad.i havee changed for three times my lighting plans becouse the producer didin't approve it(very simple and efficent plans for the song).two hours ago the producer have telephoned me againg.now i have to change again and i have 15 hours and for the director this is not a very big prolem.his answer was:i will do better in postproduction.
thanks again ,david.
i hope one day to meet professional and human people like you.

Hi Shiny,

I'm not David Mullen, but I feel confident in saying that there's no secret he will be able to reveal to you that will make everything work. Do you only have a gaffer, one guy for lighting and grip? That might be why he's resistant to a large lighting setup. I you have only 6 hours do do a long/complicated scene, you should come up with the easiest, least labor intensive lighting setup you can. Don't underestimate the quality you can get from a good print in post.

Try and work with the director as much as possible. If you have to go along with ideas you think are stupid, do your best to make them the best you can with whatever you have. You have to pick your battles with them. You can't always be fighting or arguing. That relationship is more important than your lighting setup. You have to find a way to work it out.

 

[elena cuda]

hi mr mullen,
i have seen your film akeelah and the bee and now i'm writing to you about your suggestion to lighting people with real glasses and not reflect the light on it expecially when you are near the subject .
thanks

 

[David Mullen ASC]

It's a real problem, and you don't always succeed in not getting the reflections in the glasses. You see, you tend to light a face so that the eyes catch the light, but the best angle for that is also the best angle to catch a reflection in the glasses.

Sure you can use anti-reflection coatings and thus get a dull green reflection instead of a bright reflection, but it's still a reflection.

After that, your options are to move the light to a non-reflective angle but often that is also less good for lighting the eyes. You can raise the light for example, and tilt the glasses down slightly, then it only gets reflected if they look up too much. You also start to line-up the light with the corners of the eyeglasses where the sides begin, causing a faint shadow right over the eyeballs.

You can try flat lenses, which reflect horribly but only in a small direction. Normal curved lenses will reflect more of the room and thus catch the light more easily, but they also shrink the size of the reflection. Flat lenses see a more narrow portion of the room but when they do catch a reflection, it tends to be bigger. That can be useful for trick shots where you want a reflection in the glasses, like of a book or a TV screen.

I just did a movie where the main character wears glasses a lot of the time, and the producers didn't like any reflections at all, not even faint ones, so I ended up having to take out the lenses half the time, which looks OK sometimes, silly at other times. There were days when I went back to having glass in the eyeglasses and living with the occasional reflection because I felt that audiences were going to start to notice that her glasses didn't have glass in them. At least when a light is reflected in the eyeglasses, the audience knows that there is glass in the eyeglass frames.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

David, I'm looking at some Roger Deakins' diagrams here and I see that in some setups sometimes he bounces the light with a mirror (eg. He bounces a 7K onto a mirror to produce a hard sunlight coming through a window - according to the diagram).

What's the advantage of that? Does the mirror affect the light in any special way?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Martin Stevens]

David,

Are you planning on writing a "Cinematographer's Secrets Revealed" book? I would love to have such a book. Perhaps you could use most of what you have already written here, but make it indexed etc.

Martin

 

[David Mullen ASC]

No current plans to start one. Someday I'd like to write a book on "indie" cinematography, something aimed not at beginners, but more advanced shooters who are working on a small budget, basically about creating art with limited means. It would probably have a lot of interviews.