Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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

The windows were smaller than you think -- one parcan per window was enough (I believe they were actually 1.2K "firestarter" VSNP globes actually.)

Being on a low stand and bouncing up into a mirror on the ceiling and back down through the windows was enough spread to fill the window.

The bounce back from the backlight onto her face wasn't from a mirror, but a white card, whatever was small enough to hide behind the locker door (I think it was 2'x3'). For the close-ups, I swapped it to a 4'x4' card.
 
Hi David,

I've been handed a few scripts, I'm new to this whole film/cinematography thing and would like for when everything goes into production for the principle photography to run smoothly...

These are very basic questions, only two, both based on conversation, I was wondering when shooting with one camera, how would you go about shooting two people or more having a conversation, as in do you shoot mid/long shot for the whole scene then go back and do it with close ups on specific points or vice versa, and would you do it any differently with two cameras?

The second question is based on vehicles, I've noticed when shooting vehicle conversations it tends to seem like its done with a green screen and the only real shots are those when leaving and arriving on location, is this true?

Thanks a lot for your time and knowledge, :)
 
You would tend to shoot your widest shots first in order to establish the lighting of the scene, then move into closer on the general same angle/direction (more or less) if necessary or desired (there's no law saying you have to cover a scene conventionally, I'm just talking about lighting and camera).

Generally you always move in from wider shots to closer shots in the same general angle in order to avoid changing the lighting too much (as opposed to returning to the same direction after clearing out the lighting to do a reverse angle.) You're trying to be efficient.

You would therefore generally light and shoot the "master" angle and then the close-up that would naturally be the closest to being from the master direction. Though there are exceptions, for really emotional scenes, you have to decide when you want to get into shooting the close-ups if the actors are going to cry, etc. Some actors may want to "warm up" by doing the wider coverage first, some may want to start with the close-up and get it done first, though that's the least efficient way in terms of lighting and equipment.

Most car driving scenes are still done with car rigs (mounts, trailers, tow rigs, etc.) and moving vehicles, not process photography and post effects. Or sometimes are done "poor man's process" against black with moving lights for night driving down some deserted road.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
The windows were smaller than you think -- one parcan per window was enough (I believe they were actually 1.2K "firestarter" VSNP globes actually.)

Being on a low stand and bouncing up into a mirror on the ceiling and back down through the windows was enough spread to fill the window.

The bounce back from the backlight onto her face wasn't from a mirror, but a white card, whatever was small enough to hide behind the locker door (I think it was 2'x3'). For the close-ups, I swapped it to a 4'x4' card.
Click to expand...

Oh, I get it, I was mis-reading your original post thinking the mirror card for her. Now it makes sense. So what was the purpose of bouncing the Parcans through the windows instead of just directly shining them? The beams seem pretty sharp, so I can only think the purpose would be to get the angle and intensity right (otherwise you'd have to have the Parcans up high and far away)
 
Michael Epple said:
He said earlier that it was because there wasn't enough height in the other room to fit the par cans in at the right angle. Bouncing through a mirror also gives you a sharper edge, at least if you fill the mirror.
Click to expand...

d'oh! now I see it, makes sense. Thanks Michael.

And thanks David for the thorough description of the scene, it'd be amazing if you did this sometime for a DVD special feature
 
Back to the screen grabs Shawn posted, how did you accomplish the faint glints of light off of Megan Fox's lower lip in the first grab (her face is against the doorway)? I thought it could be your Kamio-6 eyelight, but then noticed the three lights on the left are in a straight line, the three on the right in a triangle formation. Is this just from Megan turning her head in the scene?

However you managed it, I thought it really made the scene pop. Even in the trailer, where the glints weren't as noticeable as a still shot, it still heightened the tone tremendously.

Also, I agree with the other posters here that you deserve a DVD commentary opportunity. You give so much advice freely, but you really deserve to receive some sort of recompense for your knowledge. Perhaps we could send a few messages via snail mail and e-mail to someone in order demonstrate how valued your commentary track would be?
 
As I said, the light was pretty frontal in that shot -- a hard frontal key through a pattern to break it up and texture it, and the Kamio fill/eye light. So it's not surprising that the wet lips picked up some light. She buries her head in Needy's neck for a moment, so I wanted to make sure that her teeth caught some light even with all of that blockage of hair, shoulders, etc. In post, I had to create a little Power Window on the mouth to see that action, brighten that area up a little.
 
David, where do you think one should draw the line when critiquing a film that they watch in the theaters? How much of it is the DoP and how much of it is credit to the colorist?

I mean, i think the two are inseparable. A good DP stuck with a bad colorist can end up with a pretty ordinary looking film and visa versa. You need well exposed images to start grading and you can drive them pretty far in collaboration with the DPs and their vision and the colorists creativity.

I have full respect for all the DP's out there who do some incredible work, but i also feel that without a colorist in this day and age, their images end up looking pretty ordinary and not as polished as they do now a days.

Having said that, why arent colorists awarded things at the Oscars or other major awards then and recognized for their work?

Probably one of the more odd questions you've been asked in this thread, but would love to hear your views.

Thanks!
 
I can usually separate the lighting from the post color-correcting work when judging a movie. You can't really relight a face in post other than in minor or often unnatural / artificial ways. Sure the post matters a lot, but you can generally tell the quality of what they were working with -- it's still garbage in, garbage out.
 
mithundsouza said:
A good DP stuck with a bad colorist can end up with a pretty ordinary looking film and visa versa...
I have full respect for all the DP's out there who do some incredible work, but i also feel that without a colorist in this day and age, their images end up looking pretty ordinary and not as polished as they do now a days.
Click to expand...

Nobody who is a "bad colorist" gets to the position of being a DI colorist on a major feature. In almost all cases, if questionable choices are made, it's not the colorist who made them. Having said that, I agree that a really creative colorist certainly brings something to the table. But the ones in charge of the look of the picture are the director of photography, the director of the picture, and on occasion a producer. While a colorist might certainly make a major contribution, it is not usually the colorist's call. However, anyone who is sitting in that chair on a studio or other reasonably budgeted feature with name talent has experience and talent that has been developed and demonstrated over a period of time and most certainly knows what they are doing. They have earned their position. In the world of serious DI work, there are the "elite" colorists, and there are the very good colorists. There are none below that.

I say that as someone who has spent a good portion of his career being a colorist.
 
David, I didn't mean for it to sound like I was asking if you operated a large part of your films. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I am curious to see if you sometimes feel like grabbing the wheel and go for it. Even if you don't I wonder if you think it is a bad idea or not. Thanks.
 
Well the thread is titled "Ask David Mullen ANYTHING" !

David

Enjoy these shots (and they are just shots)..

http://vimeo.com/5917230

Considering that they are made with a Canon 5d and 'cheap' kit that is light enough not to incur excess bagage fees

Consider also there was no crew (I even pull my own focus) and therefore no crew cost, or hotel bills etc

How can I access a market for those commissioners who will appreciate a dynamic and hopefully comparatively cinematic look on a micro budget?

SMM

ps. on price Im not talking lowball just small crew
pps. this is a serious question about budget crew size and the implications for the industry terms of need for light crew etc in the age of 'fast ISO' large sensors
 
Which light meter would you advice I get? I'm just now discovering I love to light more than I like to direct. Although I do use the histograms I guess a light meter will help me be more precise. Thanks as always.
 
I have a Minolta and (electronic) Spectra Pro incident meter and a Minolta spot meter. They all work fine. There is a Sekonic incident / spot combo meter too. I spent years working with just an incident meter before I could afford to buy a spot meter, so individually they are cheaper but the combo meter does both so you just have to decide how much money you want to spend.
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
David, I didn't mean for it to sound like I was asking if you operated a large part of your films. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I am curious to see if you sometimes feel like grabbing the wheel and go for it. Even if you don't I wonder if you think it is a bad idea or not. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I like to operate on a rehearsal with stand-ins to get a feel for the shot, the view of the lens and how hard it will be to operate... but then I hand it over to the operators. On rare occasion after lining up a quick shot on the camera, I decide to just shoot it myself -- like when lining up an insert or something, or a wide landscape shot.

I like using a lens finder a lot these days to line-up shots.
 
Thank you very much David.

Have you tried Steadicam operation for the same reasons you speak of here? Perhaps taken a class?

David Mullen ASC said:
I like to operate on a rehearsal with stand-ins to get a feel for the shot, the view of the lens and how hard it will be to operate... but then I hand it over to the operators. On rare occasion after lining up a quick shot on the camera, I decide to just shoot it myself -- like when lining up an insert or something, or a wide landscape shot.

I like using a lens finder a lot these days to line-up shots.
Click to expand...
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I have a Minolta and (electronic) Spectra Pro incident meter and a Minolta spot meter. They all work fine. There is a Sekonic incident / spot combo meter too. I spent years working with just an incident meter before I could afford to buy a spot meter, so individually they are cheaper but the combo meter does both so you just have to decide how much money you want to spend.
Click to expand...
Thanks David.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top