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

Jamie Havill said:
David,

My DP has said he would prefer not to use Zeiss T1.3 (MK3's) lenses with Red on our next short, as they look plasticy, and don't yield an organic image. I just wondered what your thoughts are on this.
Click to expand...

That just comes down to a matter of taste. Maybe he doesn't like the whole Zeiss look in general, I don't know.

My only beef with the SuperSpeeds is that they get a bit mushy below f/2.0.

I'm not sure how a lens can or can't make an image look "organic" though; he'd have to define that term. Usually that word is applied to digital images in general when they are too clean and sharp, but considering SuperSpeeds are only sharp at f/2.8 and deeper, I'm not sure that's what he's referring to.

Zeiss lenses are also on the cool and contrasty side; some people prefer the warmer and less contrasty look of Cookes. Primo/Leitz is somewhere in the middle, in that they are rather neutral. We're talking about fairly subtle differences though except to lens connoisseur.

But one can certainly make a movie shot on Zeiss lenses look warm, low-contrast, and soft... with the right lighting, filtration and timing in post.

I suppose your DP perhaps is one of those people who think Zeiss lenses on a digital camera is not a good combination because both produce rather clean, hard, sharp, clear images. But that's just a guess.

I'm a little more of the school that I can always make any lens softer, but I can't make it sharper.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
That just comes down to a matter of taste. Maybe he doesn't like the whole Zeiss look in general, I don't know.

My only beef with the SuperSpeeds is that they get a bit mushy below f/2.0.

I'm not sure how a lens can or can't make an image look "organic" though; he'd have to define that term. Usually that word is applied to digital images in general when they are too clean and sharp, but considering SuperSpeeds are only sharp at f/2.8 and deeper, I'm not sure that's what he's referring to.

Zeiss lenses are also on the cool and contrasty side; some people prefer the warmer and less contrasty look of Cookes. Primo/Leitz is somewhere in the middle, in that they are rather neutral. We're talking about fairly subtle differences though except to lens connoisseur.

But one can certainly make a movie shot on Zeiss lenses look warm, low-contrast, and soft... with the right lighting, filtration and timing in post.

I suppose your DP perhaps is one of those people who think Zeiss lenses on a digital camera is not a good combination because both produce rather clean, hard, sharp, clear images. But that's just a guess.

I'm a little more of the school that I can always make any lens softer, but I can't make it sharper.
Click to expand...

Hi David,

I originally was going to DP the short myself, but after it just kept growing and growing in size I bought on a DP who's work I really liked the look of. He own's a set of older Cooke Speed Panchro's which I've never had experience with, so I have planned to order a set of Zeiss's with the camera rental.

He has said himself, he prefers the look of the Cooke's. My only concern is that they might be a bit too soft, and I'm keen to go with something I know and trust. He suggested the Red Pro Primes (he shot a few music videos with them and was really impressed), but I can't find them anywhere around where we are based.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
So if the difference between S35 and FF35 is 1.5X, then it's also a 1.5-stop difference in practical depth of field once you match field of view, at the same distance to the subject.
Click to expand...

Minor correction: 1.5X is a 1.17-stop difference, not 1.5 stops. In the case of S35/FF35, that's an error of only 1/3 stop, but for other factors the error would be more significant. To convert the size factor (1.5X) into the number of stops, use the formula log_2(factor) * 2. Another (easier) way to handle the difference is to multiply the f-number by the size factor. f/4 * 1.5X = f/6.0.

David Mullen ASC said:
The f-stop is the f-stop, it doesn't change when the lens is put on different cameras with different sized sensors.
Click to expand...

This might be obvious from David's posts, but I'd like to add that the same is true of focal length: the focal length doesn't change when the lens is put on different cameras with different sized sensors. I often see people ascribing advantages to smaller formats that do not exist because they only apply the size factor to focal length but not f-number in comparisons.

For example, some mistakenly say that when you put a 57mm f/2.8 lens on a 1/3" (one-chip), it becomes equivalent to a 400mm f/2.8 on FF35. But it is wrong to apply the size factor to one element (focal length) and not the other (f-number). It can mislead some into thinking the smaller format with faster f-numbers has advantages in low light (or in DOF or in other areas) when it does not.

All of the most important factors scale in this way: depth of field, total amount of light, diffraction, etc. In reality, the 57mm f/2.8 on 1/3" is only equivalent to a 400mm f/19.6 on FF35. A while ago I did a demonstration of this scaling principle.
 
Daniel Browning said:
Minor correction: 1.5X is a 1.17-stop difference, not 1.5 stops.
Click to expand...

As I said, it's a rough guide. Besides, it's hard to see a 1/3-stop difference in depth of field when applied.

I've never been someone who even understands some of the obsession over getting exact depth of field figures not even for different formats, but different lenses of the same focal lengths on the same format.

To me, since one of the mitigating factors is the Circle of Confusion, which is partly based partly on the notion of when a point starts to look like a circle, or vice-versa, and how critical a figure you choose to work with is based on degree of enlargement / viewing size & distance, all of which are variable... anyway, it strikes me as not being particularly an exact science from a shooting point of view, i.e. making movies. It perhaps matters more when doing CGI effects, etc., I don't know.

So many camera assistants of mine over the years have over-relied on DOF charts, trying to split focus between two objects or see if their focus mistake will be noticed, etc. My belief in general is that only one thing is really in focus at a time -- I don't believe in "holding splits". The only exceptions are when doing a wide-angle shot where you just pre-set a focus and run around with the camera without a focus-puller, and in doing a super-deep focus shot where you basically find a focus point where most of what you want looks reasonably sharp. Otherwise, when depth of field starts to get shallow, it's better to decide what you want to be in sharp focus than relying on a chart to tell you that you can hold two objects simultaneously in focus.

Especially with digital camera and their increased clarity and higher MTF, you can really see where the focus is set.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Especially with digital camera and their increased clarity and higher MTF, you can really see where the focus is set.
Click to expand...

Even on film I hate it when an assistant uses a split with movement, the shot looses energy IMO, I think the brain sees the subtle difference.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
So many camera assistants of mine over the years have over-relied on DOF charts, trying to split focus between two objects or see if their focus mistake will be noticed, etc. My belief in general is that only one thing is really in focus at a time -- I don't believe in "holding splits"... ...when depth of field starts to get shallow, it's better to decide what you want to be in sharp focus than relying on a chart to tell you that you can hold two objects simultaneously in focus.
Click to expand...

I completely agree... I even find the language difficult. Saying '...you can hold two objects simultaneously in focus' troubles me and it is often said. I accept that is is very often necessary to decided 'how soft can we get away with'!

Working with the Red I have been very interested in what softness is acceptable and what is not. I basically feel it is so subject dependant that it always need a coherent but subjective call.

regards

Michael
 
The thing is, keeping two people at different distances in focus is based on the accepted circle of confusion of the given medium and not just on "eh, good enough." So using a focus chart with good sharp calibrated lenses and normal film stock should result in entirely acceptable and, more importantly, repeatable results. Even if you're only going to hold split focus for very wide shots or when you're stopped down or something, there's still a best place to focus to get everything you need sharp and it's not simply on one subject or the other.

Digital does change the circle of confusion to something apparently much smaller (the size of a photo site maybe) and more amorphous because it also changes as you scale resolution ("4k"/2k/1080p) and adjust sharpness or even debayering algorithm. The lack of noise in digital decreases perceived acutance, whereas film has very nice grain built in that kind of covers for that and should add sharpness to anything remotely in focus, which is especially helpful since you're more likely to use a shallower stop on 500ISO film than 50ISO. So pulling focus on digital is certainly different from film and maybe holding splits on digital is a bad idea in general.

Thankfully I'm using an hv30. Ha. Keeps it simple.
 
Even in a wide shot, I prefer if the camera assistant actually focused on something in the frame rather than the empty space between subjects. On the other hand, it's usually less critical one way or the other if there is enough depth of field and objects are small in frame.
 
Hi David,

I wondered if you have any thoughts about lighting subjects in a space where there is no motivated light, like in a cave with no flashlights. Obviously in reality it would be pitch black, but for the purposes of filming, what and how would you consider cheating in to illuminate the actors?

Many Thanks,

John
 
Most of the time, you try to add a practical source if the characters are supposed to see something, not pitch-blackness. So maybe they have a flashlight or just a match or something. Or you assume that if the characters can see without a practical, there must be some sort of light leaking in from another space.

But if it really was a sealed, windowless space with no light source and would be absolutely black in real life and yet the audience and the characters are supposed to see something...

The usual trick is to add a very dim soft ambient light as an overall base, very murky. Now this usually works better when there will be a light source coming on in the shot, like a match, to provide some contrast and a highlight in the frame. If the murky flat look is not attractive/appealing, you could augment it with some patches of unmotivated "moonlight", dim spots and raking light on objects as if there were an off-camera window or hole in the cave, etc. Audiences accept sketched-in, patchy moonlighting even in spaces like a cave where it wouldn't happen. But that's a real cheat from a realism standpoint, hence why it's better if you can at least add a small practical source, otherwise the lighting is either going to be very, very dim and murky to feel believable, or it's going to be brighter to see what's going on, and to see the actor's expressions, and then some viewers will wonder where all the light is coming from.

You also have to figure that a very dim scene works fine in a big movie theater because the screen is still the brightest thing in your line of sight, but less well at home on a TV set where you have other light sources competing for attention. This is one reason day-for-night scenes are usually brightened for television.
 
Ambassador, you posted in the wrong place, try workflow.

2nd, you need to have your real name as your user name
 
David Mullen ASC said:
and then some viewers will wonder where all the light is coming from.
Click to expand...

David, that got me thinking. Do you light the scene with the intended audience in mind (i.e., with marketing implications) or with the director's and your vision in mind (i.e., a purely creative persepective)?

If the former, how has the increasing sophistication of audiences over the course of your career changed the way you light for them? And yes, I realize that you could probably teach an entire course on that topic, so I am looking for a forum-length answer.

Cheers
 
Michael Panfeld said:
David, that got me thinking. Do you light the scene with the intended audience in mind (i.e., with marketing implications) or with the director's and your vision in mind (i.e., a purely creative persepective)?

If the former, how has the increasing sophistication of audiences over the course of your career changed the way you light for them? And yes, I realize that you could probably teach an entire course on that topic, so I am looking for a forum-length answer.

Cheers
Click to expand...

I don't think in marketing terms, but narrative filmmaking is an act of communication, so to become an effective communicator, the cinematographer and director think in terms of viewer reaction, not for any crass commercial reasons either; it's simply that the purpose of filmmaking is to cause aesthetic pleasure, emotional involvement and intellectual enlightenment in an audience.

Having said that, the goal is generally to create a finished work with visual structure and artistic consistency and integrity, whether or not every member of the audience appreciates the effort. We're artists after all: we work to please our own sensibilities (and maintain or surpass our own personal standards) and hope that other people out there have similar sensibilities. I can only hope that the satisfaction I get in capturing a certain quality of light in a room will be satisfying as well to some viewers out there as well.

We're paid to be experts -- the audience expects us to care so they don't have to, they can just enjoy the fruits of our labor. And we wouldn't be doing our jobs properly if we merely took a scattershot approach to tickling the audience's fancy and pushing their buttons; we have to deliver a finished product that works from head to toe as best as we can. That's where directorial vision comes in handy, so that the work is not just a random collection of different people's artistic contribution but all serves a common goal.

I don't know if viewers are more sophisticated than they used to be, but they may have higher expectations in certain areas, and they may get bored more easily than they used to.

But in terms of what lighting effects they find more realistic or plausible than another, someone once said that one generation's realism looks like artifice to the next generation. Ultimately realism can be just as much an artificial or contrived style as any other you might choose, especially if what you call "realism" is just a parody of documentary, news, or reality television shooting techniques.

But if you have decided that the overall goal of the photography is naturalistic, it does require that you consider whether a lighting effect being used is logically motivated or at least can plausibly come from a source not seen in the room. On the other hand, if a lighting effect is psychologically motivated, it is often accepted by the viewer, since the fictional narrative experience is often more emotionally "real" than it is actually "real". We don't actually believe that the main character is being menaced by vampires or aliens, for example, but while watching the movie, we have to feel that they are.

In other words, what's emotionally true is more important than what is real.
 
Can you give more information on these Chinese Lanterns you mention? I can't find exactly what you mean, and any lantern I've seen has really inconsistent light. Are you referring to something specific?
 
I hope this hasn't been asked. I did several searches but nothing came up so I think I'm safe!

Do you have any idea what the exact lenses Robert Yeoman uses on Wes Anderson's films... and are these lenses usable on a RED?

Thank you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top