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

Hey David,

My question has to do with action cinematography and first time directors. I will be directing my first martial arts/action film and we have a seasoned, well experienced action DP on board. Before I sit down and start working out logistics with him, I am wondering, from a DP's perspective, if there is anything specific I should look out for, read up on, prepare for etc.

I have a martial arts background, directed martial art shorts, and a have good relationship with the fight co-ordinator. But if you were a DP, working with a first time director, what things come to mind that make you say, "Damn, I wish this guy had prepped this, or knew this, etc. etc."

Thanks!
 
Once you have a strong grasp of the narrative flow of the script -- because a good action scene is still advancing the plot and emotions of the story -- you basically break it down from the macro to the micro, the big picture to the tiny details.

So don't just start jumping into the nitty-gritty with your DP without working out the basic visual design and look of the overall movie -- with the DP's and Production Designer's involvement.

I'd start by collecting reference material that you can share and discuss with others.

At some point, it gets down into the real details of how each scene might be shot, and it would help at this point to get the Assistant Director's involvement since it all has to work with the schedule.

On the other hand, keep in mind always that you are the director -- sometimes you have to fight to get your vision realized, even if it strains your schedule and budget. As long as you understand the consequences and know that you may have to rob Paul to pay Peter, so to speak. It's a give and take. But you don't have to roll over and do whatever makes everyone else happy; feel free to push people creatively do come up with better ideas and solutions. The important thing is to make them feel involved creatively, because then they will work harder and better for you -- if you merely dictate to them, they will start to shut-down creatively and not invest themselves emotionally in the outcome. Same goes for working with actors.
 
David, I tried searching for 'fog' but that's too small of a search.

When you do insert shots in a hazed room you mentioned using some sort of filter to help. I thought it was a Harrison Fog but can't find the post.

The application is I'm debating between trying to get a Fog set vs a Double Fog set, and I've repeatedly heard/read that contraire to the name, the regular Fog set is heavier than the DF
 
Shawn Nelson said:
David, I tried searching for 'fog' but that's too small of a search.

When you do insert shots in a hazed room you mentioned using some sort of filter to help. I thought it was a Harrison Fog but can't find the post.

The application is I'm debating between trying to get a Fog set vs a Double Fog set, and I've repeatedly heard/read that contraire to the name, the regular Fog set is heavier than the DF
Click to expand...

I use the Tiffen Smoque filter now -- if I couldn't find one, I'd use anything foggy, probably a Harrison Double Fog.

The Harrison Double Fog is a combination of a Low Con and a Fog, so it is less foggy -- but hazier, milkier -- than a fog filter. The idea was to get a foggy look but with a little less loss in sharpness.

Only thing to watch out for is that some filters can age over time and the plastic laminate can get milkier, making the filter look heavier. These days, you have to use the #1/8 and #1/4 strengths of Double Fog and Fog, much stronger and it's too stylized (it's amazing that so many of Geoffrey Unsworth's movies in the 1970's used the #2 Fog: Superman, Bridge Too Far, Murder on the Orient Express, etc.)
 
Cheers David, what are your thoughts about using anamorphic lenses vs standard lenses then cropping to the required 2.39 ratio?
Am gearing up to shoot a short requiring an 'epic' look (a la Sergio Leone) - the anamorphic kit is significantly more expensive than the standard kit and so am trying to work out the value of one over the other.
Thanks
 
Sergio Leone shot most of his widescreen movies in 2-perf Techniscope, which used spherical lenses. Basically the half-tall frame was naturally cropping a 35mm negative to 2.35 in-camera rather than in post.

The main technical advantage of anamorphic lenses in 35mm is that they allow the use of the full 4-perf height of the 35mm negative and thus use more negative area than Super-35 cropped to 2.40; thus the image is finer-grained, somewhat more detailed.

But this works because the 4-perf 35mm negative is roughly 4x3 and the anamorphic lens has a 2X squeeze.

So given that most anamorphic lenses have a 2X squeeze and most digital cameras have a 16x9 sensor, that creates a 3.56 : 1 image once unsqueezed (2 x 1.78). So you end up cropping the sides to get back to 2.40, negating any resolution advantage compared to using spherical lenses on a 16x9 camera and cropping the top & bottom to get to 2.40.

At that point, the only reason to use anamorphic lenses is because of the unusual anamorphic optical artifacts that occur when shooting at wider f-stops: the stretched bokeh, the blue horizontal flares, etc. Optically, the spherical lensed image would be better.

On the Red One, for example, using a 2X anamorphic lens gives you more or less a 2.8K image even when shooting in 4K mode because you end up cropping the sides (in ANA mode, the camera does the side crop for you).

So if your main goal is simply a 2.40 image, just use good spherical lenses and crop. Anamorphic lenses are more expensive to rent, and generally larger, heavier, slower, don't have the greatest minimum object distance, and plus have the host of anamorphic optical artifacts to deal with.

Now there are some hard-to-find 1.3X anamorphic lenses made by Hawk which are the correct squeeze to fill a 16x9 sensor with a 2.40 image. They may produce a "better" 2.40 image therefore, at least, one that uses more pixels and thus may look "smoother". But I've never tested them so I can't say they are worth the effort.

I'd only use regular anamorphic lenses on a Red One or other 16x9 sensor camera if I wanted those odd lens artifacts.
 
Hi Dave, this might have been covered, but I did not want to comb through 267 pages of questions to find out. A search turned up nothing, so I hope this is not a repeated question.

I have used the RED camera once and will be using it shortly for some wooded exteriors. I know the problem with regular video camera of having those very bright over exposed hot spots all over the ground. I heard that the RED is a bit better, but there is something you can do within the camera to soften these. Is this true??? I read it somewhere a while back and can't seam to find anything on this.

Thanks

-Mike-
 
You can't really increase the dynamic range of the sensor beyond whatever it is capable of, and assuming your post path will preserve the full range recorded in RAW, the alternative is to decrease the dynamic range of the subject.

There is no single trick. The best thing is to avoid camera angles and subjects with extreme contrast unless you are willing to go for a stylized effect, like a silhouette. This includes avoiding having your actors wear black or white. The second thing is to darken bright highlights on the subject by flying silks or nets overhead. The third thing is the brighten dark shadows by adding fill, either by bouncing sunlight or adding lights. The fourth may be to use contrast-lowering filters like DigiCons and UltraCons, but these have a limited effect.

Also, use Polas to reduce hot glaring areas and ND grads in static shots to darken parts of the frame.

Try to shoot in backlight because it limits your hots spots to edges on objects and makes more of the frame in the shadow side, rather than fall into spotty front lighting.
 
RE: Anamorphic lenses
Thanks David, you've just saved me $700. Much appreciated information as is the quick reply.
Thanks again
 
David Mullen ASC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Michael Panfeld said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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/industrial_bctv/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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top