Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[Phil Jackson]

+1! And I got a lot of backtracking to do. I see a lot of new posts to read.

I don't think I see the shutter difference, or at least can't put my finger on what is different about it, although it does already feel a bit different to me as I get more discerning. Maybe the acceleration of the shutter will need to be replicated in the electronic swipe. Or recreate the softness of the edge. Both...

I would believe that with Graeme still plugging away feverishly, RED's color science will get to a point where reproduction is hard to tell apart even for us who look for it. Perhaps not for a while longer if you have eyes as experienced and adept as David's, but soon enough for you to Mr. Mullen. Hopefully soon enough dynamic range will also be matched, hopefully Mostro does the trick.

One thing's for sure, all us will get our turn to say film is de...

...finitely replicated beyond reasonable concern.

I guess my follow-up question to that would be, is that even the point? I'm not sure I understand this fascination with digital becoming film instead of standing on its own two feet as a capture medium (seems almost antithetical, digital emulating analog)? Why can't the two mediums co-exist? Certainly if the economics of digital are more advantageous that may become the overwhelming norm, but I guess I have a problem with the insistence that digital MUST replace film, or that the newer technology must replace the older even if the newer is not directly an evolution of the older. Kinda like insisting that water color technology usurp oil paintings.

Did photography make the workhorse use of painting for portraiture more or less obsolete? Yes. But it didn't replace painting as a way of illustrative expression. Electronic drums, guitars and keyboards all have found a place in the world that is every bit as equal as their acoustic counterparts, but it is just as acceptable to take a synthesizer on tour or in the studio as it is to play Carnegie Hall on a Steinway and economic models have developed to support both. Furthermore, the electronic technology is defined by its failure to sound convincingly acoustic. The electronic piano and guitar sound have become tools of their own.

Maybe the point isn't to try to emulate film 100%. This may never truly be possible to some eyes as there is always going to be some tweak. Today it's the shutter, resolution and dynamic range, tomorrow it'll be something else. That's not to say there shouldn't be a base level of competency for the medium but forty years later people are STILL tweaking electronic musical instruments (granted that revolution was much slower given the technology). For all the HD and Blu-Ray and surround sound and 65" LED displays, television still has not replaced the experience of being in the cinema, that's not the point, it functions as its own thing.

Right now the advantages of digital are that it's cheap, accessible and looks good enough. This is true of lots of digital technology, whether you're talking a 5DMKII or an MP3 player and its perfectly fine. But should these be the driving factors moving a technology forward (economics aside) especially in an artistic medium where it is important to understand the principles and fundamentals of why we do what we do? Why do we want smooth highlight rolloff in the first place? Why do we want sufficient latitude to not have to choose between highlights and shadows? Why 24fps? When James Cameron or Fincher wants to move into digital that is one thing, they are experts. I think part of the reason electronic musical instruments work so well is because, by and large, people are still taught acoustically, so there is an appreciation of the advantages and limitations of the new technology for everyone not just the experts. It is somewhat disenchanting for an entire new generation to be so ambitious to move forward (simply because the level of accessibility has changed) without understanding where they're at. Trying to emulate instead of create. I guess we will adapt.

David how do you feel about the point that RED, ALEXA, and all that come next should endeavor to create a new legacy of moving pictures and carve out a new path, rather than simply treading mindlessly over the established one (and I'm not saying that's what Jim Jannard's goal is)? This to me seems horribly dishonorable to the past, strengths or weaknesses of the medium aside, and lays the foundation for whatever digital's successor is to simply dismiss digital for the next newest thing. I guess to me arguments over whether digital or film is better are pointless. We know what film can do. The question is what can we elevate digital into?

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Phil, I don't want digital to be film, replace film, usurp film... I was trying to be humorous with that last bit.

What I want is digital to catch up in terms of color reproduction and dynamic range. Does that sound mindless?

 

[Phil Jackson]

Phil, I don't want digital to be film, replace film, usurp film... I was trying to be humorous with that last bit.

What I want is digital to catch up in terms of color reproduction and dynamic range. Does that sound mindless?

Not at all

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, it's not really so much anymore about emulating film as it is about improving digital. I'm sure there are plenty of digital still photographers shooting outside in daylight would like even more dynamic range, for both practical and creative reasons.

But should digital replace film, then ideally it would happen when we would be losing nothing in the process, only gaining something. As long as both co-exist, then we have some options for picking whatever works best, assuming we have the budget for film. But what's happening is a transition away from film, and we don't want to lose something beautiful in the process.

"Good enough" is fine as long as better options exist for those that need or want them, but I don't want "good enough" to be the best there is to choose from.

Why do we want bright areas in the frame to roll off gracefully to white rather than abruptly and prematurely? Because it looks a bit unnatural compared to how our eyes see things and it's not always visually attractive, that's the main reason. The other reason is that certain lighting styles really push the envelope in terms of contrast because a bright area is providing exposure for a dark area, so you can't darken the highlights while still retaining the same detail in the shadows.

You see the dilemma, right? If digital is only meant to augment film, then it should have its own aesthetics independent of film. But should it replace film, then you don't want to lose all the things we like about film, never to see them again, you want to retain some options.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

The other reason is that certain lighting styles really push the envelope in terms of contrast because a bright area is providing exposure for a dark area, so you can't darken the highlights while still retaining the same detail in the shadows.

This is the only thing that worries me, and being able to get a thick negative under thin conditions, meaning when the contrast we want to stretch out is packed thin. I see getting 15 stops as the right direction. Heck, give me a bit more! I'm sure there will be a use or two we can find.

The highlights should begin to roll off a lot more like our eyes see as we approach the film. Perhaps the silicone will never work the same way, but if we can capture the same DR with high bit-depth, then we can apply (custom!) curves after the fact and in-camera.

We should be getting a touch more DR real soon, with the added 0.5k of M-X in EPIC by ways of lower noise after downsampling. Maybe enough to match DR of Alexa.

 

[Francesco Bonomo]

You see the dilemma, right? If digital is only meant to augment film, then it should have its own aesthetics independent of film. But should it replace film, then you don't want to lose all the things we like about film, never to see them again, you want to retain some options.

Best post I've seen in a long time on this subject. Thank you, David!
Aside from aesthetic reasons we know so well, what's your opinion about the archiving value of film vs. long-term digital archiving? A couple of years ago there was an interesting article (I think in the NY Times) about the costs of digital archiving vs. "traditional" vaults where film is stored, and the digital option was about 10 times more expensive than film. I think it's something that is often underestimated, I'd love to hear your opinion on that.

 

[Richard Lowther]

David can I extend the golden hour?

David can I extend the golden hour?

Hi,
I am shooting a scene that will take at least 1.5 hours to shoot and we want the warm golden hour soft lighting look that only lasts for about 45 mins.
Am I on the right track to emulate the golden hour by doing the following:

1) Use a heavy shade cloth for the first 45 mins or so of our 90 min shoot such as bleached muslin.
2) Use large 12k HMIs with at least half CTO or staw in front of them.
3) shoot all HMIs through lots of defusion
4) Use 12x12 negative black around talent as much as possible to cut down on the bluer ambient light.

Any other input that may help will be greatly appreciated

Thanks
How to extend the golden 45 mins?
Hi,
I am shooting a scene that will take at least 1.5 hours to shoot and we want the warm golden hour soft lighting look that only lasts for about 45 mins.
Am I on the right track to emulate the golden hour by doing the following:

1) Use a heavy shade cloth for the first 45 mins or so of our 90 min shoot such as bleached muslin.
2) Use large 12k HMIs with at least half CTO or staw in front of them.
3) shoot all HMIs through lots of defusion
4) Use 12x12 negative black around talent as much as possible to cut down on the bluer ambient light.

Any other input that may help will be greatly appreciated

Thanks

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I actually think of Magic Hour as being blue-ish, not golden -- near sunset, on a clear day, you have a mix of a very warm hard sun and cooler blue skylight, so once the sun is gone, all you have is the cold skylight.

The only time that it is golden is on a semi-overcast day where the glow in the west as the sun is disappearing in the haze is very warm and that warm haze in the west is lighting the scene.

Sure, you can silk the real sun off and light them from the side with some softened warm lighting. But I'm not sure you need to kill the blue ambience in the shadows since that's natural at dusk.

 

[Richard Lowther]

Thank David ......as always you are a wealth of knowlege.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

David, do you tend to avoid using Kinos as a soft light source for lighting actor faces and instead favor diffused HMI? Anything related to CRI?

Not taking into consideration compatibility concerns.

I remember reading someone saying that he didn't like to gel tungstens, that the color always seemed off even after geled to 5600K, was that you who said this?

___


Another question of mine is about light positioning and how to achieve this particular kicker-light effect as seen more proeminently on the right side of his face:

I see that this light doesn't seem to affect any other element in the frame and maybe is even directioned slightly off-frame. His ear shadow gives away the light positioning, but I'm still unsure about what would be the right light for this effect.

Is it a small source like a small fresnel? Doesn't look too diffused to me, perhaps just a tiny bit...

I tried a few times to replicate this but never with satisfatory results.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I use Kinos all the time, particularly in daylight situations or blue-ish lighting (like moonlight); they mix well with HMI's and daylight... it's only the tungsten tubes that I feel don't match as well to tungsten bulbs, I try to not mix them in the sense that I won't have one actor lit with a Kino key and another with a tungsten key, but I would key with tungsten and fill with Kino, for example. Or do everything with Kinos.

Vertical Kinos work well as soft edge lights / kickers and they can look a bit crisp if it's just a bare tube -- I don't know if that's the case here in the "Avatar" frame though. But you see a lot of "Kino kickers" in a movie like "Crimson Tide" for example. A vertical tube would create a sharp shadow in one direction while also creating a slight sheen in the skin.

The posted shot could have been lit with Kinos depending on the distance, or with other lights.

 

[Max Link]

I actually think of Magic Hour as being blue-ish, not golden -- near sunset, on a clear day, you have a mix of a very warm hard sun and cooler blue skylight, so once the sun is gone, all you have is the cold skylight.

The only time that it is golden is on a semi-overcast day where the glow in the west as the sun is disappearing in the haze is very warm and that warm haze in the west is lighting the scene.

Sure, you can silk the real sun off and light them from the side with some softened warm lighting. But I'm not sure you need to kill the blue ambience in the shadows since that's natural at dusk.

David (and Richard, for that matter), I can't believe my luck that this came up! I find myself faced with the same dilemma (extending a low sun situation) and have been worrying about the cooler ambient... These are the moments when I love this forum! =)

 

[kay madsen]

shooting 4:3 aspect ratio

shooting 4:3 aspect ratio

Hi David,

I want to ask you for your advice. I´m shooting a feature project on 16mm and the director and I would like to use 4:3 aspect ratio. It´s a great format which lends itself to beautiful compositions, but nowadays most people have 16:9 tv sets and I´m concerned that especially in the U.S. they would end up thinking something´s wrong when they see the vertical letterboxing and just stretch the image to fill the whole screen and everything would get completely distorted. If you made the decision to shoot a project in 4:3, how would you go about making sure the viewer will see the image the way you intended it to be, on the big and on the small screen?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Hi David,

I want to ask you for your advice. I´m shooting a feature project on 16mm and the director and I would like to use 4:3 aspect ratio. It´s a great format which lends itself to beautiful compositions, but nowadays most people have 16:9 tv sets and I´m concerned that especially in the U.S. they would end up thinking something´s wrong when they see the vertical letterboxing and just stretch the image to fill the whole screen and everything would get completely distorted. If you made the decision to shoot a project in 4:3, how would you go about making sure the viewer will see the image the way you intended it to be, on the big and on the small screen?

Well, you can't really do anything about people with 16x9 TV sets having the wrong settings for the movie and stretching it out to fill 16x9.

You'd just have to make sure that 4x3 was pillarboxed in 16x9, there really isn't any other solution. People will do whatever they want to it after that.

Same goes for theatrical projection, it would have to have a 4x3 windowbox on the 35mm print so that the top & bottom of the box would fit within the 1.85 hard matte that the projector used. Some theaters would then bring in the curtains to hide the black borders on the sides, some won't or can't.

Unless you want to limit release to the few theaters that can shot 1.37 Academy. Or have enough headroom to survive if the 4x3 35mm print was cropped to 1.85 in some theaters.

 

[Jamie Havill]

Hi David,

I've been asked to shoot a two person interview, but the crux is I only have 30 minutes to get in and do it. I'm thinking just a simple 3 point lighting setup, using the biggest fixture as a key light, another to the back left as a backlight, and then diffusing another source and using it as fill, then switching this setup around for the other person and keeping everything to mid shots.

Is this what you'd recommend? Just be interested to hear what you might do in this situation.

Cheers, and all the best.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I might use Kinos, since they are soft without needing much grip support like diffusion frames. A 4' 4-bank Kino for key, a 2' 2-bank armed out for a soft edge or backlight, and another for fill, probably with diffusion on the barndoors.

Or Chimeras if you want to use tungsten lamps.

But the basic 3-point lighting is not a bad idea, just don't over do it -- I prefer that the backlight and fill be way knocked down so that it is mostly a single source look.

Sometimes you don't need fill, you just need a 4x4 white card on the opposite side from the key.

 

[Joe Shemesh]

Hi David,
Thanks so much for your invaluable input on this forum.........like so many others, I'd just like to express my gratitude!!!

I've got a shoot coming up that will require filming a number of computer screens, and am aware of some of the issues involved. I was under the impression that adjusting my settings in syncro-scan would alleviate these issues but on testing, I still find that I can't get rid of the related noise/flicker.

Would you have any suggestions?

best
joe

 

[Jamie Havill]

I might use Kinos, since they are soft without needing much grip support like diffusion frames. A 4' 4-bank Kino for key, a 2' 2-bank armed out for a soft edge or backlight, and another for fill, probably with diffusion on the barndoors.

Or Chimeras if you want to use tungsten lamps.

But the basic 3-point lighting is not a bad idea, just don't over do it -- I prefer that the backlight and fill be way knocked down so that it is mostly a single source look.

Sometimes you don't need fill, you just need a 4x4 white card on the opposite side from the key.

As usual, thanks David.

What about an eye-light? Do you think it's neccessary?

 

[Phil Jackson]

Blue-Green Look

Blue-Green Look

I was watching the Transporter 3 (it was a boring sunday) and though the movie is silly I kinda was struck by Gianni Fiore's photography, lots of wide angles, contrast and blown highlights and overexposure. But i noticed this phenomenon that's become slightly cliché but I'm not really sure how to describe it or how its done.

Basically light reflecting off dark, almost black, objects renders as cyan, turquoise or blue-greenish. Almost like what you would get off cool white flourescents. Is this done in the DI or can it be achieved practically with HMI's and gels? The interiors are perplexing, though I know this look can easily be pulled off with power windows but that seems like it would be tedious especially on something like Transporter where every shot seems to have that look. Here's some screen caps from blu-ray.com hope they're not too big.

Here is a shot from Doubt. I don't think Roger Deakins did a whole lot of grading in this film, he usually does contrast adjustments but the tree bark and shadows are desaturated blue-green.
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=3982&position=1

Here again in Inglourious Basterds the 'black' Jeep is actually bluish-grey.
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=6971&position=18

In The Losers all the low to mid shadow information renders as blue, but this could just be uncorrected.
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=12114&position=13

And finally here the walls and James Bond's shirt have ever so slighly a hint of the same blue that's in the background. This whole scene has a 'shooting-through-blue glass' look to it even though that's more an impression as only a handful of shots do that.
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=3709&position=1

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Phil, these would be achieved in the DI, through secondary color corrections to bring the skin tones back.

They seem pleasing to the eye because they are complementary colors.

I'll link some blog posts about it for you:

http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.com/2010/03/teal-and-orange-hollywood-please-stop.html

http://prolost.com/blog/2008/3/23/save-our-skins.html

Of course you as a DP could light your subjects with some degree of separation so the DI is more effective in this aspect.

Here's a question I asked David some time ago:

Hi David, this thread has been really helpful. Specially for me, a newcomer to all of this.

I have a question for you, and it's about lighting already thinking about the color grading that will be done in post.

I'm preparing to shoot a pilot and since who will grade the shots will be myself as well and I'm really close to the director, I can sort things out and plan the whole chain.

I've been checking some Roscolux gels and specially noticed the 30-60-90 ones, that have Pink (Magenta), Red, Green, Blue etc. And noticed that they reduce the transmission of colors in a precise way.

So, if I wanted to push the color of scene to a more greenish tone but still wanting to preserve a natural skin tone (without having to roto), I could light the talent's face with a 30 Magenta, so that way his/her face would have 1 stop less green. Am I following this the right way?

Is this a common practice? Will that work?

:blush:

Thanks in advance!

Yes, it will work... but how well depends a lot on how much you can separate the magenta key from the rest of the ambient light. Often you get spill from the non-magenta lights on the hair, in the shadows, which will go greenish when you time out the magenta in the face.

This was before I even knew about secondaries, I was a newcomer to color correction.

So let me recommend this book (which happens to have a David Mullen quote in it):

http://www.amazon.com/Art-Technique...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280749781&sr=8-1

I'm no David Mullen, just trying to help.