Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[Rob Ruffo]

Thanks anyway David!

I will continue working my way through all these pages...

 

[Gemma Duncan]

paranoid park trailer

paranoid park trailer

Thanks heaps

 

[Gregory Lopez]

David,
You haven't commented on the Zacuto test, did you get a chance to look at it?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't have a fast connection out here in Texas where I am shooting... also, I tend to avoid looking at moving image tests posted online. Unless something is going to be shown to me on a big theater screen or a huge HD monitor in some high-quality format, I don't like to look at tests because they are misleading or uninformative for the most part (still frames that are enlarged to show detail are OK online). On the internet, almost every format looks decent on a little window, and my old Mac laptop on location can't play HD at normal speed without stuttering, and like I said, even if it could, I don't have a fast enough connection.

I tried watching the Zacuto test but my computer could barely get past the slick intro, even that took forever to play.

 

[Gregory Lopez]

Sorry man,

I know the small screen does not do justice to the footage but when you get back to civilization check it out. It involves DPs and Colorists, very interesting. What are you working on?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm shooting a drama about a young golfer in the Hill Country of Texas. 3-perf 35mm.

 

[Gregory Lopez]

Hi David,

I hope your shoot is going well, it would be great if you could post some stills - if possible. I have a few question :-
1. On average how many pages of script do you shoot per day?
2. When you shoot for TV release do you shoot at 30 or 24 fps and why?
3. When you shoot speedy action at 24 fps, eg. chase scenes how do you control the stutter effect on pans?
4. Many cinematographers say film is more forgiving than digital, is it then easier and faster to light for film than digital?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

1. On average how many pages of script do you shoot per day?
2. When you shoot for TV release do you shoot at 30 or 24 fps and why?
3. When you shoot speedy action at 24 fps, eg. chase scenes how do you control the stutter effect on pans?
4. Many cinematographers say film is more forgiving than digital, is it then easier and faster to light for film than digital?

1. Depends on the schedule... you figure that if you have a 100 page script and 25 days to shoot it in, then you have to average 4 pages a day, which is about what I have to deal with, though the last three days have been six pages per day on the call sheet. 4 to 5 pages a day is pretty common for me.

2. I've never shot at 30 fps for any project, most of what I shoot will have some life on TV in 50 Hz PAL countries that loathe 30 fps to 25 fps conversions.

3. We've had action movies since the early 1930's that were shot at 24 fps, the amount of strobing during fast motion is fairly accepted for action... you even have directors using shorter shutter speeds to make the strobing worse. It's only on a slow pan that strobing gets distracting.

4. "Easier to light" is a vague term. Certainly I'm finding the wide latitude of film negative a major help out here in Texas in the summertime -- I had a scene in a cemetery yesterday with broken shadow and sunlight from oak trees and no way to really add much fill. I've really had to rely on film's ability to hold overexposed areas when I am exposing more for deep shade because I need to see the characters' faces. So in that case, I can work faster with film because I can essentially just grab stuff even in the harshest of sunlit conditions or highest contrast situations. But in terms of ease of lighting, I find digital easier in some ways in that I can see the results of what I am trying and balance things more quickly rather than relying as much on my metering. And when you are working with a digital camera that you can rate at 1000 ASA and higher, then of course some low-light scenes are easier to get. If I had a script that was all set on a beach in full sunlight, I'd probably prefer film, but if I had a script that was all set at night outdoors in a city as someone drives around, I'd probably be happier with a good digital camera.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

The ultimate shiny glossy actress shot... The ultimate pretty. The exact opposite of gritty. How?

I have my own answers to this question, it is a lot of what we do here as I am usually hired to shoot/direct fashiony stuff (although in no way am I implying that I have better answers than you), but I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to hear what your approach might be. Let's forget the background for now (which can be many things) and also let's throw realism out the window. What would you do?

Thank you again for all your help here, and I sincerely hope you get wonderful images in your current shoot.

 

[Gregory Lopez]

Thanks David...

How do you deal with strobing on slow pans @ 24fps?

 

[Shawn Nelson]

David,
Have you done any production journals as of late? I always enjoy reading them. The last one of yours I read was for 'Manure'.

 

[Douglas Williams]

Lens Flare

Lens Flare

Hi David

I have a question about lens flares. It seems to be the trendy thing to do now particularly in music promos.

from my experience with varying lenses, they all seem to have their own characteristic flares so to speak.

for example
rainbow
lowered contrast
milky
circles ( depending on source)
zoom flares

which to some degree personally I find somewhat interesting.

except for the dreaded 'dot' or reflection of the source shown especially with bare bulbs and open sources.
what causes this and how can this be avoided whilst still maintaining the look of the fore mentioned flares.



thanks.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Thanks David...

How do you deal with strobing on slow pans @ 24fps?

Pan slower...

 

[David Mullen ASC]

David,
Have you done any production journals as of late? I always enjoy reading them. The last one of yours I read was for 'Manure'.

I've started a limited one on Cinematography.Com for my current film, "Seven Days in Utopia", but since that is a 35mm production I felt it wasn't relevant to post it here.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

The ultimate shiny glossy actress shot... The ultimate pretty. The exact opposite of gritty. How?

I have my own answers to this question, it is a lot of what we do here as I am usually hired to shoot/direct fashiony stuff (although in no way am I implying that I have better answers than you), but I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to hear what your approach might be. Let's forget the background for now (which can be many things) and also let's throw realism out the window. What would you do?

Thank you again for all your help here, and I sincerely hope you get wonderful images in your current shoot.

The current trend, judging by magazine covers, is pretty darn flat, soft, frontal lighting for glamour photos. I haven't done any fashion photography myself. My preference, just to be more interesting, would be to employ more of the old b&w Hollywood-style glamour lighting, generally a high frontal hard key, shadowed on the forehead and neck, strong backlights, deep blacks, etc. Like the way Marlene Dietrich was lit.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

except for the dreaded 'dot' or reflection of the source shown especially with bare bulbs and open sources.
what causes this and how can this be avoided whilst still maintaining the look of the fore mentioned flares.

All lenses seem to have some degree of "narcissus", that ghost reflection of a bare light bulb, you just have to test to see which lens is least objectionable in that regards.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

The current trend, judging by magazine covers, is pretty darn flat, soft, frontal lighting for glamour photos. I haven't done any fashion photography myself. My preference, just to be more interesting, would be to employ more of the old b&w Hollywood-style glamour lighting, generally a high frontal hard key, shadowed on the forehead and neck, strong backlights, deep blacks, etc. Like the way Marlene Dietrich was lit.

We try hard not to look like a generic cover of Cosmo, but I will take your advice as inspiration and try to step further out of our safety zone and aim for a higher level of magic.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Filters...

Hi David!

I have a set of Glimmerglass, Classic Soft and Soft FX filters (among others, I love filters... and I fell in love with filters because of an old post of yours!) I have tested extensively with them, and while I can see and feel how they each look different, I have a hard time putting that into words, or having a technical, exact understanding of how they look different. I feel this leaves my decision making process of which to chose in any given situation overly hazy and lacking in mental rigor.

Maybe you have been able to break down this difference in a more word-friendly, intellectual way, a way that will deepen my and everyone else's understanding of this difference.

Thank you again for all that you have given to all of us.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Filters...

I have a set of Glimmerglass, Classic Soft and Soft FX filters (among others, I love filters... and I fell in love with filters because of an old post of yours!) I have tested extensively with them, and while I can see and feel how they each look different, I have a hard time putting that into words, or having a technical, exact understanding of how they look different. I feel this leaves my decision making process of which to chose in any given situation overly hazy and lacking in mental rigor.

Maybe you have been able to break down this difference in a more word-friendly, intellectual way, a way that will deepen my and everyone else's understanding of this difference.

Thank you again for all that you have given to all of us.

It's a bit like describing food or music, there isn't a scientific breakdown, it's a bit of a "pick what you like" thing, but with diffusion, it does help to know the basics of how the filter was designed.

All diffusion works on the principle of overlaying a sharp image and an out-of-focus image. So in theory, "mist" / "fog" filters, which are really more light-scattering filters like Low Cons, are not true diffusion filters, but since they also soften the image as well, most people consider them diffusion. And to some extent, diffusion filters scatter light also (i.e. they "halate", cause bright areas to glow into dark areas).

And you have some diffusion filters which mix both techniques, they have light-scattering "mist" particles and they have elements that diffuse the image (throw parts of the image out-of-focus while leaving other parts sharp.)

The oldest diffusion filter is probably the net or gauze over the lens -- the stretched material allows a sharp image to pass through the open weave while causing other parts of the image to become diffracted and thrown into soft focus when light hits the lines of the material. The material also causes light to spread and flare around points of light.

Glass diffusion works on a similar principle... there is a pattern in the glass that causes light to become distorted at that point while allowing sharp detail to pass through the clear parts of the glass. Apparently if you look at the old Mitchell diffusers under a microscope, you see an indented pattern of rhomboids or trapezoids or something like that. In Classic Softs, it's a pattern of round lenslets that look like bubbles or round indents, and the pattern is a symmetrical grid. In Soft-FX and Diffusion-FX filters, the indents are kidney-shaped and they are scattered more randomly.

The advantage of the random shapes and patterns that Tiffen uses for the Soft-fX and Diffusion-FX is that the pattern is less likely to come into focus as you stop down (or use a camera with more depth of field.) Also, the old pattern of Mitchells have a tendency to throw the whole picture slightly out-of-focus, which is not really what a diffusion filter is supposed to do, it's supposed to overlay a sharp and a soft image over each other. So there is a certain "look" to Classic Softs, and certain artifacts that show up at different focal lengths as the bubble pattern affects parts of the frame, sometimes causing a ring effect around a light:

Schneider later created a smaller lenslet size, and more randomly scattered, for a more subtle effect, though the main reason was to keep the pattern from coming into focus when used on cameras with 2/3" sensors... they called that filter "HD Classic Soft", but it works great on 35mm cameras, just that the effect is less obvious, and there are fewer artifacts.

Tiffen did something similar in that they took their Diffusion-FX filter and removed the pattern of black dots (there to counteract the loss of contrast that diffusing points of light in the frame causes)... the dot pattern was coming into focus on smaller sensor cameras, those filters are called Digital Diffusion-FX I believe.

GlimmerGlass is more like a "mist" filter, similar to a Black ProMist but the mist particles are slightly different and instead of black specks to counteract loss of contrast, there are specks of glitter which have some effect as well in reducing the milkiness that the mist particles cause.

Schneider took their 1/8 Black Frost filter (similar to a 1/8 Black ProMist but a bit more subtle I think) and combined it with the Classic Soft to create the Classic Soft Black filter series; they also did the same thing with their HD Classic Soft but called that series Hollywood Black Magic.

Ira Tiffen designed the Soft-FX to replace Tiffen's old Diffusion Filter, which was a bit milky, more like a Fog. He later designed the Diffusion-FX filter as sort of the ultimate in subtle diffusion; the idea was to reduce any of the telltale artifacts of diffusion filters like halation around points of light (glowing) and loss of contrast, while retaining some definition to the image. It works great when you want to soften a face in a scene that was shot sharp, for mixing diffused shots with sharp shots. My only problem with the filter is that it does its job too well, I miss the artifacts of diffusion, the halation around lights, etc. So I only use Diffusion-FX (Black usually) when I don't want the movie to look diffused but I am worried about the occasional close-up being too sharp. A similar filter would be the lightest (1/8) Classic Soft, but the 1/2 Black Diffusion-FX is even more subtle and artifact-free. However, most of the times when I use diffusion, I'm going for something of a romantic effect and want those little kicks off of points of light, the glowing look, etc. But whether I use Classic Soft or GlimmerGlass just depends on whether I want more misty halation (glowing) rather than softness.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

It's a bit like describing food or music, there isn't a scientific breakdown, it's a bit of a "pick what you like" thing, but with diffusion, it does help to know the basics of how the filter was designed.

All diffusion works on the principle of overlaying a sharp image and an out-of-focus image. So in theory, "mist" / "fog" filters, which are really more light-scattering filters like Low Cons, are not true diffusion filters, but since they also soften the image as well, most people consider them diffusion. And to some extent, diffusion filters scatter light also (i.e. they "halate", cause bright areas to glow into dark areas).

And you have some diffusion filters which mix both techniques, they have light-scattering "mist" particles and they have elements that diffuse the image (throw parts of the image out-of-focus while leaving other parts sharp.)

The oldest diffusion filter is probably the net or gauze over the lens -- the stretched material allows a sharp image to pass through the open weave while causing other parts of the image to become diffracted and thrown into soft focus when light hits the lines of the material. The material also causes light to spread and flare around points of light.

Glass diffusion works on a similar principle... there is a pattern in the glass that causes light to become distorted at that point while allowing sharp detail to pass through the clear parts of the glass. Apparently if you look at the old Mitchell diffusers under a microscope, you see an indented pattern of rhomboids or trapezoids or something like that. In Classic Softs, it's a pattern of round lenslets that look like bubbles or round indents, and the pattern is a symmetrical grid. In Soft-FX and Diffusion-FX filters, the indents are kidney-shaped and they are scattered more randomly.

The advantage of the random shapes and patterns that Tiffen uses for the Soft-fX and Diffusion-FX is that the pattern is less likely to come into focus as you stop down (or use a camera with more depth of field.) Also, the old pattern of Mitchells have a tendency to throw the whole picture slightly out-of-focus, which is not really what a diffusion filter is supposed to do, it's supposed to overlay a sharp and a soft image over each other. So there is a certain "look" to Classic Softs, and certain artifacts that show up at different focal lengths as the bubble pattern affects parts of the frame, sometimes causing a ring effect around a light:

Schneider later created a smaller lenslet size, and more randomly scattered, for a more subtle effect, though the main reason was to keep the pattern from coming into focus when used on cameras with 2/3" sensors... they called that filter "HD Classic Soft", but it works great on 35mm cameras, just that the effect is less obvious, and there are fewer artifacts.

Tiffen did something similar in that they took their Diffusion-FX filter and removed the pattern of black dots (there to counteract the loss of contrast that diffusing points of light in the frame causes)... the dot pattern was coming into focus on smaller sensor cameras, those filters are called Digital Diffusion-FX I believe.

GlimmerGlass is more like a "mist" filter, similar to a Black ProMist but the mist particles are slightly different and instead of black specks to counteract loss of contrast, there are specks of glitter which have some effect as well in reducing the milkiness that the mist particles cause.

Schneider took their 1/8 Black Frost filter (similar to a 1/8 Black ProMist but a bit more subtle I think) and combined it with the Classic Soft to create the Classic Soft Black filter series; they also did the same thing with their HD Classic Soft but called that series Hollywood Black Magic.

Ira Tiffen designed the Soft-FX to replace Tiffen's old Diffusion Filter, which was a bit milky, more like a Fog. He later designed the Diffusion-FX filter as sort of the ultimate in subtle diffusion; the idea was to reduce any of the telltale artifacts of diffusion filters like halation around points of light (glowing) and loss of contrast, while retaining some definition to the image. It works great when you want to soften a face in a scene that was shot sharp, for mixing diffused shots with sharp shots. My only problem with the filter is that it does its job too well, I miss the artifacts of diffusion, the halation around lights, etc. So I only use Diffusion-FX (Black usually) when I don't want the movie to look diffused but I am worried about the occasional close-up being too sharp. A similar filter would be the lightest (1/8) Classic Soft, but the 1/2 Black Diffusion-FX is even more subtle and artifact-free. However, most of the times when I use diffusion, I'm going for something of a romantic effect and want those little kicks off of points of light, the glowing look, etc. But whether I use Classic Soft or GlimmerGlass just depends on whether I want more misty halation (glowing) rather than softness.

Wow, awesome. Thank you David. you've helped turned some of my fuzzy impressions into discernible thoughts. So if I understand correctly, the Glimmerglass will mist more per softness and the Classic softs will soften more (proportionally, per grade) per mist (in other words, the Glimmerglass is giving you more glow, less softness, but milks-out the contrast less)?