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

Stephen Williams said:
Slocombe did own a light meter, however he almost never used one. One time he did use a meter on a commercial in 1987, we were shooting at 8 fps on a down shooter. The film was so over exposed that Jim Timms from Studio Film Labs called me & said " I can't print your film it's totally out of range!" I replied "have you heard of Dogie Slocombe? he lit the scene" (no gaffer). " OK we will recalibrate the printer" was the response!

TBH if I am shooting film & using lights I have used before, I know what the exposure will be, it's not very difficult. Outside in daylight is even easier, Kodak used to have a chart giving exposure Sunny Day / Cloudy Bright / Overcast etc!
Click to expand...

Wow, that's very interesting to know.

But in the interview I posted they specifically say how the film was specifically/intentionally over exposed by a top or stop and a half to give a certain look to the desert. This seems very precise science to overexpose something by half a stop etc you first need to know the exact exposure, etc. Can Slocombe really be that accurate with no light meter to overexpose a certain increment without even taking a reading? That's crazy!
 
I have to imagine that it's one of the many benefits of working in this industry for 50+ years. It just requires being meticulously observant to what you're doing and learning from your experiences. I'm sure there's an element of having a great memory as well.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Do you mean the Optimo 15-40mm T/2.6 lightweight zoom? What do you mean by "versions"? What do you mean by "take"? Buy? Rent?
Click to expand...

it is to buy optimo DP 16- 42.
 
Hey David :)

I have seen alot of posts about people using the RED or any digital cinema camera at the rated ASA or ISO. Like apparently the RED MX sensor is rated at ASA 800, and this is what the footage is shot at. Just out of curiousity, is this so you can have more freedom with the depth of field value when it comes to T-Stops, or is it the best sensitivity for the sensor to capture the best image. Coming from DSLR shooting where trying to keep the lowest ISO possible is preferable :)

Thanks

Joel Devereux
 
At 800 ISO you are more or less equally splitting highlight and shadow information (whereas traditional Rec.709 gamma video cameras generally had more shadow detail than headroom.) It's not exactly 800 ISO of course. At lower ISO values, you reduce noise but place more information in the shadow region at the expense of highlights.

I think the reason why those DxO tests show increased dynamic range at lower ISO's for DSLR's is just that the lower noise floor is allowing them to use more shadow information; I think they are more aggressive about dropping shadow info at higher ISO ratings to keep the noise acceptable, so the shadow detail starts to look crunchy and crushed. Otherwise it doesn't make much sense for the dynamic range to change at different ISO settings, within a reasonable range.
 
Hello David,

What do you use when you want to shoot a very low angle shot, such as where the camera
needs to be so low that you would have to cut a hole in the floor to get the shot.

I remember that on the movie "The Wall" they used a Samcine Inclining Prism.
Does this device still exist? Is it any good optically by today's standards.

I keep thinking that I will simple use a front surfaced mirror, but perhaps
a periscope would work......not sure???
 
Martin Stevens said:
Hello David,

What do you use when you want to shoot a very low angle shot, such as where the camera
needs to be so low that you would have to cut a hole in the floor to get the shot.

I remember that on the movie "The Wall" they used a Samcine Inclining Prism.
Does this device still exist? Is it any good optically by today's standards.

I keep thinking that I will simple use a front surfaced mirror, but perhaps
a periscope would work......not sure???
Click to expand...

http://www.birnsandsawyer.com/_Camera-Rentals/Lenses/Century-Low-Angle-Prism.aspx

I used it once or twice, it's simple and relatively cheap compared to a snorkel lens system. Biggest problem is lens flare, just like with 3D mirror rigs.
 
Hey David,
I have a scene coming up which takes place in a elevator. We are going to be making this B&W and the director is asking for different lights moods for part of the elevator. We talked about The back of it being dark and a gradient to the front also about using mirrors and pools of lights. Have you worked in many elevators? Any insight to them and mood lighting them?
 
SeanBrown said:
Hey David,
I have a scene coming up which takes place in a elevator. We are going to be making this B&W and the director is asking for different lights moods for part of the elevator. We talked about The back of it being dark and a gradient to the front also about using mirrors and pools of lights. Have you worked in many elevators? Any insight to them and mood lighting them?
Click to expand...


Must be a roomy elevator of you to create different looks in different parts of it. Most elevators I have to shoot are either real or crude sets so there isn't much you can do, the main question is hard & spotty top lights or soft overhead lights. If one can design one from scratch then it would be interesting to find a way to have light also coming from somewhere other than overhead, like a diffused strip that runs around some sides, etc.

Whether the elevator has shiny metal walls or wood panels, etc. will also affect the lighting -- a highly reflective wall often gets too hot compared to the face when using any kind of frontal key or fill because the source is reflected back into the camera.
 
Reporting Back

Reporting Back

A while ago, you gave me some advice on lighting a Middle Eastern styled set, and I wanted to report back and say thanks! We ended up with a fairly stylized look and the producers and client were immensely pleased with the final results.

Here's the spot. http://vimeo.com/54237262
 
Nicholas Matthews said:
A while ago, you gave me some advice on lighting a Middle Eastern styled set, and I wanted to report back and say thanks! We ended up with a fairly stylized look and the producers and client were immensely pleased with the final results.

Here's the spot. http://vimeo.com/54237262
Click to expand...

Wow, that turned out great!
 
Dear David, and whoever else may be able to help,

I am shooting some Macro of flowing paint on a phantom for which we'll be using ultra primes and diopters.

I have a choice of 138mm set, 4.5” Circulars and 4” BDB Diopters. I'm not a diopter expert so wanted to know the pros and cons of each set, any notable differences, if one would allow me to get closer, etc.

Macros would be harder to get hold of but if anyone thinks they would be better than ultra primes do let me know why.

Thanks,

Lorenzo
 
The heavier diopters have a certain amount of edge distortion and chromatic aberration around the sides -- a macro lens would generally be sharper. So it depends on how tight you are getting. Once you start needing to use +3 diopters, it may be better to use a macro instead.
 
Hi David, I see it's been a tad slow here and I can't think of anything better to ask at the moment so was wondering if you would be able to take a couple minutes to view my reel and let me know your thoughts, in particular what are the weakest shots/parts and what type of shots you'd recommend to put in there to make it better and more varied (i.e. more steadicam shots, or more high budget looking shots like explosions, or ... etc)

http://youtu.be/97qQ2Cq4S2Q?hd=1

Thanks
 
Hi David,

I was wondering what is your opinion when it comes to handheld shots? When is it ok to go handheld in your opinion?

For example, does it fit better a film or show like 24 where all was either handheld or steadicam or do you think it's ok to mix tripod and handheld in the same show? If so, do you feel like it's ok to mix it in the same scene? In this day and age handheld is all the rage. Shaky, snooping camera is a style very used. But I wonder if the whole project should be like that or if tripod locked off shots have a place in the same project or even same scene.

In a recent discussion with some friends the consensus seemed to be you either go handheld, shaky, snooping camera where steadicam shots are also fitting or you go tripod, dolly smooth shots. You shouldn't mix both. I guess cranes and booms are fair game in both.

Would love to hear your opinion of the matter.

A little side question, when going handheld, do you feel shooting from the shoulder is fine? I always like avoiding shooting from the shoulder if I can because it's close to the human field of view and tend to look too normal. Besides it gives it that news look. So I rather use something like a Fig-Rig or any other rig that will allow me to handhold in a different height than a shoulder brace.

Thanks in advance David.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top