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

Hello David,

I just finished watching your Recreating Daylight in the studio presentation and have gleaned a lot of great information from it that will help me with an upcoming tv series. Thank you for your willingness to always give your time to teach.

I have a shoot coming up where the director wants to shoot actors in front of greenscreen to match into a plate. For the pilot the plates weren't available, and to be fair there wasn't enough prep to discuss with the director exactly what the plates entailed. I ended up lighting for a general direction of the sun, hoping we could shoot the plates at roughly the same time and direction at the locations.

In order to match efficiently, the only real way to light the actors is to shoot the plate first correct? Or does it not really matter provided you have enough flexibility to visit the location at multiple times in order to get the sun's position correct? Please advise as to what's the normal course of action for this!

The plates are quite simple. The premise for the show is a newscast, where the field reporters are greenscreened into different locations. My other question revolves around how realistic to make the actors in the environment. The director said based on the pilot she'd prefer for the greenscreen segments in the series to be more photoreal. That being said I'm hesitant to light the actors with an ugly hard toppy light for the obvious reason that it would be unflattering. Also, news reporters in the field tend to be perfectly lit on location, almost as if they were shot on stage. So how do I find the balance here?

My initial thought was I could create three different daylight setups: early morning (sun behind), mid-afternoon (sun above) and late afternoon (direct sun on actor?). For all segments I would have a 12x dayblue overhead being hit by probably a 4k for sky ambience (would this end up being too blue? Would a griff be a better choice?). For mid-afternoon segments I would recreate the top sunlight with a direct 4k, maybe through a 4x opal to soften it a bit then fill in from the ground with a simulated newslight (jokerbug 800) or maybe even just bouncecards. Might it be a good idea to have a slash from a source4 across the reporters body? Basically I'm unsure of where to find the balance between realism and "well-lit newscast." Any advice would be greatly appreciated! And thanks again for all you do to teach us learning cinematographers.

Oh yea, final question. If you were to take a source that's beam is not normally narrow and parallel (say an open-face 2k), then shine that source into a mirror, would the beam then appear to be more parallel and narrower?

Cheers!
 
All that bouncing a light into a mirror allows is for the light to travel farther so it becomes a smaller and thus sharper source. If you could just back up the light further, you'd get the same effect.

Usually plates are shot first so that you know what you are matching to, but the reverse happens sometimes due to scheduling problems, it just makes it harder on the crew shooting the plates if they can only shoot when the sun is at certain angles or in certain weather conditions.

You could assume that the reporter has been covered with a silk on an arm to soften the overhead sun, when the background plate is in toppy noon light. Also, they often add a lot of fill onto reporters, which is a bit boring but it does make their lighting more generic.

A little breeze on the hair (if long enough) does wonders to making something on stage feel like it is outdoors. You'd be surprised to see how much hair blows around when shooting outdoors.

You also want a very large white or day blue bounce surrounding the actor to replicate the ambient haze reflected over the eyes. The eyes are like round mirror balls, they see the world in front of them so you need them to reflect something white or pale blue. Something on the ground is good too for the eyes to reflect.
 
I have another question about working with greenscreens actually. Do most vfx artists prefer having the green a stop under key or at key?

Also, there is currently no vfx supervisor on board and it's very possible I'd be taking on some responsibility for knowing some of this. When a scene is shot handheld in front of a greenscreen, orange motion trackers are added to the screen correct? When shooting the plates, do you shoot them rock steady maybe a bit wider than the focal length used for the greenscreen subject, then apply the motion tracking data from the greenscreen shot to the plate? This is how I assume it would be done but I can't be sure.

I never thought I would've needed to know a lot about vfx, but it seems a good understanding would be benficial given how much content is shot on greenscreen these days!
 
Patrick Kaplin said:
Thanks very much for the tips! I hadn't thought of adding a breeze, that's a great idea. Do you know of any fans that are fairly silent that are normally used for this type of thing? I wouldn't want to worry the sound recordist.
Click to expand...

E-fans are pretty quiet. Keep in mind also that if the scene supposedly takes place outdoors, they are going to have to add exterior ambient sounds anyway.
 
Patrick Kaplin said:
I have another question about working with greenscreens actually. Do most vfx artists prefer having the green a stop under key or at key?

Also, there is currently no vfx supervisor on board and it's very possible I'd be taking on some responsibility for knowing some of this. When a scene is shot handheld in front of a greenscreen, orange motion trackers are added to the screen correct? When shooting the plates, do you shoot them rock steady maybe a bit wider than the focal length used for the greenscreen subject, then apply the motion tracking data from the greenscreen shot to the plate? This is how I assume it would be done but I can't be sure.

I never thought I would've needed to know a lot about vfx, but it seems a good understanding would be benficial given how much content is shot on greenscreen these days!
Click to expand...

Depends on the post supervisor, I've worked with some who wanted the green screens to be a stop under to reduce spill and increase saturation, but many want it exposed near key, just not over-exposed, it would better to lean the other way. Lighting the screen evenly is just as important as the exposure.

The last post vfx person I worked with wanted green tape X's for tracking, not orange. Green paper tape is usually a shade off from the green screen so you can still see it.

Yes, imagine that the plate will have to be zoomed into to match the handheld moves so it should be shot a bit wider.
 
And for moves along the z-axis... say it was a dolly in to a CU of an actor. How would one go about acquiring the plate for that? Is this where we get into motion-control cinematography? Or could you simply recreate the move keeping in mind the general timing and distance the dolly travelled?
 
Depends on how far the background is behind the subject. Unless you are tracking through some foreground elements (which would be better to stick in front of the greenscreen anyway, not have that in the plate) generally a 3' push in on the foreground is barely a slight zoom in on the background... as you dolly in, the foreground just gets bigger / closer to the lens, the background doesn't get much closer, it just goes more out of focus (which should be done in post). If the background is, in reality, 25' away and you push in 3' on the foreground subject, you don't really need to dolly in from 25' to 22' on a background plate, the compositor can just do a slight zoom in if needed.

It's more complicated if the foreground character is actually running through the background, ala the speeder bikes in "Return of the Jedi", on the other hand, you can justify one speed for the background plate and a variant speed for the subject since the camera move is creating a third speed movement relative to the other two.

It's also more complicated if the push in is combined with a tilt up because at some point, you're either having to really overshoot the plate (unless the plate is a view out of a window, so tilting up mainly just has the camera looking at the ceiling of the interior) and add the tilt in post, or create a tiled background plate and add the tilt in post. You'd only need motion control if both the foreground and the plate and additional foreground elements all needed the same camera move if it creates a perspective shift. Your efx supervisor could tell you if the background plate needed to be tiled, or needed motion control, etc. but it is certainly possible to design a shot without motion control. Besides, if you are shooting handheld, it sort of negates the ability to use motion control.

Again, you have to break down the final composite in your head and decide if you'd see a perspective shift on the background plate, or if it would be too subtle to be worth moving on the plate versus doing a post zoom in.

Keep in mind that the more complex you make the shot, and the more tracking and match-moving the compositor will have to do, the more time it will take and the more expensive the shot will get. So don't go nuts.
 
Last edited:
David, not sure if you'll be able to tell from this trailer, but any ideas what diffusion they used on The Expendables? (the original). My wife and I FINALLY saw this movie tonight, and I thought it looked great. By the blooming highlights and glow on skins, it appeared they were using diffusion..but I couldn't zero in on which. Black Pro Mist? Classic Soft? (1/8 or 1/4?). Or a combo...ie Hollywood Black Magic? Any ideas? I thought the choice was inspired (considering its an action movie), and made sense, given how "experienced" the cast was (hey, sometimes men's skin needs love too!). Thanks!!

 
David Mullen ASC said:
I couldn't tell from the trailer but it seemed pretty light, like a 1/8 Black Frost or Black ProMist on some scenes. Of course, there could have also been some softening of close-ups done in post.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the quick response David!!!
 
Hi David,

I was wondering if you would be willing to discuss a bit the processes you go through when looking at a script and deciding how to actually shoot it. Specifically, it seems that physical action that looks pretty simple on the page can have "hidden challenges" when it comes time to actually shoot.

For example, here is an excerpt from a friend's script (I'm not asking you to plan the shooting for him, but I'm just posting it as an example ;)).


INT. MEN’S HOTEL ROOM – NIGHT

A few baseball bats and a sampling of the late night shit you buy but never use surround Pat as he digs into the back of a closet.
He pulls out a gallon box of wine. Written on its side is: “Pat, not everything gets better with age. J/K =P Happy Graduation!! !!! Love, Courtney.”


PAT​
Ain’t that the truth.​


He cracks open the spigot and takes a swig.


When reading this, I think the scene works. But when I think about how it would be shot, a lot questions come to mind about the literal action itself, mostly surrounding the drinking of the wine. Does he pour the wine into a glass? If so where did the glass come from? Does he drink straight from the box? Is he standing or sitting? And when we first see the writing on the side, is he still holding the box and, again, is he standing or sitting?

So in my mind, a simple scene's action can become rather complicated when actually trying to execute it. I imagine you are confronted by issues like this often, and how do you resolve them? Make suggestions to the director? Ask questions? Point out inconsistencies or missing information?

Thank you so very much!!
 
Hey David,

First time asking, long time reading. Thank you. So i might have a pretty decent size set up at night in the woods, and I remember reading your posts about shooting Big Sur and how you used smoke. My specific question: how to use smoke in larger areas and maintain it? Related to this, the use of smoke in general (including int). Any thoughts/tips on its use to achieve the best quality in its texture? I find myself struggling with it often, in terms of thickness (smoke-looking as opposed to a nice, still, subtle ambiance/texture enhacer) and definitely in trying to keep it consistent on set, at least long enough to get long (in duration) shots. Easy on studio like set ups, really tough on location sometimes! Anybody's thoughts of course also welcome!

Thank you again
 
Peter Moretti said:
When reading this, I think the scene works. But when I think about how it would be shot, a lot questions come to mind about the literal action itself, mostly surrounding the drinking of the wine. Does he pour the wine into a glass? If so where did the glass come from? Does he drink straight from the box? Is he standing or sitting? And when we first see the writing on the side, is he still holding the box and, again, is he standing or sitting?

So in my mind, a simple scene's action can become rather complicated when actually trying to execute it. I imagine you are confronted by issues like this often, and how do you resolve them? Make suggestions to the director? Ask questions? Point out inconsistencies or missing information?

Thank you so very much!!
Click to expand...

Yes, this is one reason why a DP has to answer a hundred questions every day and the director has to answer a thousand questions every day.

Usually as a DP you talk through a scene like this with the director. And the director might even ask the writer what they were imagining. But ultimately the actor has to make it work and whether they stand and drink, sit on the floor and slump back against the wall and drink, drink from the box or grab a plastic cup from the bathroom, etc. should be based on the character and where he is emotionally at that moment in the story, and the actor will have some opinions on that. Now a good director and DP (if actor-oriented) will have a good answer to that already and odds are high that most people will come to the same conclusions but not always, hence the blocking rehearsal (i.e. don't get too locked into a preconceived notion.)

As a DP and director, both of you have to answer certain questions, like is this the first scene in this hotel room and how do we know if we are in a hotel room? What is the point of the scene, dramatically, emotionally? What leads up to this scene and what follows it?

It may even follow that if the box of wine is a bit time-consuming to open and you aren't happy about the idea of chugging directly from the box, that you may suggest that there be a mini time-jump in the scene -- you cut from his happy discovery of the box of wine to a shot of him pouring it into a plastic bathroom cup and skip the business in between.
 
Carlos Garcia said:
Hey David,

First time asking, long time reading. Thank you. So i might have a pretty decent size set up at night in the woods, and I remember reading your posts about shooting Big Sur and how you used smoke. My specific question: how to use smoke in larger areas and maintain it? Related to this, the use of smoke in general (including int). Any thoughts/tips on its use to achieve the best quality in its texture? I find myself struggling with it often, in terms of thickness (smoke-looking as opposed to a nice, still, subtle ambiance/texture enhacer) and definitely in trying to keep it consistent on set, at least long enough to get long (in duration) shots. Easy on studio like set ups, really tough on location sometimes! Anybody's thoughts of course also welcome!

Thank you again
Click to expand...

It's always tough to control smoke on an exterior location, that's just a given. And the wind can shift direction constantly and unpredictably. You just deal with it as best as you can - maybe you go for a "tube of death" approach to get as much smoke evenly spread over an area no matter which way the wind is blowing, but even then, you'll probably have a least two handheld smoke machines ready to run around just before the take in different areas. After you get a master that you like, the trick is to get something remotely consistent for the coverage. Again, there is an element of luck involved.
 
mediating_monks_on_pongour_falls_vietnam.jpg


David do you know of any techniques to make waterfall footage look more like these long-exposure photos?

I suppose one could undercrank and use 360 shutter, but then you are basically timelapsing.
 
Yes, you pretty much guessed it, you have to increase the shutter time and after going to 360 degrees, the only way to increase it further is to reduce the frame rate. Then you could stretch it back to 24 fps and use frame blending to smooth it out more, the problem isn't the water, it's the people walking through the shot, whose motions would also be blurred, but if they were standing very still, it might work.

Reminds of a cool short film I once saw where someone shot water splashing down a mountain river but shot it three times sequentially on b&w film through red, green, and blue filters, and then optically recombined them. The green grass, brown branches looked normal in color but every time water splashed, the droplets were in separate red, green, and blue drops, like fireworks. He did the same thing with trees blowing in the wind, the static trees had normal color but the ones swaying in the breeze broke up into separate colors.
 
David,

Thank you so much for you insight, AND for your suggestion about the time jump!!


Tom, one thing you also might want to consider if you want an extreme effect and the shot is locked down, is shooting the scene twice. Once for the action at an appropriate frame rate. The other time for the water at the shutter speed (and even frame rate) that makes it looks best. Then composite both takes in post. Not ideal and it certainly involves more work. But it might be an approach to consider.

I also remember someone posting about a greater than 360 degree shutter. Sounds an oxymoron, but I think some cameras can do it, IIRC.
 
I remember years ago getting a cool streaking effect with some nighttime motorcycle 16mm footage by cranking up the noise reduction in the telecine to an extreme level, there was so many frames being averaged that the moving POV shots from the motorcycle of the city lights going by looked like the Stargate sequence in "2001".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top