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

Hi !

Thanks for bearing with all of us David.

I have a question for you. What is your approach to a Scene, when you have to shoot Multicamera.

1. Shoot Wide and close ranges wit two cameras, with the same light.
2. Shoot Wide, and cover the closeups with the two cameras after adjusting the light for the closeup ?
3. Any Tips for lighting in such situations ?

It does depend on a lot of factors, what would be your approach.

I would really appreciate if I can see some references from one of your works.

Thanks.
 
Shooting both very wide and tight at the same time with two cameras is not just a lighting problem, it's a sound recording problem, so I generally avoid it unless the sound person is OK and it doesn't compromise the lighting. I am more likely to just shoot a wide and medium at the same time, or a medium and a close-up at the same time, so there is not a big change in shot size and I can light both sizes easily. Occasionally I will shoot two close-ups at the same time if they are standing side by side; sometimes (rarely) you can get away with shooting opposite directions at once. I did that for a scene recently of two people talking by a window, both side-lit by the natural light, so I could shoot over the shoulders simultaneously.

It's just a judgement call you make on a case by case basis.

But talk to your sound recordist first, because it's pointless to work hard to get two cameras to work, compromising the lighting and composition just to make it happen as a time-saver, only to have the sound recordist THEN convince the director to run the two cameras separately so he can mic each angle better.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Shooting both very wide and tight at the same time with two cameras is not just a lighting problem, it's a sound recording problem, so I generally avoid it unless the sound person is OK and it doesn't compromise the lighting. I am more likely to just shoot a wide and medium at the same time, or a medium and a close-up at the same time, so there is not a big change in shot size and I can light both sizes easily. Occasionally I will shoot two close-ups at the same time if they are standing side by side; sometimes (rarely) you can get away with shooting opposite directions at once.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the promt reply. That seems to be the best approach.
Cheers :)
 
Hi David,

With Digital cinema , do u have any problem while shooting with camera's like RED 4k,Genesi etc....like problem in using lenses and other problem to obtain the quality of film ...

thanks,
 
The Genesis camera uses Panavision (PV-mount) lenses, the other 35mm-sized single-sensor cameras like the RED, Arri-D20, Phantom, etc. use PL-mounts generally, so being able to use 35mm lenses is not really a problem, that's what these cameras were designed to do.

2/3" HD lenses like the F23 and Viper still mostly use B4 video lenses.

"Quality of film" is such a vague term. These new digital cameras provide a lot of quality and are starting to be used on big productions normally shot in 35mm. Matching the resolution of 35mm has become less of an issue, the sensitivity of the cameras is in the same range as film stocks, digital tends to be "cleaner" (less grain) though it can be noisy if shot certain ways.

I think the primary quality issue where many digital cameras are weak compared to color negative film is dynamic range, specifically in the highlights. Film captures a wider exposure range. To some extent, that can be compensated for when using a digital camera through careful lighting, art direction, etc. to reduce extremely bright areas that may clip. But occasionally you get a shot or scene that really pushes the extreme ends of dynamic range.

I think dynamic range is the last big hurdle in terms of coming up with the digital equivalent of color negative film, the last main objection people have to shooting digital (other than some workflow issues.)

Which brings up the other issue, workflow -- all of these new digital cameras follow different philosophies regarding workflow, some relying on an HD tape infrastructure in post houses, others mostly treating everything as data files in a computer-based system. While I think that's the way of the future, it's still a somewhat problematic way of shooting movies.

Yesterday I tested the Phantom HD for some 1000 fps shots that will be in my next 35mm movie, and it was a very different way of handling footage. When I finally had a take that I liked at 2K (this was 2048 x 1080) and hit "save", the computer told me it would take 15 minutes to save the shot! I had to go back into the clip and edit out all the dull bits to get it short enough that it would only take 5 minutes to save. That's just a very different way of working compared to a film camera where you can just shoot another shot right away without first dumping a clip off of the RAM if you wanted to keep that clip. On the other hand, the reason I am shooting those shots digitally is because I can review them immediately on the set, since so much can be wrong in a 1000 fps shot that you wouldn't see on film until you get dailies back.

And I immediately noticed the difference in dynamic range compared to what I was used to shooting film.
 
Hi David, I have a question for you, perhaps you can help me out.

Obvioulsy it always depends on the quality of the medium you're using and the post process and how much you can afford not to do on the set, but I was wondering if you have any strategies for jobs you have to move fast. Even if it's one camera shows.

Is there a lighting strategy that works best for minimum adjustments between dialogue setups (master and singles), or just works best at all (light by set area, not for independent actor marks), package (small, lightweight location lights to balance existing light or better to have large guns and solve a set or location from outside (windows, doors), without hanging a lot of heads?

Thanks for everything, and especially for the rest of the thread that is already fantastic!
 
Obviously there are a lot of advantages (in time and continuity) to lighting a master shot so well that you need almost no adjustments for close-ups, although that usually only works for close-ups on the same axis as the master -- as you turn around in a room, it gets even harder for one lighting set-up to work.

But some spaces lend themselves better to lighting than others, so it's hard to generalize.

And a space that may provide plenty of natural light thanks to large windows, for example, allowing you to work faster during the day using fewer lights, conversely may cause you to spend more time lighting should it become dark outside and you haven't finished shooting the scene. So you really have to look at the scene and the coverage planned to know whether you are better off using more natural light... or re-lighting everything to create a continuous and consistent amount of light all day into night.

Speed is mostly about planning, having the right tools for the job and the right number of crew members to set-up the shot, and simplicity of concept.

But generally you want to think up a master shot lighting set-up that will look good enough for tighter shots with only a minor adjustment, if at all, for close-ups. That's always my goal, though not always possible.

And plan for your turnarounds. So often I have to warn or remind people not to bring in a lot of equipment in certain areas because I will be turning around the camera in a few set-ups and looking that way. You have to weigh that against the speed of having certain tools right next to you when you are shooting, so you also don't want some of your carts to be too far away either.

As for big lights vs. little lights, again, that partly depends on the look you want but also the speed of the set-up -- setting up one 18K HMI outside a window through a 8'x8' frame of diffusion may be faster than hanging any smaller lights above the window inside the room. On the other hand, the ground outside the window may not even allow a big light to go out there.

One trick I've used lately has been Source-4's bouncing off of white cards in the room -- it's often easier to rig a card to a ceiling or above a window than a light, due to weight issues and running power to the light. Source-4's can be cut to match the shape of the card with minimal or no flagging.
 
Hi David,
I am doing a short, as DOP (with RED just so you get and idea of the latitude), that has underwater in the sea and I was wondering what are the best hours to shoot. For the part in the bottom of the see i could guess that in the begining and end of the day to get some nice volumes even not in magic hour i guess since I might not have enought light, as for the shoot that I have to the "roof" of the sea I have no idea if the 12 Am it will be the best since it might be to contrasty specialy the face of the actor that it will be looking to the camera (bottom of the sea).
I will like to know if a "travelling" with the camera in that shoot will be posible at low speed or the change in the presure will afect to much in the stability (obviusly the sea current will condition this but crossing fingers for a soft day).
Thanks in advance,
Jon Corcuera
 
David Mullen ASC said:
One trick I've used lately has been Source-4's bouncing off of white cards in the room -- it's often easier to rig a card to a ceiling or above a window than a light, due to weight issues and running power to the light. Source-4's can be cut to match the shape of the card with minimal or no flagging.
Click to expand...

sorry there, got still some improvements to make on my technical english vocabulary, what do you mean for "Source-4's" ?
Thanks alot for your time and attention!
 
The source 4 is an ellipsodal light, which means you can focus it into sharp beams... So you can focus it to the exact shape of the white board.
 
It should also be mentioned "Source-4" is a brand name. Other companies make ellipsoidal fixtures as well. The Source-4 brand seems to be popular though.

David, can you tell us why you prefer Source-4 over the others?
 
I think the only ellipsoidals I've run into, other than Dedolights, are the ETC Source-4's, Lekos, and those by a company called Celecon(?), I think. ETC Source-4's are just much more commonplace, other than old stage Lekos. Lekos seems heavier and bulkier than Source-4's, which seem to me to be a newer design, relatively. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_Four
 
David Mullen ASC said:
those by a company called Celecon(?), I think.
Click to expand...

Selecon. New Zealand company, so they're much more widely used here in Australia than the Source Four; although various ripoffs of the Source Four PAR (MultiPAR) are around here and you do occasionally find Source Fours around.
 
a few questions about 4k (i've never shot at these resolutions before).

if the end product was to be 2k (or even hd), if i shot a 4k medium shot, are there any issues with getting a 2k closeup from the same shot? would that be the same as shooting with 2 cameras for medium and closeups? so an over the shoulder shot would also be a closeup.

also, is there any problems with framing a lot looser in 4k and then finding the frame/crop in 2k?
 
You certainly have some flexibility in reframing / resizing shots in digital, but within limits -- it's sort of a case by case issue. You can test to determine what you can get away with, but the thing to worry about is that certain artifacts like noise get magnified when you, well, magnify the image by cropping & enlarging. Optical defects in the lens may also become magnified.

So I wouldn't plan on that as a time-saving device (shooting only mediums and getting close-ups out of them in post) just know that it may be a way of saving or fixing a shot in post when needed. Don't start getting lazy...

There is a resolution hit after all -- 2K is one-quarter the resolution of 4K, not half (half horizontally and half vertically). So there's no free lunch, there will be some image loss in cropping 4K to 2K, even for a 2K finish. Just that there are some shots where it is less visible of a loss than others. For example, you often get away with some resolution loss when enlarging a shot of a face because we don't necessarily need or want to see razor-sharp faces, but it may work less well for landscape shots where even in the cropped shot, it should still look sharp with lots of fine detail.
 
so I would get a superior image if I frame correctly at 4k and then go to 2k.

another question that may have already been asked and answered... but do you think digital post filters are/can be equivalent to real, in front/back of the lens filters/nets? I'm thinking of soft/color filter/net types.

I'm fascinated by articles that talk about them (I don't use filters/nets at all in my photography), but I'm not sure if I should dive into that entire world or learn the digital post equivalent. Sort of like I'm not going to learn 35mm film production because I'm a "red baby" generation and so I'll be weaned and cut my teeth on digital cinema. But there's so much good stuff in 35mm film world, I'm trying to get the best o both worlds but still reduce my learning curve as much as possible!
 
Hi David,

David Mullen ASC said:
On my last show, I had probably the best-quality zoom I've ever used, the new Zeiss T/2.6 16.5-110mm Master Zoom -- super-sharp, even wide-open.
Click to expand...

May I ask how you feel this lens fares up against Mater Primes? Would you consider using it as your sole lens or would you still prefer using specific Primes?

Many thanks.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I think the only ellipsoidals I've run into, other than Dedolights, are the ETC Source-4's, Lekos, and those by a company called Celecon(?), I think. ETC Source-4's are just much more commonplace, other than old stage Lekos. Lekos seems heavier and bulkier than Source-4's, which seem to me to be a newer design, relatively. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_Four
Click to expand...


Mole-Richardson makes them also. Their name for it is Molelipso.

The dichroic reflector in the Source-4 sounds very interesting. Now that people are noticing the hard to control IR response in the Red One it seems having lighting options that don't shoot a lot of IR is a good thing. Plus it's nice to not toast the talent when you have choice. Though I guess at asa 320 or 500 the lighting levels are pretty comfortable. You're not talking about warmer tray levels of light at those speeds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top