Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, the GlimmerGlass is more like a Black ProMist effect, more halation (glow) but less softening, the Classic Softs are more for softening, but less glow... because of the lenslets, on some focal lengths, what you get is more of a fuzzy double edge on bright areas like a hot backlight, rather than a hazy glow. Instead of that mist particle glow around a light bulb, for example, it looks more like an out-of-focus circle overlaid on the light bulb. Also, as you pan around on some focal lengths, you can see a point of light sort of pass through each lenslet in the Classic Soft. Because of the large size of the lenslets and the wide spacing in the pattern, the effect varies a lot by focal length. Putting them on a telephoto lens makes the fuzzy overlaid image of the light source larger, whereas putting on a wide-angle lens makes it more of a small double-fringe glow to edges. In some ways, you really should switch to the HD Classic Softs if you are going longer than 200mm.

Now I'm talking about the lighter grades, obviously the heaviest GlimmerGlass is going to soften the image more overall than the lightest Classic Soft. Because the GlimmerGlass filters are more in the "mist" category, then tend to lower contrast more than a Classic Soft does.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Thank you David - you made a a lot of things much more clear in my head now.

Knowing by feel is one thing, but you have made it possible for me to break down what I have been feeling into more concrete knowledge less prone to sloppy guesswork.

 

[Petr Tomkevich]

Dear David,

I am not very experienced with cinematography and have a couple of simple questions. My bros and I are planning to invest in a bunch of lights with $20k to invest. We will be using the kit for practicing daily and shooting our productions. We have used Kino's, Mole Richardson fresnel, and Lowel (least favorite, constantly blows out even with converters) but outside of that, we are not very experienced with other lighting brands or LED's and HMI's. So I have a couple of questions for you :

Which companies do you prefer to work with for tungsten and fluorescent lighting?

Can you give me 2 different scenarios when you would use HMI lighting over the others?

LED over the others?

Best regards,
Petr

 

[Rob Ruffo]

catch-lights...

Hi David, I was just wondering what your thoughts were on the importance of "normal looking" catch-lights in the eyes. Some light sources produce squares, others dots, etc. Do you spend a lot of time fixing catch-lights, or do you figure that, within reason, the audience lets them slide? In particular, has the catch-light of kino-flos ever bothered you as looking a bit odd when uses for in front of the face?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Dear David,

I am not very experienced with cinematography and have a couple of simple questions. My bros and I are planning to invest in a bunch of lights with $20k to invest. We will be using the kit for practicing daily and shooting our productions. We have used Kino's, Mole Richardson fresnel, and Lowel (least favorite, constantly blows out even with converters) but outside of that, we are not very experienced with other lighting brands or LED's and HMI's. So I have a couple of questions for you :

Which companies do you prefer to work with for tungsten and fluorescent lighting?

Can you give me 2 different scenarios when you would use HMI lighting over the others?

LED over the others?

Best regards,
Petr

I tend to rent ARRI and Mole-Richardson tungsten mostly, plus Dedolights and Source-4's. Fluorescents tend to be Kinos. I'm a renter so I don't have an opinion about what's the best thing to buy in terms of value for money.

I use HMI's for daylight-balanced scenes when I need big powerful lamps. For smaller lamps, I may use a mix of Source-4's adapted to use Joker 800's, regular Joker 400's and 800's (these are made by K5600), and LED's and daylight Kinos. Dedolight also makes a good HMI unit.

I've only used Litepanels LED's for a few projects so far.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

catch-lights...

Hi David, I was just wondering what your thoughts were on the importance of "normal looking" catch-lights in the eyes. Some light sources produce squares, others dots, etc. Do you spend a lot of time fixing catch-lights, or do you figure that, within reason, the audience lets them slide? In particular, has the catch-light of kino-flos ever bothered you as looking a bit odd when uses for in front of the face?

Some people always want catch-lights, eyelights, others find them artificial-looking, too glossy. I have mixed feelings, I use them now & then, particularly when shooting in top lighting, when the eyes are shadowed, or for romantic scenes... and also for moonlit scenes, because that catch-light can make an underexposed face more "readable" in terms of expression.

I notice Kino tube reflections in eyes (you see them a lot in "Lord of the Rings"), doesn't bother me too much and I'm not sure most audiences care about the shape of the catch-light. Again, it can depend on the movie and the situation, sometimes it looks artificial.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Thank you for your highly valued personal opinion on the topic. I'll look though my DVD of "Lord of the Rings" again - funny it didn't bother me the first time... yet I tend to obsess about the shape of these things on set. Maybe I shouldn't worry so much...

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Does the size of the reflection double every time you cut the light's distance in half?

About the audiences perception, would you agree that multiple reflections could be read as a character experiencing mixed emotions or having multiple trains of though, where a single reflection could be read as a more focused state of mind or one train of thought or them heading in a more defined emotional direction? I know this stuff is out there, but I wonder what else we could gather from it. Light is easily accepted as energy. And it is also pretty safe to say that everyone see the eyes as a window what is within, at least on a subconscious level. So reflections of light on this very surface could be read as some sort of energy at work within, in the mind body or soul. Then multiple sources could be split trains of thoughts/energy/emotions, a single source could be a more focused or unified mind or emotional state, a large reflection could be a more intense version of these, and a small reflection could being a weaker "experiencing".

And a bit less abstract, what do you see as artificial? I mean, one needs to try to use rectangular sources if there are only rectangular windows in the location, try to avoid multiple reflections if there is only the moon, avoid bringing a single vertical bare tube close up unless it is motivated by similar practical lighting like at a bus stop with no billboard in the window, that sort of thing. So it is all about plausibility right? (or emotional motivation, you can have fun in a dream etc)

 

[nageswara rao s]

hi, Mr David mullen sir, i want some information and need your advice in camera selection and lighting. i am indie, want to make low budget movie and want to release it in theatres too. i am considering panasonic series hpx 500 or hpx 370. if i go for 500, it has 2/3 sensor and 8 bit log files and shoot at 1440*1080 progressive scan and gives 1,555,200 pixels count. if a select hpx 370, it has 1/3 sensor and having reliable codec avc intra, 10 bit log files and as well as shoot at 1920*1080= 2073600 pixels it gives. pixels wise if i go i have to select 370, because it give 30% more pixel count. but every one select a camera based on its sensor sizes, then i have select 500. it is wise and advisable by anybody also. sir Mr David what is your advice to me and also to indies for too. what kind of low cost lighting should i select within budget constraints too.
so much of people also discussing about gh1 with ptool hack, also better for digital cinema purpose for lowbudget film makers. what is your opinion Mr david in this.
sorry for my ignorance sir, if my questions are not relevant to a great DP like you.
thanks in advance and if these type questions are answered by you before else where with indies , i am extremly sorry for that

nageswara rao surapaneni
hyderabad, india.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Does the size of the reflection double every time you cut the light's distance in half?

About the audiences perception, would you agree that multiple reflections could be read as a character experiencing mixed emotions or having multiple trains of though, where a single reflection could be read as a more focused state of mind or one train of thought or them heading in a more defined emotional direction? I know this stuff is out there, but I wonder what else we could gather from it. Light is easily accepted as energy. And it is also pretty safe to say that everyone see the eyes as a window what is within, at least on a subconscious level. So reflections of light on this very surface could be read as some sort of energy at work within, in the mind body or soul. Then multiple sources could be split trains of thoughts/energy/emotions, a single source could be a more focused or unified mind or emotional state, a large reflection could be a more intense version of these, and a small reflection could being a weaker "experiencing".

And a bit less abstract, what do you see as artificial? I mean, one needs to try to use rectangular sources if there are only rectangular windows in the location, try to avoid multiple reflections if there is only the moon, avoid bringing a single vertical bare tube close up unless it is motivated by similar practical lighting like at a bus stop with no billboard in the window, that sort of thing. So it is all about plausibility right? (or emotional motivation, you can have fun in a dream etc)

I don't pretend to have as useful an answer as David, but I'd personally say that in urban night exteriors we accept that there is all sorts of weird lighting going on, within reason - I'm not saying you can bring out a hip-hop ring-light, but the viewer assumes that there might be some signs or up-lighting on a building or whatever that simply was not framed, and is just "around".

After David's reply, I looked back at some 3D rendering theory books I have here and many studies conclude that humans have the easiest time decoding/seeing a problem with "directly viewed geometry", second motion, then shadows, and last reflections. In other words, you can make a 3D render where the reflections aren't exactly realistic, and it's an error, unless gross, that is unlikely to be noticed. (See Toy Story I for a film where many reflections were only very roughly approximated because at the time rendering them all correctly would have cost too much CPU - I think it's a good way to learn our perceptual "reflection cheat tolerance".)

Probably the same applies to live-action film.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

I absolutely agree Rob. Thank you for mentioning that tidbit about the order. It makes great sense. And thank you for your discussion, I have been interested in rationalizing eyelights. I feel the more we can understand things in deeper way, the better of a foundation we will have. Even if we don't get to actually employ them to a large degree.

I read your other posts and already felt that reflections, especially on a curved or other distorting surface, were very easily "accepted". If we don't have time to sit there and work it out we simply won't, even if someone could and wanted to. The story is moving on, and we have to keep up with the many other layers that keep flowing with piles of more pertinent information. So even on an ECU of someone's eyes you can get away with murder by just trying to make it plausible. That is why I suppose that it would only be necessary to try to make our sources have the basic shape of the practicals. Rectangular if there were only windows, and that sort of basic thing. Unless of course, you stayed on that ECU for a long time, after panning from a long shot of the location. But even than wouldn't have people walk out unless you used a beer sign for your key or something liek that.

I guess that is why I am thinking about their use in a subjective way. Just like we won't decode the shapes perfectly, we don't count reflections and practical sources either. So in a scene with opposing coverage for dialogue between two actors that happened in a room with three large windows in front of one of them, you can still get a single reflection in that actors eyes and virtually nobody would mind it.

But of course, you can't light with eye light as the chief concern, so, it isn't like we can expect too much control in live action.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Sure, reflections in the eye are easily justifiable in an urban night exterior, or any scene with artificial lighting going on if there is more than one source, or if that one source is naturally reflected in the eyes.

Where I think it feels more glossy and slick is like in day exteriors, like in an open field on a farm or something. But again, it depends on the movie.

Certainly you can take a less naturalistic tone and add a touch of stylization that includes catch-lights. "Lord of the Rings" definitely could justify them.

The shape isn't too critical, the eye being like a mirror ball tends to reduce the size of most reflected light sources to small dots, except for really large soft sources close to the face. But a Kino tube up close is a bit distinctive since it forms a line instead of a dot.

 

[Felix Wiedemann]

Hi David,

I am about to shoot a film on the M-X with Cooke S4s, finishing with a 35mm print and HD deliverables. The look we go for is a "feelgood" look with a good amount of contrast and primary colours in the costume and design.

When I used the RED before with Ultraprimes or Masterprimes, I always used a light diffusion filter like the 1/8th Black Pro Mist to take a bit of the digital sharpness off. I was always happy with the results.

Now I did some tests with the new M-X sensor and the Cooke S4s ( unfortunately I couldn't do the tests in ideal conditions and didn't get the chance to see the results on a big screen) but to my surprise I actually preferred the image without the filter (projected on a small screen). The filter seemed to lower the contrast, but without the filter the image didn't feel overly sharp and "digital" and had more "punch".
I thought an explanation might be that the use of the Cooke S4s, which might be a touch softer anyway, plus shooting the the M-X at 800ASA with a touch more noise might be the reason that this time the filtration doesn't seem necessary to my eye?

What are your thoughts on that ? Do you feel that the S4s are adding that softness that I would try to achieve with very subtlte Black Pro Mist on Zeiss lenses ? Have you shot the RED clean with S4s before ? Do you think the print on the big screen will feel quite different ?

Thank you very much !

All the best,
Felix

 

[David Mullen ASC]

The Cooke S4's may have a slightly softer contrast / crispness to them, but the contrast of the color-correction and display system is a much bigger factor -- there have been a number of contrasty, crisp action films shot on Cooke S4's, such as "Live Free and Die Hard" and "Casino Royale".

But the wider dynamic range of the M-X sensor images may also be contributing to this feeling that the image is smoother, less clippy, and thus needs less diffusion. If you were only using the 1/8 Black ProMist to take the edge off and soften the image a bit, it's probably not necessary.

 

[Ramesh Jai]

I have a very challenging shoot coming up. It has a lot of people running (outdoors, daytime) pushing and shoving each other through traffic and trying to get ahead. How does one handle lighting in this situation..? Do we light at all or use polyboards and silks? Any tips? Besides steadicam is there anything else I can use to get movement? Any advice will be greatly appreciated. (Using MX'd RED One)

Thanks.

 

[nageswara rao s]

sir, Mr David i posted my question in page 329 and post no is #3289. i think you are so busy and if at all i wasted so much of your precious time, i am extremely sorry for that sir.

 

[Jon Chema]

David, are you a fan of Zooms or Primes? I realize it really depends on the situation, but what type of lens do you prefer to use more often? Can you give some examples of situations that each would be used in? Also, what brand/line do you prefer for both primes and zooms?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

sir, Mr David i posted my question in page 329 and post no is #3289. i think you are so busy and if at all i wasted so much of your precious time, i am extremely sorry for that sir.

I don't have an opinion about those two cameras... you can read Barry Green's reviews of them here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/HPX500/
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/article.php/28

I would still tend to go for the 2/3" camera over a 1/3" camera, but I also think you should try and wait for something better to come out, like the Scarlet. Sort of depends on what the camera will be used for, if for narrative feature work, I'd prefer a sensor that is larger than 1/3".

 

[David Mullen ASC]

David, are you a fan of Zooms or Primes? I realize it really depends on the situation, but what type of lens do you prefer to use more often? Can you give some examples of situations that each would be used in? Also, what brand/line do you prefer for both primes and zooms?

Zooms are generally a practical necessity, otherwise, it's rare would I would prefer using a larger, heavier, slower, softer, more expensive lens that breathes and flares more compared to a prime. Primes are generally smaller, lighter, flare less, and are a more precise way to shoot. However, I will go to a zoom when it makes sense to. I've had to shoot most of the close-ups on my current movie with a second camera using the 11:1 Primo zoom, it's sharp enough for close-up work. We don't get much rehearsals or takes so I need to be able to quickly reframe the tighter shot when something goes wrong, actors miss their marks, etc. Truth is that I think zooms lead to a lot of bad habits... such as grabbing a close-up while shooting the medium shots, just to save time. But if the production wants a lot of angles quickly for editing purposes, it is faster to use a zoom to get them.

The cleanest, sharpest, fastest 35mm zooms with the least breathing tend to be on the big side. I don't have a particular opinion about which zoom is better, the current industry standard tends to be the Angeneuix Optimos. Truth is that the most expensive zooms tend to be the best. But it really depends on what type of zoom you are looking at... wide-angle handheld zooms, zooms with a huge range, etc.

Technically, it's really the wide shots that I hate to shoot on a zoom. That, and shots with a lot of focus racking. Otherwise, it's not much of a technical compromise, the only problem is the sloppier filmmaking style it allows.

 

[Ramesh Jai]

Posting again- I think you overlooked my question

Ramesh Jai
Senior Member
*

*
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 679

I have a very challenging shoot coming up. It has a lot of people running (outdoors, daytime) pushing and shoving each other through traffic and trying to get ahead. How does one handle lighting in this situation..? Do we light at all or use polyboards and silks? Any tips? Besides steadicam is there anything else I can use to get movement? Any advice will be greatly appreciated. (Using MX'd RED One)

Thanks.