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

David,

I want to set up a scene where I have shafts of light coming through a window.. 4 separate shafts to be exact (almost as if the windows wooden cross was splitting the light), A hazer would be used inside to actually see the light..


what i really want to do is have 4 distinct cubed shafts of light..

Initially I was thinking of putting a joker 400 back on a source 4 (or 2)
and shooting those through a 4x4 (or larger) frame with a thick black cross pattern...
or perhaps through a cubed box type device...

what would you do? to get this look

btw.. working with only 2 lamps for this effect..

if i could do 4 400's i would.. but i dont have those
 
Last edited:
Zakaree Sandberg said:
David,

I want to set up a scene where I have shafts of light coming through a window.. 4 separate shafts to be exact (almost as if the windows wooden cross was splitting the light), A hazer would be used inside to actually see the light..


what i really want to do is have 4 distinct cubed shafts of light..

Initially I was thinking of putting a joker 400 back on a source 4 (or 2)
and shooting those through a 4x4 (or larger) frame with a thick black cross pattern...
or perhaps through a cubed box type device...

what would you do? to get this look

btw.. working with only 2 lamps for this effect..

if i could do 4 400's i would.. but i dont have those
Click to expand...

I did something similar for a music video I directed. My DP used a hazer to fill up the room and then blasted a 2k Mole thru the window. The window pane naturally split the light into 4 shafts. Check out this video at about: 0:51 and 1:53

http://vimeo.com/14787902
 
Jon Chema said:
Hey David,

I am shooting a music video in the near future for an acoustic guitar guy/girl duo. We have the privilege of shooting at the historic RCA B studio in Nashville (where Elvis recorded his stuff) and I had an interesting creative concept that I wanted to get your input on. I'd like to set the musicians on stools in the middle of the room, with cool looking rugs underneath them. I'd then like to go out and buy about 10-15 clear 40watt lightbulbs and hang them from the ceiling at various heights and distances from the musicians. I'd then use 2 dimmer and set a tap tempo chase in time with the song- having various light bulbs fade in and out throughout each take. I'm also thinking of hanging several strands of christmas lights on the wall directly behind the musicians in order to add some spice to the bokeh on closeups. My question is, how would you light the two musicians? Obviously the lightbulbs are going to have some affect, but I'm thinking a bouncing a couple leko theatre lights may be the best solution. I was also debating on using a couple chinese lanterns to bring up the ambient light level in the room. Overall, I'm going for a dark contrasty vintage look as our location is filled with history. I will be shooting on the Red One and a Canon 7D DSLR with "L" glass.

What are your thoughts on this situation?

Thanks in advance for your help!
Click to expand...

I'd probably go for a single soft side key, no fill (except from all the bulbs), the only question is whether you want that to also fade up & down with the music.
 
Zakaree Sandberg said:
David,

I want to set up a scene where I have shafts of light coming through a window.. 4 separate shafts to be exact (almost as if the windows wooden cross was splitting the light), A hazer would be used inside to actually see the light..


what i really want to do is have 4 distinct cubed shafts of light..

Initially I was thinking of putting a joker 400 back on a source 4 (or 2)
and shooting those through a 4x4 (or larger) frame with a thick black cross pattern...
or perhaps through a cubed box type device...

what would you do? to get this look

btw.. working with only 2 lamps for this effect..

if i could do 4 400's i would.. but i dont have those
Click to expand...

You could try two Joker800 Source-4's and create a rectangle shape with the blades so that all you have to do is put a bar across the middle to split them in half again. Otherwise, I'd probably go with a much bigger single unit farther away and use a cutter that created the four squares of light.

There are window-shaped gobo patterns for Source-4's that are cheap to buy:
http://www.filmandvideolighting.com/roststgodoan.html

Maybe you could mask one of them to become a four-square window.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I'd probably go for a single soft side key, no fill (except from all the bulbs), the only question is whether you want that to also fade up & down with the music.
Click to expand...

Probably not. Might be too crazy in the shadows at points. What do you think? Also, what light fixture do you recommend for the key? A china ball? Also, haze or no haze? I'm just worried about adequately lighting the talent and also keeping the light bulbs from getting crazy blown out.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
If you want more contrast, a side key may work better than a Chinese Lantern, which is harder to flag, however, if you want an overhead key, the Chinese Lantern might be better. You can create a soft side key in dozens of ways, too many to list.
Click to expand...

Thanks man! Really appreciate and value your input. I will figure something out but that's enough to get me started.
 
Sorry to continue this... If I wanted to do this cheaply what would u recommend? I'm doing the shoot for cost and wanna get the most bang for my buck. Have access to lekos, par cans, china balls, some flags and 4x4 frames, kinos, and some tungsten fresnel lights. What do you think is the best way to go about doing this in terms of a soft key. Side key v.s. overhead is more of the look im going for.

J
 
Jon Chema said:
Sorry to continue this... If I wanted to do this cheaply what would u recommend? I'm doing the shoot for cost and wanna get the most bang for my buck. Have access to lekos, par cans, china balls, some flags and 4x4 frames, kinos, and some tungsten fresnel lights. What do you think is the best way to go about doing this in terms of a soft key. Side key v.s. overhead is more of the look im going for.

J
Click to expand...

There is no right or wrong way to create a soft key light, any of those methods would work. Just depends on the space, the power requirements, the color temp you want, the number of flags and c-stands, etc. you want to use.
 
David Mullen,

I was curious if you could describe the process of choosing a camera/medium on a level which you work. How often does the DP get to choose the camera/filmstock or digital camera which is used on a production versus how often is that decision pretty much already made by producers. I work on the opposite end of the spectrum and I often get a budget in which I can propose any camera I think is appropriate, we discuss and it is decided upon based on artistic and budgetary restraints. Which is what I like.

But more often nowadays, it seems during the interview process the director or producer will simply tell me "this is going to be shot on the ______ camera". The "_______" camera is usually the camera flavor of the week in the digital world.

The cameras proposed are never 'bad' ones, but I always find myself caught a bit speechless when interviewing for a DP position or meeting in preproduction and they don't even bother to ask me (the possible or already hired DP) what I think the best choice would be, but rather just tell me.

What is your experience?
 
Mr. Mullen,

When shooting in daylight in a dense forest (think the evergreen forests of the Pacific Northwest -- lots of Douglas Firs, shrubs and ivy) over several days, what's the best way to maintain consistency across shots? Are there certain times of day that work better when under tree/canopy cover? How do you deal with the sudden jumps in contrast when sunlight manages to pierce through the canopy, and, conversely, how do you make sure the lighting doesn't become too monotonous without the fine control allowed by interior environments?

Sorry if some of these questions are a bit too general, but these are all things I'll have to deal with soon.
 
Hi David.

Just curious of your view of Berger's Cine Reflect Lighting System. The concept and the practicalities of it in every day use on set/loc. I watched White Ribbon again the other day and the interiors particularly were beautifully toned B&W - which is obviously a testament to Berger's cinematography skills, but the whole idea really intrigues me. It appears the closest idea i've come across to Alton's philosophy of 'Painting with Light'
 
Steve Das said:
Here is the idea behind the Cine Reflect system.

http://cine-rls.com/?t=idea
Click to expand...

Thanks man. Yeah I know all the details about the system and been in contact with Bernhard Hoefert about it, just waiting for it to be available to rent. I was just asking David for his opinion on using such a system in an every day scenario and just his take on the lighting system itself. As it is a fairly unique concept.

Cheers.

Tim
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
David Mullen,

I was curious if you could describe the process of choosing a camera/medium on a level which you work. How often does the DP get to choose the camera/filmstock or digital camera which is used on a production versus how often is that decision pretty much already made by producers. I work on the opposite end of the spectrum and I often get a budget in which I can propose any camera I think is appropriate, we discuss and it is decided upon based on artistic and budgetary restraints. Which is what I like.

But more often nowadays, it seems during the interview process the director or producer will simply tell me "this is going to be shot on the ______ camera". The "_______" camera is usually the camera flavor of the week in the digital world.

The cameras proposed are never 'bad' ones, but I always find myself caught a bit speechless when interviewing for a DP position or meeting in preproduction and they don't even bother to ask me (the possible or already hired DP) what I think the best choice would be, but rather just tell me.

What is your experience?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's becoming more common for producers to make a camera choice before the DP has been hired, which is annoying. I try to examine their reasoning more closely to see what wiggle room I have, sometimes they simply have a certain camera in mind to rent but are open to testing alternatives, other times, they already own the camera or already have a deal on a certain camera... if I think their choice is fine, then there's not much point in making a stink about it only to end up agreeing with them, but if I think the choice is poor, then either I talk them into changing their minds or I end up not taking the job (more common is just that I don't get the job because I didn't sound enthusiastic enough about their choice of camera!)

You have to weigh all the pros and cons, artistic and financial -- and logistical -- and advise the director and producer as to what you think serves all their needs. You can't just take the high road and always opt for the highest-end technology when it doesn't work for their budget nor is practical for the shoot. On the other hand, if their choice is lame and will actually make it harder to get the movie done within their schedule and budget, you have to explain why.

There is one other factor, which is simply curiosity... such as in being told you have to shoot on the ARRI Alexa or the Red One camera, or that you have to shoot the movie in 3D, for example, and thinking "well, at least I'll get that experience"... I've taken some jobs simply for the chance to do something new, go somewhere interesting, or work with some new piece of technology. As long as the choice of technology isn't inappropriate: it can't be a completely wrong fit or else things will go wrong and you may get the blame.

But in general, I try to not work for producers who dictate what the cinematographic choices will be right up front during the job interview, unless it is a situation where something has already been established, like coming onto an ongoing TV series. But I don't mind discussing these issues with the producers, in fact, I like it.
 
Jonathan Brebner said:
Mr. Mullen,

When shooting in daylight in a dense forest (think the evergreen forests of the Pacific Northwest -- lots of Douglas Firs, shrubs and ivy) over several days, what's the best way to maintain consistency across shots? Are there certain times of day that work better when under tree/canopy cover? How do you deal with the sudden jumps in contrast when sunlight manages to pierce through the canopy, and, conversely, how do you make sure the lighting doesn't become too monotonous without the fine control allowed by interior environments?

Sorry if some of these questions are a bit too general, but these are all things I'll have to deal with soon.
Click to expand...

There is no perfect solution, to some degree, you have to adapt on a moment by moment notice... there is sometimes the option of silking most of the sun and using spots to create sunlight effects, but that can get artificial-looking unless you are careful. Some people will put an HMI lighting balloon over the actors even in day scenes to at least provide a consistent level of soft overhead skylight illumination. But the real problem is all the tree branches poking holes in your balloons and silks.

Sometimes I'll hang an HMI PAR gelled to match the sunlight in a tree branch so that I have a consistent hot spot of sun hitting the actors even when the real sun moves behind a tree and gets blocked. It works pretty well if you keep the angle of the light matching the angle of the sun.

But in general, I try to capture the natural light in the wider shots and only monkey with the close-ups if necessary to match the wide shots.
 
Tim Hole said:
Hi David.

Just curious of your view of Berger's Cine Reflect Lighting System. The concept and the practicalities of it in every day use on set/loc. I watched White Ribbon again the other day and the interiors particularly were beautifully toned B&W - which is obviously a testament to Berger's cinematography skills, but the whole idea really intrigues me. It appears the closest idea i've come across to Alton's philosophy of 'Painting with Light'
Click to expand...

I don't have an opinion on the system. It seems useful in certain large locations where rigging lights is difficult but I also think that it can be dangerous to overly-rely on a single lamp and reflectors for a complex set-up... what if that one lamp dies, or what if there is a lot of wind shaking all those reflectors? What if the mic boom crosses the beam? Also, the softness of a light is dependent on the size of the source relative to the subject, so a 4'x4' reflector, for example, will always be limited in how soft of an effect it can create.

But I can see how such a system would be useful in a period location street or other delicate locations.
 
Creating the "soft" look.

Creating the "soft" look.

Hi David,

I'm looking to create the "soft", realistic look found in Lost In Translation, Romain Gavras' music videos/films, and this video here. I know creating a look is a combination of efforts from the DP, Art Director, Production Designer and such, but I'm wondering if there is anything I can do specifically as the Cinematographer.

I'm shooting on the RED One. Thanks for your time!

Obi
 
Seems mostly about finding locations with a lot of soft natural daylight. Some of the scenes in the music video look smoked/hazed as well, and the timing and design in general is on the pastel side.

If you do need to light, try to find ways of creating fairly large soft sources.

Now in the case of "Lost in Translation" you were talking about a softer low-con film stock and perhaps older, softer lenses (not sure on that one.) So perhaps using lower-contrast lenses would help, maybe even some mild low-con filters (though none of the examples you listed looked filtered.)
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Now in the case of "Lost in Translation" you were talking about a softer low-con film stock and perhaps older, softer lenses (not sure on that one.) So perhaps using lower-contrast lenses would help, maybe even some mild low-con filters (though none of the examples you listed looked filtered.)
Click to expand...

Are their certain lenses/brands known for being softer/lower-contrast? If so, which ones?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top