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 Mullen ASC said:
Not sure if I have any good advice -- when I was making my own movies here in Los Angeles, I couldn't figure out how to break in either, other than some low-budget music video / karaoke work. So I went to film school here and after graduation, started getting work thru fellow graduates. But I'm not sure that's helpful.

You pretty much have to be willing to go out and shoot anything for awhile, just to build up the contacts.

The reel is good but I'd say you could shorten it down to 2 minutes and it would become stronger just by trimming the less interesting shots.
Click to expand...


Thank you, yeah that's pretty much what I expected I'd have to do, just get to LA and hustle! Thank you so much for watching my reel. It means so much! One last question....What would you say were the un-interesting shots... I'll cut them now! haha. Thank you again so much! Your work is awesome!
 
Question About FOV ...

Question About FOV ...

Hi David,

I have a quick question ... I recently began shooting with the Red One
and was surprised at difference in field of view when you scale down
from 4k to 2k. I was using a Red Pro Zoom and even at 18mm, there
seemed to be no chance of wide shots when shooting at 2k.

Anyway, my question is:

If you have two sensors that are close in size -- approx S35 -- for
example the new Epic sensor is 27.65mm x 14.58mm and the Canon 1d
Mark iV, which is 27.9mm x 15.7mm. As you know, the Epic is a 5k
sensor and the Canon is a 2k sensor.

If you have the same lenses/focal length and you're shooting both at the
highest possible resolution -- is the field of view roughly the same?

I guess I'm just a little confused also because it seems as though you could
have lens sets designed to fully cover S35 -- yet not enough to cover the
Epic sensor.

I know the Epic is not out yet, but thinking this whole issue is more about
understanding the science behind all this ... and if anyone would know that
here it would be you.

Thanks in advance for your response.

Anthony
 
4K 2:1 on the Red One is 22.12mm x 11.06mm -- the reason that 2K has a narrower view is that it is achieved by cropping the sensor down to 11.06mm x 5.53mm. The resolution isn't the issue per se, it's the size of the sensor area being used for the image which determines the field of view of a particular focal length.

So if the recorded sensor area of both the Epic and the Canon is 27mm-ish wide, then yes, the field of view would be similar.

And the Canon sensor isn't 2K, it's 4896 x 3264 and thus similar to the Epic. The difference is that with the Epic, you record the RAW sensor output, whereas with the Canon, the sensor output is essentially decimated through various schemes (pixel binning, maybe line-skipping, etc.) down to 1920 x 1080. But they don't get down to 1920 x 1080 by simply cropping the 4896 x 3264 sensor, unlike how the Red One goes from 4K to 2K.

As for "Super-35", that's been a term thrown around loosely. In 35mm movie terms, the Super-35 negative area is 24mm wide, so the size of the Epic M-X sensor and the Canon 1D Mark IV sensor is slightly bigger than that. However, most Super-35 cine lenses project a large-enough image to cover the diagonal of these sensors, the only exceptions may be some of the shorter focal lengths.
 
3:2 aspect ratio

3:2 aspect ratio

Hi David,

I've got an upcoming shoot that is a little different than I'm used to. The end user will be projecting the finished project on a screen that measures approximately 198" wide by 62" tall. Screen resolution is 3453 x 1080 but maximum input of the Vista Systems Spyder video processor is 2048 x 1200. Some shots will fill the screen, while others will be part of split screen effects in one form or another.

My questions are:
Do you have any advice on the best way to tackle what is essentially a double 16:9 aspect ratio?

What considerations should I be aware of when shooting?

Assuming I have frame guides that represent my finished aspect ratio, is there anything else I need to concern myself with at the time of shooting?

I am prepared to crop the top and bottom of the frame in post but would appreciate any insights in addition to how to handle that part.

Finally, is anamorphic a smart option? Does anamorphic get me anything more, or less? And what if any considerations ned to be considered if I go this route?

Thanks for your time.
Glenn
 
Well, anamorphic would gain you a bit more camera resolution compared to cropping to 3.19:1 essentially (or 3.55:1 if you want to double 16x9 horizontally.)

But it doesn't help much if the projector is limited to 2048 x 1200 unless you have the option of somehow fitting a 1.3X anamorphic projector lens on the camera and a 1.3X Hawk anamorphic lens on the camera, keep the same squeeze ratio through post.

Otherwise, you might as well limit the amount of cropping of the projector to 3.19 : 1 -- do you really mean inches instead of feet, that the screen will only be 16.5' x 5.16'? If so, a 2K projector will be fine.

In that case, just crop the Red 4K 2:1 image to 3.19 : 1 and downsample in post to 2K -- how does this projector deal with a non-standard format like this? The image would be 2048 x 642 pixels. Or doe it require an HD 1920 x 1080 signal that is just letterboxed to 3.19 : 1?
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Well, anamorphic would gain you a bit more camera resolution compared to cropping to 3.19:1 essentially (or 3.55:1 if you want to double 16x9 horizontally.)

But it doesn't help much if the projector is limited to 2048 x 1200 unless you have the option of somehow fitting a 1.3X anamorphic projector lens on the camera and a 1.3X Hawk anamorphic lens on the camera, keep the same squeeze ratio through post.

Otherwise, you might as well limit the amount of cropping of the projector to 3.19 : 1 -- do you really mean inches instead of feet, that the screen will only be 16.5' x 5.16'? If so, a 2K projector will be fine.



In that case, just crop the Red 4K 2:1 image to 3.19 : 1 and downsample in post to 2K -- how does this projector deal with a non-standard format like this? The image would be 2048 x 642 pixels. Or doe it require an HD 1920 x 1080 signal that is just letterboxed to 3.19 : 1?
Click to expand...


The screen dimensions are correctly stated in inches. They are approximate at this point because the screening room is in the construction phase, but I've been told they are pretty accurate.


Would 4.5k widescreen be a good or better choice than 4k 2:1? I would have let to crop top and bottom that way.
 
Glenn Dreher said:
Would 4.5k widescreen be a good or better choice than 4k 2:1? I would have let to crop top and bottom that way.
Click to expand...

Isn't 4.5K also 2:1? You'd have the same amount of cropping if so, just more overall resolution to start with. But if the projected image is only 16.5' wide and the projector is limited to 2K, I don't think it makes much difference if you shoot in 4K or 4.5K.
 
David,

Where do you think Kodak should be focusing its film R&D efforts? Should they try to develop a low contrast, but wide latitude film stock for the DI process or shoot for a lower contrast, more "filmic" looking negative, for lack of a better term?
 
I don't know what Kodak should do -- their Vision-3 stocks are low-contrast enough for most folks, I don't see a big demand for even flatter stocks just because they make the D.I. easier. Some people have gone the other way now and prefer the higher-contrast Fuji Vivid stocks.

There really isn't anything "missing" in the current line-up of stocks short of lower-usage "designer" stocks, like a negative version of Kodachrome / Velvia for people who want that look. But I don't see that happening, it's not cost-efficient in terms of manufacturing and warehousing.

Personally, I just wish Kodak would sell Vision Premier print stock at the same price as regular Vision -- most film-outs look better printed onto Premier, but most opt for regular Vision because of the cost difference, especially when you are talking about thousands of release prints.

I think the one thing that would be a best-seller would be a 1000 ASA negative stock, if it were as fine-grained as the current 500 ASA stock.

Fuji's line-up is good too, the only thing missing are some really slow fine-grained stocks. They dropped 125T, their 64D is a bit older in look, the 160T is a bit grainy, and the Eterna line-up otherwise starts at the 250 ASA stocks. They need to revamp the 64D stock or lower the grain of the 160T or come out with an Eterna 125T stock or something. Kodak has their Vision-3 50D stock, and a new fine-grained Vision-3 200T stock.
 
Chuck Z said:
Should that read Vision-3 250D or Vision-2 50D?
Click to expand...

Yes, I meant Vision-2 50D, which was the basis of the Vision-3 stocks actually -- the problem with replacing the old EXR 50D stock was that it was already so fine-grained, so Kodak developed this "sub-micron grain technology" they talk about, basically very tiny and slow grains, for the Vision-2 50D. But that allowed them to add sub-micron grain layers to their Vision-3 stocks (200T, 250D, and 500T so far) and thus extend the detail in extremely overexposed areas.
 
Do you prefer the Vision 3 250D or Vision 2 50D?

Also, why does Kodak rate the Vision 3 200T and Vision 3 250D so closely together in terms of daylight exterior performance?
 
Chuck Z said:
Do you prefer the Vision 3 250D or Vision 2 50D?

Also, why does Kodak rate the Vision 3 200T and Vision 3 250D so closely together in terms of daylight exterior performance?
Click to expand...

Well, 250D is more practical, but I love the look of 50D.

Vision-3 200T and 250D would obviously be close in terms of graininess, being just 1/3 of a stop apart in sensitivity, it's just that the 200T would use an 85 filter and thus be a 125 ASA stock for all practical purposes in daytime, but it still has the grain of a 200 ASA stock. Now the 250D would be slightly grainier, but remember that with 200T stock, the blue layer is faster and thus grainier in order to handle the blue deficiencies in tungsten light, so you may find that blues (like blue skies) are a bit finer-grained on 250D, and definitely on 50D stock. But otherwise, it's a bit of a toss-up which would be better outdoors, 200T or 250D, you're splitting hairs at that point.

Now lovers of tungsten-balanced stocks claim that daylight-balanced stocks are a bit more contrasty. I'm not sue that is really true, but on the other hand, when Kodak did a demo of all their stocks several years ago side-by-side shooting the same image, the daylight stocks at the time (EXR 50D and Vision-1 250D I think) had the deepest blacks for some reason and thus were a bit more contrasty. But that could be that they came out a bit more dense on the negative and thus used higher printer light values, or that was just the look of those two stocks at the time.
 
Do you think Kodak should release a slower speed daylight balanced stock or should Vision 3 focus primarily on higher ASA?

How long will Vision 2 stock be around?
 
I don't think Kodak can make a Vision-3 50D stock -- there is nothing really to improve, and the sub-micron technology that makes the Vision-3 stocks possible is already in Vision-2 50D. It took them a long time to just improve EXR 50D, and some people still miss that stock. It's very hard to improve a slow-speed stock.

Now whether they should make a Vision-3 100T stock, I think Kodak feels that the new 200T makes that unnecessary. The 100T stock has always been a bit problematic, it is very sharp, perhaps their sharpest stock, but that sharpness tends to make the grain crisper, edgier, making it seem almost as grainy as the 200T stocks. So now that the new 200T is finer-grained and sharper than before, and because 100T is a low-seller, Kodak is probably just going to get rid of 100T.

The stocks are all so much closer in look than ever before -- I remember shooting a comparison test between Vision-1 100T, 200T, and 500T for a director years ago and we projected the results and he said "I can't tell them apart!"
 
I have a question about diopter vs dedicated macro lenses.
In the same setup,is the dof deeper an more manageable with macro over diopter?
Are there other properties to be aware of?
 
I would assume it's the object's close distance to the lens that is causing the DOF drop-off so I don't think it makes a difference, macro vs. diopter, if that's the same either way. But I'm not sure about that.

Otherwise, macros are generally sharper.
 
David,

I'm currently experiencing an interesting problem dealing with theatrical film prints and digital deliverables. I would love to hear your advice and know if you've dealt with similar problems.

Here is the situation:

I shot a small independent film on Red. The film has been bought by a studio and will see a small theatrical release (250 cities) early spring of next year. They are currently hosting small pre-release screenings of the film. I was able to catch one recently (digitally projected via a Sony CineAlta 4k projector) and was appalled by what I saw. The projection was nothing like the movie I had timed with the colorist.

The black levels were completely off, making the a picture milky grey mess.

Now, luckily the film isn't yet released and everything should be sorted out before the release. (I think I will shoot myself in the face if it's not)

Of course, I would have loved to have been present at every step in the image chain, but for budgetary and practical reasons I could not be involved beyond the color correction stage.

I'm just amazed that they could drop the ball and begin showing it to audiences with such an error in the picture. Have you ever dealt with anything similar? and can you offer any advice?

Thanks!
 
Generally digital projection standards are pretty consistent, though the 4K Sony doesn't have the same black levels as a 2K Barco / DLP projector, but it shouldn't look milky. But they aren't the blackest blacks you've ever seen due to the LCD technology used.

This would make me worried that the problem is not the projector but in the master or in the copies. You'd have to look at all of them back at the D.I. facility to check. Hopefully your facility used properly calibrated projectors when you timed it.

If they are all fine, then the problem was the projector. Maybe there was some sort of set-up level problem.

Before special screenings, you can always arrange a test run to make sure everything is OK (not just in terms of black levels but aspect ratio and sound, which are more common problems.) But for general release, there isn't much you can do other than to make sure that your duplication masters are correct at least. But like I said, digital projection standards using DCP's sent to the theaters make things pretty consistent and standardized.

I'm sure your distributor would want to solve a problem if there is a mistake in the digital copies. Now for these advance screenings, who knows what sort of temporary digital copy they created... Maybe it's all Rec 709 / HD rather than 2K / P3 color space, for example, or vice-versa, maybe they created a copy with digital cinema gamma but the projector was set-up for Rec 709 broadcast HD gamma.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top