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

Screenshot2010-11-19at45120AM.png


David, how would you go about lighting to achieve something like this?

I really like the neutral and somewhat soft look.

Thanks,

Josh Kates
 
Last edited:
David Mullen ASC said:
Well, I had a Nikon D40X but recently got a Canon T2i Rebel. I also have a Canon Powershot and now a Fuji Fiinepix point & shoot that I use on vacations when I don't want to lug around a DSLR. But otherwise, I haven't been taking many still photos lately except of my dogs...
Click to expand...

haha I didn't expect to hear that you have a T2i but I'm glad to hear it nevertheless, thanks David.
 
J Davis said:
I've seen you answer this question before and for the life of me I can't remember and I can't find the post despite my searching.

It's about combining diffusion like soft fx with nd's.
I'm fairly sure it's nd's on the outside right?
Click to expand...

As David seems to have missed this one, allow me to chime in.

You're right. As diffusion filters may flare if hit directly by light, it's better to have them behind the NDs. But you may want to put graduated filters as close to the lens as possible to avoid the edge being in focus.
 
Josh Kates said:
Screenshot2010-11-19at45120AM.png


David, how would you go about lighting to achieve something like this?

I really like the neutral and somewhat soft look.

Thanks,

Josh Kates
Click to expand...

Well, a lot of the neutrality is in the design, there isn't really any color in the image other than the skintones. On top of that, the blacks are not completely black, and black levels affect contrast and thus sharpness. Then the light is a bit soft, though not super soft. Seems like an older lens causing a certain amount of flare from the bright area in the frame. Or there may even be a slight bit of haze in the air. And finally, it wasn't timed to add back contrast or saturation, it was left on the muted side.
 
Joe G. said:
"but recently got a Canon T2i Rebel"

David -- do you use the T2i for video at all? Any tips on that?
Click to expand...

I've used it for a tiny bit of B-roll stuff, haven't really done much yet with it. Truth is that after I tested the Canon video image, the base quality level, the sharpness, didn't excite me enough to use the camera for video too often. Seems to work best for tight shots where the focus drops off enough to hide the artifacts and increase the perception of sharpness.
 
David, I hope these questions aren't too technical for this thread (however I'm sure you'll be able to answer them).

I was originally looking at the Scarlet S35, but with the price boost I don't think it will be possible. I am now looking into the Scarlet 2/3" (both fixed and non-fixed) and had a couple of questions...

1. Do you think getting a lens adapter for the 2/3" fixed Scarlet would be a good idea? I have heard arguments for both sides...one being that it will appear soft focus and the image would need to be resized to 2k to make it look sharp, and the other side being that the image won't be affected.

2. If I were to get the 2/3" Scarlet without a fixed lens, should I use HD primes, 16mm primes, or 35mm primes?

I apologize if these questions are basic...I'm a recent film school grad and I'm still trying to learn. Thanks!
 
DOF adaptors are a pain to work with and are only necessary when you want super-shallow focus, not run-of-the-mill depth of field. For the most part, unless you are going for some sort of stylized effect (or dream sequence) where barely any part of the frame is in focus by shooting at f/2 or wider, I'd skip them.

The fixed lens is something around f/2.6 I think, so it would look like shooting S35 at f/5.6, not the end of the world. Backgrounds would still be soft in close-ups.

But the advantage of the interchangeable lens version is that you can use faster lenses... an f/1.4 lens, for example, shot wide-open, would give you a fairly shallow-focus effect.

I don't have an opinion on lenses to get, sort of depends on your budget. The Red Mini-Primes seem like a good deal. I'd probably get a Super-16 zoom to go with them.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I don't have an opinion on lenses to get, sort of depends on your budget. The Red Mini-Primes seem like a good deal. I'd probably get a Super-16 zoom to go with them.
Click to expand...

Sorry to chip in here, but I would like to know if these Super-16 lenses will fit for the whole 2/3"s 3K resolution. I read somewhere that they only fit 2K resolution on RED One. It would be a shame to waste 1/3rd of the resolution due to this. Can you please tell me whether or not this is true?

Thanks, Jesper
 
Jesper Sichlau said:
Sorry to chip in here, but I would like to know if these Super-16 lenses will fit for the whole 2/3"s 3K resolution. I read somewhere that they only fit 2K resolution on RED One. It would be a shame to waste 1/3rd of the resolution due to this. Can you please tell me whether or not this is true?

Thanks, Jesper
Click to expand...

When you say "fit" 3K resolution, are you asking if they can cover the 2/3 sensor or they can actually resolve 3K? As I understand it, the reason the super 16 lenses can only cover 2K on the R1 is that it has a super 35-sized sensor, so you can only cover half the width of the sensor with a lens designed for super 16. The scarlet has smaller pixels than the M and MX do in order to fit 3K into a 2/3" sensor. Since super 16 is actually a bit bigger than 2/3", a super 16 lens should have no problem covering the Scarlet.

In terms of actual being able to resolve 3K, that's more open to debate. Because of debayer, the measured resolution of the Scarlet is probably a little lower than 3K. David would know much better than I, but I would assume with a fine-grained 16mm stock, super 16 would not be much lower than that, so cine-quality super 16 lenses should be able to resolve at or near the resolving power of the Scarlet. What you DON'T want to use is 2/3" ENG glass.
 
Jesper Sichlau said:
Sorry to chip in here, but I would like to know if these Super-16 lenses will fit for the whole 2/3"s 3K resolution. I read somewhere that they only fit 2K resolution on RED One. It would be a shame to waste 1/3rd of the resolution due to this. Can you please tell me whether or not this is true?

Thanks, Jesper
Click to expand...

Super-16 lenses would cover the 2/3" sensor area (nearly 10mm wide), which is a slightly smaller than the 2K area of the 4K Red sensor (about 11mm wide for 2K). In other words, a Super-16 lens should cover either 2/3" sensors or the 2K cropped area of the S35 Red One sensor... since a Super-16 camera gate is 12.52mm wide.

In terms of sharpness, a good Super-16 lens should be sharp enough for 3K RAW photography.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
It's probably pretty good... the only problem I've had with Zeiss 16mm zooms is the amount of breathing and tromboning during focus pulls, the front element moves quite a bit. Don't know if this model suffers from that, but in terms of sharpness, it should be a good lens.
Click to expand...

Forgive my ignorance, but what does it mean for a lens to trombone?
 
Maybe that's the wrong term, but basically the problem is that when you pull focus on the zoom, the front of the lens moves forwards or back. If it's bad enough, it gets hard to use a mattebox on rods because the front of the lens moves so far as to either hit the filter or pop out of the rubber ring or donut.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Maybe that's the wrong term, but basically the problem is that when you pull focus on the zoom, the front of the lens moves forwards or back. If it's bad enough, it gets hard to use a mattebox on rods because the front of the lens moves so far as to either hit the filter or pop out of the rubber ring or donut.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's why it's nice that lenses like RED's 18-50 have a fixed hood on them. The hood is large and annoying, but it has to be wide enough to be out of the way at 18mm and still provide protection. Mattebox bellows, etc.. can be clamped to it. Lenses without internal focus and/or internal zoom can be a real problem with matteboxes, filters, etc..

I don't know if "trombone" is the right term or not either. But around here, we say the lens "trombones" if the front element moves out, then in, then back out again when focusing through the entire range. (or vice-versa as in in, out, in). I suppose it can happen with zooming too, but not as common and not common at all on true cinema lenses. You see it a lot on SLR lenses.
 
David, I have a couple more questions. They have been plaguing my mind recently.

What exactly is a Circle of Confusion (CoC) and how do you calculate its size in mm?

I had done some research on it and from what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) it's the size of a light when it goes in front or behind the lens' focus. I wasn't sure if it was the difference between the original size of the "spot" and the new size of the "spot," or if I completely misunderstood.

Also, what is depth of focus?

I read that the term what originally associated with depth of field, but as of recently has changed to a term used for something that goes on inside of the camera.

Thanks! Hopefully they aren't too much of a bother!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top