Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, when you cut down on hot glare, you are decreasing the scene's exposure range down to something more manageable for the camera's limited dynamic range, you are not increasing the dynamic range of the camera nor the scene.

Pola filters just cut down on polarized light, like in glare and reflections. It doesn't really darken shadows, but it may occasionally appear that way if the shadow areas had a certain amount of glare in them, like a blue sky reflection in a cement sidewalk in the shade. Also, if your frame is filled with something like a blue sky at a 90 degree angle to the sun, the pola may darken the blue so much that it feels like the shot got darker when it's just the blue sky.

Now a contrast-lowering filter -- or a lower-contrast lens -- may lift the blacks in the image enough to slightly reveal more detail in dark areas, but at the expense of solid blacks.

 

[Jon Chema]

Light Kit/ Cool Lights

Light Kit/ Cool Lights

Hey David,

2 Part question here...

I'm a DP thats starting out and I'd like to invest in a couple of good useful lights. I've debated off and on about just renting 100% of lights for shoots but I think having 2-3 lights on me at all times could serve as useful. Regardless, I'm curious to hear what you feel would be the most useful. Orginally, I was going to invest in a 400w HMI Dedo and then a Kino 4bank, but then discovered a company called "Cool lights."

Part 2- Have you heard of a brand called Cool Lights and for the money are they any good? I've heard numerous positive reviews about them and was thinking of getting this light...

http://www.coollights.biz/clmf0575-cool-lights-fresnel-p-64.html

OR

http://www.coollights.biz/clmf0150-cool-lights-fresnel-p-63.html

Huge price difference but once again i don't know where to start. I don't have a lot of money right now but I think a couple lights could pay for themselves over a couple years. I'm shooting mostly lower budget music videos and corporate spots.

What do you think?

Thanks in advance for your help!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't have any personal experience with CoolLights, so I can't say, but if they seem like what you need and the price is right, I'm sure they are fine.

If you want a small lighting package, then it sort of breaks down into a couple of categories:

Small tungsten kit: usually some 650w-to-1K units, maybe some fresnels & open-faces, etc. Usual suspects are by Lowell and ARRI. Often augmented with Chimeras or other softbox attachments.

Smaller tungsten kit: usually a Dedolight kit

Small HMI's: usually something along the lines of a couple of Joker 400 or 800's, or 575w or 1.2K HMI PAR's, or the Dedo HMI, etc.

Fluorescents: Kinoflos are popular. Flos have the advantage of being switchable between tungsten and daylight tubes

LED's: new kids on the block, right now you mostly see the Litepanels stuff, or for smaller needs, the Rosco HO Litepads.

 

[Jon Chema]

I don't have any personal experience with CoolLights, so I can't say, but if they seem like what you need and the price is right, I'm sure they are fine.

If you want a small lighting package, then it sort of breaks down into a couple of categories:

Small tungsten kit: usually some 650w-to-1K units, maybe some fresnels & open-faces, etc. Usual suspects are by Lowell and ARRI. Often augmented with Chimeras or other softbox attachments.

Smaller tungsten kit: usually a Dedolight kit

Small HMI's: usually something along the lines of a couple of Joker 400 or 800's, or 575w or 1.2K HMI PAR's, or the Dedo HMI, etc.

Fluorescents: Kinoflos are popular. Flos have the advantage of being switchable between tungsten and daylight tubes

LED's: new kids on the block, right now you mostly see the Litepanels stuff, or for smaller needs, the Rosco HO Litepads.

What do you think is the most versatile and most bang for the buck? I'd think that HMI lights would be. Or Kinos. Thats the route i'd probably go as I'm looking to buy mainly daylight lights.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

So you aren't going to shoot any night interiors with tungsten practicals in the shot? You're never going to want to use lights on dimmers?

Most movie shoots have to deal with both 3200K situations and 5600K situations. And let's face it, tungsten, though power-inefficient, is very simple and reliable, no ballasts, no hot restrike problems, no flickering, no green spikes, etc.

But I can understand also needing some daylight lamps, and something like a 575w HMI PAR or Joker 400, or a 1.2K HMI PAR or a Joker 800, would be useful. And Kinoflo-type units are always useful. The thing is that Kinos are always a soft source, you can't use them for shadow patterns, etc. Of course, that can be useful because you get a soft source without a lot of grip support, but lighting can't always be soft, so you need some projected light as well. So it's hard to avoid getting both kinds of light. Sure, you can always bounce or diffuse the HMI instead of use a Kino, but sometimes it's simpler to use the Kino with less fuss and less power & heat.

 

[Jesper Sichlau]

Hi David, I keep noticing people shoot at 23.98 fps instead of clean 24. Could you explain why that is?

 

[dean merrill]

I too have been thinking about getting one of the FLO's. I purchased the spot and flood LED fixtures, and they work really well. Considering the cost, I am happy with them. They aren't built like tanks, but they aren't going to fall apart on you during the first shoot either.

Their customer service is pretty good too.

Hey David,

2 Part question here...

I'm a DP thats starting out and I'd like to invest in a couple of good useful lights. I've debated off and on about just renting 100% of lights for shoots but I think having 2-3 lights on me at all times could serve as useful. Regardless, I'm curious to hear what you feel would be the most useful. Orginally, I was going to invest in a 400w HMI Dedo and then a Kino 4bank, but then discovered a company called "Cool lights."

Part 2- Have you heard of a brand called Cool Lights and for the money are they any good? I've heard numerous positive reviews about them and was thinking of getting this light...

http://www.coollights.biz/clmf0575-cool-lights-fresnel-p-64.html

OR

http://www.coollights.biz/clmf0150-cool-lights-fresnel-p-63.html

Huge price difference but once again i don't know where to start. I don't have a lot of money right now but I think a couple lights could pay for themselves over a couple years. I'm shooting mostly lower budget music videos and corporate spots.

What do you think?

Thanks in advance for your help!

 

[Jon Chema]

So you aren't going to shoot any night interiors with tungsten practicals in the shot? You're never going to want to use lights on dimmers?

Most movie shoots have to deal with both 3200K situations and 5600K situations. And let's face it, tungsten, though power-inefficient, is very simple and reliable, no ballasts, no hot restrike problems, no flickering, no green spikes, etc.

But I can understand also needing some daylight lamps, and something like a 575w HMI PAR or Joker 400, or a 1.2K HMI PAR or a Joker 800, would be useful. And Kinoflo-type units are always useful. The thing is that Kinos are always a soft source, you can't use them for shadow patterns, etc. Of course, that can be useful because you get a soft source without a lot of grip support, but lighting can't always be soft, so you need some projected light as well. So it's hard to avoid getting both kinds of light. Sure, you can always bounce or diffuse the HMI instead of use a Kino, but sometimes it's simpler to use the Kino with less fuss and less power & heat.

Thanks! No I definitely will be using Tungsten, I just feel a couple HMIs may be more versatile as lights to personally OWN. I could use them to create harsh shadows or throw a chimera on to get a nice soft light. Plus they are more efficient so I can run them off ordinary circuits instead of renting a gennie.

 

[Jon Chema]

I too have been thinking about getting one of the FLO's. I purchased the spot and flood LED fixtures, and they work really well. Considering the cost, I am happy with them. They aren't built like tanks, but they aren't going to fall apart on you during the first shoot either.

Their customer service is pretty good too.

Cool lights? Yeah those FLO's and LED's look promising. Also heard great things about the HMI's tho and thats why I was interested in them. For under $500 bucks right now you can get a 150w HMI with ballast and everything. That seems like a good deal if they indeed are built well.

 

[Joe G.]

David, yesterday I saw Eat, Pray, Love (technical specs), and they filmed it with a very pronounced "chiaroscuro" feel. Particularly in the Italian scenes, it almost looked like paintings.

I wonder if you can tell if they used filters or did it in post? It doesn't look like optical filters, but more of a screen blur type effect on just the extreme highlights.

Any pointers on getting this look?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I only saw a few minutes of that film when I snuck into the theater before a screening began of another movie I was seeing... I seem to recall seeing a bit of diffusion on some shots, not others.

I think Richardson lately alternates between using a very light Black ProMist in front of the lens now & then or a net behind the lens, though he often shoots clean these days. Just a guess.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Hi David, I keep noticing people shoot at 23.98 fps instead of clean 24. Could you explain why that is?

Because the U.S. continued the use of 59.94 Hz for broadcast for HD as they did for SD. And the reason NTSC is 59.94 instead of 60 goes WAY back to the introduction of color in TV.

The main reason used to be that sound editors often worked from SD copies of the cut, usually NTSC. Now for material shot on film at 24 fps, it was transferred at 23.976 fps to video for editing, and sound post was done at that speed, but at some point it was corrected back to 24 fps so that it would be in sync with the print. But for some reason, for things shot on video, the preference has been to actually shoot at 23.976 fps.

I actually did one of the first 24P HD features in 2000, "Jackpot", and I shot it at 24P, not 23.98P... and I recall the editor saying that in the final mix, they found themselves shifting the sound around to get it to sync, so I guess I should have picked 23.98P. Anyway, I haven't used 24 since.

Nowadays you'd think we could get rid of 23.98P since sound editors can work from Quicktime files that are exactly 24 fps instead of video copies on DVD and whatnot, but because we are still in a 59.94i centric world in the U.S. for TV monitors and broadcast, etc. I don't see it going away.

 

[paulherrin]

hey david, what kind of solutions are there for flickering (random or controlled) practical bulbs? for example, an earthquake scene or a power surge or something kind of scary.

 

[Jesper Sichlau]

Because the U.S. continued the use of 59.94 Hz for broadcast for HD as they did for SD. And the reason NTSC is 59.94 instead of 60 goes WAY back to the introduction of color in TV.

The main reason used to be that sound editors often worked from SD copies of the cut, usually NTSC. Now for material shot on film at 24 fps, it was transferred at 23.976 fps to video for editing, and sound post was done at that speed, but at some point it was corrected back to 24 fps so that it would be in sync with the print. But for some reason, for things shot on video, the preference has been to actually shoot at 23.976 fps.

I actually did one of the first 24P HD features in 2000, "Jackpot", and I shot it at 24P, not 23.98P... and I recall the editor saying that in the final mix, they found themselves shifting the sound around to get it to sync, so I guess I should have picked 23.98P. Anyway, I haven't used 24 since.

Nowadays you'd think we could get rid of 23.98P since sound editors can work from Quicktime files that are exactly 24 fps instead of video copies on DVD and whatnot, but because we are still in a 59.94i centric world in the U.S. for TV monitors and broadcast, etc. I don't see it going away.

Thank you David. Would you suggest the same framerate (23.98) when living/shooting in PAL-countries?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, if you are talking about tungsten bulbs, you can put them on dimmers for a fading up and down effect, or flicker boxes, or just jiggle the plug or switch (safely). It would be easy for a trained electrician to build something that allowed you to safely, in effect, randomly make contact with two ends of the power going to a lamp. Sort of depends on if you want a flickering or a dimming/surging effect.

Trickier with fluorescents that use a ballast, there are ways of getting those to flicker but you have to choose the right ballast, etc. or else you'll just be burning one ballast out after another.

 

[paulherrin]

thanks david. not sure why that didn't cross my mind. couple of dimmers ought to do the trick. thank you!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Thank you David. Would you suggest the same framerate (23.98) when living/shooting in PAL-countries?

No, if audio post is going to be done in a 50 Hz-centric country, I'd stick to 25P or 24P. But I don't live in a 50 Hz country, so don't take my word on it, ask a sound supervisor or assistant editor in a PAL country.

 

[Matt W.]

couple of dimmers ought to do the trick.

I think some grip shops rent flicker boxes, but when I had to do this I just used dimmers. Honestly, just flicking a switch on and off (you can get in-line switches for $3 at home depot and then hook them up with 3-to-2s since they're not grounded) quickly looks better than a dimmer for an "earthquake" effect since dimmers are slow. They're good for faking a tv or something (with full ctb), though. If you really want flicker (and to destroy a fluorescent bulb) put a cfl on a dimmer switch and then briefly set it to anything but 100%. Most clfs aren't designed to cope with a modified sine wave and will freak out. But then you can't do that with a rolling shutter whereas tungsten is forgiving since the black body cools off slowly, even when rapidly turned on and off.

I'm mostly chiming in so I have an excuse to recommend these:

http://www.harborfreight.com/router-speed-control-43060.html

They can hum a bit and interfere with audio (so too can all dimmers, I believe) but they work with 1ks no problem and are really fast to set up. A steal compared with the alternatives.

 

[nageswara rao s]

thank you sir for your reply to my previous queston

I don't think the sellability is much of an issue if the Super-16 photography is professionally done and/or a very gritty, rougher look (if that's how you shoot the Super-16) is clearly justified by the story. I mean, it's no more an issue than if you shot something on an HD camcorder, let's say, i.e. you figure that 35mm film and high-end 35mm sensor digital being the benchmark for what distributors prefer, so it's a question of how close you get there with a smaller format.

But it actually takes more experience and knowledge to make a "sub-optimal" format look good -- I mean, almost anyone can make 35mm look pretty good unless they are grossly incompetent. So if your budget is tight and your schedule is short, you want to make sure that you pick a format that will make your life easier, not harder..

. With film stock, you are really paying for real estate and a 2-perf frame (approx. 22mm x 9.5mm) is larger than a Super-16 frame (about 12.5mm x 7.4mm).

sir my question is that super 16 sensor sizes are more than or equal to the digital cinema cameras sensors except for R1 cameras. because R1 has bigger sensor and 4k recordable formats. but remaining all available panny varricam and sony cinema cameras are 2/3" sensors and 1080 formats nowadays. i read some where in these forums written by dp Ryan Patrick Ohara that even sI 2k footage looks 16 mm depth of field on big secreen to him.
we are prefering digital cameras for final film out for no of reasons of budget constraints. actually are these digital cameras in quality wise really surpass the quality of super 16 film stock? or are they nearly reaching the 35 mm stock in quality, film outs at all? with 2/3" sensor and 1080scanning lines wheare as with 3000 to 4000 scanning lines of 35 mm formats. are they really achieving the 35 mm depth of field.(si 2k)
thank you Mr David sir for your precious time spending for us.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

The smaller film formats and the smaller sensors both tend to have deeper focus because your choice in focal lengths get shorter to maintain the same field of view as when shooting in 35mm.

Yes, the SI2K sensor is about the same width as the 16mm frame -- both are about 10.2mm wide; a 2/3" sensor is about 9.5mm wide. Super-16 is about 12mm wide. Super-35 cine is about 24mm wide.

That's about a 2-stop difference in practical DOF for Super-16, and about 2.5-stops for a 2/3" camera once you match field of view to 35mm by using shorter focal lengths on the smaller formats.

"Quality" is a broad term. I would say that practically-speaking, a Super-16 frame has a similar resolution level to a 1080P frame, but it has much more visible grain and less edge sharpness, but wider dynamic range and probably better color than most 1080P cameras. Is that "better quality" or just different? Some people would prefer the "clearer" or "cleaner" image of an HD camera.

But don't confuse sensor size with resolution -- there are HD resolution cameras with 35mm sized sensors.