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

I'm not sure you should expect "normal" skintones in such an extreme condition as late dusk, but creatively, usually when shooting a magic hour sequence the question is what base color temperature do you want to use -- depending on the mood, you may pick something close to 3200K and get a deep blue effect, or pick something above 5600K and get a very warm effect from the glow in the horizon (the shadows are still going to render coolish, but nothing like at 3200K.) Shoot some tests at magic hour, like with the Red One set to 6000K to 7000K and see if the shadows are still too purple for you.
 
Ariel Weiss said:
Thank you David.
What do you think about the more tight lenses, there are also
5, 10 and 14 deg.?

they have something called "enhanced definition"

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/435637-REG/ETC_7060A2046_19_Degree_EDLT_Black.html

Did you try one of these? Do you think it might have some advantage? They claim for more output and sharper beam.

Thanks a lot,
Ariel
Click to expand...

I haven't had a need for those really narrow beams but it might be necessary if the light is very far away -- even a 19 degree lens produces a very wide circle if it's all the way across a soundstage. Bill Wages, ASC, told me he was using something like the 5 or 10 degree lens on a Source-4 HMI to shoot across a warehouse space and hit a card in a window on the opposite side.

As for the enhanced definition lens, not sure if I need one, the main problem with Source-4 Lekos is edge spread from dust accumulating inside the lens, and the chromatic aberration on the edges of patterns, not sure if this enhanced definition lens solves either of those problems.
 
Adam Eden said:
Hi David

I just bought a set of MK III super speeds for my red and the pics so far are great.

My question is I need a 14mm or 16mm lens and also a 100mm and a 135mm lens.
What do you suggest I could buy second hand that would match my set?
Click to expand...

I don't have an answer to that, you're better off talking to another owner of Super-Speeds.
 
It seems David that it was a moon-lit 30 second exposure, which explains the trees in the back. I thought that might be from a special lens, but I didn't catch that he used the kit lens on his t2i.

So I suppose the only way to get this would be to shoot day for night. I thought it could be replicated at night with a lot of lighting, till I realized that so much of the magic is in the sky. However, the amber glow in the horizon wouldn't be possible if shot DFN, which was probably the glow from city lights. And there is no way to illuminate the atmosphere... gosh... this is just not possible is it? Not without insanely sensitive cameras I suppose?
 
David Mullen ASC said:
As for the enhanced definition lens, not sure if I need one, the main problem with Source-4 Lekos is edge spread from dust accumulating inside the lens, and the chromatic aberration on the edges of patterns, not sure if this enhanced definition lens solves either of those problems.
Click to expand...

Hi David,

As I understand it, the enhanced definition lens cleans up gobo projection and has slightly higher light output due to the clearer optics, at the expense of costing a bit more.

I believe the solution to the chromatic aberration on the fringes of the Source 4 beam is to use a "donut". It's just a little metal disk with a hole in it that goes in one of the front slots, either in front of or behind the gel holder slot. Since it's acting as a sort of flag around the fringes of the beam, the trade off is slightly lower light output but supposedly with cleaner edges.

http://www.filmandvideolighting.com/etcsofodo19d.html

So far this is all based on theory and internet research. I ordered a Source 4 (and donut), so I'll be able to put it to the test soon enough.

Finally, thank you for the generosity with your time and knowledge. I have learned a great deal from reading what you've written here, and truly appreciate it.
 
Last edited:
photometrics

photometrics

Found these, if anyone interested. comparing the regular and edlt output wise, It seems by the tables that the 19, 26 and 36 edlt are a bit more powerful and the 50 is about the same. The bigger differences are in the closer distances and tend to get about the same on the further distance.

http://www.stagelighting.co.uk/files/webfm/files/sl-ETC-19EDLTLENS.pdf

http://www.etcconnect.com/docs/docs_downloads/datashts/7060L1010_Source_Four_50_Spec_Sht_vG.pdf

http://www.etcconnect.com/docs/docs_downloads/datashts/7060L1007_Source_Four_19_Spec_Sht_vG.pdf

http://www.etcconnect.com/docs/docs_downloads/datashts/7060L1008_Source_Four_26_Spec_Sht_vG.pdf

http://www.etcconnect.com/docs/docs_downloads/datashts/7060L1009_Source_Four_36_Spec_Sht_vG.pdf
 
Hello David,

I have an issue with mixing colors......that I don't like.

I recently lit a room with blue light coming in from a main window, and then
I added a horizontal narrow band of orange light to the scene as if it were from
the setting Sun.

The problem is that the orange color combined with the blue and made the Sunlight
magenta in color and not the sunset orange I wanted.

What did I do wrong?

Should I have used an orange/green color that when mixed with blue looks orange?
 
Martin Stevens said:
Hello David,

I have an issue with mixing colors......that I don't like.

I recently lit a room with blue light coming in from a main window, and then
I added a horizontal narrow band of orange light to the scene as if it were from
the setting Sun.

The problem is that the orange color combined with the blue and made the Sunlight
magenta in color and not the sunset orange I wanted.

What did I do wrong?

Should I have used an orange/green color that when mixed with blue looks orange?
Click to expand...

The blue probably was too strong relative to the orange, if it were very weak, it probably would not have shifted the color of the orange so much. Also if it were coming from slightly off-angle more, it would have overlapped less, but in the end, you probably could have added more orange to the orange light, or some yellow.

Or just time out the magenta in post, it just means that the blue side shifts a little towards the cyan.
 
Thanks for the great insight David!

Do you know if there is a way to export this whole thread
to a PDF etc.?
 
Hello David
Here at Goldsmiths Film Dept in London we have been debating whether a tape measure is still necessary for focus on drama shoots, using Red One and Arri SR2 and Arri FF systems. I wondered what your 1st ACs use on your shoots?
Thanks for any advice.
 
Sure, a tape measure is still necessary. You are still pulling focus mostly by using distances marked on the lens, so you still need to know what those distances are, whether by using a Cinetape or a tape measure. The focus-puller isn't looking through the viewfinder, though he often has his own onboard monitor to work from. Sure, he'll also use focus tools on the onboard monitor (peaking, zoom-in, etc.), he'll pull by eye as well, he'll use his Cinetape, he'll use a laser measurement, etc. He may get eye focus marks in advance too. Whatever it takes!

But let's say that the close-up you do ends up around 7' 5".

You turn around to shoot the close-up of the actor in the reverse angle and the director asks you to match size and focal length, so the first thing you do is run a tape measure back from the actor's mark and then put the camera at 7' 5" with the same lens to roughly get the size (you may have to adjust by eye at that point because some actor's heads are bigger than others.)

The trouble with pulling by eye while the action is happening rather than measuring distances to marks based on rehearsal is that the focus is reactive instead of anticipatory. Of course actors miss marks and the focus puller has to adjust, but when a camera whips over to an actor coming through a door, for example, it helps to know the distance to the door.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Sure, a tape measure is still necessary. You are still pulling focus mostly by using distances marked on the lens, so you still need to know what those distances are, whether by using a Cinetape or a tape measure. The focus-puller isn't looking through the viewfinder, though he often has his own onboard monitor to work from. Sure, he'll also use focus tools on the onboard monitor (peaking, zoom-in, etc.), he'll pull by eye as well, he'll use his Cinetape, he'll use a laser measurement, etc. He may get eye focus marks in advance too. Whatever it takes!

But let's say that the close-up you do ends up around 7' 5".

You turn around to shoot the close-up of the actor in the reverse angle and the director asks you to match size and focal length, so the first thing you do is run a tape measure back from the actor's mark and then put the camera at 7' 5" with the same lens to roughly get the size (you may have to adjust by eye at that point because some actor's heads are bigger than others.)

The trouble with pulling by eye while the action is happening rather than measuring distances to marks based on rehearsal is that the focus is reactive instead of anticipatory. Of course actors miss marks and the focus puller has to adjust, but when a camera whips over to an actor coming through a door, for example, it helps to know the distance to the door.
Click to expand...

David, that's the best defense of a human focus puller I've ever seen!
 
Hi David,
When forests are smoked and back lit for early morning and night scenes, how is the large volume of smoke generated and controlled?
 
Usually to smoke large areas, either some portable foggers are used (IGEBA's... louder than lawn mowers unfortunately), or a very large smoke machine, but the best way to keep an even haze is to run what is called The Tube of Death from a fog machine, a long clear plastic tube with holes punched into it, run behind bushes and whatnot, leaking smoke slowly throughout the day or scene.

http://gregorymeeh.com/products/796
http://www.creative-effects.com/Special_Effects_Props/special_effects_props.html
http://www.specialefxunltd.com/sfx_specialty_equipment.htm

The old way was to burn "smoke cookies" in metal trays (film cans) but I think those are illegal now. I seem to recall William Fraker saying that they used burning charcoal and beeswax in metal trays to fog an airfield at night for "1941". But actually burning things is not very safe nor good for anyone's lungs which is why all those old techniques have been replaced with fog machines.

Here's what an IGEBA fogger looks like:
http://www.igeba.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=31&lang=english
 
Hi David, it's Tom Richmond.
You've probably been asked this already, but...
With the Mysterium sensor, given the blue bias, how do adapt to shoot tungsten?
How have you determined the ISO sensitivity?
 
I recall a thread not long ago discussing the necessities of an 80A filter on camera. I think it comes down to whether or not you're getting noise in the blue channel by trying to balance the camera to 3200k. In a bright scene you can probably get away with no filtration and correct the white balance in camera, but if you want a really pristine file and have heavy shadows you may want to use something in the 80 series. You don't have to go full boat with the 80A, there's also a B, C and D (each with less color correction than the previous). The 80D gets florescent really close to daylight. You could also gel the lighting if you don't want to filter camera but that get's trickier if you've got practicals on set and tungsten is already so weak (compared to HMI).

Of course I'd love to hear the Man chime in on this too...

CB
 
With the M-X sensor, I don't think any blue filters are necessary for shooting under 3200K lighting, at any ASA. The only exception would be shooting a chroma key shot, particularly when using bluescreen, to get the cleanest blue channel possible. But for your run-of-the-mill shooting, I wouldn't mess with blue filters in 3200K lighting, unless you have such excessively high levels of light that it doesn't hurt one way or the other -- let's say, when doing a product shot.

I think that the M-X sensor is probably near 400 ASA if you look at RAWVIEW on a waveform, but the noise is low enough even in 3200K that you will get better highlight protection at 800 ASA with minimal increase in noise. So anywhere in the 400 ASA to 800 ASA range is fine for "normal" uses, and higher than 800 ASA is fine when necessary, like for night work. Again, for chroma key work, you'd want to be more conservative with the exposure and use lighting controls to keep clipping down.
 
Hi David, I am sorry to bother but the talk of fog machines got me wondering:

During a recent short on which I was working some dust got kicked up inches from the lens and was illuminated by hard window light. The look was wrong for the scene but kind of cool, kind of like glowing bokeh orbs swirling all over. Is there any way to get thick dust particles to hover around like that artificially? This would supplement a light fog from a small fog machine.

Secondly, I have a question about fill light and shooting with fog. I have always tried to use hard light and primarily back light (or extremely toppy light, not an option for the following due to low ceilings) when shooting with fog and use the fog itself and natural bounce to provide fill. I've filled with kinos, too, but only with light fog and to get a higher key look. But I have a scene from an upcoming fun video project that confuses me:

We are shooting a character walking through a haunted barn, lined with mirrors and windows. It is meant to be very dramatic and intense, similar stylistically to Shutter Island and with a similar implicit ambiguity with respect to the protagonist's mental state. There is no time or need for precise lighting as there are many set-ups, mostly steadicam at 17mm, and I only have one grip so I wanted to light the barn primarily with firestarters with 1/2 CTB out each window (the three windows are west-facing so I will shoot in morning to avoid natural hard sunlight) and use a real gas lantern or candelabra that the character is holding for fill. Here is a picture of the location under natural light (roughly what I seek to emulate):

barn.jpg


The location seems so high contrast. Will this basic set up (firestarters with 1/2 ctb out windows, fog for fill, silver bead board as additional fill) suffice? I want it to be dramatic but I'm afraid either the fog will wash everything out or the contrast ratio will be ridiculous (it can approach ridiculous, blown out white, if only a bit on skin, is fine). Will a kerosene or gas lantern be bright enough to fill the actor's face to at least two stops under if held close? And will firestarters be bright enough (I want them to be lighting skin tones to about three stops over, creating beams, bouncing as fill, etc.). If not, what should I look into for the lantern: an obie light, flame bars, something to stick on the back of the lantern like an LED panel with double CTO? How do I fill a high-contrast dramatic scene that is lightly fogged? Surely not front-facing soft boxes?

And how would one illuminate important inserts not being hit by the lights through the windows? I have fresnels and can use light diffusion (and 1/2 ctb) on those to augment the light through the window, perhaps, and control bounce off the reflectors. I am not using any on-camera diffusion but will emulate it in post. We are shooting for 800ISO at f2.8. I'd like to use 500W VNSP if possible to save on juice but 1000W VNSP may be feasible.

Any help making this work would be much appreciated. It's the crucial scene. Sorry for the long question!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top