Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[David Mullen ASC]

I only know of the 1.2K tungsten PAR64 "firestarters", but I suppose there are narrow spot PAR's that are lower in wattage.

I wouldn't mess with CTB on a firestarter, it would just melt or fade the gel. I assume they are meant to simulate beams of sunlight or else you wouldn't be shooting in the daytime, so I'd just let them be uncorrected tungsten -- with the smoke and overexposure, they won't go too orange compared to daylight.

If you need more fill in certain areas, hiding some bounces into white cards either low or high can help. You have to decide though if the color should imply that this is the warm sun bouncing back into something, or cool skylight leaking in. Same goes for adding another light onto an insert or something, you have to decide what's hitting the object, the bright hard light or some sort of dim, soft bounce back or ambient spill, etc.

As for whether it will be too washed out in the room I can't guess that in advance, depends on how much smoke you use and how much ambient daylight you have pouring in. Also can't tell you how bright your lantern is, that sort of stuff can be tested in advance.

With a wide-angle steadicam move, you may also have to walk some of your lights alongside the camera.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

Hi David, I know that lenses have been discussed extensively elsewhere and you have provided many great responses about lenses in the past. But one of the things I wanted to get your opinion about is lens "character" ...

I was recently came a cross a thread on an MF photography forum where this is discussed and I think it's fascinating:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23184

My question is this: How much does lens character play factor into the decision about which lenses to use? Who makes that decision -- is it a collaborative decision between you and the director?

I know you have mentioned Cookes having a unique look ... Master Primes having a super sharp look (as in "No Country") ... and also that you often shoot on Panavision Primos. Not sure if I've read your opinion on the character of optimos ...

Also curious ... if you were to pick one lens set to try to cover the widest range of different creative needs/possibilities -- which would that be?

Let's speculate ... if the new Leica Summilux C's had the exact same character as Panavision Primos + other advantages over cine lenses (fast t1.4 across all focal lengths, same size across, smaller than MP's or Cooke 5i's, etc) -- would those be your lens of choice?

Thanks so much, there are few people in the world with such advanced experience in this area so your thoughts are worth a lot

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm a renter so I don't actually have to choose one lens set for everything I'll ever shoot...

The link doesn't work for me, so I can't comment on that, but I'm not a lens fanatic, I don't get obsessed over the subtle differences between the high-end lenses. To me, it's mainly about the basic specs first -- speed, weight, minimal focus distance, sharpness, flare, etc. I hadn't used Cooke S4's in my career actually until this January when I did a short film on the F35 and that's what I could get a deal on, so I used them and they worked fine. And now I'm shooting a pilot and it looks like I'll be getting those. Since this pilot has a lot of women in it that have to look good, the fact that the Cookes are slightly softer is probably a good thing, plus it will probably match better with all of the zoom work I'll have to do.

If I were shooting for the big screen, I'd be a bit more picky about the sharpness and contrast issues, but for TV, it's not going to make much of a difference, the speed and weight issues are more important.

The initial pre-release Leicas had some flare problems that were being addressed in the coatings, I don't know what the final product is like compared to the new T/1.4 Cookes and Zeiss lenses. But I'm sure they are nice lenses. And they seem to be a nice overall size.

I only have one beef with Zeiss Master Primes, other than the cost, it's the weight, so if I got similar results with the new T/1.4 Cookes and Leicas, but they were smaller and lighter, that would be attractive to me.

But in general, I tend to like the sharpest, contrastiest lenses made because it's always easy to soften them.

 

[Matt W.]

Thanks! Sorry for my rambling post; I am nervous about the shoot, too many set-ups and basically no crew. I now see the 1.2k bulbs online, but 1k ones are cheaper and as narrow so I am going to stick with those for this project. Either way I'll skip the gel.

Using soft full blue fill motivated as skylight breaking through is inspired and could look awesome against the warm bright background lit by par cans. I'll rig something up (probably a few 1/2 CTO'd 2700K compact fluorescents in a reflector--we have no budget) for the grip/electric to carry, much easier than attaching it to the lantern itself and a very good idea.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

Hi David,

Thanks for the reply about lenses. I wanted to ask you .... you are such an amazing teacher with so much advanced knowledge, have you ever considered teaching high-end cinematography workshops?

Anthony

 

[jericho vir filomeno]

@ Sir David, Thanks for accomodating! My question is coming very very soon, im reading the threads from number 1, i've reach 285, so in a little time i may be able to relate from all the topics your explaining about coz i dont want to repeat those questions ask in the past. Im sending u my email add(jerichovirfilomeno@yahoo.com), if u have some notes that is free of charge to help me collect/build my cinematography library. Just Handouts or Online modules! Thanks alot!

 

[jericho vir filomeno]

@ Sir David, just want to ask this question.. As an aspiring DP someday, in what field do i have to concentrate right now, Camera or Lighting? Thanks

 

[David Mullen ASC]

To be a DP, you have to study both camera and lighting, but if you are asking which department to join at a lower level and climb your way up to the DP position, I can't say which is better.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Hi David- I have a weird filter question... and I hope it is not too stupid.

Are ND 85 Filters relevant anymore with Digital Cameras? I mean can they still be used like an ND filter with a camera setting.?

Knowing that the 85 is the color filter for converting daylight to tungsten balanced film stock, correct?

What uses could the ND85 grad be used for digitally? thanks

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Hi David,

Thanks for the reply about lenses. I wanted to ask you .... you are such an amazing teacher with so much advanced knowledge, have you ever considered teaching high-end cinematography workshops?

Anthony

I would want to team up with a DIT (obviously) and maybe a post supervisor / colorist, but I'm not interested in making money off of people, I'd do it for free, though costs would have to be covered.

Truth is that I'd be happier in a more intimate situation talking more about art and cinematography and keeping the tech talk to a minimum.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Hi David- I have a weird filter question... and I hope it is not too stupid.

Are ND 85 Filters relevant anymore with Digital Cameras? I mean can they still be used like an ND filter with a camera setting.?

Knowing that the 85 is the color filter for converting daylight to tungsten balanced film stock, correct?

What uses could the ND85 grad be used for digitally? thanks

They aren't really necessary with most digital cameras unless you want to set the camera to daylight balance and then add an 85 for an orange look, like for a desert or sunset scene. I've shot some telephoto sunball shots with 85ND filters to add more orange. But in general, I don't see much need for them now with digital cameras like the Red One, Alexa, Genesis, F35, etc.

Not sure what an 85ND "grad" filter would be, other than the graded area being grey plus orange, but you could get that by stacking an ND grad and a Coral grad.

 

[jericho vir filomeno]

@ Sir David.. thanks!

 

[AnthonyFlores]

I would want to team up with a DIT (obviously) and maybe a post supervisor / colorist, but I'm not interested in making money off of people, I'd do it for free, though costs would have to be covered.

Truth is that I'd be happier in a more intimate situation talking more about art and cinematography and keeping the tech talk to a minimum.

Wow, David. You are generous beyond belief. I'm impressed. I may PM you at some point, as I would be overjoyed to help you organize it and get the word out -- also for free.

Obviously, as you said expenses would need to be covered and would need to conveniently fit into your schedule ... I will message you about this at some point soon. Thanks again for all your help and generosity!

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

They aren't really necessary with most digital cameras unless you want to set the camera to daylight balance and then add an 85 for an orange look, like for a desert or sunset scene. I've shot some telephoto sunball shots with 85ND filters to add more orange. But in general, I don't see much need for them now with digital cameras like the Red One, Alexa, Genesis, F35, etc.

Not sure what an 85ND "grad" filter would be, other than the graded area being grey plus orange, but you could get that by stacking an ND grad and a Coral grad.

Thanks David. Its more of a practical question, I know they are best suited for film but was just curious how they might be used as ND filters or if I shuld sell them... creative choices are always good. I will probably keep them.

Curious, would you go so far as to say they could act as Corals? Im trying to justify keeping them

Oh and they are not grads. Just ND85 - I just wrote that down wrong. thanks again.

 

[Christopher Barrett]

Wow, David. You are generous beyond belief. I'm impressed. I may PM you at some point, as I would be overjoyed to help you organize it and get the word out -- also for free.

Obviously, as you said expenses would need to be covered and would need to conveniently fit into your schedule ... I will message you about this at some point soon. Thanks again for all your help and generosity!

I would totally fly out for Dav-ucation. What would be awesome would be to hold this on the heels of a Reducation. Full Cine immersion week!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Curious, would you go so far as to say they could act as Corals? Im trying to justify keeping them

A fairly heavy Coral, I think an 85 is close to a Coral 2 or something.

 

[M Most]

I would want to team up with a DIT (obviously) and maybe a post supervisor / colorist, but I'm not interested in making money off of people, I'd do it for free, though costs would have to be covered.

Truth is that I'd be happier in a more intimate situation talking more about art and cinematography and keeping the tech talk to a minimum.

I'd make myself available if you want. I much prefer the small group/less tech approach as well. It would be fun.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

That would be a pretty nice combo...

 

[AnthonyFlores]

Larger Formats

Larger Formats

Hi David,

I know most of your work (and cinema work overall) has been on S35 format or lower ... but curious if you've done shooting on FF35 or 65mm formats before. Did you like it? I know from the cinematography forum that you are a fan of IMAX ....

Also, do you see -- with better post tools, data management, etc and also future cameras like the Epic FF35, 645 and 617 -- the future moving more in the direction of formats larger than S35? If so why? (Or why not) ... How do you feel using larger sensor formats impact the vision and artistic aspect of a project?

Final question ... do you know if Panavision have a line of Primos or other lenses designed for FF or 65mm? I had trouble finding it on their site. Or are their anamorphics primarily used on the large formats?

Thanks in advance for your answers

Anthony

 

[David Mullen ASC]

In the past, the only anamorphic lenses used on larger formats were Technirama (1.5X anamorphic on 8-perf FF35, to squeeze 2.35 onto a 1.50 neg) and Ultra Panavision (1.25X anamorphic on 5-perf 65mm, to squeeze 2.7 onto a 2.2 neg). Both formats died by the early 1960's so the lenses are pretty old and predate modern mounts.

No I haven't had a chance to shoot VistaVision, Super Panavision, or IMAX.

We'll have to wait and see if FF35 takes off in the industry for regular shooting. I kinda doubt it for you run-of-the-mill Jennifer Aniston movie, and even a Tony Scott action movie may find pulling focus on FF35 cameras difficult, plus may find the lack of cinema optics for dozens of cameras annoying. And 3D may want to stick to a format with more depth of field.

But for "epic" movies, landscape movies, big period movies, efx movies, I could see a larger digital format taking off. Or for sections of movies where the dialogue scenes may still be shot in S35. For example, with a 6K FF35 Epic, you could use S35 optics and window the sensor for regular dialogue scenes and then go full sensor + FF35 optics for your wide shots.