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

It's just a matter of taste mainly -- the modern 35mm print stocks are all good, they have strong blacks, which means that they are contrasty - yes, to some degree they are designed for making prints from intermediate dupe stock, which is what a film-out is usually made to, but they work fine for printing color negative. It's really that with the D.I. process, you can optimize the image off of the negative better for printing in terms of playing with the gamma, controlling the white and blacks carefully, and even applying some selective sharpening... but prints using a photochemical process work fine, as the Nolan/Pfister movies prove. I think they tend to look richer in terms of blacks than prints off of a digital negative, but that also may mean that they won't show all the dynamic range on the negative. But in the old days of photochemical post, you photographed a movie with the contrast of the print stock in mind, which is how Pfister shoots for Nolan.

But in the case of "Tree of Life" the other advantage of doing a 4K D.I. was being able to project it in 4K digital, which I suspect looked better than the film-outs.

3-perf is not a projection format -- 1.85 is achieved by projecting a 4-perf print with a 1.85 mask in the projector gate. The advantage of shooting 4-perf Academy, non-Super, is that you can make contact prints for projection with a soundtrack on the print.
 
Yes, sometimes I have problems with flicker when shooting in hospitals if they have bad ballasts or tubes. It's not that common but it can be a problem. Sometimes you can adjust the shutter speed to get rid of some flicker, sometimes you can swap out a tube, but sometimes the ballast itself is bad and that fixture will flicker compared to the surrounding lights.
 
If you're shooting on film what's the best way to predict if you'll have flicker problems in different fluorescent situations since you wouldn't see it until the dailies? Would it suffice to carry an hdslr for example and check at 180 degree shutter 24fps to ensure you won't have any issues or would this be inaccurate?
 
I've just sort of gotten by on luck when shooting film, other than replacing any tubes or fixtures that are visibly flickering. Sure, maybe a DSLR would help spot some problems. In the future, I'd probably take a video camera with me on scouts to check buildings with old fluorescent fixtures, generally it's less of a problem in a newer building.
 
thank you Mr David Mullen for your time and thoughts sharing with us. if this question is answerd before sorry for that. sir, did you ever choose to shoot super 16mm instead of digital capture before? if so on what basis you feel it is perfect. if not, in the future do you select filming with super 16 mm than hd capture and even with 35 mm for final filmout except red one, not only cost constraints basis. what are other factors will prompt you to choose that format. (today some of mainstream hollywood movies also filming with super 16 mm like hurtlocker and 16 mm are wrester, black swan, ). i know that it gives only 16 mm depth field while watching it on big screens.
thanks in advance. Mr David good day sir.
 
Last edited:
I mainly learned by watching a lot of movies and then trying to replicate the look with what few lights I had. Back in the 1980's, I used to take still photos of movies playing on my TV set for reference frames -- now it's so easy to just capture frames off of a DVD on your computer. I had a ton of frames from movies, especially ones shot by Storaro, all in a scrapbook -- I studied them religiously. I'd break down the shots that I liked in terms of contrast, angle of the light, color, texture of the light, etc.

"Film Lighting" by Kris Malkiewicz is a good resource for beginners.
 
David,


My wife and I just watched “Seven Days in Utopia” at the new Warren Theater in Moore, Oklahoma (a Fantastic Cinema Experience by the way), a little bit into the film my wife leaned over and said “Beatify shot, who is the DP” We love your work! Thank you.
 
This is My First post ever on reduser and i see people share a lot of useful info,tips,tricks and technique here. So as A up and Coming Music video Director/Cinematographer I will like to take my production quality to the next level. I was wondering how i can achieve these looks









Now From What i Observe from these Flicks is a a fogger/hazer was use. What i'm Really trying to figure out is the back light more intense than the key light. Does the distance from the backlight and subject has something to do with these looks and what instruments where use
 
Generally the backlights in these cases are brighter than the key lights. You have to imagine what would happen if the camera had moved 360 degrees around the lit subject, probably that backlight would look overexposed when viewed as a front light. The angle of the light to the smoke and the camera also affects how visible it becomes, the more the light is pointing directly into the lens, the more smoke will be lit up and the beam become more visible.

You get sharper streams of light when the light is farther back, unless you use a projector beam light like a Xenon or Leko-type ellipsoidal (light with a lens in front of it.) Otherwise you use a bright light backed up to make it sharper and thus create sharper beams when it passes through objects and the beam get broken up.

I can't tell what particular units were used in these shots, something big for the backlight.
 
David, I'm curious your philosophy and habits regarding fill light, where you like to place it and your preferred methods of creating it (i.e. bounced, gel diffusion, etc) and whether you ever gel-color your fill differently than your key.
 
The way I fill depends on a lot of factors, like where the camera is, the actors, the space, etc. How much is more a matter of taste and need.

Sometimes you just want to raise the overall ambience of the room so the fill is very broad and general. Other times you want to localize the fill to select areas (like the face).

I use all sorts of techniques, the most common is probably bouncing into beadboard, often below the lens (I like low fill many times.) But I've also filled other ways. Sometimes I just need to place a white card near the subject and get passive bounce light back into the shadows.

I sometimes play with colors. I usually prefer cool fill to warm fill because underexposed orange goes red, and faces already have a lot of warmth in them. But it just depends on what is filling in the shadows, I may want it to be overhead cool skylight or instead warm sunlight bouncing off of the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top