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

Hello David, I've been seeing a lot of these 'double light' eye lights recently in everything I see. I was just wondering if this is a known technique of some sort I don't know about or just purely coincidence? What do you think is causing these double eye lights? Is there a particular type of fixture you can think of that would give this look, that would be widely used in filmmaking?

Thanks
http://i56.tinypic.com/2077z28.jpg

2077z28.jpg
 
william lan said:
Overexpose by 1/2 to a stop if shot on negative film and underexpose 1/2 to a stop if it is on digital. What say you David?
Click to expand...

That's a bit reductive... yes, film negative loves exposure and if you overexpose and print down a bit, you get tighter grain and more snap to the image, better blacks. But some people, like Harris Savides, prefers the look of a thinner (less exposed) negative.

For Rec.709 broadcast video cameras, a little underexposure doesn't hurt because they have such poor overexposure latitude.

But with a digital cinema camera like the Epic or Alexa rated at 800 ASA, where the highlight and shadow information are split evenly, then there is less reason to underexpose the image overall -- to some degree you are already shifting more information to the highlights just by rating the camera at 800 ASA instead of 400 ASA. Just expose for how you want the image to look.
 
Peter Dmitriyev said:
Hello David, I've been seeing a lot of these 'double light' eye lights recently in everything I see. I was just wondering if this is a known technique of some sort I don't know about or just purely coincidence? What do you think is causing these double eye lights? Is there a particular type of fixture you can think of that would give this look, that would be widely used in filmmaking?
Click to expand...


It's just an example of the key and fill being close together. In the first example, the key is probably the lower reflection and there's a small light just on top of the camera for an eyelight creating the center (higher) reflection. In the second, the fill is probably the lower reflection.

Now sometimes a DP doesn't consider this a key and a fill but a second key wrapping the first key further around to the front. But often then the two reflections are more side-by-side.

Also, sometimes it's just an example of the eyes reflecting two practical lamps or windows in the scene, just off-camera. In the second photo, the person is lying down so the two lights on the set are probably side-by-side, not over and under.
 
Hey David
Would you ever consider coming to Egypt to shoot some important scenes for a movie or a quick commercial?
I would ask if you are willing to shoot a movie but I'm sure we won't be able to afford it.
 
Hi David
Over on the thread about the Barry Lyndon candle lit scenes, you mentioned that Kubrick " pushed " 100ASA film to 200ASA . my understanding is this is done in the development process. As is " pulling " . Is this correct? & if so what is the range you can do this before it becomes unacceptable levels?. Also I think now days they have film stock up to 800ASA so does that render " pushing " a thing of the past? Cheers.
 
There was an 800T Kodak movie stock used on a few movies like "Donnie Darko" and "Shadow of the Vampire" -- 5289, it was introduced in 1999 and discontinued in 2004 when Vision-2 500T 5218 was released. 5218 pushed one-stop to 1000 ASA was considered to be finer-grained than 5289 at 800 ASA.

Right now, 500 ASA is the fastest movie color negative stock speed.

Pushing involves extended development, either in time or temperature. Pulling is the opposite, reduced development. Pushing increases grain and raises the base fog level, and causes some color shifts, so there are limits to how much you want to push a stock. Plus pushing doesn't make a stock more sensitive to light, it just takes what gets exposed and makes it denser on the negative. This is one reason why the contrast goes up as you push-process.

I think Gordon Willis once said that there was no such thing as a 3-stop push. Basically he was saying that above a 2-stop push, there are diminishing returns due to the increase in artifacts.

A few movies have been pushed 2-stops, most famously perhaps being Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut".

Pushing 500T stock by one-stop is quite common still, like in the recent "Batman" movies for a few shots.
 
David,
I'm wondering if there's any new fixtures (or new to you) that you've tried/used this year that you're liking.
 
Shawn Nelson said:
David,
I'm wondering if there's any new fixtures (or new to you) that you've tried/used this year that you're liking.
Click to expand...

Not really, though my gaffer in NYC has these lumaline tube fixtures that I like because they are actual tungsten tubes shaped like a fluorescent tube. Very fragile tubes and naturally warm, but it's a nice light to place around a set, like under cabinets, etc.
 
David,
When shooting Indoors at night. Let's say an average sized living room. No special mood you're going for, just nice skin tones. If you want to give it a normal look of a dimly lit room. What kind of lights do you like present and how would you use them?
A lot of the interior (bedroom/night) scenes in Jennifer's Body looked really nice.
Another question, What's the most fun you had while shooting? Like which movie/show did you have fun the most while shooting? Any actors ever caused too much trouble/drama on set? Do cinematographers generally despise directors? What are some of the measures you take to maintain professionalism on set? Do you joke around on sets, are you serious?

Lol, I know I'm asking tons of questions but you have to understand how rare it is for someone from Egypt to talk to a well known Cinematographer on an internet forum. I feel like a little kid again.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Not really, though my gaffer in NYC has these lumaline tube fixtures that I like because they are actual tungsten tubes shaped like a fluorescent tube. Very fragile tubes and naturally warm, but it's a nice light to place around a set, like under cabinets, etc.
Click to expand...

Oh interesting, I just read about them. What's the advantage to you over just using actual fluoro tubes? And on the lumilines, are you using the clear or white glass ones?

Have you tried the new(ish) Litepanels 1x1s? I was on the set of NBC's 'Grimm' (my sister is the star of ep 7 so I tagged along to watch) and they use those things like crazy.
 
Mohamed Younis said:
David,
When shooting Indoors at night. Let's say an average sized living room. No special mood you're going for, just nice skin tones. If you want to give it a normal look of a dimly lit room. What kind of lights do you like present and how would you use them?
A lot of the interior (bedroom/night) scenes in Jennifer's Body looked really nice.
Another question, What's the most fun you had while shooting? Like which movie/show did you have fun the most while shooting? Any actors ever caused too much trouble/drama on set? Do cinematographers generally despise directors? What are some of the measures you take to maintain professionalism on set? Do you joke around on sets, are you serious?

Lol, I know I'm asking tons of questions but you have to understand how rare it is for someone from Egypt to talk to a well known Cinematographer on an internet forum. I feel like a little kid again.
Click to expand...

If it's supposed to be a room lit by tungsten practicals, then I like to light with tungsten lamps, often soft -- I do a mix of bounced lighting, sometimes into a large bedsheet or piece of muslin, or into a white card, and I like using lights with Chimeras in front of them. Often I have the lights dimmed on variacs to warm them up a bit. I also like Chinese Lanterns. For control, I like using Source-4 Lekos when bouncing into cards or ceilings so I can cut the light neatly without using flags.
 
Shawn Nelson said:
Oh interesting, I just read about them. What's the advantage to you over just using actual fluoro tubes? And on the lumilines, are you using the clear or white glass ones?

Have you tried the new(ish) Litepanels 1x1s? I was on the set of NBC's 'Grimm' (my sister is the star of ep 7 so I tagged along to watch) and they use those things like crazy.
Click to expand...

The lumaline tubes are warm but without any green. They aren't that bright though so it's hard to use them as key lights, but they are useful in dressing into the set and they are dimmable.

No, I haven't tried the 1x1 Litepanels yet.
 
Hi David, is it a rule to match eye lines for people in a dialogue scene. I.e. if person A is shot at a certain angle let's say looking only a few inches away from the camera lens and at eye level height, and then when you shoot the reverseal for person B responding to them, is it considered OK to shoot that reversal from a stranger eye line let's say where now the camera is much lower and they are looking further away from the lens (although still not crossing the line and following 180 degree rule).

I mean I know it is done often, and I just saw it done on a movie I was watching on HBO, but everytime it's done it seems/looks awkward to me.

There is a scene in happy gilmore where Adam Sandler looks almost directly INTO the camera lens while talking to a lady, and at eye level height also. However when they shoot her response in the reverse shot, she's at a much lower angle and looking several feet away from the lens as her eye line. Seemed a bit awkward to me. Is this done often, or do you do it ever/often?
 
HMI shutter speed question

HMI shutter speed question

Hi David,

Shooting with the Red One MX sensor Build 30.
Typically (and for a few years now) I have shot 23.98 time base, 24fps, 1/48 sec shutter (on normal) with HMI's magnetic ballasts
No problems
Recently on a shoot we have seen rolling dark and light bands moving up through the frame.
What shutter combo do you use with HMI's, and can you shed any light (no pun) on this.
I have done tons of reading on this subject and understand the relationship of sine wave etc.
Adam Wilt's Pro Video Coalition has an article specific to this, and recommends using 1/60 (or divisible) shutter speeds.
Of course my big question is why it was not an issue in the past with 1/48, and is now.

Thanks David!

Bill
 
Peter Dmitriyev said:
Hi David, is it a rule to match eye lines for people in a dialogue scene. I.e. if person A is shot at a certain angle let's say looking only a few inches away from the camera lens and at eye level height, and then when you shoot the reverseal for person B responding to them, is it considered OK to shoot that reversal from a stranger eye line let's say where now the camera is much lower and they are looking further away from the lens (although still not crossing the line and following 180 degree rule).

I mean I know it is done often, and I just saw it done on a movie I was watching on HBO, but everytime it's done it seems/looks awkward to me.

There is a scene in happy gilmore where Adam Sandler looks almost directly INTO the camera lens while talking to a lady, and at eye level height also. However when they shoot her response in the reverse shot, she's at a much lower angle and looking several feet away from the lens as her eye line. Seemed a bit awkward to me. Is this done often, or do you do it ever/often?
Click to expand...

Sure it's done all the time, particularly when close-ups are shot by a B-camera at some less than optimal angle, often at a different focal length than was used in the reverse angle. And yes, it can look sloppy or clumsy.

In general you want to match shot size, eyeline tightness, focal length, lens height, etc. when intercutting close-ups of two people talking to each other, but you also don't want to be too formulaic or pedantic about it, movies could be directed by computers otherwise. There are dramatic reasons why the main character may get the tighter close-ups with the more direct eyeline to camera (for the most direct emotional connection to the audience) while other characters would get less tight close-ups shot off the eyeline a bit more.

Also, some movies shoot the matching shots in the coverage but the editor doesn't always use them, they generally cut for the best performance first, matching second.
 
Bill Simone said:
Hi David,

Shooting with the Red One MX sensor Build 30.
Typically (and for a few years now) I have shot 23.98 time base, 24fps, 1/48 sec shutter (on normal) with HMI's magnetic ballasts
No problems
Recently on a shoot we have seen rolling dark and light bands moving up through the frame.
What shutter combo do you use with HMI's, and can you shed any light (no pun) on this.
I have done tons of reading on this subject and understand the relationship of sine wave etc.
Adam Wilt's Pro Video Coalition has an article specific to this, and recommends using 1/60 (or divisible) shutter speeds.
Of course my big question is why it was not an issue in the past with 1/48, and is now.

Thanks David!

Bill
Click to expand...

24 fps with a 180 degree shutter angle is within a safe "window" for 60 Hz pulsing AC lights, but that doesn't mean that it always is safe enough, plus 23.976 fps is slightly more off-speed than 24 fps. Yes, sometimes a 144 degree shutter angle at 24 fps (1/60th shutter time) works better but sometimes that isn't even enough for troublesome lights. I generally use a 180 degree shutter angle unless I see a problem. What's great about digital is that you can try different shutter speeds to minimize the flicker and see the results live.
 
Hey David,

I've been using china balls for the last couple projects I've been on, but can't seem to find a way to maintain contrast in my lighting when using them. I usually use an 18-inch ball with a 100 or 200w bulb, then skirt it all around to about 12 inches past the bottom of the ball and use it as a top light. The last time I used this setup, I also covered one of the walls of the room with black foamcore (one wall with white 6 foot folding closet doors I couldn't cover as I was out of black, but I figured it would fill the shadows only slightly as all of the light from the china ball was cut from the walls). It seems that no matter how much negative fill or skirting I do I can't maintain enough desired contrast in the lighting.

I was wondering if you had any advice for using china balls and maintaining contrast? If I approached the china ball towards the subject it would increase the rate of fall-off allowing the shadows to go darker, but on the last setup I described the bottom of the duv skirt was just nicking the top of frame, couldn't really go any lower. Would it be beneficial to raise the duv skirt to cut less, in order to lower the ball closer to the subject to increase fall-off? Or is the solution actually to raise the china ball and cut even more? Maybe simply a problem of directionality? I should be lighting the farther side of the room and letting the subject be on the outer skirts of the china ball's light to place them more in silhouette? I've also read about rigging the china ball in the centre of a 4x frame then using the frames edges to hang the skirt as it would create a sharper cut... might this help?

Any general china ball advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks very much.
 
Perhaps you are using the wrong tool... Chinese Lanterns are hard to make directional, and if you over-skirt them, they aren't very soft nor is it very efficient, power-wise. Probably you should be using something more like a Chimera on a lamp with an eggcrate / Light Tools in front when you want more directionality. Otherwise, I'd try some tests with the Chinese Lantern coming from different directions until you find the right mood you want.

Yes, in white rooms it is very hard to get enough contrast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top