Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[David Mullen ASC]

How soft a light is depends on the size of the diffused area, so the next step in diffusing a Kino is diffusion around the outside of the barn doors (not inside the barn doors) but of course, then you may want barn door extenders made up (black showcard or something, clipped on) or use flags if necessary. The eggcrate is to reduce spill so I take them out when diffusing the Kino, though sometimes I put them back in as a bit of a scrim when I need less output.

After that, you have to start putting the Kinos behind larger frames of diffusion if you want more softness.

 

[Erik Vanlenten]

How soft a light is depends on the size of the diffused area, so the next step in diffusing a Kino is diffusion around the outside of the barn doors (not inside the barn doors) but of course, then you may want barn door extenders made up (black showcard or something, clipped on) or use flags if necessary. The eggcrate is to reduce spill so I take them out when diffusing the Kino, though sometimes I put them back in as a bit of a scrim when I need less output.

After that, you have to start putting the Kinos behind larger frames of diffusion if you want more softness.

Thank you David.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

David,
What's your thoughts on an 81EF as opposed to just turning down the color temp? Do you use them at all?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

No, I generally don't use warming filters, particularly not with digital cameras since dialing in a higher color temp setting to warm up the image basically means lowering the blue channel and reducing noise there, so there isn't a reason to use warming filters unless setting the camera at 7000K still doesn't make the image warm enough for you.

With film, I usually added a cool or warm shift just by shooting a grey scale in the opposite colored light and having the image timed to correct out that bias.

Extra glass in front of the lens always compounds problems and if I already know I'll be using ND filters at some point perhaps combined with diffusion filters, I don't want to deal with adding a third filter for warming up the image.

 

[Peter Dmitriyev]

David in the current issue of american cinematographer the "ASC CLOSE UP" section features Roberto Schaefer aSC who names you amongst the DP's he "most admires" past or present, not sure if you're aware of that yet but I'm assuming that's a great honor to see yourself raising in stature in the world year by year, all you need is that one break out iconic film and I think you have the talent to go down as one of the best

 

[Paul Ellington]

Dear David I have been at this DP thing for about 8 years now. I was recently told that I need to have the skills to use a gear-head. While I have used one before I found it very clunky and honestly I don't know when I would need one, unless it was for a feature, in which case I would have an op. My question is this, should I be spending time on this piece of gear or, do what I would like which is, learn more about grading myself?


Thank you and thanks for having this forum.

- Paul Ellington

 

[PatrickFaith]

Hi David, do you have any hints for mixing lenses during shoots for us low budget independents that have collected lenses over the years and don't have complete sets of anything. I'm primarily now shooting with a mix of RED lenses and Zeiss Compact primes. Also for getting a filmic look, i'm frequently shooting at different low t-stops with all my lenses having a different base t-stop. As an example, my 21mm is t2.9, 35mm is t1.8 and 50mm is t2.1 ... and i'd prefer to not shoot the entire scene at t2.9 (i'm always using red camera's now too btw).

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Dear David I have been at this DP thing for about 8 years now. I was recently told that I need to have the skills to use a gear-head. While I have used one before I found it very clunky and honestly I don't know when I would need one, unless it was for a feature, in which case I would have an op. My question is this, should I be spending time on this piece of gear or, do what I would like which is, learn more about grading myself?

Well, I operated on my first 25 features or so and I don't know how to use a gear head.... but if I were going to keep insisting on operating, I'd learn to use one now because there is so much remote crane work done these days and you need to use wheels to operate those. And there are certain shots that are best done on gear heads, like a fast dolly into something where you want to stop precisely without inertia pushing the camera past the stop point, causing a bob. But honestly, probably 95% of most shots can be done on a fluid head.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Hi David, do you have any hints for mixing lenses during shoots for us low budget independents that have collected lenses over the years and don't have complete sets of anything. I'm primarily now shooting with a mix of RED lenses and Zeiss Compact primes. Also for getting a filmic look, i'm frequently shooting at different low t-stops with all my lenses having a different base t-stop. As an example, my 21mm is t2.9, 35mm is t1.8 and 50mm is t2.1 ... and i'd prefer to not shoot the entire scene at t2.9 (i'm always using red camera's now too btw).

You have to test the lenses at different stops to see how they vary in sharpness, just so you know which lens to use at what stop when you need the sharpest image possible, like for a wide shot. Otherwise, yes, unfortunately one of the effects of having lenses of different stops is that you tend to light a scene to an average stop that all your lenses can come close to -- you'd hate to light a master to f/1.8 only to find in the last minute that you need to switch to an f/2.2 lens to get the right composition. But I'm not a stickler either, I think that as long as you are within a stop range, then the depth of field characteristics will be close enough to create some feeling of consistency.

 

[Paul Ellington]

Well, I operated on my first 25 features or so and I don't know how to use a gear head.... but if I were going to keep insisting on operating, I'd learn to use one now because there is so much remote crane work done these days and you need to use wheels to operate those. And there are certain shots that are best done on gear heads, like a fast dolly into something where you want to stop precisely without inertia pushing the camera past the stop point, causing a bob. But honestly, probably 95% of most shots can be done on a fluid head.

Thanks David, quick follow up, which fluid heads are you a fan of? Apart from O'Cons something like the Arrow or not so much?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I usually use O'Connors, sometimes Sachtlers -- I don't operate much these days however. But as cameras get smaller, the O'Connor Ultimate seems a bit overkill. When I had to run around and carry my own gear, I usually rented a lighter Sachtler video head even if it was a bit insufficient, just to save on the weight.

 

[Paul Ellington]

I usually use O'Connors, sometimes Sachtlers -- I don't operate much these days however. But as cameras get smaller, the O'Connor Ultimate seems a bit overkill. When I had to run around and carry my own gear, I usually rented a lighter Sachtler video head even if it was a bit insufficient, just to save on the weight.

Yeah, I was groomed in Canada, I don't know if it's old school but I don't really operate but at NYU they are big on DP's also opping. I know how too, and frankly 4 years ago I was a little better but I like to pay attention to lighting more than the opping.

Thanks for the time you are awesome.

Best Paul

 

[Lorenzo Levrini]

Hi David, I know you've done work with tilt-shift lenses to keep both characters sharp in shots in depth, so just wanted to bring your attention to my post about A Dangerous Method to see whether you had any thoughts on the matter.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?73954-A-Dangerous-Method-Tilt-Shift-Lenses

Thanks

 

[Jon Chema]

David,

Aside from ND's, and Pola's...how much do you use filters on today's digital cinema cameras such as the Epic and Alexa? I keep on hearing mixed opinions about how much stuff can be done in post today. Personally, I'm a fan of making the shot look the best it can "in camera." What is your opinion on this and what filters do you find yourself still using today?

 

[Sam Eilertsen]

Hi David,

This is rather along the lines of the last question, although a bit more specific. I'm about to start shooting a sci fi short film. I want to give it a bit of a noir feel as it's a detective story, like Blade Runner or Dark City, but I also want it to have more of a realistic, less stylized look than those films. I was wondering what your thoughts might be on lens filtration. What sort of filters would hint at the 1940s noir look without being too over-the-top about it. Do you know if more hard-edged, modern sci fi like Minority Report or Children on Men used any filtration throughout?

Thanks,

 

[David Mullen ASC]

David,

Aside from ND's, and Pola's...how much do you use filters on today's digital cinema cameras such as the Epic and Alexa? I keep on hearing mixed opinions about how much stuff can be done in post today. Personally, I'm a fan of making the shot look the best it can "in camera." What is your opinion on this and what filters do you find yourself still using today?

What we are really talking about is diffusion filtration, no one questions the need for ND filters in photography...

We've had this discussion many times here on RedUser... a lot of boils down to how much of a hand you have in post-production. For example, on a weekly TV series there is barely enough time budgeted for a basic color-correction pass with a minimal use of windows to isolate parts of the frame, and a few shots may have some digital touch-ups done, so asking for individual shots to get selective diffusion effects is a bit like asking production for another lens to be rented, you can't count on it being approved. So given that, you're better off getting the look done in camera, and camera filters are relatively cheap as far as equipment goes.

There is also the general rule of "garbage in / garbage out" meaning that images that look the closest to the final look are going to go through the post process the fastest and look the least artifact-y, whereas images that are far from the final look will take more post time and perhaps not look quite as natural, they may look manipulated and they may pick up some artifacts if the signal is pushed too far. On the other hand, digital diffusion often hides artifacts (like noise) rather than causes them.

To me, digital diffusion is just another look, like the difference between a ProMist filter and a Classic Soft filter. There are some things that only can be done digitally, like isolate the diffusion to a moving object in the frame, or cause blacks to glow instead of whites. On the other hand, I find that with really light diffusion filters like a 1/8 Black Frost, there is less impact on sharpness than trying to get the same effect digitally, where I find that some digital diffusion techniques cause some blurriness to detail that a light camera filter wouldn't cause.

It also boils down to what the point of the diffusion is -- is it to create an overall look to the image or is it just for cosmetic reasons to improve certain actor's close-ups. If just the second, it may be smarter to save it for post where you can analyze the image more carefully for what parts of the frame need softening. On the other hand, the argument for doing it in camera is that the effect will be on the set monitors and in dailies and through the edit, and who knows if your movie star is going to see their close-up in those stages -- it's hard to allay their fears by saying that it will get fixed months later at the final color-correction.

I think if the reason is to create a diffused look overall to the project, then camera filters make sense except for an efx movie with a lot of greenscreen work. But if so, I tend to fall into the "less is more" mentality or "50/50" mentality, which is to get the diffused look halfway there in camera and then enhance it later in post, because you can always add more diffusion in post but it is hard to take it away. So I generally pick a filter that is one strength lighter than the one I actually like the look of.

I also find that when a camera filter is applied to a lens with certain flare characteristics, the interactivity with bright lights in the frame looks more organic and natural than post manipulation to create that effect, and the truth is that when you see the effect live on the monitor, you tend to compose /operate the shot with it in mind, like a handheld shot where you bring a lens flare into a close-up (when an actor has a bright light behind them) at selective moments by shifting from side to side.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Hi David,

This is rather along the lines of the last question, although a bit more specific. I'm about to start shooting a sci fi short film. I want to give it a bit of a noir feel as it's a detective story, like Blade Runner or Dark City, but I also want it to have more of a realistic, less stylized look than those films. I was wondering what your thoughts might be on lens filtration. What sort of filters would hint at the 1940s noir look without being too over-the-top about it. Do you know if more hard-edged, modern sci fi like Minority Report or Children on Men used any filtration throughout?

Thanks,

Those are pretty opposite movies in terms of photographic approach -- "Children of Men" was shot sharp and clean, whereas "Minority Report" did a lot of work to the image, sections had the negative go through a bleach-bypass step, and many shots had either a net diffusion or some sort of ProMist filter.

I grabbed these off the internet, but you can see the effect of the net filter around points of light:

Most 1940's b&w noir filters where shot clean except for the typical glamorization of the leading actresses close-ups -- I think "Dark City" is a good example of modern cinematography that evokes a 1940's noir feeling, and it is generally very sharp. Noir is really about lighting, camera angles, and production design. If you want to be picky, I think the halation of b&w stocks is probably best simulated with Classic Soft filters, or Classic Soft Black filters, like the 1/8 Classic Soft Black, which will give you a hint of the "rings" around points of light that the anti-halation backing of b&w stocks caused, plus add a touch of softening that is subtle.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Filtration consideration

Filtration consideration

I think your philosophy of being conservative with the amount of diffusion is an excellent approach to the on camera/in post conundrum. Your point about being able to see at least some of the effect of the filter during shooting, particularly when light sources enter frame, is well taken.

Here's my question:
For projects with a decent budget and name actors I would just rent several diffusion filter types at several strengths and apply to taste. For my personal filter kit, I can't justify the expense of a dozen filters or more. Knowing that I am in sync with your "first do no harm" strategy, what 2 or 3 filters would you recommend?

You mentioned the 1/8 Classic Soft Black in your reference to "Minority Report" which is one I have been considering as I like that bit of halation on speculars and practicals. I am also a fan of the Glimmer Glass filter which is sold in strengths from 1-5 but I since I haven't had the opportunity to experiment with them, which would you suggest for my limited personal collection?

Thanks for your time and for your contributions to RedUser.

Cheers - #19

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Classic Softs can look odd on longer lenses, the blurred halation around bright edges can get too large... I think one of the best all around diffusion filter is the Schneider Hollywood Black Magic, which is an HD Classic Soft + 1/8 Black Frost. HD Classic Softs use a smaller lenslet dimple that is more randomly spaced so you don't get the odd artifacts around lights (rings on wider lenses, blobby blurred halations on long lenses) that Classic Softs create - it was originally developed for 2/3" HD camcorders, which have more depth of field and thus saw the pattern too clearly in Classic Softs. The 1/8 Black Frost adds a hint of ProMist-type halation and since the lightest Hollywood Black Magic is the 1/8th and is a 1/8 HD Classic Soft + 1/8 Black Frost, I also carry a 1/8 Black Frost as a diffusion that is one step lighter than the 1/8 Hollywood Black Magic, for my widest shots. So I would get a set that is the 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 Hollywod Black Magic and also get a 1/8 Black Frost, all Schneider.

Tiffen GlimmerGlass is more like a Black ProMist in look. I sometimes use a 1 GlimmerGlass instead of the Hollywood Black Magics, though if you were going to get a 1/8 Schneider Black Frost anyway, you could just add a 1/4 Black Frost, which is close to the look of the 1 GlimmerGlass.

 

[Daniel Doherty]

Hello David,

If I interpreted your above post correctly, you stated you used a lighter diffusion for your wide lenses. It seems counter-intuitive to me. Can you please clarify?

Thank you,
Daniel