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'd use an ND grad to help bring down the brighter object on its side of the frame. I'd expose so that the brighter object was near the clip point to get more detail in the darker object, but as for how much to let some highlights clip it just depends on how extreme the exposure difference is -- at some point, it may just be an unshootable range and something will have to give. HDRx may or may not be a good idea, you can try it both ways.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I'd use an ND grad to help bring down the brighter object on its side of the frame. I'd expose so that the brighter object was near the clip point to get more detail in the darker object, but as for how much to let some highlights clip it just depends on how extreme the exposure difference is -- at some point, it may just be an unshootable range and something will have to give. HDRx may or may not be a good idea, you can try it both ways.
Click to expand...


I've never had much luck with HDRx in RCX, is there some "secret" to using it in RCX or can you only take full advantage with more powerful edit software? The ND grad option won't work as the water covers the sculpture at various times during the program. So you'd expose to the far right and make the call as to what to let clip so as to dig out the shadows? In RCX is there anyway to take down the highlights and brighten the shadows?
 
Well, it just means starting out by color-correcting a low-contrast image -- like a RedLog image if that's how you want to work in post -- that contains all the detail that was recorded, not taking a high contrast image and taking down the highlights and bringing up the shadows.

If your subject contains more dynamic range than your camera can contain, what else can you do but find some sort of compromised exposure? And why can't you throw more light on the darker statue?
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Well, it just means starting out by color-correcting a low-contrast image -- like a RedLog image if that's how you want to work in post -- that contains all the detail that was recorded, not taking a high contrast image and taking down the highlights and bringing up the shadows.

If your subject contains more dynamic range than your camera can contain, what else can you do but find some sort of compromised exposure? And why can't you throw more light on the darker statue?
Click to expand...

I'd be better off color correcting from the RedLog instead of the RedGamma choices? That makes sense. What about the HDRx, getting it to function more then just a blending of the two streams in RCX? The sculpture is massive and our permit stipulates no artificial lights.
 
David,

I read an article in American Cinematographer about Rodrigo Prieto creating moonlight by bouncing hmi pars into an opaque weather Balloon.

I've got a little project coming up with a tight budget (which is also shooting in a fairly remote location)- I'm thinking this technique may be a viable solution.

Have you ever done this & do you have any thoughts on the idea?

Thanks,

Michael
 
I've used lighting balloons with globes inside them, I haven't bounced off of ordinary weather balloons from the ground, but that works -- HMI PAR's are good, also multiple Joker 800 HMI Source-4 Lekos.

I once had an idea for lighting a field at night with strings of small daylight (Cool White) compact flos in a string lights, in a grid pattern. The Cool White color would be good for moonlight.
 
steve green said:
David,

I've got a challenging shoot coming up where I need to shoot a fountain at night which is backlit and under lit by bright tungsten lights. In the background is a dimly lit sculpture which needs to be seen in the final product. I cannot use any artificial lights at all to supplement the sculpture. My question is one of exposure and possibly HDRx. 1) Would it be better to expose for the dim sculpture and have say four stops of HDRx deal with the water (a lot of motion involved). 2) Use exposure check and not clip the water and deal with the sculpture in a color correction suite. 3) Set the exposure right in the middle, use a modest amount of HDRx (2 stops) and let the DR of the Epic and a powerful color correction balance it all out.

Any suggestions would be very much appreciated, I'm going to try and shoot some test the day before we shoot, but even with that I won't have the ability to take it into a post suite beforehand.
Click to expand...

Have you considered split screen or some other form of composite?

Or if your permit won't let you add light, could you take it off the bright part by blocking or scrimming some of the light sources?
 
Flat lens to cut with your scope set -

David, I've got a shoot starting Monday in MI, mostly urban exteriors with a set of Cineovision anamorphics, 35-100, shooting 5k anamorphic and I know that for some shots the 35 is not going to be wide enough. I've tried to secure a 24mm and a 28mm todd-ao, but not luck.

Have you shot 5k ana and found it easier to cut in a wide-angle spherical to replace the lost focal length in the epic sensor?

I can bring a 14mm Canon Optex easily, which has falloff to some of the wide scopes I've seen, however there's a lack of distortion. Appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks,
Mario
 
If the wider angles are for your wider shots then I think you'll be fine sneaking in some spherical lensed shots, you don't see anamorphic distortions so much in wide shots where the focus is set deeper and the lens is stopped down, like for day exteriors. An anamorphic lens stopped down to f/11 for example looks more like a spherical lens. And since you are shooting on the Epic, the spherical 5K shots will actually have more resolution than the anamorphic shots, unlike mixing Super-35 and 35mm anamorphic when shooting film, where the Super-35 stuff would be a bit grainier in comparison.
 
Is it advisable to refer to histogram for every shot rather than judging the exposure from the LCD monitor? Thank you.
 
Hi David!

Im shooting a poker scene that takes place in a back room (small area)
I want the players to be lit by the light from above, and just some falloff so they are not in total blackness as they lean back.
Any ideas on how to do this in a small room, controlling the light, but not lighting up the BG brightly?
I was thinking of a 4'x4bank keno with a skirt for the table, but how do I bring the BG up enough where I can still see the players if they are walking around the room (dimly of course)

Thanks!!
 
All black room

All black room

Hi David,

I have an upcoming shoot where I'll be shooting two people dancing around an all-black room. My thought is the best bet is to shoot in a studio that is painted all matte black and to then use frontal-top lighting off a grid to light them, and then crush the blacks in post. In order to get a complete "blackness surrounding them, do you think that would work? Do you think all green would actually be easier, and then make it black in post?

Thanks.
 
Dear David, I was hoping you could help me clarify the distinction between softness and specularity of a source.

My understanding is that softness is related to the size of the source as seen at the subject, that is, the solid angle subtended by the source at the subject. A larger source is softer because light rays are hitting the subject from more directions and cancelling each other's shadows.

My understanding is that a specular source is one from which light rays travel outwards parallel to each other.

If the above is correct, then a source bounced into a 4'x4' beadboard will produce a different effect to the same source filling a 4'x4' frame of a diffusion material that lets some specular light through. The texture of the beadboard will cause light rays to scatter unevenly and therefore the light will be completely unspecular, whereas some diffusion materials will allow a certain amount of specular light to pass.

My questions are: How does specularity affect the perception of softness? Does a very large diffusion frame that still lets some specular light through feel less soft than one that does not? Is the only difference between 250 , 251, 216 etc the proportion of specular light that is passed? Is there a maximum strength / 'specularity removal' of diffusion above which using a heavier diffusion is just reducing the footcandle level without increasing softness?

Also - Does all the above mean that for any given source size, there is a spectrum of 'softness type' at one end of which we have completely specular light with softness provided just by size of source, and at the other end sources (bounces etc) that have no specularity in the light?

I know there's a lot of questions but they all stem from a desire to properly understand the relationship between specularity and softness.

Thankyou :)
 
Justin Marx said:
Hi David!

Im shooting a poker scene that takes place in a back room (small area)
I want the players to be lit by the light from above, and just some falloff so they are not in total blackness as they lean back.
Any ideas on how to do this in a small room, controlling the light, but not lighting up the BG brightly?
I was thinking of a 4'x4bank keno with a skirt for the table, but how do I bring the BG up enough where I can still see the players if they are walking around the room (dimly of course)

Thanks!!
Click to expand...

Seems easy in a small room to get the background to come up, just don't skirt the light too much. But assuming you want a more dramatic effect of a skirted top-light that the players can lean out of into darkness, then you'd want a separate light to bright up the background that doesn't add too much to the players, maybe a single Kino tube with extended barn doors or a skirt. Or if you just want some dimmer ambience, just bounce something into the ceiling that is very knocked down.
 
Lorenzo Levrini said:
Dear David, I was hoping you could help me clarify the distinction between softness and specularity of a source.

My understanding is that softness is related to the size of the source as seen at the subject, that is, the solid angle subtended by the source at the subject. A larger source is softer because light rays are hitting the subject from more directions and cancelling each other's shadows.

My understanding is that a specular source is one from which light rays travel outwards parallel to each other.

If the above is correct, then a source bounced into a 4'x4' beadboard will produce a different effect to the same source filling a 4'x4' frame of a diffusion material that lets some specular light through. The texture of the beadboard will cause light rays to scatter unevenly and therefore the light will be completely unspecular, whereas some diffusion materials will allow a certain amount of specular light to pass.

My questions are: How does specularity affect the perception of softness? Does a very large diffusion frame that still lets some specular light through feel less soft than one that does not? Is the only difference between 250 , 251, 216 etc the proportion of specular light that is passed? Is there a maximum strength / 'specularity removal' of diffusion above which using a heavier diffusion is just reducing the footcandle level without increasing softness?

Also - Does all the above mean that for any given source size, there is a spectrum of 'softness type' at one end of which we have completely specular light with softness provided just by size of source, and at the other end sources (bounces etc) that have no specularity in the light?

I know there's a lot of questions but they all stem from a desire to properly understand the relationship between specularity and softness.

Thankyou :)
Click to expand...

Yes.

You pretty much figured it out. However, there is a point where practically it's not much of a difference between a bounced light and light through a diffusion frame. And yes, you reach a point when the frame is filled evenly with light where it can't get any softer. Some materials are more efficient than others but there's no magic bullet, generally the heavier material spreads the light more and loses more output (tough spun is a poor material in terms of efficiency however.)
 
juliensees said:
Hi David,

I have an upcoming shoot where I'll be shooting two people dancing around an all-black room. My thought is the best bet is to shoot in a studio that is painted all matte black and to then use frontal-top lighting off a grid to light them, and then crush the blacks in post. In order to get a complete "blackness surrounding them, do you think that would work? Do you think all green would actually be easier, and then make it black in post?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a good plan. Don't use green if you want black, there are all sorts of reasons, bad keys, green spill into the shadows, a waste of time, etc.
 
David,

Just a fan message here! SMASH just came on in Australia and looks spectacular!

Also loved your work on Tara and Big Love, so natural.

Okay, gush complete, just wanted to remind you just how much you're appreciated around here.
 
Hi David,

Could you please comment on how useful the cinetape system is for you? For instance which kinds of situations would you use it mostly for?

Cheers,
Pete Horvath
Calgary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top