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

Hi David,

I would really love to know your opinion on my question above about hand-holding. Maybe you didn't see it? Thanks in advance.
 
Hi Alexy,

There is an article in American Cinematographer on Anna Karenina this month, Dec 2012, where this is addressed .The specific passage is on page 53. It is a brand of women's stockings that is somehow stretched over the back of the lens to act as a diffusion/soft filtration. It is described as "Cristian Dior 10 denier black silk stockings". The rest of the article is also very worthwhile reading.

I have read in the past how sheer stockings have been used for decades as a form of diffusion. I seem to recall first hearing about it being used on the film "The Graduate" back when it was made. I also believe that I read that DP Seamus McGarvey used it on the film "Atonement" as well. I should add that this AC issue is available for $1 as a back issue last time I looked and is also very interesting to read about. http://www.ascmag.com/store/product.php?productid=16182&cat=328&page=3

Hope that I'm not stepping on David's toes here since the follow up question was addressed directly to him.

PS...I am also interested in David's answer to Mike S.M's question about mixing hand held and tripod.

Bill
 
David Mullen ASC said:
The heavier diopters have a certain amount of edge distortion and chromatic aberration around the sides -- a macro lens would generally be sharper. So it depends on how tight you are getting. Once you start needing to use +3 diopters, it may be better to use a macro instead.
Click to expand...

The Zeiss Digi Dioptres (95mm) & the Zeiss master dioptres don't seem to have any issues. I used the digi diopters with the Leica Sumilux C Primes, very good indeed. Zero breathing & much larger focus throw than any macro lens. Use with an extension tube also works well. The Arri Master Macro 100mm is very good, however I prefer to use wider lenses as it's way more dynamic. The normal Arri macros have an image shift if you change direction on the focus, so I generally prefer primes with a dioptre.
 
Hi David,
I have a question about CRI. I am trying to make a wall of light out of 8 4ft dimmer-able LED T8 tubes. I know the CRI on these tubes is not that great only about 80cri at best. I used my color temp meter and found I needed to add 1/4 minus green to make the light pure tungsten temperature. Since I added the minus green to this light does this bring the CRI up on this light?
What is the effect on skin tone when using low CRI lights?
Is there a meter that measures CRI?
Thanks for all your help
Richard
 
Last edited:
Hi Richard,

Poor CRI is usually caused by missing wavelengths in the visual spectrum. As you cannot add missing colors through filtration the CRI will unfortunately remain bad. That said, especially regarding skin tones you may be able to create a special look, but that probably won´t fit in every situation. Measuring the color temperature of a light source that has a lot of missing wavelenghts will always be a guess, CT applies for a continous spectrum as natural daylight or tungsten, HMI is not too bad, too. HTH

Cheers,
Ulf
 
Thanks....That's kind of what I thought but was hoping for a different answer
 
Thanks...I guess I will need to finish the light and test it next to tungsten
 
Hi David,

we are now preparing the equipment for the coming film and check the back focus for the Red One.
Firstly,we adjust the back focus until focus chart in focus with Arri MP 50 on 1m.
Lock the back focus.
Then we put the focus chart on 3m,we find that the lens scale-focus is not accurate.Something like in focus on 2.95m.
On 7m,the lens in focus on the 6.8m.

For your experience,how do you think the MP 50 lens scale-focus accurate?Is that the lens scale-focus just for the reference?
And what do you think the wide open on the MP 50?I think this is too soft for the long-distance.I will share the picture next time.

Thanks in advance
Yu
 
Mike S. M. said:
Hi David,

I was wondering what is your opinion when it comes to handheld shots? When is it ok to go handheld in your opinion?

For example, does it fit better a film or show like 24 where all was either handheld or steadicam or do you think it's ok to mix tripod and handheld in the same show? If so, do you feel like it's ok to mix it in the same scene? In this day and age handheld is all the rage. Shaky, snooping camera is a style very used. But I wonder if the whole project should be like that or if tripod locked off shots have a place in the same project or even same scene.

In a recent discussion with some friends the consensus seemed to be you either go handheld, shaky, snooping camera where steadicam shots are also fitting or you go tripod, dolly smooth shots. You shouldn't mix both. I guess cranes and booms are fair game in both.

Would love to hear your opinion of the matter.

A little side question, when going handheld, do you feel shooting from the shoulder is fine? I always like avoiding shooting from the shoulder if I can because it's close to the human field of view and tend to look too normal. Besides it gives it that news look. So I rather use something like a Fig-Rig or any other rig that will allow me to handhold in a different height than a shoulder brace.

Thanks in advance David.
Click to expand...

First of all this is a taste issue and it is also a storytelling issue, which is script-dependent. For every production you set a general set of stylistic guidelines which don't necessarily have to be consistent with your other productions (i.e. red may symbolize one thing in one movie but another thing in another movie). So you may decide that for a certain movie, handheld shots may appear at "x" moments or situations but for another movie, you may decide something else.

If the handheld operating is smooth enough then it can be mixed fine with dolly and tripod shots -- "Blade Runner" has many handheld shots mixed into it, like the close-up of Rachel when she is watching Deckard fall asleep on his couch. It adds a feeling of uncertainty and tension, the slight movement suggesting something may happen at any moment.

We don't do many handheld shots in "Smash" right now because it's not that kind of show, but we have occasionally and it cuts in fine. We did it for over-the-shoulder shots during an argument scene where the movement was very subtle, again, to add more tension. The other angles were on dollies.

But I've done movies where the director wanted either locked-off shots on tripods or rough moving handheld shots so that the difference between them was dramatic. It becomes a visual statement and suggests a radical turn of events.

Not sure I understand what's wrong with a subtle "normal" shot. It's like the people who don't like middle focal lengths because they look too "normal" -- what's wrong with being subtle? The script should drive those sorts of decisions anyway. Sometimes you want the style to be obvious and bold, and other times, you want it to disappear so that the audience just concentrates on the performances.

When I did "Big Love" and "United States of Tara" for cable TV, we generally stuck to normal focal-lengths, the idea being that the characters were odd or different people and that we didn't want to exaggerate that with the camera style... the simpler the storytelling was, the more you believed in the characters. It would have been wrong to take a cartoonish approach with the camera style. On the other hand, right now on "Smash" we often shoot our wide shots on really wide-angle lenses, sometimes on Steadicam, to show off the New York settings and enhance the sweeping motions during our musical numbers (however, close-ups are shot with normal to long lenses to be flattering.)

Where it does become a problem with editing though is when you do a lot of coverage, wide and medium, on a drifting Steadicam and then have static close-ups from a dolly, sometimes the difference it too jarring. We sometimes try to soften that by using sliders so that the close-ups have some drift to them.

Again, this is all a taste issue and can be situational, based on the moment and what feels right.
 
Longyu Chau said:
Hi David,

we are now preparing the equipment for the coming film and check the back focus for the Red One.
Firstly,we adjust the back focus until focus chart in focus with Arri MP 50 on 1m.
Lock the back focus.
Then we put the focus chart on 3m,we find that the lens scale-focus is not accurate.Something like in focus on 2.95m.
On 7m,the lens in focus on the 6.8m.

For your experience,how do you think the MP 50 lens scale-focus accurate?Is that the lens scale-focus just for the reference?
And what do you think the wide open on the MP 50?I think this is too soft for the long-distance.I will share the picture next time.

Thanks in advance
Yu
Click to expand...

You'd have to talk to a lens expert or a camera assistant, but I haven't had problems with the accuracy of the Master Prime's markings. I have had problems though with the back-focus being slightly off unless you closed the locking ring very tight on the Epic after putting the lens on.

You out a super sharp lens on a camera with very high resolution and back and front focus issues are going to be very critical.
 
Hello Dave,

Just a quick question. What do you recommend for Film School? I am 16, still in High School with great grades! Currently I am working on shorts and I even PA'ed a Feature Film.
Any advise?

Thanks,
Adam
 
I don't want to recommend one film school over another, and it depends on what you want to get out of it. If you want to enter the film industry eventually, it wouldn't hurt to pick one in a city with some production work going on. Ultimately, most of what you learn will be on your own (as in life in general) but film school will hopefully give you contacts that will lead to entry level work, so try to get along with your fellow students in school...
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I don't want to recommend one film school over another, and it depends on what you want to get out of it. If you want to enter the film industry eventually, it wouldn't hurt to pick one in a city with some production work going on. Ultimately, most of what you learn will be on your own (as in life in general) but film school will hopefully give you contacts that will lead to entry level work, so try to get along with your fellow students in school...
Click to expand...

Thanks A Ton!!!! I think this is the most direct advice anyone has given me!

Thanks Again,
Adam
 
I'm not David, but he is a friend of mine, so.......

At the age of 16, you need to have a bit of patience, which is probably the single hardest thing to grasp when you're, well, 16. A career and a life are dependent on a lot more than basic operational skills. If your career ambition is to be an assistant or an operator, that's fine. For that, you really want a trade school type of approach, where those things are the singular focus of the program. But if you have higher ambitions, to be a cinematographer or a director and, thus, an artist, a well rounded education in the arts is what you should be looking for, not someone to teach you how to operate a camera. And if you want to collaborate with artists of any stature, you're going to need to have points of common reference as a basis for artistic exploration. You don't learn that by running a camera. You learn it from studying and examining the great works of the past and present in all areas of life, but particularly in the areas of artistic expression - literature, art, music, sculpture, architecture, and others - as a way of observing life. And that's what art is about, observing and commenting on life. When you're 16 you haven't lived long enough to have the kind of experiences you're going to eventually have. Once you do, it's interpreting those experiences through an artistic filter that's going to unleash whatever artistic potential you might have.

David won't recommend any specific school, and wisely so. But his basic advice belies the fact that David is a life long student of the arts, with an extremely deep knowledge of not only film history, but painting, music, architecture - all the things I mentioned. Every great artist, while having their own unique point of view, draws inspiration from the great masters who have come before, and every working cinematographer uses those as references when working with a director so that they can come up with a common approach they both understand. So your own decision making should be centered around what you want to become, not how to shortcut the road to that goal. If your ambitions are more mechanical and technical in nature, that would indicate one path. If you strive to be an artist, that would indicate a different path. But real education is not about "how to get a job." It's about learning how the great minds of history have explored life, and doing that in a "safe" environment, before taking on the responsibilities of adult existence. So while the question of "what film school do you recommend" is a valid one, the better question would be "what kind of education will best prepare me for my chosen path in life?". You can't answer that with a post in an Internet forum. It takes some reflection. And, as I said earlier, patience.
 
This is a much broader topic, the education of an artist, and for the most part, it is self-education -- schools at best provide learning resources, collaborators, critical evaluation, and hopefully put things in a broader context, give your art an intellectual and historical grounding by forcing you to expand your outlook and tastes. But any school experience is only as good as what you bring to the table yourself and how motivated you are to learn outside the borders of a curriculum.

If you are passionate about a chosen subject, then educating yourself should not be difficult -- I'm always a bit perplexed by questions like "what book should I read about cinematography?" because I read almost everything ever printed on the subject, being a topic that interests me. I'm sure a Civil War buff has a similar experience, they don't need to force themselves to research the minutia of their beloved subject, they do so joyfully. That's why they call it a passion.

You do need to learn beyond the borders of filmmaking to be a filmmaker -- often I'm on a set and the director may say "make this night exterior look like a Todd Hido photo", or "this street scene should have a Lee Friedlander feeling", or "the colors should be like a Maxfield Parish painting" -- you have to be able to draw inspiration from a wide range of art. You have to be able to talk to a production designer in terms of architecture, graphic design, etc. So you also spend a lot of time just wandering through museums, visiting historical sites, looking through art books.
 
Very nice work Nicholas! Did you end up using the Molebeams or Source 4's, or a combination of these lights for the lattice? How did you supplement the oil lamp light on the actor (I imagine that would be necessary).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top