Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[Roberto Lequeux]

500 pages, 5000 posts

Thank you David Mullen

 

[Alexey Milokost]

Thanks a lot!

Avoid the sky by shooting against a hillside or something. If not, use a Pola + ND grad to darken the sky and/or plan on replacing it in post.

Shoot in backlight or side light, something that creates shadows, underexpose, perhaps go for a blue-ish tint.

Shoot at a wide aperture to avoid too much depth of field.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Post #5000 in this thread. I think I speak for everybody here. Thank you for knowledge and continued generosity David.

arty:arty::thumbup::cheers2::hurray:

 

[Phil Holland]

And over a million views no less. Style points indeed.

 

[Nathaniel Opgenorth]

Maybe this has been asked before and if so sorry...BUT David what do you think of anamorphic in the digital age? I see a small resurgence of anamorphic in both film and digital (film wise maybe its Directors and DP's emptying out all the nostalgia before film is gone if I had to guess!). I personally love anamorphic, I love every "artifact" of it but I'm curious on a digital sensor does it do more harm than good? I'm guessing anamorphic lenses don't give the massive resolution increase on digital like it does on film. Are their any issues using anamorphic on digital that were not issues with film? I asked you about Hawk V-lites 1.33x on 4-perf film to shoot 1.85:1 on another forum and got to see an example (Promised Land, I think it looked great BTW) but I'm more interested in anamorphic as a whole. Do you see it going away? Will we ever see crazy wide aspect ratios from the likes of Ben-Hur and its massive beautiful 70mm anamorphic 2.76:1 picture? I simply loved the look of Ben-Hur and would love to see something like that in digital in the future (I imagine you could achieve a similar look hopefully with an Epic Dragon using Hawk V-Lite 1.33x's while shooting at a 2:1 aspect ratio). Movies like Elysium and the new Transformers movie along with Epic Dragon in general are reminding me of 70mm and its exciting!

Sorry sort of went on a ramble, some of this stuff is hard to find documented or in common usage via Google. If anyone else wants to chime in on parts of my post I'm all ears. Thanks!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, most 65mm movies were actually spherical -- "Lawrence of Arabia", "2001", "Patton", etc. -- there were only four or five movies made in anamorphic 65mm (MGM Camera 65 / Ultra Panavision). The wider-than-2.40 aspect ratio only worked for Cinerama screens, so once Cinerama died, the need to shoot 2.66 : 1 or 2.70 : 1 movies started to die with it. So I don't associate anamorphic with a 70mm look generally.

Anamorphic lenses still yield improved vertical resolution when the sensor is 4x3-ish, but of course, that also depends on the total resolution of the sensor itself, there are DV cameras with 4x3 sensors after all...

The main advantage anamorphic had for 35mm was decreased grain because of the larger negative area used compared to cropping Super-35. Since digital does not have grain, that is less of a reason to use anamorphic. And since most sensors are 16x9-ish, you don't get the improvement in vertical resolution. And if you don't get to use a larger sensor area for anamorphic, then you notice that most spherical lenses are sharper than anamorphic lenses once you start shooting near wide-open.

So today, the main reason to shoot anamorphic on digital is the anamorphic look and feel, which is still popular.

 

[Nathaniel Opgenorth]

Well, most 65mm movies were actually spherical -- "Lawrence of Arabia", "2001", "Patton", etc. -- there were only four or five movies made in anamorphic 65mm (MGM Camera 65 / Ultra Panavision). The wider-than-2.40 aspect ratio only worked for Cinerama screens, so once Cinerama died, the need to shoot 2.66 : 1 or 2.70 : 1 movies started to die with it. So I don't associate anamorphic with a 70mm look generally.

Anamorphic lenses still yield improved vertical resolution when the sensor is 4x3-ish, but of course, that also depends on the total resolution of the sensor itself, there are DV cameras with 4x3 sensors after all...

The main advantage anamorphic had for 35mm was decreased grain because of the larger negative area used compared to cropping Super-35. Since digital does not have grain, that is less of a reason to use anamorphic. And since most sensors are 16x9-ish, you don't get the improvement in vertical resolution. And if you don't get to use a larger sensor area for anamorphic, then you notice that most spherical lenses are sharper than anamorphic lenses once you start shooting near wide-open.

So today, the main reason to shoot anamorphic on digital is the anamorphic look and feel, which is still popular.

Thanks David. I realize most 70mm was spherical, I just sort of loved the few movies that used the Ultra Panavision 1.25x anamorphics, wish there were more but its probably easier to shoot spherical for the reasons you listed. Maybe with Arri's approach with 4x3 sensors I'll see more anamorphic. I can't say however that wider sensors is bad, I like how RED goes the 1.89 - 2:1 ~ aspect ratio, I always found Super 35 to be a tad too grainy for some movies, although with nice film stock allot of that goes unnoticed but allot of 90s movies in Super 35 I noticed were very very grainy, I'm guessing the digital intermediate process kept the grain down later on though? So I take it you largely prefer just staying spherical over anamorphic if possible?

A side note I remember their was a Panasonic DV camera that had a 4x3 sensor and Panasonic introduced the AG7200 anamorphic adapter to bring it to 16x9, heh glad to be out of the DV era.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I love anamorphic, especially in 35mm film compared to Super-35, I'm just saying that increased resolution is no longer the main reason to shoot in anamorphic if you are shooting in digital. If you just want a sharp 2.40 digital movie, just use the sharpest spherical lenses you can find. Shoot anamorphic when you want those anamorphic lens artifacts.

I'd love to find another project to use anamorphic lenses on.

 

[Paulian A. Morris]

Originally Posted by Paulian A. Morris
David I have a job coming up this weekend for The Kennedy Space Center shooting Astronaut Heroes of the past. We are thinking of doing a dramatic shot with a astronaut with and helmet on or even holding a helmet. I would like to use a projection to get the reflection of earth in the shield of the helmet. How big of a screen do you think i might need? So I don't have to work the screen in to close to the subject. My goal is to not see anything in the helmet shield but the POV of the earth from space. Also what kind of output would such a screen need to have do you think? We are shooting with The RED Epic & Canon 5D's. Don't want to work higher than 800 ISO 1200 max. What ideas might you have on how to approach this?

Your advice was

"The problem is that the helmet glass is almost like a fisheye lens in terms of its view of its surroundings, so even if you parked a 20'x20' translight in front of the astronaut, it wouldn't fill the helmet reflection. That might be OK in an all-black soundstage with a black image with the whole Earth in the center of it, but most astronauts do not see the Earth from that far away, it would look like they were halfway to the Moon once reflected in the helmet. You're better off putting the reflection in post."


David thank you so much for your advice on this Astronaut effect we wanted to do. We went the way you suggested and put it in as a tracking motion effect and will have an example of what it's beginning to look like being we are now in post. And are planning to shoot more for the project soon. Thanks again so much we will be giving you a special thanks credit when the film is done my friend

 

[Mike P.]

Hey David, I like the Big Sur's colour palette and mix of modern/vintage look (older style, but clean). I was wondering if that was done in post or more so with filtration. If filtration, could you discuss the predominant filter choices (I tried searching, but "Big" and "Sur" are only three letters long and don't register in the search).

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I had an idea to just diffuse the blacks, which is something that you can only do digitally (or when doing a telecine transfer with diffusion in the telecine while it is running negative film in it) -- optical diffusion filters only work on spreading highlights. So the movie was mostly shot clean (other than using smoke on many interiors and even exteriors) and Light Iron did the diffusion effect. I had one shot where I used a 1/8 Black Frost on the camera to make sure a light I had outside of a window meant to look like the sun was glowing enough to hide the yoke of the lamp, and I did a dream sequence with fog filters, but that was it.

 

[Domenic Barbero]

I've watched short stuff from other people before, I just don't have a lot of free time to write a long critique, but certainly I would make a few comments.

Sent you a message David

 

[John Nguyen]

I love anamorphic, especially in 35mm film compared to Super-35, I'm just saying that increased resolution is no longer the main reason to shoot in anamorphic if you are shooting in digital. If you just want a sharp 2.40 digital movie, just use the sharpest spherical lenses you can find. Shoot anamorphic when you want those anamorphic lens artifacts.

I'd love to find another project to use anamorphic lenses on.

I've been trying to read up a lot on anamorphic but haven't really found a straight forward answer as to what the "anamorphic look and feel" is. There's the most commonly stated artifacts likes horizontal lens flares, vertically stretched bokeh, shallower dof for the same focal length and less grain, but is there something in the picture composition/perspective that is inherently different than a spherical lens and thus can't be mimicked exactly by simply cropping in post? I've heard something about lens compression being different vertically and horizontally (which is obvious enough) but I can't seem to wrap my head around how that can't be mimicked exactly by just standing in the same spot with a spherical lens of the same horizontal fov and just cropping the top and bottom. I've never found a clear side by side comparison and keep seeing conflicting answers on the Internet forums.

I felt like maybe this is a good time to finally ask someone directly who's word I'll take as absolutely final =)

thank you in advance!

 

[Howard Braun]

Dear Mr. Mullen

I just wanted to ask about two things:

1. Your philosophy concerning the light intensity, while lighting people.
In the example where a man is standing in front of the window he is lighted 1 or 2 stops below the key. Why it is so?
In general, when faces should be "in a key" or " below it? What is a pattern according to which you determine the lighting?

I am more interested in understanding your point of view.

2.How bright should be practical lamps or light sources in a frame? Darker than in a reality or maybe brighter? Wouldn't they be overexposed?
Again, what is a pattern according to which you determine it?




Thanks for your help

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I've been trying to read up a lot on anamorphic but haven't really found a straight forward answer as to what the "anamorphic look and feel" is. There's the most commonly stated artifacts likes horizontal lens flares, vertically stretched bokeh, shallower dof for the same focal length and less grain, but is there something in the picture composition/perspective that is inherently different than a spherical lens and thus can't be mimicked exactly by simply cropping in post? I've heard something about lens compression being different vertically and horizontally (which is obvious enough) but I can't seem to wrap my head around how that can't be mimicked exactly by just standing in the same spot with a spherical lens of the same horizontal fov and just cropping the top and bottom. I've never found a clear side by side comparison and keep seeing conflicting answers on the Internet forums.

I felt like maybe this is a good time to finally ask someone directly who's word I'll take as absolutely final =)

thank you in advance!

Truth is that compositionally, you can get the same framing with a spherical lens image cropped to 2.40 as you can with an anamorphic lens in terms of field of view vertically and horizontally. The barrel distortion in the medium to wide anamorphic lenses tend to be a subtle visual clue that you are seeing most of the projected image of the lens, compared to cropping spherical to 2.40 which has a flatter, less distorted feel, less barrel distortion. But in terms of actual perspective and field of view, you can match the two, cropped spherical versus anamorphic.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Dear Mr. Mullen

I just wanted to ask about two things:

1. Your philosophy concerning the light intensity, while lighting people.
In the example where a man is standing in front of the window he is lighted 1 or 2 stops below the key. Why it is so?
In general, when faces should be "in a key" or " below it? What is a pattern according to which you determine the lighting?

I am more interested in understanding your point of view.

2.How bright should be practical lamps or light sources in a frame? Darker than in a reality or maybe brighter? Wouldn't they be overexposed?
Again, what is a pattern according to which you determine it?




Thanks for your help

Depends on if you are aiming for a naturalistic feeling. You set exposures slightly up or down from key because of your perception of what feels natural. But you also set exposures based on mood and sometimes you want sources to feel hotter and sometimes dimmer to create the mood you want. Someone working late at night at their desk, lit by the desk lamp -- well, perhaps having the light from the lamp look fairly hot on the face creates a more nightmarish feeling, like being interrogated.

 

[scott william]

Hi David,

Do you change shutter speeds depending of what you are shooting? I recently shoot some boxing and fitness work outs for a documentary and wondered if more shutter would have helped with motion blur and made for a sharper looking image. I usually shoot at 1/50 or 1/48 @ 25 fps but maybe i should experiment with higher shutters for faster moving objects?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I often shot the dancing numbers on "Smash" with a 90 degree shutter angle to make the movements more distinct.

 

[Nick Morrison]

David I have fallen love with the Cohen brothers Inside Llewyn Davis. Have you seen it? Such an incredible parable of the arduous journey we must take...if we dare listen to our muse.

I also loved how it looked. Seems heavily filtered in camera. Any ideas what Bruno Delbonnel may have used? Looks like heavy Hollywood Black Magic to me, but I figured you'd have a much better idea. Thanks again. Take a look:

Also, as I side note, I marveled at two things when I saw this movie this weekend:

1) The gorgeous use of a wide-angle prime and shallow depth of field on the opening shot, in The Gaslight.

2) The Cohen brother's incredible economy. They sometimes get away with such minimal coverage. There is a scene when Lleyn Davis visits his father, and plays for him. There is no 2-shot, or master. Instead the scene is setup with an exterior of the building, cuts to photographs hanging on the wall (to tell you about what type of man the father is), and then just relies on two mediums. One of Lleyn. And one of his father. Occasionally the cut in slightly closer, but not much. I realize what makes the coverage work is THE SHOTS ARE NOT SHALLOW. There is incredible depth of field. You clearly get a sense of the room behind Lleyn as he plays, you know where the window is, and get a sense of his father's space. Same for when they cut back to the father, your eye still wanders to the details of the room. You don't need a 2 shot or master to give you CONTEXT, because it's already in the singles...in the incredible detail all around the frame. So simple.

You'd think these choices are obvious, they are not. I normally have my DP's shoot at 2.8 and f4 because I think it looks good, but that room may have been at a 5.6 or f8 just to keep everything in focus (though the room was pretty small, so maybe not). Either way. Sounds so simple, but there is such attention to detial, I marvel at them. I really do.

Happy holidays. If you able to decode what filter Bruno used, that will be my favorite Xmas present of the year!

best

 

[David Mullen ASC]

The ICG article says the movie was shot clean on Cooke S4's and the diffusion was added in post, something Delbonnel has been doing for some time (look at the Harry Potter film he did, or "Dark Shadows.")

I think it looked gorgeous.

As for the depth of field, it looked normal to me, just the use of shorter focal lengths and more medium shots rather than close-ups allowing the space to be seen. I doubt it was shot any deeper than f/2.8-4 indoors.