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

We're all sending you much love David. You have been a constant beacon of warm light on this forum.
 
Hey David,

I have a question for you. What would be for you (& others) the main interest of shooting with Angénieux Optimo zooms, like for example the 15-40 or 28-76 mm? I'm seeing that a lot of movies lately have been shot partly using those zooms, and I was just wondering, what is the main appeal? Not having to switch lenses all the time? optical quality? (I'm trying to find reference as to what the look is like) having all this range of focal lengths in a pretty compact package?

They're not super fast though, but coupled with the Alexa for example, I'm guessing they can do just fine, also in low light situations?

THx
 
EMMANUEL DELPECH said:
Hey David,

I have a question for you. What would be for you (& others) the main interest of shooting with Angénieux Optimo zooms, like for example the 15-40 or 28-76 mm? I'm seeing that a lot of movies lately have been shot partly using those zooms, and I was just wondering, what is the main appeal? Not having to switch lenses all the time? optical quality? (I'm trying to find reference as to what the look is like) having all this range of focal lengths in a pretty compact package?

They're not super fast though, but coupled with the Alexa for example, I'm guessing they can do just fine, also in low light situations?

THx
Click to expand...

The advantage of the lightweight zooms is that they aren't much bigger or heavier than most cine primes, which means that they are just as fast to interchange on the camera without a lot of adjustments, unlike putting on and taking off something like the 24-290mm Ang. Optimo, which is time-consuming enough that often that lens is just left on the camera all day, plus it takes up a lot of space, you have to factor in how far the front end of the lens is going to stick into the space.

So having the 15-40mm, 28-76mm, and 45-120mm allows you to keep the camera size fairly compact, and the lenses are light enough for handheld and steadicam work. Yes, the sensitivity of modern digital cameras makes being limited to f/2.8 not such hindrance as in the past. The sharpness and contrast are not quite on par with primes like Arri Master Primes but are close enough to most primes that it's not a big compromise, particularly if for 1080P TV broadcast rather than theatrical projection.
 
Roberto Battiston said:
Greetings Mr. Mullen. Love this thread.

I have the oportunity to grab a Sekonic C-500 color meter. I shot mostly documentary, so, I have this idea of measuring K numbers & footcandles of the most important objects on scene, (grass, sky, etc.) in order to recreate their colors faithfully to reality. Excuse my ignorance, is there a "correct" workflow for this task?. Thanks a lot for your time & for sharing your knowledge with everyone.
Click to expand...

I don't own a color meter but usually my gaffer carries one, you aren't reading the colors of objects, you are reading the color of the light sources falling on objects. The meters are useful for matching lights to each other, especially for measuring lights with color biases and odd wavelength peaks and valleys. I don't worry as much about metering daylight, which mainly just varies in color temperature, not in terms of green/magenta, I can usually judge the color bias just on a color monitor and to some extent, I don't want to be trying to adjust the color temp for every set-up, within a certain stretch of daytime it is usually better to just find a color temp setting on the camera that works for most of the shots, with the idea to finish the matching later in post, because adjusting the color temp on every set-up may create just as much work in post if you are not careful.
 
David - just wanted to congratulate you on a terrific job on your 'Mad Men' episode. Before I saw your credit, I was already thinking that it was the best-photographed episode so far this season... - Hope all is well. - Brendan H. (we met briefly in Vegas after the "Timescapes" premiere - and laid down our NASA nerd cards)
 
Thanks, I'm glad you liked it... I had a lot of help and support from everyone on the show, their regular DP was directing, the operator shot a lot of episodes himself, I had their great grip and electric crew, etc. so I just tried to do what I thought they would do, the look was really theirs, not mine.
 
Yes, especially loved the back to work sequence will have to give it a 2nd viewing
 
Great Mad Men episode, Chris is a friend, but that episode was one of the best looking so far. How did you do the bus interior? was that looking out the front window and seeing the side windows projection or all green screen?
 
David,

I'm shooting an low budget feature this June and still finalizing my gear package. We've got a few large nighttime exteriors that I've been wracking my brain to try and develop a solution. The option I can best afford involves using a tungsten package with two 9 light Maxi Brutes, a 5k senior, and an assortment of smaller units.

My only concern is I'd prefer a deeper blue tint to the scene as it's supposed to be moonlit. I simply can't afford the HMIs it would take to light this scene, so my plan was to use an 80C (because it's only 1 stop of light loss) and then push the camera blue in post, if we can sustain the light loss I could gel the lights as well, but I'm guessing I need the punch. We will be shooting on the RED Epic with Zeiss Superspeeds. In your estimation, will I have a shot at getting a deeper blue that's not extremely noisy with this plan?
 
You could gel your lights blue as well, whether you can afford the light loss depends on how far away the lights have to be, how large the space is, and how fast the lens is, so it's hard to say in the abstract whether it will work or not, but certainly it is possible to get that blue look with filters and gels using tungsten light and an Epic.
 
David, need some help…….I've got a client whose talking about shooting Anamorphic for a TVC thinking it'll look "sharper" and more "cinematic". With little experience with Anamorphic lenses, is the "sharper" concern accurate for broadcast TV? My first thought thought would be to shoot 6K wide screen to give them the "cinematic" look they desire? I just don't know the answer to their sharpness claim…….Are Anamorphic lenses sharper then Spherical lenses?
 
No, anamorphic lenses are generally a bit softer than spherical lenses unless stopped down. On 4-perf 35mm film though, which has a squarish negative area, using anamorphics allows the full height of the negative to be used for a 2.40 image compared to cropping a spherical image, so less cropping means less enlarging and thus a better widescreen image on the big screen, unless you shoot wide-open when the anamorphic lenses tend to get soft and somewhat distorted. But on a camera with a 16x9 sensor, the 2X squeeze of the anamorphic lens means that you will be cropping the sides to get back to 2.40 and even more if you want to get back to 16x9 full frame, once unsqueezed (a 2X anamorphic lens on a 16x9 sensor naturally creates a 3.56 : 1 aspect ratio once unsqueezed.)

Now the anamorphic image may look more "cinematic" though since generally only movies use anamorphic lenses. And on a 4x3 Alexa, for example, recording Arriraw, you'd be using more sensor area and thus more vertical resolution for a 2.40 image compared to cropping a spherical image to 2.40 on the Alexa. But if sharpness is your main goal, you'd be better off using sharp spherical lenses like Master Primes when shooting 6K or 5K.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
No, anamorphic lenses are generally a bit softer than spherical lenses unless stopped down. On 4-perf 35mm film though, which has a squarish negative area, using anamorphics allows the full height of the negative to be used for a 2.40 image compared to cropping a spherical image, so less cropping means less enlarging and thus a better widescreen image on the big screen, unless you shoot wide-open when the anamorphic lenses tend to get soft and somewhat distorted. But on a camera with a 16x9 sensor, the 2X squeeze of the anamorphic lens means that you will be cropping the sides to get back to 2.40 and even more if you want to get back to 16x9 full frame, once unsqueezed (a 2X anamorphic lens on a 16x9 sensor naturally creates a 3.56 : 1 aspect ratio once unsqueezed.)

Now the anamorphic image may look more "cinematic" though since generally only movies use anamorphic lenses. And on a 4x3 Alexa, for example, recording Arriraw, you'd be using more sensor area and thus more vertical resolution for a 2.40 image compared to cropping a spherical image to 2.40 on the Alexa. But if sharpness is your main goal, you'd be better off using sharp spherical lenses like Master Primes when shooting 6K or 5K.
Click to expand...


Thank you, David. Always so informative.
 
Hi David!

I have an interesting question (I hope). Thanks again for your time!

In the past, you often gave very wise advise regarding filter testing for the big screen while basing your final decision on watching/judging footage on an HD monitor. You said, in principle, that if you like how a Promist 1/2 looks on the screen, go with a Promist 1/4 when shooting for the big screen. If you like the Low Contrast 3, go with the Low Contrast 2. This is to ensure that the effect you see and like on the HD monitor, will translate well on the big screen. This makes a ton of sense, given the "low" size and resolution of an HD monitor, at least compared to the big screen.

Nowadays, larger 4K monitors are becoming more and more common, and people are now judging these things in outstanding resolution, combined with their larger screen sizes.
Did you find yourself lately choosing a 1/4 for the big screen when you are happy with the effect you see of the same 1/4 filter on the 4K monitor? Just to pick a random example.

I guess the same holds true for adding grain to your digital footage, not only for choosing different filter strengths. Same principle.
What do you think?

Given the outstanding resolution that 4K monitors provide, would it be safe to judge things now in a more "equivalent" manner? Screen size is still very different, obviously, but the incredible resolution should have a big effect on our final choices.

What is your experience as of late?

Thanks!
 
Screen size is still a factor, the glow from a filter around a light will be more obvious on a larger screen. My main point though was that if you pick a filter that is one strength lighter than the one you liked in the tests, you always have the ability to increase the effect in post if necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top