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

A 2K tungsten lamp with full blue gel correction for daylight would only be bright enough for an eyelight / fill in a close-up. It might do more on a really overcast dark day or in the deep woods. Without the gel, you can use it as a warm sunset light on a close-up if you are in the shade.

But as a key, it's not going to come close to sunlight intensities.
 
Hey, David. I've been DPing professionally for about three years now and have made a decent living, at least decent enough to acquire a Scarlet and then Epic and then Dragon Epic (all through upgrades), but my shoots are still generally in small crew and small budget settings. Rarely do I get to oversee a Cam Dept and G&E Dept combined with a total of more than maybe 10-12 to help. In doing this I haven't gotten to work with any lights bigger than M18s and Maxi Brutes really (my normal go-to's), so I feel like I'm missing out on getting experience with really big sources and elaborate double-12x frames and whatnot. Should this be a concern of mine? How do I get more experience with these bigger setups? I've had the opportunity to assist / be an apprentice / student to some bigger DPs but haven't had enough time off work to follow that route. Do you think it'd be worth risking my clients and producers (not to mention the time depreciation of my camera) to take on this role to learn from a big TV or commercial DP for 6 or so months?

Lots of stuff to answer there, my apologies if it's too discursive. Thanks for your help on here, man.
 
I learned on my own. When the budget permitted, I sometimes got a big light for one day on a small project and learned how to work with it. I worked my way up, to a 4K HMI, then a 6K HMI, etc.

The thing, though, is that someday when you get a bigger budget you'll also hire an experienced gaffer who will help you figure out which big lights you need and how to use them.

Generally what you've learned on smaller shoots can be scaled up, so I wouldn't worry too much about learning to light with a 12x12 when you already know how to light with a 6x6, you can imagine the difference, the issues involved, etc. I think what's harder is when the location requires elaborate rigging with some big sources, because it's harder to just mentally scale-up from a smaller scenario. But that's where your gaffer and key grip come in handy.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I learned on my own. When the budget permitted, I sometimes got a big light for one day on a small project and learned how to work with it. I worked my way up, to a 4K HMI, then a 6K HMI, etc.

The thing, though, is that someday when you get a bigger budget you'll also hire an experienced gaffer who will help you figure out which big lights you need and how to use them.

Generally what you've learned on smaller shoots can be scaled up, so I wouldn't worry too much about learning to light with a 12x12 when you already know how to light with a 6x6, you can imagine the difference, the issues involved, etc. I think what's harder is when the location requires elaborate rigging with some big sources, because it's harder to just mentally scale-up from a smaller scenario. But that's where your gaffer and key grip come in handy.
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for this, David.

My dilemma here is though that I really, and loyally, love my #1 gaffer and his team. Shouldn't this loyalty be honored when I get the bigger jobs? He's DP'd all my commercials up to 110k budget and has been great throughout imo.
 
If you get a bigger job, your gaffer should be able to handle it because if he can't, it will reflect on you. But there's nothing to stop your gaffer from hiring an experienced best boy and rigging key, if they are OK with being helpful to an up and comer. Hopefully you'll figure it out together. But if you're asking if you should get a crew job on a bigger show just to learn about big lights, then your gaffer should definitely be considering the same thing perhaps even more so.

It's almost inevitable your crew becomes more experienced in their jobs than you (until you reach an age where you are just much older and experienced in general than a lot of the crew), just a DP works more often than a director, a gaffer works more often than a DP, and an electric works more often than a gaffer, etc. For every job I DP, my gaffer and key grip work on three jobs at least, so they are bound to run into scenarios and equipment that I won't.

And even if I ever get into a situation where me and my gaffer haven't lit such an ambitious set or location to such a scale, my gaffer would probably call up a gaffer friend of his who has, or talk to his best boy or someone he knows who has done a bigger show and get some advice. So the information is out there. Odds are high that you'll be able to bring your gaffer up with you.

Honestly, honing your basic lighting skills in dealing with actors and staging ultimately is more important -- once you have the principles of lighting down, it's not hard to imagine what is needed for bigger shots.
 
Hey David. I'm fairly green in the world of anamorphics and am gearing up to shoot a short at the beginning of 2015 and we're feeling pretty set on doing Alexa 4:3 and anamorphic. We were originally going to shoot 2 perf 35, but decided we didn't want to feel restricted by certain costs connected to shooting on film. So now we're looking at anamorphic to sort of substitute any texture and organic feeling that we wanted to get out of 2 perf, because we feel it's essential to the story. So i'm looking at vintage anamorphics...

In terms of Panavision, i've only had experience with Primos and thought they were great (aside from their size and weight). But as I mentioned, for this film I'm looking at vintage, so C series, E series and Pvintage are on my radar.

My questions are:
- i've noticed on anamorphic films i like (PTA, Nolan movies) they're always combining C and E series. I wanted to see if you could speak to why that might be?
- Do you have any other suggestions for non-panavision vintage anamorphic options. (i'm aware of Hawk Vintage74s--which look nice, Lomo and Kowa--which i already have crossed off the list)

Thank you
 
The C-series lenses are smaller and lighter, the E-series a bit sharper. They both have some odd minimum focus limitations (some C-series can focus closer but others are limited farther compared to an E-series) and you generally need the 180mm E-series to fill out your set, so you have to go through all the specs for each C and E-series lens and create a workable set.
 
Thanks for the quick reply! I also have read on panavisions website that the anti-reflection coating is more advanced (obviously, since they're newer) than the C-series coating--could i assume that that also means that they have less tendency to flare, compared to the C series?

Also, wanted to see if you had any input on my second question--just suggestions of non-panavision, vintage anamorphics to look at?

thanks
 
The C-series and E-series are intercuttable otherwise no one would be mixing them up, so the differences are not that extreme. Yes, the E-series are a tiny bit more contrasty and a little less distorted, but once you start stopping down the lenses, the differences start to be harder to spot.

I don't have any experience with non-Panavision anamorphics, though even modern anamorphics get soft when shot wide-open so I'm not sure that you absolutely have to get vintage anamorphics. Also, the new Cooke anamorphics have been designed with that classic anamorphic look, you might look into those.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
If you get a bigger job, your gaffer should be able to handle it because if he can't, it will reflect on you. But there's nothing to stop your gaffer from hiring an experienced best boy and rigging key, if they are OK with being helpful to an up and comer. Hopefully you'll figure it out together. But if you're asking if you should get a crew job on a bigger show just to learn about big lights, then your gaffer should definitely be considering the same thing perhaps even more so.

It's almost inevitable your crew becomes more experienced in their jobs than you (until you reach an age where you are just much older and experienced in general than a lot of the crew), just a DP works more often than a director, a gaffer works more often than a DP, and an electric works more often than a gaffer, etc. For every job I DP, my gaffer and key grip work on three jobs at least, so they are bound to run into scenarios and equipment that I won't.

And even if I ever get into a situation where me and my gaffer haven't lit such an ambitious set or location to such a scale, my gaffer would probably call up a gaffer friend of his who has, or talk to his best boy or someone he knows who has done a bigger show and get some advice. So the information is out there. Odds are high that you'll be able to bring your gaffer up with you.

Honestly, honing your basic lighting skills in dealing with actors and staging ultimately is more important -- once you have the principles of lighting down, it's not hard to imagine what is needed for bigger shots.
Click to expand...

Amazing advice. Thanks for sharing David!!
 
David Mullen ASC said:
The C-series and E-series are intercuttable otherwise no one would be mixing them up, so the differences are not that extreme. Yes, the E-series are a tiny bit more contrasty and a little less distorted, but once you start stopping down the lenses, the differences start to be harder to spot.

I don't have any experience with non-Panavision anamorphics, though even modern anamorphics get soft when shot wide-open so I'm not sure that you absolutely have to get vintage anamorphics. Also, the new Cooke anamorphics have been designed with that classic anamorphic look, you might look into those.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for letting me pick your brain. Greatly appreciated!
 
Ron was a big commercial DP in the 1970's and 80's and is known for his inventiveness with equipment, as well as the quality of his work. The ASC for most of its history favored narrative cinematographers and only recently brought in commercial people like Bill Bennett and Ron Dexter, and the imdb doesn't really reflect the work of commercial cinematographers.
 
Thanks David and Ignacio..
One more question;
i was watching parallax view and seen this camera.Is this real or just a prop.looks like early version of Alexa M with backpack module.

3YiIV.jpg
 
No, not unless you want a lot of grain. With film the image itself exists on the grains, unlike a digital image where noise is not the central building block of the image. So as you underexpose, you record less and less information because only the larger, more sensitive grains become exposed and developable. In practical terms, you generally have more ability to pull information out of highlights with film and out of shadows with digital. So while you could lift an image that is 3-stops underexposed shot on film, most people would not like the results in terms of grain, blacks and shadow detail. It also depends on if you are talking about a slower versus a faster film stock.
 
Hi David, I've been trying to figure out how they achieved some of these perspectives in this Lurpak Cook's Range Commercial. It has some moving macro shots on some food where the lens is clearly fitting into some tight spaces, but in addition to that the depth of field does not appear to be a shallow as one would expect for macro shots such as these. What tools do you think they are using to achieve some of these larger than life food shots. I'd like to do some tests of similar shots. Below is a link to the 60 second spot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmOr9I2JxZs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top