Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[David Mullen ASC]

These days, as long as you are close, you can line them up in post just by doing a little frame repositioning, so you may want to frame slightly looser to give you room to zoom in slightly and move the image around to line it up. In that case, you might get away with just taking an picture of the monitor with your smart phone and using it to line up the second close-up.

To be more elaborate, you'd need to capture a frame on the previous close-up and do a live wipe or overlay on set with the live feed of the new close-up. I'm sure someone who is clever with a laptop could figure that out but I haven't done that yet.

But as I said, I'd probably just line them up in post when doing the D.I., as long as the two elements haven't been combined already.

The other option is to use a green screen so there is only one close-up as a foreground element and it is the backgrounds that dissolve from one to the next.

 

[Mike S. M.]

David, what is your opinion of 2x anamorphic with digital? Do you still see an advantage? In the film days this was a way to get more resolution out of the negative. But does that still transfer to digital? Like, filming in 4:3 mode using anamorphic lenses on the Alexa, would it increase the resolution from 2.8K to above 5K? Or anamorphic in digital is only about the beloved blue flares? Thanks David.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

IF the sensor is squarish, then an anamorphic lens would allow you to use more of the sensor for a 2.40 image than cropping it to 2.40. So in the case of a 4:3 Alexa, anamorphic does allow you to use more vertical pixel area than cropping with spherical lenses to get 2.40. No, anamorphic does not increase horizontal resolution.

But mainly anamorphic lenses today are about the lens artifacts, and also to a lesser extent, about being able to use longer focal lengths but with wider horizontal view in order to get less depth of field compared to a spherical lens image cropped to 2.40.

In the case of a 16:9 sensor, a 2X anamorphic lens forces you to crop the sides to get a 2.40 image (once unsqueezed) losing horizontal resolution. So in that case, it's sort of a toss up compared to using spherical lenses and cropping vertically to get 2.40 -- if higher resolution is your primary goal, you should probably stick to spherical lenses.

With 4-perf 35mm film, anamorphic uses the entire height of 4-perf for an image, thus reducing grain and increasing detail (somewhat) compared to cropping to 2.40.

With digital, I see anamorphic as mainly a "look" thing.

 

[ericyoung]

Hi David, I'd like to know how to go about matching two shots of the same actor in the same shot size - say, a CU - so that the facial features match exactly. I don't know how this is done. Example: the actor is looking to camera in shot A in scene one, then we cut to shot B of the same actor looking to camera in a different location. The shot is seamless because the match is perfect. Do you overlay a freeze frame of shot A on the monitor and match the actor's eyes in shot B?

If you don't have a video playback and mix/wipe facility, you could tape some clear acetate on the display and use a Sharpie or wax pencil to mark the eye positions from playback and then match the new shot to that.

 

[Mike S. M.]

Thanks David.

So if using the 2.8K 4:3 sensor with 2x anamorphics you would end up with the same 2.8K image, just stretched sideways. But it would not look like it had more detail than if you had recorded 4:3 with sphericals. It would only have more detail if compared to the crop from the 16:9 version recorded with sphericals. Did I undertsand it right?

-- if higher resolution is your primary goal, you should probably stick to spherical lenses.

Here you were talking specifically when compared to shooting anamorphic on a 16x9 and then cropping to 2.40, right? Not that sphericals on 16:9 yield better resolution than anamorphics on 4:3. Correct?

Thanks again David.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

The anamorphic lens squeezes horizontally so the information isn't stretched sideways, it is squeezed sideways. It gets stretched sideways when you want to display it to look normal, not skinny-looking as it is optically and in the actual recording.

Correct, the 4:3 spherical and anamorphic recording are more or less the same, resolution-wise (technically though you have to trim the sides of 4:3 / 1.33 : 1 to 1.20 : 1 because the final scope aspect ratio is 2.40 : 1.) But they don't match aspect ratio wise (once you unsqueeze the anamorphic image) so it is sort of apples and oranges, you really should be comparing anamorphic 2.40 to cropped spherical 2.40.

If you have a 16:9 sensor, then resolution-wise, there isn't much difference between cropping vertically to get 2.40 with spherical lenses versus cropping horizontally to get 2.40 with 2X anamorphic lenses, though I'd probably lean towards the spherical lens version as being sharper just because it doesn't have the extra optical elements to squeeze the image.

If you have a 4:3 sensor, or are shooting 4-perf 35mm, then anamorphic would use more of the pixels (and film) for a 2.40 image than you'd get from cropping spherical to 2.40.

 

[Mike S. M.]

Thanks David.

Reason I'm looking into this is that I may be shooting a lower budget feature in December and was basically given 3 options for a camera package. R1 MX, F35 and D21. Since the intended aspect ratio seems to be gravitating towards 2.40:1, I thought maybe the D21 with it's 4:3 sensor would be a good bet. The rental supporting the movie has anamorphics.

If it ends up being 1.85:1 I will probably go with the F35. Not only to make life easier because of the simpler workflow and the camera being much easier to work with, but also because I prefer the look of the F35 over the MX and D21. Specially that the director wants it to look as much as 35mm film as possible. No other digital camera looks more like film than the F35.

But if it will need to be cropped to 2.40:1 things change a bit. The D21 starts having a clear edge.

I myself am trying to push for 1.85:1. I think far too many movies crop to 2.40:1 these days. It's no longer special because everybody is doing it, from DSLR to Hollywood. Regardless of if it fits the story or not. It seems 1.85:1 is hard to come by these days. And I don't think the story will benefit from 2.40:1 anyway. To the contrary actually.

If you were you in this position, how would you approach it?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

There is the practical issue of shooting anamorphic on the D21, which is a rather low-sensitivity camera, something like 250 ISO. So I'd go that way only if you had the lighting package for it, or if it is mainly an exterior production. Plus, can you afford to shoot ArriRaw?

As for cropping HD (1920 x 1080) to 2.40 from the F35 and upscaling to 2048 to make a 2K DCP, it's not that bad, plenty of movies have done it in the past. The first Captain America movie (2011), "Red Tails" (2012) and "Heaven Is For Real" (2014) were all shot on the Genesis camera (same sensor and recorder as the F35) and cropped to 2.40.

Between those three cameras, I'd probably lean towards the F35 myself.

 

[Milan Spasic]

Hello David, what a fantastic resource this thread is!

I have a question regarding a night exterior driving scene.
What would be in your lighting package for something like this?
We don't have a specific location yet but I presume there will be street lights of some kind present.
The idea is to shoot various driving stunts, some in slow motion.
To make things extra difficult, the car is flat black and the driver is wearing black leather and helmet and needs to be visible (the car is an open top). I'm planning to use Rosco panels for the cockpit light.

We will have multiple cameras, on the ground, POV and a chase vehicle.

i guess my main dilema is about the amount of light needed to be able to light such a large space (preferably more than just one turn or a road section) and being able to match the color to existing street lights to a tolerable level.
The creative direction of the scene is that it doesn't have to necessarily have a realistic street light feel but that showcasing the driving and the vehicle is more important.

Shooting on the Dragon sensor.


Thank you!

 

[Mike S. M.]

There is the practical issue of shooting anamorphic on the D21, which is a rather low-sensitivity camera, something like 250 ISO. So I'd go that way only if you had the lighting package for it, or if it is mainly an exterior production. Plus, can you afford to shoot ArriRaw?

As for cropping HD (1920 x 1080) to 2.40 from the F35 and upscaling to 2048 to make a 2K DCP, it's not that bad, plenty of movies have done it in the past. The first Captain America movie (2011), "Red Tails" (2012) and "Heaven Is For Real" (2014) were all shot on the Genesis camera (same sensor and recorder as the F35) and cropped to 2.40.

Between those three cameras, I'd probably lean towards the F35 myself.

The D21 is ISO 200. But I found a couple of reports saying you can safely bump it to ISO 400 without objectionable noise. Subjective i know.

But the problem is the camera seems like a rare thing. Not many productions used it compared to say the Genesis, R1 or F35. So it's hard to find first hand experience articles about it.

The other problem is that it's a monster. You can only power it with 24v so forget about on board batteries for hand held. It also weights 24lbs for body and viewfinder! If you add a Codex for ArriRaw then it's a house.

Talking about ArriRaw, the D21 package comes with an ArriRaw capable recorder. But I'm not sure they can really afford the post on it.

I agree 1920 x 1080 to 2.40 and upscaling to 2048 doesn't look bad. Not bad at all actually. I remember watching Journey 2 in the cinema and thinking it looked very sharp. Looked it up later and was a bit surprised it was F35. I guess we are just well trained by internet forums to think 2K is not enough. Meanwhile most things are still finished in 2K in 2015.

Truth is 2K is more than plenty and HD is basically 2K. Never thought Skyfall lacked sharpness. Although speaking of Captain America it did look a bit soft but I guess it was intentional since it was a period movie.

Yep, F35 is probably best bet. Specially that the package doesn't have the huge HDCAM tape recorder. It comes with a solid state digital recorder. Tape would be painful and that recorder was a beast.

Do you have any experience with the F35 that you could give me any pointers? I guess the Genesis would also count as they don't seem to be too different.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I shot a TV series on the Genesis for three years, plus a TV pilot, but I only used the F35 on a short film, but it was pretty similar.

It's more prone to moire, it must have a weak OLPF on it, so the image is sharp and edgy. Even things like a rough fabric pattern can "sizzle" and twitter a little, so test all of your wardrobe choices in advance for moire problems, and if that's not possible, tell the wardrobe person that every actor that comes on set must have an option of switching to something with a pattern less prone to moire.

I found that the blue channel was slightly cleaner in daylight balance so use regular ND's outdoors with the camera set to 5600K and not 85ND's with the camera set to 3200K.

Shoot in log obviously. On the Genesis, I don't recall the ability to add a Rec.709 LUT in-camera to the monitor signal while sending PanaLog to the monitor, so I needed a LUT box or a monitor with its own Rec.709 LUT, but I seem to recall on my short film that the F35 could send a Rec.709 signal to the monitor while sending a S-Log signal to the recorder. I could be wrong though.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Hello David, what a fantastic resource this thread is!

I have a question regarding a night exterior driving scene.
What would be in your lighting package for something like this?
We don't have a specific location yet but I presume there will be street lights of some kind present.
The idea is to shoot various driving stunts, some in slow motion.
To make things extra difficult, the car is flat black and the driver is wearing black leather and helmet and needs to be visible (the car is an open top). I'm planning to use Rosco panels for the cockpit light.

We will have multiple cameras, on the ground, POV and a chase vehicle.

i guess my main dilema is about the amount of light needed to be able to light such a large space (preferably more than just one turn or a road section) and being able to match the color to existing street lights to a tolerable level.
The creative direction of the scene is that it doesn't have to necessarily have a realistic street light feel but that showcasing the driving and the vehicle is more important.

Shooting on the Dragon sensor.


Thank you!

Sounds tough... I'd either find some insanely brightly-lit stretch of roadway, lots of streetlamps, because the more light everywhere, the more reflections you get on the black surfaces, or I'd try to create something like that. It may be possible to rig a lamp to every streetlight to increase the output.

Otherwise, you might have to do the whole "Terminator 2" look with big lights on multiple condors lighting up a stretch of roadway.

 

[Milan Spasic]

Thanks David, I think we'll have to go the "Terminator" way, unless we find a well lit location.

 

[Mike S. M.]

I shot a TV series on the Genesis for three years, plus a TV pilot, but I only used the F35 on a short film, but it was pretty similar.

It's more prone to moire, it must have a weak OLPF on it, so the image is sharp and edgy. Even things like a rough fabric pattern can "sizzle" and twitter a little, so test all of your wardrobe choices in advance for moire problems, and if that's not possible, tell the wardrobe person that every actor that comes on set must have an option of switching to something with a pattern less prone to moire.

I found that the blue channel was slightly cleaner in daylight balance so use regular ND's outdoors with the camera set to 5600K and not 85ND's with the camera set to 3200K.

Shoot in log obviously. On the Genesis, I don't recall the ability to add a Rec.709 LUT in-camera to the monitor signal while sending PanaLog to the monitor, so I needed a LUT box or a monitor with its own Rec.709 LUT, but I seem to recall on my short film that the F35 could send a Rec.709 signal to the monitor while sending a S-Log signal to the recorder. I could be wrong though.

I believe the moire problem was limited to the Genesis. I think Sony corrected that with the F35 and a few other improvements. I remember reading about it in a comparison of the two. The F35 looks specially organic and doesn't have that digital edge. It looks sharp without looking unnatural. It has actually picked up a bit of a cult following exactly because of that and the skin tones.

Interesting about the 5600K. Isn't the F35 sensor tungsten balanced? I think I read somewhere you get the cleanest images by shooting on tungsten and correcting on the lens or in post. Maybe I can find the link later.

Yes I would for sure shoot in log. 12 bit 444 actually.

Would love to get a Cooke package for this. But will most likely end with something like standard or super speeds.

How did you rate it for the short film in ISO and dynamic range?

Thanks David.

 

[Humberto Dal Boit]

Dear David, i have to light a very wide shot (18mm master prime with the epic dragon in 4k FF) with talent full body always in the center. It's on location. Big house and a 16 feet traveling from left to right. 100 square feet of area to cover and no depth. the back wall is 5 feet from her. camera is locked in a 13 feet position to talent. everything symmetrical. later on, same thing but now we are in a swimming pool. same 16 feet traveling. what would be your strategy to build your foundation for this? and later on, to model the talent? thank you so much.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Depends on whether the ceiling is out of the shot, if so, there may be a way of doing a soft top/back light like with a row of Kinos. Otherwise, if you are seeing floor to ceiling, then you should dress the shot with practicals and perhaps letting the person go silhouette against them for most or part of the walk.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think the F35 got up to 500 ISO by its last firmware upgrade. It seemed to be about 12 stops of DR to me. All sensors are naturally insensitive to blue wavelengths and thus are happier when there are more of them like in daylight. You can certainly design the filters to cut more red and some green and bias the sensor towards 3200K but at some loss of sensitivity. The 3-CCD Sony cameras were tungsten-balanced but I think that was easier to do with three separate sensors but even then I suspect they had to compensate for the weakness in blue sensitivity. Anyway, do your own testing but I think you'll find that the blue channel is cleaner in daylight balance on th F35, which is logical since there is more exposure in that channel in 5600K light.

 

[mahadev pednekar]

hi David

please let me know which anamorpic format will be suitable/available for dragon with master anamorpic lenses and 25-250 Angenuix HR zoom with hawk anamorpic adapter.

also the aspect ratio..

regards,

mahadev

 

[David Mullen ASC]

With 2X anamorphic photography, you'd likely use the 6:5 formats on the Dragon, like 6K 6:5, 5K 6:5. 6:5 = 1.20 : 1, which unsqueezed by 2X becomes 2.40 : 1.

 

[Mike Dominic]

Hello. I have a project coming up where I will need to shoot a night interior dinner party in a large living room. It's a fairly complex scene with 6 actors moving around in the space, and a lot of coverage including wide shots of the room. the ceiling is flat and white and not particularly high, with no built-in lights.

I'm trying to figure out a good way to light the room as a whole, so that I have the freedom to shoot 360 degrees without stopping after every shot for a major relight. obviously i can tweak for tighter shots, but i'd like to dial in the lighting as close as possible in one setup.

i like the idea of using practical lamps, but I don't like the way they look when they blow out, and if I use off-camera lights to "fake" the output of a practical, I'm not sure where I could hide them in a wide shot.

are overhead lights my best bet? and if so what is the best way to rig to a flat ceiling?

thanks for your help!

mike