Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[Nick Morrison]

I've only used the Pearlescent on one feature but yes, I like it, but I need to see if Tiffen will make me a 1/16th version because I think the 1/8 Pearlescent is heavier than a 1/8 Schneider Black Frost.

I think the Digital FX is just Tiffen's original Black Diffusion-FX minus the black dot pattern, because some 2/3" sensor HD cameras were seeing the black dots due to the higher depth of field. The black dots just help restore some mild contrast loss, which doesn't really matter if you are doing digital color-correction and can adjust the black levels. Yes, both Digital Diffusion-FX and Black Diffuson-FX are extremely subtle -- they were designed to basically not introduce any diffusion artifacts, just soften details invisibly. So they are good when you don't want a diffused look and just need to soften a close-up now and then in an otherwise clean-looking movie. Otherwise, though, I think that makes them a bit boring -- most people use diffusion for a little of their artifacts like halation around points of light.

The Satin filters solve that "problem" by adding a light GlimmerGlass mist filter on top of the Diffusion-FX filter.

So one nice thing would be to carry a set of Satins and a set of Diffusion-FX filters so you had the choice of whether to have the misty halation effect or not.

David, thank you so...so...much.

You are a terrific resource.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

 

[Nick Morrison]

Certainly James Cameron also had an extremely influential hand in re-popularizing Super35 (pre-DI) in the late 1980s with films like The Abyss and into the 90s with Terminator 2, True Lies and Titanic… Once DI post processes took hold by the mid-2000s, negating having to deal with an optical printer taking its generational toll on the image, Super35 became quite attractive for its flexibility for multi format releases...

David, I was fascinated by your and Christopher Probst's discussion on another thread (partially excerpted above)...about how James Cameron was instrumental in the early use and popularization of SUPER 35.

Its staggering to think James Cameron - on top of creating some of the most popular movies in THE WORLD - also introduced to Hollywood and popularized two of the defining "formats" of the past 30 years: SUPER 35 and 3D.

My question to you is: was James Cameron's belief in Super 35 one of the driving forces behind Zeiss's creation of Ultraprimes in 1998, and Master Primes in 2005 (both sets are known for their large image circles)?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think Super-35 or James Cameron were the main reasons for the Ultra Prime and Master Prime -- I think it was just competition. Panavision came out with the modern Primo lenses in the 1980's which were color-matched so well that lenses were interchangable between sets, Cooke followed with the S4's and Zeiss with the Ultra Primes, but they were all T/2 lenses, so Zeiss developed the T/1.3 Master Primes. I think it was just natural evolution in lens technology beyond the Super Speeds of the 1970's.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I don't think Super-35 or James Cameron were the main reasons for the Ultra Prime and Master Prime -- I think it was just competition. Panavision came out with the modern Primo lenses in the 1980's which were color-matched so well that lenses were interchangable between sets, Cooke followed with the S4's and Zeiss with the Ultra Primes, but they were all T/2 lenses, so Zeiss developed the T/1.3 Master Primes. I think it was just natural evolution in lens technology beyond the Super Speeds of the 1970's.

Thanks David! Happy New Year!

 

[Robert Hart]

David. I ran into a DVD copy of a film "Northfork" and I observe your name is on it as DoP. Are there any reflections you might like to make about this project and whether the makers might have embraced today's evolved digital cinema tech if it had been available then?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm sure if we made "Northfork" today at that same budget level (about 1.5 million), we'd have done it digitally rather than deal with the skip-bleaching of the prints and the flashing of the negative. The art department issues would have been the same, we would have still controlled the color through costume and set design.

"Northfork" was our third film together, shot in early 2002, and the project before that, "Jackpot", was one of the first 24P HD movies, shot on the Sony F900 in 2000. So at some point the producer asked us if we would consider shooting the movie on the F900 because it was a hassle to deal with shipping the film from Montana to Los Angeles every day, but we didn't want to use HD for that movie.

 

[Nicholas Matthews]

What glass are they using for this effect?

What glass are they using for this effect?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTtpFmgBmTI

So I'm looking at doing a similar effect to this. What lenses or glass do you think they're using to achieve this look? To me it feels a little similar to the lens baby composer pro. Or it might be using glass in front of the long lens, thoughts? Obviously they've got some amazing natural light that they're capturing in this spot along with great locations and subjects which all contribute to a really visual piece. But I'm in love with the long lens, flaring, and soft focus look they have going.

Thanks!!!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Questions about this commercial come up repeatedly... Someone else mentioned that for some shots they bought some cheap reading glasses from a drugstore and popped the lenses out and stuck them over parts of the camera lens. I've been meaning to try myself sometime. Of course shooting wide open on fast lenses helps.

 

[Anthony Mather]

David,

Good Morning. Firstly let me thank you for being such wealth of information and being so willing to share with us. I don't know if this question has been answered before but is there a proper order for stacking filters? For example, IR CUT, ND and say a Hollywood Blackmagic 1/4 diffusion filter. Is any order more efficient than the next?

Thanks in advance,

Anthony

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Generally an IR is in front especially if it is a hot mirror. As for diffusion before or after ND's, there are people who argue both ways, which suggests that it is not always critical. You might reason that if the ND is in front of the diffusion, then surface reflections off of the diffusion onto the back of the ND would be brighter than the other way around, but I think most AC's put the ND in front of the diffusion.

 

[Anthony Mather]

Generally an IR is in front especially if it is a hot mirror. As for diffusion before or after ND's, there are people who argue both ways, which suggests that it is not always critical. You might reason that if the ND is in front of the diffusion, then surface reflections off of the diffusion onto the back of the ND would be brighter than the other way around, but I think most AC's put the ND in front of the diffusion.

Sir,

Thank you very much for your response. It is very much appreciated.

 

[ian henry]

Hi David, wonder if you could point me to a great resource for shooting green screen with RED camera, or if you have any good tips regarding use of Waveforms, GIO etc or anything else that you have top your sleeve. Much appreciated

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Not sure today the advise for shooting green screen is any different for Red versus some other cameras. As for the brightness of the green screen that depends on which vex compositor or supervisor you talk to, some like it fairly underexposed, some like it very overexposed, to the point you are really making a key on luminance more than chroma.

 

[Phil Holland]

Not sure today the advise for shooting green screen is any different for Red versus some other cameras. As for the brightness of the green screen that depends on which vex compositor or supervisor you talk to, some like it fairly underexposed, some like it very overexposed, to the point you are really making a key on luminance more than chroma.

Hi David and Ian, if you don't mind I shoot a fair amount of VFX plates (it's the side of the world I was birthed from) and have a whole bunch of notes.

With Mysterium-X I used to use a blue filter in front of the lens particularly with tungsten lighting for blue and green screens.

Since Dragon's release in Epic and Scarlet as well as the benedits we've received with the DSMC[SUP]2[/SUP] bodies like Weapon I haven't found much need for the blue filter.

More or less what I like to do is:

- shoot at the highest resolution possible
- shoot at the lowest REDCODE RAW Compression Ratio possible
- expose the green or blue screen typically one stop over 18% Gray

I say typically as this method fits most types of subject matter. By having the screen slightly higher key it pulls easier as the exposure level on the screen is further away from the noise floor, which ensures a clean matte.

As David mentioned there are certain shooting conditions that might benefit from a higher key exposure to pull a luminance matte. Depends on the subject matter and targeted exposure.

The key thing, pardon the pun, is to avoid spill as much as possible. This can be achieved mostly by getting at least 6-8 feet away from your screen and closely observing the angle of incident for potential reflected light. It's also part of the reason some may under expose a screen say in adverse lighting conditions. Most studios have decent space lights high above the talent, yet closer to the screen. This inspires a fairly soft light that mostly grazes sharply down to the floor and typically is not in the way. The downside is you may have uneven luminance of the surface which may or may not be an issue depending on your shot. If so, add light to fill.

The under exposed method works as well, but again, it depends on the variables in front of you. The blue screens I shot for Moneyball for instance were all lit by hard daylight with a rather large screen and depending on a variety of factors we shot above and below key for the elements as some of the talent were lit and exposed for to mimic daylight through typical stadium shade.

 

[Joshua P]

New to the forums, but really appreciate your guidance here, David.

I work with and am part of a production house in Dallas. And we are working on an independent film trying to hire a DP. We are fully funded, script is complete. Our casting director is out of Austin. Our VFX company is in Montreal.

So we've contacted a few DP's agents and haven't had any luck. They all want to know budget, of course. We are about a $500,000 project. We don't need a more than that. In fact the film is basically a play. We don't have to rent any equipment or lights or cameras because we own it all. We don't have to pay for post, because we already do that every day. Our locations we free. Our props and such were acquired over a number of months for free leading up to production this Summer. We have a very experienced director, who has shot for large commercial brands for 13 years. We are using non-name talent. So costs are very low there. We would be shooting in Dallas, Tx or there abouts.

All that to say, the budget is there to pay a good, established DP for their time and talents. So how do we convince one to jump on board? How do we convince the agent? How do we get through the agent? I think they see the budget and immediately balk. When it's not indicative of the available funds for the DP.

Any thoughts would be helpful.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

You can keep trying more agents, otherwise, trying talking to directors and producers of similar-sized projects and getting recommendations. Truth is that when I was shooting $500,000 projects, they almost all came from people I knew (like from film school) or one step removed, someone who talked to a director or producer I had worked with. If your director has been doing commercials for 13 years, then surely he must know some DP's, or the DP's he has worked with must know some other DP's.

But keep trying more agents, some have up-and-coming DP's as a client that they send out on smaller features.

If there are some interesting independent movies in that budget range, find out who the DP was and try to contact them.

As far as convincing a bigger DP to jump on board, there has be something in it that intrigues them enough, it's not enough that the movie requires that person's experience and knowledge, the DP wants to know they will be shooting something that will be exciting photographically, etc.

 

[Nick Gardner]

One other thought, is to calculate the amount of equipment and post time you are putting in, call it an "investment in kind" and then the budget should be more like a modified low budget between 650-and $750k and tell the agents that is your budget.

Nick

 

[Anthony Mather]

Quick one: I was considering getting the Tiffen 1.8 6-stop IRND. I am using a IR Cut on every shot. Will having IR Reduction on my ND cause issues if used with the IR Cut? Is using the IR Cut with the IRND Superfluous and counterproductive or can they be used together without issue? Thanks again!

 

[Joshua P]

You can keep trying more agents, otherwise, trying talking to directors and producers of similar-sized projects and getting recommendations. Truth is that when I was shooting $500,000 projects, they almost all came from people I knew (like from film school) or one step removed, someone who talked to a director or producer I had worked with. If your director has been doing commercials for 13 years, then surely he must know some DP's, or the DP's he has worked with must know some other DP's.

But keep trying more agents, some have up-and-coming DP's as a client that they send out on smaller features.

If there are some interesting independent movies in that budget range, find out who the DP was and try to contact them.

As far as convincing a bigger DP to jump on board, there has be something in it that intrigues them enough, it's not enough that the movie requires that person's experience and knowledge, the DP wants to know they will be shooting something that will be exciting photographically, etc.

Thank you, David, for the quick reply. I appreciate the candor and sensitivity of your response. We are continuing to contact the agent's of DP's. Some agents have even told us that their client is available, but then stop the conversation after we divulge the budget.We would love to explain to an available DP from our list what interesting visual opportunities we believe we will offer on this shoot. We would love to tell them we plan to pay full rate. And we tell this to the agents.

But what is most interesting is no one has yet asked to see a script. No agent. As soon as we offer our budget, they don't email us back. The conversation ends. So there seems to be zero professional respect.

One more batch of questions: If we put in an offer, isn't the agent required to tell the client? Are they also required to give us an answer? Is this a bad tactic in order to get the conversation going?

 

[Naim Sutherland]

Hi David,

A colleague has pointed out there is a scene in Big Sur that looks very much like The Potato Eaters. He uses it as an example in a cinematography class about working with reference images.

Was the Potato Eaters a reference you and the team discussed for that film? Do you have any thoughts about using reference material, images or anything else, in your work?

Thanks for your time!

Naim