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

I've often tried to control all the variables that will affect my photography, from low to higher budgets -- total control over all variables for every scene in a movie is near impossible.

It may even not be preferable, because chance is also a factor in moviemaking, so you have to plan in a certain amount of controlled chaos sometimes, let some things go in order to let other happy accidents happen. That may very well mean showing up at a location with limited control over the traffic or bystanders or changing light and just winging it. Just depends on the movie.

So often when staging a dramatic scene, an actor will ask if it's OK that they move here or there and I have to tell them to do whatever feels right for the scene and I'll deal with it. Maybe I can fix everything with lighting, in camera, but sometimes I let the actor do something that creates problems for the photography and then I plan on fiddling with it in post to make it work. Because at that moment, it was more important to get the performance right rather that get it photographically perfect.

So sometimes you get lucky and get magic... but find yourself in post trying to balance out a shot or make it match better with something else shot in different conditions. In those case, working with an image with a wide dynamic range is very useful.
 
David,

Agreed! I guess I didn't express myself clearly. The truth is, when shooting on film, you'll always be able to deal with lighting challenges better than digital, just because of the inherent properties of the medium. Now, with all the technical advantages that come with digital, dealing properly with light extremes is in my opinion, the most delicate part of the equation. HD was meant to be this amazing tool years ago, and it was, but when we first started shooting of the F-750 and the F-900, boy, were we disapointed at how much those highlights clipped and the blacks turned to mud, not really that much better than fancy DV cameras. So, given the fact that digital is the chosen, or rather mandatory medium, for many an indy production, I just feel that not doing your homework and not knowing what to expect from a location in terms of lighting is ill advised. That's all.
 
Yes, it's true that you have to pay extra attention to potential pitfalls of certain locations or costumes when shooting in HD. Anyone who has shot video knows the common "no white clothing" plea that goes out, sometimes unheard.

Of course, one advantage of HD is that shooting tests are easier and the results are immediate, as are the results on set, so showing problems of contrast to costume designers, set painters, etc. are easier.

But there are many typical shooting situations in a dramatic TV show or movie where you don't have control over all the elements, or there is a last-minute change to a new location and you find yourself improvising a solution to a contrast problem. But I guess, as they say, that's what they pay us to do.

Or you are faced with basic story elements that are naturally high in dynamic range and you go in knowing that it will be a daily struggle because you are shooting in HD, and that probably film would handle it better but for various reasons, you can't shoot on film or the good reasons to shoot digital still outweigh any downsides.
 
My David Mullen, here's my really OT question for the year - you mentioned a while back you were looking forward to seeing Lust, Caution if you could find the time... did you get a chance to see it? Would love to hear your opinion if you have time to share it with us.

Personally it blew me away but I don't think many reviewers felt the same way.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
The movie itself was good but a bit long and drawn-out for me; beautifully acted, directed, shot, but just too long.

The photography was top-notch, which Rodrigo Prieto delivers consistently. The lighting reminded me of some of Sven Nykvist's work, soft and moody. The cafe at the beginning / end was like a Hopper painting. The actors glowed.
 
Sort of opposite questions. Even in a movie with a decent equipment package, some of the best shots are often done hardly using any of it, or none.

Some of my best shots are the landscapes in "Northfork" shot with just a 35mm camera and anamorphic lenses, but no grip or electric equipment, but that's not really a good example of making do with little equipment because I would have shot them the same way even if I had truckloads of equipment at my disposal.

I guess what would be more relevant would be to talk about shots that looked slick and well-lit as if the budget were higher, but actually were minimally-lit.

"Jackpot", for me, is a good example of my work where I had a small package but the movie still has a rich look. It was shot in 24P HD on the F900 on a 15-day schedule. We had no "real" dolly (I did one move on a wooden doorway dolly with soft rubber tires) and I had about three guys to help with the lighting package, which consisted of a Dedolight kit and a few Kinoflos, plus two 1200-watt HMI PAR's for the day scenes. And some basic tungsten units (tweenies, etc.)

We only had a generator for one scene because it was a field at night lit by a single 6K HMI on some parallels (scaffolding), the only time I used a light that pulled more than 20-amps. And even that scene was mainly lit by flashlights and the rooftop police rollbar lights. Otherwise, I used house power.

Most of the movie was shot in bars lit by the Dedolights and added Christmas Tree lights and Chinese Lanterns, sometimes a few color-gelled flourescent tubes. But the reason it is interesting to me is that, being shot in bars, I basically had to create the look with lighting -- there was no real useful available light in there.

It won the Cassevettes Award at the Independent Spirit Awards, given to feature movies made for less than $500,000; even though I was not nominated for my cinematography, I was proud of the fact that when they ran the clips of the nominees, "Jackpot" looked so much bigger in budget than the other movies.

---

Probably the backyard sets in "Big Love" have been my biggest lighting jobs, since they involve 150 spacelights, two Dinos, four 20K's, two 9-lights, not to mention 5K skypans and other cyc lights for the backing -- and that's just to rough-in the lighting (trying to fake sunlight on a massive stage that holds three full-size houses and a 180 degree cyc of a mountain range.)
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Probably the backyard sets in "Big Love" have been my biggest lighting jobs, since they involve 150 spacelights, two Dinos, four 20K's, two 9-lights, not to mention 5K skypans and other cyc lights for the backing -- and that's just to rough-in the lighting (trying to fake sunlight on a massive stage that holds three full-size houses and a 180 degree cyc of a mountain range.)
Click to expand...

WOW! I'm actually fond of both extremes, some of my best work has been achieved using very little, but I also like the really big setups too. For some reason, you really feel like you've accomplished something notable after a huge setup.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I've often tried to control all the variables that will affect my photography, from low to higher budgets -- total control over all variables for every scene in a movie is near impossible.

It may even not be preferable, because chance is also a factor in moviemaking, so you have to plan in a certain amount of controlled chaos sometimes, let some things go in order to let other happy accidents happen. That may very well mean showing up at a location with limited control over the traffic or bystanders or changing light and just winging it. Just depends on the movie.

So often when staging a dramatic scene, an actor will ask if it's OK that they move here or there and I have to tell them to do whatever feels right for the scene and I'll deal with it. Maybe I can fix everything with lighting, in camera, but sometimes I let the actor do something that creates problems for the photography and then I plan on fiddling with it in post to make it work. Because at that moment, it was more important to get the performance right rather that get it photographically perfect.

So sometimes you get lucky and get magic... but find yourself in post trying to balance out a shot or make it match better with something else shot in different conditions. In those case, working with an image with a wide dynamic range is very useful.
Click to expand...

This entire post is music to my ears.

When the excellent technical approach to shooting a scene is mixed with the open-mindedness and ability to creatively embrace the actors concerns and environment within the "controlled chaos", as you say, this is what I would be after.

As an aspiring Director, I hope I am fortunate enough to work with DPs that have your wisdom and creative style. :)
 
I will say, though, that I have an obligation have to express an opinion on blocking of an actor if it creates a problem with staying on schedule (either because it creates extra lighting work or extra coverage) or I wish to remind the director of certain visual conceipts that we planned on sticking to.

It's unfortunate sometimes to place limitations on actors... but it can happen when you're either trying to stick to a very specific style or a very restrictive schedule. Most experienced actors, however, are aware of these time and/or style issues and don't mind, for example, keeping the movements simple and easy to cover, or standing where the light is good, etc. Afterall, they want to look good and they want to go home at a reasonable hour...

But there are times when a certain movement just feels more natural for an actor and you have to go with it if possible rather than fight it. It's always the challenge when making a movie.

Sometimes I've been more willing to let the actor do what they want than the director, who'll ask me "does that screw up our shooting plan?" and I'll have to say "well, yes, it does eliminate that shot we wanted of her saying that line in silhouette standing against the window if she doesn't feel like leaving the chair..." and then the director might say "...but I want that shot!" and then I'll have to tell him to try to find a way of getting the actress to make that move naturally, to convince the actress, etc.

That's the art of directing sometimes, to get the actor to move in a certain way that works for the camera while somehow convincing the actor that it feels natural, to find a way of making it a motivated movement, rather than just telling them "just move the way I tell you to."

Acting and cinematography are somewhat similar, in that we need our "motivation" to make certain lighting or framing choices, a reason why we do something, either emotional or intellectual or logical.

Of course, some actors just want the director or DP to be blunt and technical, they don't mind and they don't like over-intellectualizing the process. The actor will say something like "OK, you don't want me to shadow her when I step over to her, and you need the gun to catch this piece of light when I pick it up..." or "you need me to hit this mark, right?" Some actors sort of pride themselves on being comfortable with technical problems, hitting marks, knowing where the light is, understanding how to find the lens, block for the camera, what looks right for the camera even though it feels wrong in reality, etc. And others don't like dealing with technical issues at all; they just want to act and hope the technicians can keep up with them and deal with it. If Robert Duvall wants to cross the room and stand in a position where he's blocked by some column or other actor, well, that's the cameraman's problem to find a way of seeing him, moving the camera, whatever, it's not his problem.
 
Just want to add a thank you for the great info you're sharing here.

re: the theatrical experience - I saw Elizabeth in the Dome at the ArcLight a couple weeks ago. I'll concede your point that that kind of movie experience is something unique and worthwhile. I enjoyed it very much... really made me want to make a movie that deserves to play there someday. :-)
 
Hi David,

Do you or have you ever used Pre-visualization software before shooting. What are your feelings on it? Do you think it helps to tighten a film and it's script during pre-production compared to traditional storyboarding. If you don't use it, have you ever considered it and if you wouldn't what would be your main reasons.

Your comments about tightening scripts in Tom's 3 hours too long thread made me wonder.

Many thanks

Paul
 
I haven't used pre-viz animation yet for anything. I've seen many demos and for an efx-heavy work it makes a lot of sense, but for typical dramatic work, I think a storyboard is good enough, or just a shot list.

I had a director once make an interesting comment about my own storyboards that I drew for a movie, that what was nice about a drawing was its inaccuracies, in the sense that the stylization of a drawing shows the dramatic intent better without the problems of being so photorealistic that you are expected to follow the boards closely. Although my drawing style is pretty realistic.
 
Davy,

When was the first time you ever used ANY camera and what were your first impressions apon it?
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I haven't used pre-viz animation yet for anything. I've seen many demos and for an efx-heavy work it makes a lot of sense, but for typical dramatic work, I think a storyboard is good enough, or just a shot list.

I had a director once make an interesting comment about my own storyboards that I drew for a movie, that what was nice about a drawing was its inaccuracies, in the sense that the stylization of a drawing shows the dramatic intent better without the problems of being so photorealistic that you are expected to follow the boards closely. Although my drawing style is pretty realistic.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response David and interesting notes. I've toyed with the idea that combining a basic previz with a read through of a script could be a good way of first of all developing a thorough feel for the flow of the story as well as being useful for showing those paying (or that you hope will pay) the bills an early concept of the movie. Though I must admit I do like the simplicity of picking up a pencil and paper.

Cheers

Paul
 
You don't want to take all of the fun from moviemaking by nailing everything down too much... :wink:

I talked to a DP recently who has spent two months pre-vizzing some big movie and he worries that the director's choice of shots are going beyond storytelling into just being fancy, just because you can do crazy camera moves with pre-viz tools.

---

Very first movie camera I ever used was a regular 8mm camera borrowed from a friend's father to shoot a short film in high school when I was 13. It was cool to thread (it had 16mm spools, not a cartridge like a Super-8 camera) and then get the film back and project it. I remember mostly that chemical smell of a roll of film back then.

Then I spent years using a Sankyo 60XL Super-8 camera, maybe even a decade, from the time I was 16 until I was 25 or so, when I borrowed an Arri-S and shot some 16mm reversal. Then in film school, when I was 26, I got to use an Eclair NPR and an Arri-16BL, my first experience with sync-sound cameras. By my second year, I got to shoot a short film on a 35mm Panaflex. My third year, I was shooting shorts on rented or donated Aaton's and Arri-SR's.

Around this time, I was also learning to use the school's 3/4" U-matic video cameras, and then some 8mm video cameras when they arrived.

Shot my first feature a year after graduation, on a 35mm UltraCam and then a Panaflex when the UltraCam stopped working.

After school, I also shot a lot of Sony Betacam stuff.
 
So David,

Given that you're proficient at storyboarding, let's say you're onboard for a project and when meeting with the director you both come to the realization that the storyboards he's presenting you with can use some changes, in terms of camera angles, quality of the drawings, whatever. Upon redoing a few of the boards and the director falling in love with your style and realizing how much better you're able to convey the dramatic purpose of each shot through camera angles as expressed by drawings, do you offer to redo the storyboards? Or would you do it if the director asks you to? And if so, would you charge an additional fee for what i is undeniably a service? How would you go about it? I've always believed that if the DP is able and efficient with pencil and paper, who better to do or redo, the storyboards than him?
 
It's really a time issue. If this is four weeks before shooting begins, then tackling some storyboards is not a problem, though I'm not fast enough at it because I spend too much time thinking about the shot before I draw it, imagining all the possibilities. But in the last few weeks before shooting begins, I have no time for storyboarding except for select scenes.

For example, the director storyboarded 95% of "Akeelah and the Bee" himself but asked me to tackle the final spelling bee's storyboards (about a 15-to-20 page sequence) based on his notes, just to get my ideas on the sequence. So the final boards were a mix of his original notes and sketches for the final scene and my own visual ideas, put together. At its most complex, that final scene had 1000 extras and 200 kids on stage at the Hollywood Palladium, on a movie with only a 5 mil. budget. So we had to plan the sequence carefully because we had about four days to shoot the event, and only the full number of extras and kids on the first day, so by the second day, we had half that amount, and less on the next day, and so on. So the sequence had to be boarded and shot out of order, based on who was in the frame. We put my boards on a bulletin board and crossed out the shots as we did them. One day I think we managed to shoot 85 set-ups. Here are some photos from that shoot, where you can see my drawings on the board:

aatb19.jpg


aatb17.jpg


Storyboarding is a lot of work; it's easier if I'm holed-up in some hotel in Montana for a month of prep, like I was on "Northfork", but most films, I don't have the free time to storyboard a whole movie. On "The Astronaut Farmer" the solution was for me to scan and email rough sketches to a professional storyboard artist to draw out neatly, then email them back to me to add the shot descriptions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top