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

Timage said:
It can help the storytelling in boht ways.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but because this effect can't happen in "real life", it can and does create a sense of unease on screen.

Clearly, disorientation was the rationale behind using this technique in Vertigo, and the same is true of the diner shot in Goodfellas.

When the effect is used for no other reason than to change the emphasis in a shot, it may call attention to itself. The laws of perception are being violated, and you wonder, why?
 
Tim, both yours and David's comments certainly added to my knowledge base. But I am wondering if there are any negatives to shooting some low magnification fixed lens or another, and dollying up to a subject until the face/object is almost full frame? Pros or cons... both? David?
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "low magnification fixed lens". Are you asking if there is a problem with dollying into an ECU using a wide-angle lens, assuming it can focus that closely?
Click to expand...

No, not a wide angle. Probably will go with Nikon mounts and was thinking using a 35mm lens and simply moving toward a subject with no zooming from the lens. Just an approach, but not an extreme close-up. probably would only fill up the 2k portion of the sensor while shooting in 4k. May not do this, just wondering what the effect would be.
 
Hi Tim and krd,

Tim, I get what your saying about where the emphasis changes in the shot - and I like that idea. I hadn't thought of that as a narrative device; but I see now how it could come in handy. Good stuff! I have to say that's been one of my problems, with just starting out making films, is getting familiar with all the film 'language' that's available.

At the moment I'm literally shooting in the dark through lack of knowledge and experience - though I do enjoy pushing myself up the learning curve with all the help that's available on this forum. It's a real treasure - so thanks everybody!

And krd I really see your point as well - you don't want the shot to draw attention to itself - but you still want the audience to feel uneasy in some way. I think that's a really fine line to tread. And you do see the pro's get that wrong from time to time.

I remember the first time I saw handheld camera work on 'Alien' - I was nearly sick in the theatre - it was very effective as an unsettling device but it was also horrible to look at - I kind of jumped out of the film at that point which was a pity as it had been so good up until then. Maybe it was just overdone?

Then all this handheld stuff became very fashionable in UK televison productions as an artifice to try and inject edgyness when nothing was really happening in the plot. It's just awful - get a better story line with some real tension it for pete's sake!

Anyway I'll get off my soapbox now.

Thanks for all the comments on this - I'm going to give it a shot and see how it turns out!

All the best, Phil
 
David Mullen ASC said:
All that matters is that you pick a zoom that focuses as closely as you will need and has the zoom range that you need.
Click to expand...

Hi David, Yep I can see that's important because you want all the movement to happen together and in sync for the same ammount of time.

Thanks for your help.

All the best, Phil
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I posted these shots before from "The Quiet", shot in HD on the F900.

I had a little noise problems with a few dark blue-lit scenes visible in the 35mm film-out, but I could have avoided it if I had used a little more light and had not used +3db gain on some shots, in retrospect (I didn't see the noise on an HD monitor.) HDCAM has a particularly noisy blue channel.

There is no reason why dark & shadowy scenes in HD have to be noisy; noise is mainly due to underexposed footage being lightened in some way in post, or by boosting the gain in camera, or by lifting the shadows up. Just light the scenes in such a way that you are not "lifting" the shot in anyway, in camera or in post. Don't use Black Gamma (Stretch) to lower contrast in the shadows, don't use gain, don't underexpose too much. Then it should be fairly clean-looking in post, especially if you bring it down slightly in post, crush the blacks a little.

Of course, you may be referring to a particularly noisy HD camera like the HVX200...

RED isn't particular "better" for blacks -- blacks in digital color-correction is just a matter of where you want to set the blacks. You can't get blacker than "0". But RED might be less noisy in the shadows than whatever HD camera Zeke or Zak was thinking of using. Again, though, it's really a matter of exposure in terms of controlling noise.

I actually think digital cameras are well-suited for low-key shadowy photography -- it's high-key sunny stuff that can be the problem.
Click to expand...

In my prior experience shooting low-key in HD I noticed that unless I would crash the blacks or accept minimum shadow detail or none at all, the result would be noise. If I tried to get a decent level of detail in the shadows it would turn into a milky brown and very noise. I’m pretty sure HDCAM is better but I was shooting DVCPRO-HD with the HVX200 as you guessed. I was trying to get the look in camera as close as possible but in the end we had to choose either shadow detail or cleaner blacks (crushing them in post). As the action in the shadows was important we had to live with the noise. So for this time around I thought about trying to get the look more in post, shooting more flat and brighter and adding contrast and darkening the picture in post while lightly crushing blacks to a point where the level of shadow detail is still acceptable and pray it will be low-key/high contrast enough to get the right look. But I’m not sure this is the best approach for a compressed format and I’m sure we won’t be shooting RAW.
I have no idea of what format they want to shoot yet as he said he was still looking at his options and budget and that we could talk about it in person today. But by the sound of it I don’t think they can afford HDCAM.
The frames you posted look great. I remember seeing Star Wars on theaters and it being way noiser. There were some low light shots that were really bad.
 
Hey David, I'm looking at buying an 8x8 overhead to add to my grip gear. While I will expand the different fabrics I have for it in the future (currently getting black solid, single net, double net, and some kind of silk) I am trying to figure out what kind of diffusion I want to get. I saw that on Cinematography.org that you said china silk has more of a star pattern/spotting effect that grid cloth. I would like more even diffusion, so I thought that maybe a 1/4 grid might be a better choice for me (more overhead/side use with the sun.)

Also, do you know if any grip companies make a 4x4 checkerboard bounce that fits on a 4x4 frame? I liked the idea of getting a 4x4 frame with a bounce instead of a 42"x42" hard reflector since I could use it in other situations also.

Of course, I could just be fooling myself!

Matthew
 
Usually 6x6 is the smallest frame I see material stretched over -- people usually glue material to 4x4 frames with snot tape and whatnot. A checkerboard pattern on a 4x4 area seems rather small to have much point compared to a solid color of whatever tone you want.

The advantage to silk, even though it is not the most efficient of diffusers, is that it doesn't snap as much in the wind compared to other materials, so I still use it.

When I need a lighter amount of diffusion, I like the to use Half Soft Frost, which is similar to Opal in diffusing strength, sort of a shower curtain material. You only lose a half-stop of exposure under the stuff, so it's not so distracting when people walk from full sun to being under the diffusion (though I usually clip some tree branches to the edge of the frame so you don't see the obvious shadow pattern of the frame and material tied to it pass over the actor's faces.)

So Silk and Half Soft Frost are the two types of large overhead diffusers I tend to carry. I haven't tried 1/4 Grid yet.
 
Hi David,
Your participation in this forum is a great resource to disseminate such specialized knowledge that stems from someone of your experience. Especially in what can be an 'evasive' industry at times.

I have a couple of questions concerning your fstop of choice.
What system do you use to figure out which fstop gives you the sharpest resolution for a given lens?
What is the sweet spot you like to work in for a lens stop?
...and for focal lengths...
What focal lengths do you prefer to work with on a given shoot?
When choosing your lenses for a production, do you typically choose a selection that covers the complete gamut of ranges by mixing zoom and fixed, or do you specifically choose certain focal lengths? (If you are not committed to the specifics of the storyboarding)

Thanks David,
Ben Garvey
 
The general rule is that most lenses are sharpest two stops closed down from wide-open, although my general rule is that most lenses benefit from being closed-down by one-stop.

However, it's hard to ignore the fact that large night exteriors, for example, usually require pretty wide-open stops.

Not all movies have to be shot at the optimal f-stop anyway -- some might want to effect of a lenses that has some softness when shot wide-open, for example. For example, most 35mm anamorphic lenses need to be stopped-down to f/4 at least to reduce the anamorphic distortions and get a decent depth of field, but many DP's love to shoot them at f/2.8 for the optical distortions and super shallow-focus look.

I mainly pick a set of lenses that will cover all the sorts of shots that the director may want. I'm not much of a fan of super wide-angle shots myself so when putting together a lens package, I have to ask the director whether he thinks he'll want someting as wide-angle as a 14mm, let's say (in 35mm photography). Or conversely, how often he thinks we'll be using lenses longer than 200mm. Because invariably at some point, the line producer will be asking me to trim the size of the package down if I simply put every prime and zoom lens I think we might use at some point. Gets worse with anamorphic since those can be 3X the cost of renting spherical lenses.

For example, if we plan on doing a lot of macro work, I might carry a macro lens on the package, but if it is only the occasional tight insert, usually I can get that on the long end of the zoom, and use a mild diopter filter if necessary, so I won't carry a macro for the whole show. Sometimes I'll carry something odd like the 45mm slant-focus lens, if I think I'll get some milage out of that.

As for whether to use a set of Zeiss Super-Speeds, Panavision Primos, Cooke S4's, Zeiss Ultra Primes, etc. it depends on the budget, the look of the show, where the cameras are being rented, how fast do I need my lenses to be, etc. Then I usually have to get a decent zoom that intercuts OK with the primes.

Generally on a spherical show, I'll light night interiors to T/2.8, night exteriors to T/2.0, and day interiors to a higher stop like T/4 or T/5.6, just because I hate using ND gel on windows so would rather build-up the interior level to balance somewhat with the view. But there are always exceptions -- you may have a day interior scene that needs to be lit much lower or much higher for some reason. You may have a night exterior shot that needs a zoom, so you have to light for that level, since most zooms are slower.

On an anamorphic show, I try and get another stop of light, so T/4 for night interiors, T/2.8 for night exteriors (partly because anamorphic lenses like the C-Series don't go faster than T/2.8 anyway.) And the anamorphic zooms are often only a T/4.5 wide-open, so you need basically an T/5.6 level.

Also, you have to be prepared for slow-motion shots. If I know that the director is going to want a 48 fps version of the set-up, I'll try and light to a higher level than a T/2.8 at 24 fps because I don't necessarily want to shoot at T/2.0 for the 48 fps shot. But sometimes you have to.

I'm not a DP who likes to shoot wide-open all the time. Coming from low-budget indie movies shot quickly, I think it slows you down even though you'd think it makes lighting easier. But generally it takes just as much time to set-up a 1K as it does a 650w light, and I'd rather have a better chance of getting the take in focus right away than to lose time having to get a lot of focus marks and a lot of takes because the depth of field is so shallow.

Generally, for most dramas, I like the look of medium focal lengths, since they have a very neutral and natural perspective, not distorted one direction or the other. But generally I pick a focal length for the amount of optical compression I want in the shot. Even something as simple as an over-the-shoulder 2-shot feels different when shot on a 50mm versus a 75mm.
 
Hi David, I had the pleasure of watching La Vie en Rose last night. Only on DVD though..
Have you seen it yet? The DP, Tetsuo Nagata, lit it very dark. In many scenes the practicals are much brighter than the actors and in most of the movie, the shadows (most of the screen) are allowed to go completely to black.
Are there any rules when lighting this close to the edge? I'm wondering how dark you can light the face of your main character? And are there any issues with noise when trying this with a Digital camera? (I'm thinking of macgregor's currently fascinating "Issues" thread..).

thanks
 
How do you watch movies for introspection of good cinematography.
Certainly I cannot tell the difference between Oscar nominated movie and a Oscar winning movie(for Best cinematography).
Like many movie goers, we are attracted by flashy camera work,how should we approach movie watching for good cinematography.
 
Hi David, I was already reading with attention your reply in Cinematography, I just found this thread here and it is very instructive. Always nice to have the "point de vue" from an ASC. I will try to catching up.
 
fergus said:
I'm wondering how dark you can light the face of your main character? And are there any issues with noise when trying this with a Digital camera?
Click to expand...

There are a couple of issues jumbled up in there. In terms of how underexposed an object can be and still be visible, that can be tested for. It also depends on how the image will be post color-corrected and presented. On film, generally I think a Caucasian face that is 3-stops underexposed will feel very dark but also clearly visible (depending on pale they are, considering I'm talking about an incident light meter reading.) Any more underexposed than that and the face will still be visible, but be close to dropping out on some print stocks, or if you start crushing the blacks in post, etc. Generally four-stops under is really dark and five-stops under is black, but it really depends on the reflectivity of the subject. On a digital camera, you can see right there on a monitor if there is shadow detail or not, so it's not so hard.

But there is also the issue of tonal range in the shot, whether a face feels darker because it is juxtaposed against a bright background, for example. A lot of this is psychological. Our eyes tend to like a frame with a bright highlight and a pure black somewhere in the frame, no matter how the majority of the image is exposed. When Nestor Almendros shot "Goin' South", he had a scene in a gold mine that was very underexposed on the faces and walls of the cave, but because there was always a bright lantern somewhere in the frame, the viewer does not think the shot is accidentally underexposed because there is a bright highlight in the shot somewhere. Without it, if the brightest thing in the frame is three or four stops underexposed, it tends to look murky. Hence why dark film noir movies always tend to have a small streetlamp or wall practical in the background when the character is in the shadows.

Noise is overall, so if you are exposing and printing or color-correcting at a decent level where the overall noise is low, then having most of the frame in darkness won't give you a noisy image. Noise tends to appear when you are giving the frame an overall low level of exposure and having to process or color-correct it back up in brightness.

For example, the black level in film really depends on where the blacks are set in processing and then how it is presented. Let's say you process unexposed film, as if you shot with the lens cap on, no image on the negative at all. Well, you can't get "blacker" than that on the negative, no information recorded whatsoever. Now how black the blacks will look in a print of that blank negative will just be a function of the printer lights used (low numbers require more light and high numbers use less light.) So if the blank negative was printed at 15, 15, 15, the blacks will be milky. If the print is made at 40, 40, 40 (the scale is 1-50), then the blacks will be very solid.

Same goes for digital -- you can't get much blacker than shooting with the lens cap on, let's say, with the camera at 0 db (no gain). So how noisy that black will get will depend on how much you push that signal in post color-correcting. Or shooting with the RED at 100 ASA, let's say -- you can have a dark scene with the frame mostly made up with pure black and it won't be noisy. But process it as a 1600 ASA image, or simply brighten it in post, and it will become a noisy image. So dark shadows in the frame per se doesn't mean you always get a noisy image -- how much that signal has to be lifted or boosted or stretched in the shadows will determine how noisy it gets, and that may be based on how you originally exposed the key subject in the frame and then how bright you need it to be in post.
 
for the DIY crowd, there is a site called
http://www.kitebuilder.com that sells bolts of rip stop nylon (gridcloth) at various weights and colors. I purchased white..60yds at 5' wide of .65 ounce per yard (nearly translucent at that weight) for under 300.00 USD. That was on sale. They have by the yard prices from 2.50 to 15.00 depending on what and how much you get.
If any section has defects, they will replace it.

I purchased enough to make an almost 30'x30'. I'm having a problem finding someone to sew it together for me at the moment.
 
visakk said:
How do you watch movies for introspection of good cinematography.
Certainly I cannot tell the difference between Oscar nominated movie and a Oscar winning movie(for Best cinematography).
Like many movie goers, we are attracted by flashy camera work,how should we approach movie watching for good cinematography.
Click to expand...

Well, who wins the Best Cinematography Oscar is very much a matter of things outside the cinematography itself (how the votes split, for example) -- the nominations in a sense matter more since only cinematographers are allowed to make the nominations, whereas the whole Academy votes on the winner. I don't give much thought as to the actual winner in terms of its artistic significance, other than it's great honor and career boost for the winner. On the long shot I ever get a nomination, I'm sure I'll start caring a lot more as to who wins...

Don't discount the aesthetic pleasure of looking at beautiful images -- that's as much a part of the cinematic process as anything else, even if it may be devoid of much intellectual meaning. Why do you think so many European art filmmakers put beautiful actresses in their movies (Bergman, Truffaut, etc.)? Keeps you watching, doesn't it?

Good cinematography is always at the service of the narrative and the intellectual themes of the movie, so you look for use of color and contrast, composition, in ways that seem to enhance the mood, or suggest where to be looking, or having motifs that repeat in symbolic fashion, etc.

Great (famous, talked-about, award-winning, inspirational, etc.) cinematography has to go a little beyond that, I think, but how it does that is somewhat debatable because it tends to cross the line (or skirt it) into being obvious, calling attention it itself. It's hard to be famous for your subtlety unfortunately. Even great cinematographers are often known better for their flashier work.

I'm not sure that's such a bad thing though. It's a little like a performance of a symphony -- all the musicians are supposed to support each other, but that doesn't mean the piece / performance doesn't have a dominant instrument now and then. It's OK to notice the trumpet or the flute, whatever, if the composer and conductor want you to do. The symphony may even be written to showcase an instrument. Movies can be like that too, most place acting at the forefront but others may place the image in the forefront, or the editing style, etc.

Some great cinematography is just an example of the classical style at its most technically perfect, rich, fine-grained, sharp, beautiful lighting, etc. Virtuoso work. Some great cinematography is not technically great -- it even pushes notions of what constitutes good cinematography -- but it is clearly in the service of the ideas of the story and director, and it often experiments with unconventional approaches, perhaps creating new elements to be incorporated into conventional cinematography.
 
Thanks for the explanation,
How do we understand the cinematography work in "300" is it good cinematography, is it flashy work..?
Of course it did definitely set the mood/tone of the movie in the right way.
I(like many) definitely like such work and movements, but several times felt that camera work is calling for too much attention, we were suddenly immersing ourselves more in editing/cinemtography work rather than the story.

A Technical question:
How did they achieve such slower motion in "300"? is it After Effects/ Higher FPS?
Which method(between Higher FPS & Editing in AE) is good for

1)Eyes
2)Budget (in terms of lighting, raw stock vs post work)
3)Time (shooting time vs post-prod )
4)Other(if any)
 
thanks David, that's a brilliant answer!
What is proper exposure, is it 50% grey? I'm looking for the reference point in the image to calculate x stops under or over..
 
I think Larry Fong's work in "300" was excellent.

As for the flashiness of the movie, that was a choice, part of that Frank Miller graphic comic book style like "Sin City" had -- I thought it was daring to apply it to a historical subject like this one. The hard part when you decide to make a movie in that style is to be consistent, because it's hard work to shoot a feature in the same style as a commercial/music video and maintain the quality and tone, due to the sheer number of set-ups that a feature has compared to a 60-second spot. Of course, it also points to the dangers when you pull it off, that is, it's a bit exhausting to watch.

It's almost always cheaper and faster to do slow-motion in post and it almost always looks better (and is harder to do) to do it in camera by shooting at high frame rates. For "300" they shot at high frame rates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top