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

David Mullen ASC said:
Tungsten halogens? They are commonplace in movie lights. You mean inside hardware store worklights?
Click to expand...

Yeah, Black and Decker stand with dual 1500?, maybe 1000 watters.
 
If it puts out light, it can be used. It may not be as controllable as you'd like, but for a DIY lighting kit, they can be useful. Don't make an entire kit out of a bunch of these lights though because your money might be better spent in creating a package with more variety.
 
Shooting miniatures

Shooting miniatures

Hey, I would like to know what your approach to shooting miniatures are.
When shooting wide or close up of a miniature to get that 'larger than life'-look, is it better to use a longer lens away from the model or to get closer with a wide angle? And what about DOF?
I read somewhere that for example shooting a RC-miniature (or any other moving miniature for that matter) overcranked at for example 75 fps gives the effect of a much larger object moving.
Of course, I think, shooting a miniature should be done in coherence with the rest of the cinematography, but what can be done cheat the viewers perception to make a small model seem huge?
Rasmus
 
You have to think about what the perspective would be of a camera if this object were full size, so often low and close, and wide-angle, gives the miniature some sense of being larger. But there are some circumstances where a telephoto view would be justified, like for a telephoto perspective.

You need as much depth of field as you can get. Rarely would you have too much depth of field. Think about it -- if this object were real and was twenty feet away at the closest edge, then all of it would fall into focus in real life. So basically you want to avoid having part of the model go out of focus.

Overcranking is necessary to give motion scale when it interacts with things like dust, dirt, moving cloth, water, whatever. Or there are explosions in the shot. If not, then it's easier to get more depth of field by undercranking and just moving the model very slowly, like for a spaceship moving through space.

Overcranking and stopping down requires a s-load of light, which is why some people shoot miniatures outdoors in real sunlight. Sometimes tilt-focus lenses can be used to create a fake deep focus effect if everything falls along a diagonal plane to the camera.
 
Thanks for the tips. The shot I'm trying to figure out is sort of a sfx shot with a strange globe(suspended with fishwire or similar) spinning/orbiting in space, shot on green screen. The globe doesn't physically interact with anything like with a spaceship flying through space, so the option of undercranking and spinning it very slowly is great. With this kind of perspective(earth from space) would it then be best with a long lens or maybe to give it a huge perspective/volume to shoot it with a fish eye and stop it all the way down to f/16 or to when diffraction kicks in?
EarthFromSpace3.jpg


Rasmus
 
David Mullen ASC said:
If it puts out light, it can be used. It may not be as controllable as you'd like, but for a DIY lighting kit, they can be useful. Don't make an entire kit out of a bunch of these lights though because your money might be better spent in creating a package with more variety.
Click to expand...

Thanks David. I just have a couple of the light sets in the garage and since they are switchable to 500 watts, thought I could maybe use them for an indoor scene or two where I will have AC pouer. Also plan to build a couple of groupings for using screw in fluorescents. By mixing and matching white and yellow bulbs, as well as different wattages, I hope to be able to regulate temperature and intensity. It will be time consuming, but time is cheap when you are on a nello budget.

edit: thanks for the tip about the reflector lights earlier. That will become a part of my kit as well.

www.nelloproductions.com (site under construction)
 
number6 said:
Yeah, it should have its oun search feature.
Click to expand...

You can search for specific posts within only a certain thread, it's an advanced search feature, very helpful.
 
David, what are your thoughts on the quality of HMI light vs the quality of tungsten? This is disregarding efficiency or usefullness, just in how you like the look of it. Let's say you're on a closed indoor set with ample power grids and so you can equally choose either, do you favor one or the other?
 
Generally tungsten looks more attractive on fleshtones, more than HMI's, LED's, or fluorescents. And they come in a wide range of sizes, down to tiny focusable units like Peppers, and they don't need ballasts (except Dedolights) and can be put on dimmers. Most HMI's are PAR's -- it's hard to find an HMI that serves the same purpose as an Inky or Tweenie. So in general, tungsten lights are simpler, there are fewer things to go wrong, and they look nicer.

Their main problem is power used and the heat generated. Sometimes I will light a set with Kinos, for example, just to keep the heat down.
 
Shawn Nelson said:
You can search for specific posts within only a sertain thread, it's an advanced search feature, very helpful.
Click to expand...

Thanks Shawn, that should be useful... now if I could just get the terminology to search with doun. I don't think thingy and whatchamacallit are going to get me many of my hoped for results.:help:
 
David, this may sound like a freshman orientation question to you, but hey, we frosh have to find our way around campus either by figuring it out or by asking, so here goes with the easy way.

I'm shooting a night scene, see? And I'm using a slow lens that will only open up to 4.5, see? So this dame is sittin' stock still or only moving slightly, in front of the camera with an internally lit geodesic dome tent in back of her... maybe 20 feet away. She's sittin' on a stool or box or whatever, with her dress up just above... well, never mind that part.

What would David Mullen do with this scene and within these parameters?

More specifically, do I light the scene brightly and darken it in post, or do I light it to the level I want it to look finished? Also, should I take precautions about placing the lights so the mystery under her dress remains, or will darkening in post take care of this?

(please, just skip the part about "you should have used a faster lens." That is not Germain.)
 
Well, it IS "germain" -- a constant question I get is "how can I light big areas at night with small lights, small budget, etc.?"

You can't bend the laws of physics -- you need "x" amount of light to get "x" amount of exposure to work at the f-stop you want and noise/grain level you want. There is no magic bullet that gets around this fact.

You either need more light, a faster lens, or a more sensitive camera/film stock. Or live with underexposure.

So if for some reason you are using an f/4.5 lens, hopefully you have a very good reason to be using such a slow lens at night, like that this lens does something necessary to get this shot. Otherwise you are using the wrong tool for the job.

Now you may say that you are using the f/4.5 lens for budgetary reasons, but then you have to weigh the cost of renting a faster lens versus dramatically increasing the size of your lighting package and power supply.

Now maybe you need to light to f/4.5 to balance with a bright background object, in which case you need to increase the light in the foreground.

Anyway, the brightest lights for the lowest power tend to be PAR's with narrower lenses. But these aren't good for lighting broad areas, being very focused lights. But multiple PAR's can light multiple areas in the scene to a decent level.
 
Hey David, I know I asked you about this a few weeks ago, but I've got some more questions. Still looking at reflectors to add to my grip package and am wondering about this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/32734-REG/Matthews_119726_Matthboard_40x40_.html It sounds like it's foamcore board with shiny metal/foil on it. My problem right now is that a 42x42 reflector is really too big to fit in my truck when you add a doorway dolly, jib, c-stands, etc. I'm still thinking that maybe a 4x4 butterfly with a silver rag would be a good solution.

And maybe I'm just dreaming and should figure out how to pack that dang reflector in my truck:)

Matthew
 
Yes, I'm not sure about foamcore silver reflectors -- they tend to be hard to aim, you need that rigidity and heaviness of wooden reflectors to stay still when aimed at something, not shake, etc.

My feeling is that, until you can transport the normal wooden reflectors, to use larger (and thus softer) bounces like silver lame stretched on a frame, maybe a 6'x6' or 8'x8'. Also get a white bounce for the frame too since silver can be too much sometimes. And 4'x4' white cards, foamcore.
 
How big are the "normal" wooden ones, I thought the link Mac just provided was the "normal" shiny boards used?
 
This site has a description:
http://www.adorama.com/MT119726.html
Description
These honeycomb Reflectors are 75% lighter in weight than the Standard Reflectors, measuring 40"x40" and costing considerably less. Three different Reflectors are available. The Standard Matthboard features a "hard" side and a "soft" side. In addition, the Silver Fill Matthboard offers a "super soft" side and an "ultra soft" side. The "super soft" is made with a material only from Matthews. The Gold Fill Matthboard has the same reflective surfaces only in gold.

---

The classic wooden ones are about 42"x42" I believe. Anyway, this is an "expendable" foamcore version.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Well, it IS "germain" -- a constant question I get is "how can I light big areas at night with small lights, small budget, etc.?"

You can't bend the laws of physics -- you need "x" amount of light to get "x" amount of exposure to work at the f-stop you want and noise/grain level you want. There is no magic bullet that gets around this fact.

You either need more light, a faster lens, or a more sensitive camera/film stock. Or live with underexposure.

So if for some reason you are using an f/4.5 lens, hopefully you have a very good reason to be using such a slow lens at night, like that this lens does something necessary to get this shot. Otherwise you are using the wrong tool for the job.

Now you may say that you are using the f/4.5 lens for budgetary reasons, but then you have to weigh the cost of renting a faster lens versus dramatically increasing the size of your lighting package and power supply.

Now maybe you need to light to f/4.5 to balance with a bright background object, in which case you need to increase the light in the foreground.

Anyway, the brightest lights for the lowest power tend to be PAR's with narrower lenses. But these aren't good for lighting broad areas, being very focused lights. But multiple PAR's can light multiple areas in the scene to a decent level.
Click to expand...

David, I unintentionally threw you a curve on this one when I went back and edited my question, probably while you were in the process of answering the less specific one. The clarification I added was:

More specifically, do I light the scene brightly and darken it in post, or do I light it to the level I want it to look finished? Also, should I take precautions about placing the lights so the mystery under her dress remains, or will darkening in post take care of this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top