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

The 2-perf 35mm frame is still 35mm resolution horizontally; it just has half the vertical resolution of 35mm anamorphic.

Actually, if you shoot 4-perf Super-35 and crop to 2.39, you are essentially using 2.5-perfs for the picture, so 2-perf is not much different in terms of image quality -- the only difference is that you don't use the full aperture width with 2-perf, you use Academy aperture width. This is because 2-perf, being half the height of 4-perf, which is 1 : 1.33 when full aperture / Super-35, is naturally 1 : 2.66. So you can't really use quite the whole width anyway, which is why 2.39 from 2-perf is slightly smaller than 2.39 from Super-35.

35mm motion picture color negative stocks back in the 1960's, up until 1968, were 50 ASA, so were not particularly grainy, just slow. Techniscope was just grainier than anamorphic, that's all. Grain would be similar to 1.85 movies of the day. And back then, the blow-ups from 2-perf to 4-perf 35mm anamorphic (the release print format) would have done "direct to matrix" -- i.e. from 2-perf 35mm negative to 4-perf 35mm b&w positive matrices for then making dye transfer prints at Technicolor. So there was not the generational loss from going IP to IN. And nowadays, you can do the blow-up digitally.

2-perf would not have been as sharp as anamorphic back then, but Leone wanted very sharp images so his DP's used a lot of hard light to make the image look as crisp as possible.

35mm doesn't technically have a pixel resolution -- you can scan it at whatever resolution you want horizontally, 1K, 2K, 4K, 6K... 60K if you felt like it. Just that there are diminishing improvements at some point, which is why 4K is generally considered to be the "correct" resolution for scanning 35mm, though 2K is more common due to cost/speed issues. Take a look here:

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/video_digital_cinemas_special/index.html
 
Thanks David,

Obviously, of course the horizontal width of the frame would be the determining factor in the DOF, and yes, you're not throwing much away by squeezing two frames into one. I guess Techniscope was developed to either save on film stock and/or be able to effectively double the exposures out of single load? Anyway, the film looked very good for something so old, it would be interesting to know what lenses they were using, it looks as if everything was shot on whatever was the widest available lens.

And then my wife was commenting that, sharp, unique and yes, revolutionary as the cinematography of this film was, she could not believe that Kubrick's 2001 was shot on the same year. Leonne's films were cinematography achievements, but 2001 so looks in a league of its own, feels like it could have been shot next year on the RED2, so crisp, nitid and vivid. I agree with her.
 
Speaking of finally seeing movies on the big screen, I saw a 35 print of Blade Runner: The Final Cut when that was in theaters recently. An awful lot of soft shots - very slightly, but noticeable on the big screen. Maybe not so noticeable on DVD (I'd never noticed it before). It was shot anamorphic, so the depth of field was small, but it was so small that the actor was going in and out slightly if they leaned forward an inch or so...

Is that very common in anamorphic prints seen at high resolution, or did they just not light to a deep enough stop / not pull focus as well as they could have?

That said, the cinematography in Blade Runner is some of my favourite. So much movement in the lights - amazing.

BTW, what anamorphic lens would have the same picture height as a 50mm on spherical 1.85?
 
David,

Great discussion. Thanks for the input.

I have a question relating to dimmers. I frequently use them on my lights
(1K and under) for added control. I have not seen problems with color
shifts but have heard that they could occur.

Is there any down side to this practice?

Forgive me if this has been covered.

Thanks
Frank
 
Tungsten lights just get warmer in color temp the more you dim them -- it's not a problem if you don't mind a little more warmth out of them (sometimes it helps match a 1K to a household lamp color.) The household dimmers can make the filaments "sing", which can annoy the sound recordist, which is why variac dimmers are better for that (but bulky.)

You can't put a dimmer on an AC discharge lamp like an HMI or fluorescent.
 
AngusChandler said:
Speaking of finally seeing movies on the big screen, I saw a 35 print of Blade Runner: The Final Cut when that was in theaters recently. An awful lot of soft shots - very slightly, but noticeable on the big screen. Maybe not so noticeable on DVD (I'd never noticed it before). It was shot anamorphic, so the depth of field was small, but it was so small that the actor was going in and out slightly if they leaned forward an inch or so...

Is that very common in anamorphic prints seen at high resolution, or did they just not light to a deep enough stop / not pull focus as well as they could have?

That said, the cinematography in Blade Runner is some of my favourite. So much movement in the lights - amazing.

BTW, what anamorphic lens would have the same picture height as a 50mm on spherical 1.85?
Click to expand...

"Blade Runner" was shot on 100 ASA film (5247) so I'm sure there was a lot of near wide-open photography to capture the low light levels used at times in the movie. And the anamorphic lenses of the period (C-Series Panavision probably) are not that sharp at T/2.8, which is wide-open on those lenses.

An anamorphic lens is basically a spherical lens with a cylindrical wide-angle element added that doubles the horizontal field of view only, so vertically, a 50mm anamorphic has the same view as a 50mm spherical in 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture (the anamorphic aperture is basically the Academy Aperture width but nearly the Full Aperture height).

Since the 1.85 format cuts off about 25% vertically, a little more than that, I would guess that a 75mm anamorphic would match the vertical field of view of a 50mm spherical in 1.85.
 
Rudi Herbert said:
Thanks David,

Obviously, of course the horizontal width of the frame would be the determining factor in the DOF, and yes, you're not throwing much away by squeezing two frames into one. I guess Techniscope was developed to either save on film stock and/or be able to effectively double the exposures out of single load? Anyway, the film looked very good for something so old, it would be interesting to know what lenses they were using, it looks as if everything was shot on whatever was the widest available lens.

And then my wife was commenting that, sharp, unique and yes, revolutionary as the cinematography of this film was, she could not believe that Kubrick's 2001 was shot on the same year. Leonne's films were cinematography achievements, but 2001 so looks in a league of its own, feels like it could have been shot next year on the RED2, so crisp, nitid and vivid. I agree with her.
Click to expand...

2-perf Techniscope was developed at Technicolor Rome as a poor man's CinemaScope; yes, you got twice as much time on a roll of film compared to 4-perf. And more depth of field compared to anamorphic.

They probably used Angenieux zooms on those Leone movies, plus whatever the common prime lenses used in that day (Cooke Panchros or B&L Baltars and whatnot.)
 
Rudi Herbert said:
2001 so looks in a league of its own
Click to expand...

Sorry for getting sidetracked. 2001. On the big screen? Who of you have seen it? I still haven't.
In the first part of the movie, where they used this massive frontprojection for the background, they used bands of reflective material. And in some shots you actually see them clearly. How does it 'feel' on the big screen? Does it annoy some of you? It has an estethic I can't get used to.

Sorry it hasn't anything to do with lighting directly. By the way, thank you David for your open heartedness, clearness and patience.

(Perhaps same question for the first establishing shot of The Overlook Hotel in The Shining, where you see the helicopter blades. At least in the 4:3 version)
 
I've seen "2001" in 70mm prints on the big screen about a dozen times over a twenty-five year period and I never noticed the bands you are talking about. Some of those artifacts are showing up in the HD version but are not visible in projected prints for some reason. Of course, one reason is that on a big theater screen, your eyes go to the subject & action generally, not the overall frame looking for problems in the background screen. But another reason might be that the contrast of the print stock is hiding some textures in the bright highlights and deep shadows.
 
Hi David, I was wondering if you watched any Japanese Anime.
Like for example Akira, Howl's Moving Castle, Princess Mononoke.
The compositions and colors are really great.
I always get really inspired by Anime in so many ways, and would find it interessting to hear your thoughts about it.

Also, do you think it is possible to translate anime to film?
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I've seen "2001" in 70mm prints on the big screen about a dozen times over a twenty-five year period and I never noticed the bands you are talking about. Some of those artifacts are showing up in the HD version but are not visible in projected prints for some reason. Of course, one reason is that on a big theater screen, your eyes go to the subject & action generally, not the overall frame looking for problems in the background screen. But another reason might be that the contrast of the print stock is hiding some textures in the bright highlights and deep shadows.
Click to expand...

Thank you, David. That explains it for me.
 
Man, this thread is already 90 pages long, and David is still responding...
David, many thanks for the big effort you are doing here to many people!

I have a question, but I don't know if it's asked already: how much do you feel from lightning is learned by technics?
I mean, I'm a director, and I know some things about prosumer camera's, but pretty little about light, but I want to learn more about it. Not to become a DOP, but to have more possiblities and knowledge about it. Do you think that many things about learning to light is from improvising?
Did you or other great DOP's learn the craft of lightning pure by standing on a set and testing what looks good, in your early days?
Or are there books involved?

This is more of an opinion question, I know the truth is that for most people, both can work.
But I mean, like Christopher Doyle, if I'm not mistaken, correct me if I'm wrong, he hasn't followed filmschool (I haven't either, well I dropped out because I felt that I was making THEIR movies, not my own anymore - just to say that I believe that no one has to have followed school to direct or DOP or... in the film business), and I feel that he approaches lighting in a very intuitive manner, very organic.
Could you share some opinions about that question - organic intuition versus technics versus of course, both, and how that all works on a real film set?
 
You learn about lighting by being more perceptive, learning to see better. You look at lighting in art & nature, in your favorite movies, paintings, still photos, and in real life all around you. You think about the mood that light creates, the colors, the direction, the texture of the light, the intensity, etc.

Once you start having that conceptual base to work from (and often beginners even have some sort of aesthetic sense towards light) it's more about learning to convert those ideas into reality, what type of light produces the effect you already know you want. For example, if you want a blue-ish hard moonlight creating a dancing pattern of leaves on a wall -- what sort of light gives you that color? With any gels? What sort of light creates the right sharpness to get projected shadows? What light is bright enough for the level of exposure you need? How should you expose it to look correct in terms of brightness or dimness?

But you can't even begin to answer those questions if you don't have the idea in your head, the image of the light. So learning to previsualize, to engage your visual imagination, while looking at a set or room, is absolutely essential. And to imagine how that light interacts with what the actors are doing. Then hopefully you make a good guess so that you aren't changing your mind too much once you see the room lit, because that's a waste of time.
 
That was a flashback scene. I shot most of the movie starting from the point she seeks out help at another school's spelling bee club with a #1 and #2 GlimmerGlass (similar to a #1/8 and #1/4 ProMist).

But that flashback shot was done with a 90mm anamorphic slant-focus lens with either a #1/2 ProMist or a #3 GlimmerGlass.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
That was a flashback scene. I shot most of the movie starting from the point she seeks out help at another school's spelling bee club with a #1 and #2 GlimmerGlass (similar to a #1/8 and #1/4 ProMist).

But that flashback shot was done with a 90mm anamorphic slant-focus lens with either a #1/2 ProMist or a #3 GlimmerGlass.
Click to expand...

Aah !

Slant Focus does the magic there I must say, it has a brilliant "dreamy" feel to it.
Thanks David :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top