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 IR problem seems to just be an extreme scenario of using heavy ND's outdoors so that more IR than visible light is reaching the sensor. In normal interior scenes not using heavy ND's, I don't see why there would be any problems - the camera has a basic internal IR filter along with its OLPF.
 
Dukeswharf said:
Hi David,



May I ask how you feel this lens fares up against Mater Primes? Would you consider using it as your sole lens or would you still prefer using specific Primes?

Many thanks.
Click to expand...

The Master Zoom is a monster, so it's not really a replacement for a prime -- it makes a big Optimo zoom look like a prime in comparison. It's also T/2.6 instead of T/1.4. I don't think the Master Zoom would be as good as a Master Prime, but it may be similar to an Ultra Prime. Of course, any lens with more glass elements in it will be more prone to flare.
 
I was talking with a guy from ARRI Canada about lenses for S16, and he said that modern 35mm lenses (ultra prime, master prime, etc.) will give less than satisfactory results compared to older purpose-built S16 lenses (Zeiss S16 1.3's) because the S16 lens is designed to deliver a comparable amount of resolution to a smaller area.

Do you know if that's the case?
 
Too little Breathing?

Too little Breathing?

David,

One of the hot topics about the RED lenses is how much they breathe as compared to other modern cine optics, and it's true, the high end Zeiss, Cooke, etc, breathe very, very, very little. The focusing shift in a shot is so unnoticeable that, well, sometimes you really don't notice it. And this is not all that great for me. Lately I've found myself in many a film distracted by the sudden and unexpected change of focus withtin the frame, and the need to refocus my attention to another part of the screen has been distracting to say the least. To say the most, it has actually taken me out of the suspension of disbelief.

As a seasoned viewer, I know when to expect focus racks within a shot, such as the change back and forth in a conversation between two actors at different focal planes, or the switch from a wide establishing shot to a detail in the foreground, etc, etc, but as cinematography styles become more and more diverse, I find many instances where focus shifting happens in unexpected places and situations, sometimes to great effect, others not so, but the modern lenses make the transition so subtle that, for a second there, I find myself there not knowing where to look and/or wondering why did they image go soft all of a sudden. With the older lenses, as the focus shit happened and you noticed the expansion typical of the breathing, you sort of knew what was happening, and your eyes followed along with the change, which kept you in the shot and in the story. The absolute lack of indicators nowadays works a bit against the audience I feel. What are your thoughts on this?
 
...and sorry, there's a "shit" there where I missed adding an "f" to make it "shift" :-)
 
I can't really agree that focus breathing actually makes an audience accept a focus shift more easily -- that's a little like the idea that back when they used optical printer dupes to create dissolves, fades, etc., it was a good thing for the audience to know the transition was coming up because the picture suddenly got grainier.

When you've got a lens that breathes a lot -- like some of the ENG zooms do -- I've had directors looking at a monitor suddenly yell out "what the f--- was that???" when we did a focus rack. It's like getting slapped in the face sometimes, so I'd prefer a lens that didn't do it.

However, anamorphic lenses breathe a lot for different reasons than zooms do, and I suppose one argument you could make in that favor is that it forces you to think carefully about what to focus on and when to rack focus, rather than just "ping-pong" the focus to whoever is talking. It forces you to use focus more creatively and decisively, and play some things deliberately soft.

--

While it's true that lenses made for smaller sensors and film formats should have better resolution, higher MTF, to compensate for the larger degree of image enlargement that will happen... that doesn't necessarily mean that lenses made for smaller formats necessarily are better. For example, Super-8 cameras must need really great lenses compared to 35mm cameras, but often they don't have better lenses.

The early work on creating lenses for HD cameras, like the Panavision Digital Primos and later the Zeiss Digi-Primes did involve trying to engineer more lens resolution to create sharp images on a smaller sensor.

But I don't necessarily think that a 16mm lens made by Zeiss back in the 1970's is therefore sharper on a 16mm camera than a modern 35mm lens made by Zeiss, just because in theory, it should have been made sharper. I suspect that the 16mm Zeiss Super-Speeds were the height of the lens technology of the day just as the new Zeiss Master Primes are the height of lens technology today, so I'm not sure that the old 16mm Zeiss Super-Speeds naturally outresolve the new lenses when put on 16mm cameras.
 
Well, now I know where you stand on this issue, and I still feel that a LITTLE breathing helps in following the action around. I never talked about those lenses that breathe so much it feels like the screen is going rip open :-) Si in essence, do you prefer the lens with no or as little breathing as possible over one with minimal but noticeable breathing?

Thank you David,
 
Let me put it this way -- I'd prefer that a lens not breathe at all, but I'm tolerant of some breathing, otherwise I'd never shoot anamorphic... I don't expect all lenses to be artifact-free; to some extent, then that makes them personality-free too. But you're the first person I've read to make a case that there are positive uses for lens breathing.

One scenario where I find breathing annoying is when doing a dolly move and having to rack-focus during the move to the near foreground and having the breathing make it feel like the dolly move slowed or accelerated momentarily. You almost get a brief version of the Hitchcock Vertigo zoom effect...
 
that's a little like the idea that back when they used optical printer dupes to create dissolves, fades, etc., it was a good thing for the audience to know the transition was coming up because the picture suddenly got grainier.
Click to expand...

HA!
Even as a 7-year old kid I noticed this and it always bothered me... ;)
Also, don't forget the 2 "projectionist's cues" in the upper right-hand corner each time the reel needs to be changed. That was pretty bad too, especially when you were watching a bad pan-and-scan, filmchain transfer on BROADCAST TV.
Cheers,
Harry
 
David, what is your opinion about histograms? Do you use them when lighting HD?
I'm just now trying to understand and make use of them and I'm quite confused. I know you are not supposed to let either shadows or highlights go over the edges of the graphic. But yet, I don't see how that's possible for example with a scene with lots of shadows. It will surely go over the edge. For example, I was looking at the histogram readings of one of the scenes from the movie "Seven". The scene was the dark crime scene where they come in with flashlights to check the dead fat guy. The histogram was surely going over the edge on the left side since the scene had a lot of shadows. So how useful a histogram really is and how do you use it when lighting a scene with lots of shadows? Thank you David.
 
David,

I just picked up a full set of Ultra Primes used that are in perfect condition.

A 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 50, 65, 85, 100 and 135. I'm now trying to figure our which zoom would be best (most useful) to add to the package.

I generally prefer to shoot primes, but there are times when a zoom is needed or preferable to follow action.

I figure I'd rent an Optimo 25-25 for longer lens situations and bigger rigs.

Wondering if the new Red 18-85, 50-150, or the new Angenieux 30-80 would be best. Of course, there's the Zeiss lightweight zoom as well.

What do you find yourself using the most beside the "big gun?"

M
 
I don't use zooms much in 35mm, except for when I did "Big Love" and we used the 20-100mm Cooke for most of the show, occasionally the 11:1 Primo.

So I can't say which zoom you should get -- just depends on why you are using the zoom and what sort of range you tend to need. I often use a zoom to get in tight on something, like for inserts, so a long zoom is good. But I find the wider-angle shorter zooms tend to be optically better and breathe less, which I like.
 
I haven't used histograms - I've occasionally used a waveform but even rarely that. There are no hard and fast "rules" about exposing; it's mostly a matter of what information do you want available to you in post color-correction.

Some degree of clipping is inevitable; it's only bad when it is distracting or occupies too much of the frame. But if someone briefly flashes the lens with a flashlight and it flares, it doesn't make much sense to expose so you are recording detail of the filament in the bulb.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I don't use zooms much in 35mm, except for when I did "Big Love" and we used the 20-100mm Cooke for most of the show, occasionally the 11:1 Primo.

So I can't say which zoom you should get -- just depends on why you are using the zoom and what sort of range you tend to need. I often use a zoom to get in tight on something, like for inserts, so a long zoom is good. But I find the wider-angle shorter zooms tend to be optically better and breathe less, which I like.
Click to expand...

Didn't know you did "Big Love." Nice work!
You're answer makes sense. Just thought I'd throw it out there. Have you used the Ultras much? Opinion?

Cheers,
M
 
Hi David, I was wondering if I could pick your brains about night looks?

I'm up for a fairly well funded short at the moment (~$16k for a 14 page script, 4/5 day shoot), of which fairly large parts take place at night, in the woods, with either no or limited (i.e. a flashlight here and there) justifiable sources - yup, that old chestnut!

Both myself and the director are keen to avoid the cliched "moonlight backlight" look and go for something more "natural" - problem of course being natural means no light! The shots can be for a full moon phase (probably not literally, but figuratively), so a low-level bluish light of some kind is probably on the cards, but I was just wondering if (a) you had an ideas from your previous work or any thoughts you'd had about how you might approach such a scene and/or (b) knew of any particular shots (or good sources for such shots, be it photography or a film you liked the night work of in that sort of style) that might point me in an interesting direction for research?

I'm pushing to try and keep some practical light in at least most of the shots (preferably all), if only to allow low key light levels without the frame looking muddy, but any other tricks and tips you (or anyone else, of course) can think of would be much appreciated...

Cheers,
Dom.
 
Dukeswharf said:
You may find the following two articles of interest:

http://prolost.blogspot.com/2008/03/exposing-to-left-vs-exposing-to-right.html
Click to expand...

This one in special is a quite interesting reading.
So if I understood it right, based on what he wrote, in a setting where there are more highlights than shadows you should underexpose or expose to the left, while in a setting where there are more shadows than highlights you should expose to the right or overexpose?
That would mean then that the best way to capture a high contrast low key lit scene like the mentioned scene from SEVEN with lots of shadows would be to expose to the right?
If so, with digitals lower dynamic range, if exposing to the right for such a look (overexposing as much as possible without blowing any highlights) the shadows would sure be much brighter than they should have been for the look to work. That would mean bringing them down in post. My understanding is that you would end up with a lower contrast image rather than the high contrast one you were initially shooting for. Specially when shooting compressed formats like HDCAM, DVPRO HD or even XDCAM I'm not sure that would be a good approach since you're limited in color correction in post by the compression of the format. Am I on the right track here David and others?
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I haven't used histograms - I've occasionally used a waveform but even rarely that. There are no hard and fast "rules" about exposing; it's mostly a matter of what information do you want available to you in post color-correction.

Some degree of clipping is inevitable; it's only bad when it is distracting or occupies too much of the frame. But if someone briefly flashes the lens with a flashlight and it flares, it doesn't make much sense to expose so you are recording detail of the filament in the bulb.
Click to expand...

Yes, some degree of clipping is inevitable. But noise and compression artifacts are really annoying and they appear most in underexposed shadows. But if the look you are going for is a high contrast low key look and you want to keep info on both extremes of the spectrum, meaning no clipping of the shadows or highlights, it becomes quite difficult with digital. In a scene where you are shooting for a 6:1 or even 8:1 contrast ratio with lots of shadows, overexposing the shadows to avoid noise while protecting for highlights will produce a very low contrast image, totally different from the intended image, which was a high contrast low key image. No?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top