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:
First, avoid white walls -- darker walls deal with spill better and fall-off faster naturally. Second, don't overlight -- don't solve a problem by adding another light, which needs another flag, etc. Move the key light around until it solves most of your problems. Of course, careful use of flags and nets are critical too.
Click to expand...

Thanks David. I just find it difficult to light for example a master shot in a small bathroom for example, when you can't have light hanging from the ceiling. pretty much anywhere you put the key will cast the actor's shadow on the wall, unless it's coming from the top, which is not always possible or from the camera axis, which would make it flat. If you want a side or 3/4 key it will most likely shadow the wall. Now when the walls need to be dark, like in lighting a dark scene, the problem is even harder to solve. Lighting background and talent separately in a small room is a nightmare. Do you know what I mean?
 
It is also prudent to light the shot as motivated as the presumed (established) light source. A Lamp, maybe sunlight coming through the window or light coming in throug hthe doorway ....

How much light can a small room have in reality ? Always look at the light in the scene and start from there.
 
Mr. Mullen, sir. How is "Jeniffer's Body" coming along? What week are you in?
 
In a small space it becomes even more critical to find the right space with the right practical lamp in the right place so that it looks good just with the practical light. If I have to dolly 360 degrees around someone at a desk at night, for example, I will look at a lot of desk lamps to find one that can do most of the lighting for me.
 
TheDigitalWizard said:
Hey David, I was just wondering if you had any thoughts about Scarlet? Do you think, based on the specs red has given us, that it would be something that could be used to shoot feature films? I know it's not about the camera so much as the story, but do you think you might like to use it at all?
Click to expand...

Any camera can or has already been used to shoot a feature film, including some cheap consumer video cameras, so there is no reason why you couldn't make a feature with the Scarlet.

Personally, I don't like using really small cameras for shooting features myself; they are great for running around handheld with but often hard to use on dollies doing smooth moves w/ complex operating and focus-pulling (I'm speaking of the limitations of using small DV cameras.) Not that some people don't pull it off.

The lack of an interchangeable lens is the only issue about the Scarlet that concerns me because I can't predict on a feature what sort of lenses the director will want to use.

So it really depends on the nature of the production and the style of filmmaking to be employed. If I'm going to do something in a classic narrative style, hardly any handholding, etc., then I'd probably want a more conventional camera design. If I'm going to do something for small-scale, intimate, running around in small spaces, etc. then the Scarlet design might be great for that sort of stuff.
 
dogday said:
Pacing...I read somewhere that De Niro did certain scenes in Once Upon A Time I America to music...Would that work to get the fragmented elements into a sort of cohesive Rythm-Pace?

DogDay
Click to expand...

There is the famous example of the climax to "Black Narcissus" being acted (silently) to music being played on the set (the score was composed in advance for the scene).

But I'm not talking about anything that specific, just being aware of the tempo of the scene and asking yourself if you will be happy with it when you get into the editing room, especially if the scene or the movie runs long. It's more obvious in cases, like, when a 2-page dialogue scene takes four minutes to play out, then you have to ask yourself if the actors are indulging themselves too much.

One expression Alexander Mackendrick used to use with actors was "sooner, not faster". Meaning, don't act the scene faster in speed, but make your mental choices moment by moment sooner before you speak and move. Think faster, don't talk and move faster.
 
Could you elaborate on what factors determine the choice between the 1.85 and 2.35 ratios -- what enters into consideration, and what the advantages and drawbacks of each ratio are?

Things like the apparent (to me) need to move further from the action with 2.35 when one wants to show the physical layout of the scene [simply because of reduced vertical space], so that the actor's behaviours are more difficult to read. Is that a factor or am I somehow mistaken?

Thank you.
 
Great question Benfilm

I asked this at DVXUSER in 2006 and posted this list regarding Steven Spielberg

This may have gotten lost Cheese; what's your opinion on this? Steve shot Scope the first 7 / 10 times and only 3 of the last 13 times

I can't see any ryme or reason to the choices. Can you ?

Maybe throw Indy and Jurassic out of the equation due to sequel purposes

Munich 2:35:1
War of the Worlds 1:85:1
The Terminal 1:85:1
Catch Me if you Can 1:85:1
Minority Report 2:35:1
AI 1:85:1
Private Ryan 1:85:1
Amistad 1:85:1
Lost World 1:85:1
Schindler's List 1:85:1
Jurassic Park 1:85:1
Hook 2:35:1
Always 1:85:1
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade 2:35:1
Empire of the Sun 1:85:1
The Color Purple 1:85:1
Temple of Doom 2:35:1
E.T. 1:85:1
Raiders of the Lost Ark 2:35:1
1941 2:35:1
Close Encounters of the Third Kind 2:35:1
Jaws 2:35:1
The Sugarland Express 2:35:1
Click to expand...


Here is the thread:

http://dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=697764&highlight=schindlers#post697764

-

Love to hear David's thoughts on this !
 
David Mullen ASC said:
In a small space it becomes even more critical to find the right space with the right practical lamp in the right place so that it looks good just with the practical light. If I have to dolly 360 degrees around someone at a desk at night, for example, I will look at a lot of desk lamps to find one that can do most of the lighting for me.
Click to expand...

Yep, that works sometimes. But like the other day I had to light a bathroom day interior and the window took a whole side of the wall, so when we filmed to that side, the actor had to be backlit by it to make sense. I added a kicker from the top coming from the window just above frame but it gets hard to add a key since you can't really have a light coming from the side wall, unless you have a practical there and in this case we couldn’t add one. Then for the reverse when the actor was facing the window, he normally should be flat, but you don't really want that, and again you can't give him a side key. I hate working in spaces like that.
 
Thank you for the link, J.R. Hud. It seems against the general trend to shoot big epic films like Jurassic Park and War of the Worlds in 1.85, but the reason might be simple. Someone at the forum you linked to mentioned that Spielberg said he preferred 1.85 simply because it looked more like the human eye.

Also, someone else mentioned that Kaminski said he and Spielberg shot War of the Worlds in 1.85 simply because the aliens were tall, so with 1.85 you could include them more easily in the frame. The same argument goes for the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park.

Still, 2.35 definitely looks 'better' to many people, and I don't think it's only because of the association with epic films. It looks intrinsically better, maybe because, for some reason, we pay more attention to horizontal information, so 2.35 feels more immersive.
 
There is no right or wrong choice regarding aspect ratio, just personal taste and personal justifications for one format over another.

You can either think on 2.35 as being wider or less tall than 1.85. You say that you need to move back further with 2.35 to keep the same vertical view, but you can also move closer with 2.35 in some cases because of the wider horizontal view. For example, James Ivory, when he made "Howard's End" in 2.35 (Super-35), noticed that he could hold two people side by side (like at a dinner table) in a tighter shot in 2.35 whereas he'd have to pull back wider to hold two side-by-side people in 1.85.

"Waterworld" shot in 1.85 because the director said a ship on the ocean is naturally vertical, whereas Ridley Scott made "White Squall" around the same time, another ship on the ocean movie, in 2.35 and didn't seem to have problems framing a ship at sea - there was just more ocean on the sides of the frame.

Spielberg started out shooting his movies in 2.35 anamorphic because that was common for studio movies of the 1970's, and his first DP, Vilmos Zsigmond, was famous for his scope movie work for Robert Altman around that time. Then after he did "Raiders of the Lost Ark", he did "E.T" with DP Allen Daviau, who was not as big a fan of anamorphic lenses nor anamorphic projection in theaters. So he and Spielberg started making their movies in 1.85 (actually with a 1.66 hard matted gate). This was also a time in the 1980's when scope photography was on the decline for awhile, partly due to the rise of home video and the lack of letterboxing as an option for release. Spielberg also once said that he worked faster in 1.85 because he had less of the frame to compose for, deal with, fill, etc.

But with the rise of Super-35, some of the objections that some directors had to working with anamorphic lenses went away (since they could shoot with spherical lenses), plus 2.35 became popular again (along with anamorphic lenses) in the 1990's because of movies like "Dances with Wolves" and "JFK", and letterboxing as an option on laserdiscs and then DVD's.

After avoiding anamorphic for years, Spielberg and Kaminski returned to it for the new "Indiana Jones" movie, partly I think just for the continuity factor for how the other three Indiana Jones movies were shot by Slocombe.
 
David did you catch that piece about Searchers 2.0 in AC? Some really top rate guys went out with prosumer cameras and shot a feature for under 200K. Apparently, according to the article, they got some great shots of Monument Valley and stuff. I'm definitely going to try to find this one on bluray or dvd, or at the arthouse.
 
I have a question:
I work mainly in Europe (PAL tv 25)
if i start a RED project made for printing on film, my impression is that I should set the Project Frame Rate at 24 because i do not like the idea of the film slowed down when screened,
but what happens to the same editing transfered on HD tape for delivering to TV ?
Is there a risk of jump frame, saccades visible in certain shots or will it run smoothly ? ( I don't mind the slight 4 or 5 % acceleration)
 
David, do you have any tips to speed up the lighting process?
We are shooting a short right now and I can already see we are going to go over schedule. It's just been incredibly slow with an average of 4-5 set ups a day. We are using a dolly and tracks quite a bit and sometimes a dolly with a jib arm, but I guess the lighting is what is taking the longest. It's all day and night interiors with very stylised lighting. I'm already getting prepared to start rolling without the lighting being ultra perfect, but would you have any tips that could speed up the lighting process? The crew is pretty small. It's a DP/Cam op. AC, two PAs, AD, scripty and a soundman. Shot in HD.
 
David,
Can you recommend your three favorite books on cinematography or instructional DVDs from beginner to advanced? Also, is there any must have tools that you recommend to become a great cinematographer like yourself.
thanks!
lonny
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top