Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[Jason Ing]

Finally!

 

[Rudi Herbert]

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

Leon, as far as I know, most film projection in Europe is also done at 25fps, so unless you're thinking of crossing over the Atlantic, you should not worry about it.

 

[Mat@imageWork]

Hi David,

Thanks to be here and listen to us. Me and my DP try to get a organic look and feel from the RED. We agree together to say, there is something missing compare to 35 mm, something too krisp, too perfect, too numeric. We can pointed the dynamic range (11 stops), the way the highlight are handle. We shoot with zeiss master prime and see all default on the skin ( most of the time close-up). Recently, we saw a commercial here (nestcafé) shoot in anamorphic with LOMO lenses (old russian lenses, for other people here) Result are really good, because those lenses loose details, desaturate color, and give an overall organic effect.

I would like to get your impression, and a way to optimize result form your experience. Optimize results to reach a 35 mm film look.

Thanks in advance and sorry if you have already heard 1000 time this question.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Just keep in mind that if you plan on transferring to 35mm negative for printing, some "texture" (i.e. grain) will be added and some softening will happen in projection, so that may be enough of the "film look" added for you.

If you are shooting for digital projection or HDTV broadcast, then you may want to experiment with diffusion filters and/or older lenses for a softer look. I find a #1/8 ProMist (or the similar #1 GlimmerGlass) does a nice job of taking the edge off of things without being too much diffusion.

Otherwise, I tend to believe that you should embrace some of the unique characteristics of the format you are using, otherwise you'll never be happy.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Bout time this thread stuck!

Yeah!

And the Bayer thread by Mr. Nattress, maybe.

I see a zillion similar threads from now on.

 

[benfilm]

My question is rather off-topic and somewhat vague.

I am having trouble writing bad guys in a contemporary western setting, especially when the bad guy is the main source of opposition in the story: many of the well-known ones are psychos or serial killers (Silence of the Lambs) or just gangsters, which I am not really interested in. They don't fascinate me at all: psychos are boring to me, and I am not really drawn to the crime/gangster world.

The bad guys I find interesting tend to come from different worlds (and be somewhat cartoonish), like Amon Goeth (Schindler's List) or very cartoonish people like Agent Smith from the Matrix. Even a well written and more or less 'normal' (not the psycho/serial killer type) bad guy like Hans Gruber from Die Hard feels like an uninteresting plot-device to me: he's just after some money, and he doesn't fascinate me at all somehow.

Maybe I have trouble writing them because a bad guy who lives in the world we live in feels too 'real' and I have trouble understanding/identifying with him, so it's difficult to write him.

Any advice/insight?

Thank you (obviously I welcome answers from everyone).

 

[Nick Wolf]

I think one of the main charatceristics of true bad guys is their lack of insight into themselves...They have no reason to change or question their behavior or motives...Evil resides in innocense...You need inspiration...Look into the mirror and dont look away untill you find your fault begin from there...The old adage of it takes one to know one is a key tool for any writer or creator after all its all about you even when its not.

DogDay.

 

[benfilm]

Thanks. I don't know if I even want a bad guy anymore, but building a strong unique source of opposition without one seems difficult to me.

I need to ruminate about all this.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Generally you think of it in terms of the protagonist and his goals, versus the antagonist and how he works to keep the protagonist from achieving his goals, rather than think of it as a good guy vs. bad guy issue.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

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

My favorite cinematography books are not necessarily technical, some are more just artistically motivational.

"Masters of Light", a series of interviews with DP's in the early 1980's, was a major source of inspiration for me.

"Film Lighting" by Kris Malkiewicz also, a mix of interviews and technical info.

For a general overview, I can recommend both "Cinematography: The Third Edition" by myself and Malkiewicz, and also Blain Brown's "Cinematography".

But the truth is that I've read almost every book on the subject because I love the subject, so there's no way three books is ever going to satisfy you if you love the topic.

"Visions of Light" is a very inspirational documentary.

I also like these books: "Cinematography Screencraft", "Image Control", an old 1970's British book called "Practical Motion Picture Photography", "Matters of Light and Depth".

 

[Tom Lowe]

David, didn't you mention a while back that you have a copy of Almendros's "Man with a Camera"? If you have read it, is it more about his life, or cinematography, or both?

 

[Rob Moog]

David,

I've been following this thread for a while and have been learning a lot. I appreciate an artist who is so generous with their time and knowledge.

I am shooting a short on Red in July that will be shot almost entirely in controlled interiors. The look I am going for is a cross somewhere between Todd Field and Antonio Calvache's work on "In The Bedroom" and "Little Children" and the work of a photographer named Gregory Crewdson.

Crewdson usually constructs his sets on sound stages and shoots with a cinematographer and lighting crew. I want to channel the darkness in his interiors and the way it's cut with the light from the windows while utilizing a few random practicals for highlights. I've attached one of his photographs below.

The question I have is concerning lenses. Right now I am looking at either getting a Zeiss super-speed set (18mm, 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm) or four Zeiss Master Primes. I know I will need the T1.3 for the low light and the extremely shallow DOF but I am wondering which glass is going to give me the clearest and sharpest image in low light. I want to avoid grain and noise at all cost.

The set of super-speeds will cost me a little more than half of what the the four master primes will, but I am wondering if it would be worth the quality. I'd love any advice you might have. Also, if you had to pick three or four of the master primes to shoot interiors and close-ups with, which ones would you have on hand?

Thanks again for your time and this excellent thread.

Rob
Nine Fifteen Productions

 

[David Mullen ASC]

If you need a sharp image at T/1.3, definitely use the Master Primes if you can afford them. I generally try and avoid opening up a Super-Speed faster than a T/2.0-2.8 split, because they get soft below that.

But if you don't mind softness, the Super-Speeds wide-open can be pretty.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

David, didn't you mention a while back that you have a copy of Almendros's "Man with a Camera"? If you have read it, is it more about his life, or cinematography, or both?

It's another great book, very inspirational, more about his growing philosophy over the years towards lighting and filmmaking, and about the directors he has worked with.

 

[Rob Moog]

David,

Thanks for the quick reply. I think I will go with the Master Primes. Could you suggest three or four focal lengths you'd use for interior shoots?

Rob

 

[David Mullen ASC]

18mm, 27mm, 35mm, and 50mm -- if you can live without a longer lens for close-ups. Otherwise add a 75mm to that.

 

[Wheatloaf]

Hi David,

Thanks so much for this thread. It continues to be edifying and inspiring!

My question is more about your process as an artist than anything technical.

I find that I am consistently disappointed by the things that I miss in my planning and on the day, and as a result I never feel satisfied with my pictures. I see all the things that are missing, or the opportunities that were not picked up. If the subject lighting is satisfactory, there is a flat wall somewhere, or an opportunity for foreground that I didn't think of. The missing eyelight or kicker that would have really popped the actor in an important scene... the realisation that if you had just tweaked the blocking a bit you could have incorporated another important or pretty element and taken the shot to the next level. The bump in the move, the flat background, the great idea thought of too late.

These things irk me to no end, and I'm never happy with my pictures no matter how anyone else feels. I love what I do, and I put all of myself into it so it's hard when it feels like it's not at the level it could be.

Does this mellow with age and experience? Or does it just slowly drive you insane?

Thanks again!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I feel the same way you do every night when I get back from shooting.

 

[Wheatloaf]

I was afraid you would say that!

At least it is somewhat comforting to know that we, and others like us, are in the same boat.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I haven't used any IR filters yet.