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

I tried searching for this specific item here, but alas, couldn't find it.

First: Thank you for your knowledge explosion on this thread, and reduser. Hat's off to you, have you thought about accepting donations?

Next: Black Silks.
http://www.cinematography.net/BlackSilks.htm
have you worked with them? I can't see how this would work, maybe because i've not seen any examples. But i'm intensely curious because i'm just investing in a butterfly frame for the first time.

thank you.
 
David, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on 2-perf 35mm. I understand that it can save you a great deal in film stock and processing costs, and that it also increases your recording times (per mag) considerably.

It sounds like a great option for shooting widescreen without the need for anamorphic lenses, but I also heard that it is only really appropriate if you're heading to a DI (though that seems pretty much the norm these days anyway) why is that? And what are your thoughts about the format in general?

Cheers,

Mark
 
David Mullen ASC said:
The main problem with dirty singles (i.e. sort of over-the-shoulders) is that if you are shooting a 2-person scene with a 2-person master and two dirty singles, then both actors are in all the coverage, so it can be hard to cut if one actor or both is not good about matching their actions take to take, shot to shot.
Click to expand...

Yes, I learned that lesson also. (I'm the editor on this project as well as the director.)

Nothing like a lesson learned though hard experience. I definitely know the pitfalls now. Shooting the scene as dirty singles seriously reduced my options in the edit. I got it to work anyway. But I was forced to use takes that were not always my favorites just for technical reasons.

Thanks for your response!
 
query

query

How does the footage from red stand to digital blow up to cinemascope? In terms of grain and sharpness? In india, where i hail from, films are still commercially released in the cinemascope format - digital projection is only on its way ;) thanks
 
I haven't seen any comparison tests between 35mm anamorphic and RED cropped to 2.40 for film out. My rough guess based on what I'm seeing looking at my own RED files cropped to 2.40 is that the sharpness is comparable, RED is grainless if exposed properly (noisy if underexposed.)

The main difference should be that you'll have greater dynamic range with film, less grain with RED.

The slick look of many 35mm anamorphic Bollywood movies seems to me something that the RED would be good at creating.
 
35mm theatrical projection is always 4-perf sound aperture (1.85 or anamorphic 2.39), so other formats like 4-perf Super-35, 3-perf, 2-perf, Super-16, need to be converted to 4-perf for projection, either digitally or with an optical printer.

2-perf seems like a great idea for low-budget filmmakers who want to shoot 35mm on a tight budget.
 
americanalien said:
In terms of absolute image quality, not suitability for post, but just image quality, is 35mm film still better than any of the high end vid cams like Genesis, Arri, Viper? Any of them...
Click to expand...

Since it has more latitude than any of them (including Red, which you didn't mention), I would say the answer is arguably yes, if the question is technical and "more=better." If the question is regarding aesthetics, there is no answer because it's a matter of story needs, production convenience, physical needs, post production needs, and personal taste. Not necessarily in that order.
 
i think red is better than film, since it doesn't have as mush grain or noise and that makes it better in post, and makes the final product better than film.
 
since it has a good latitude to begin with and no grain, u can bush to a better light and color than film in post.(also red is much better in vfx heavy work)
 
but your not calculating the latitude right.

if u can get let's say at least 7 steps and get 2-3 more steps in post that means u can actually get 21 steps!!!!!!!!!!(right?), what more do u want?
 
I currently live and work in the city of Montreal. I've established a solid set of connections that provide work that pays the bills, however, being a young working professional, several friends who also work in the cinematographic area have mentioned moving to Los Angeles.

I've been somewhat skeptical, having worked hard to get onto sets in my area of interest. In your experience, is the job market in LA clogged with many other youngsters with a similar mind set? A big concern here in Montreal is the winter - film work overall seems to slow to a crawl during the winter months. Is the level of film work relatively steady thanks to LA's climate?
 
cuban from miami said:
Can anyone tell me if I shoot with Anamorphic lenses, how we unsqueze in editing?
Click to expand...

This is probably the wrong section for this question but I'll answer you anyway...

Most NLEs have an "interpret footage" option that let's you tell the computer the pixel aspect ratio of the footage. In the case of regular cinema anamorphics you would use this to set the pixel aspect ratio to 2:1. Once the NLE knows the aspect ratio of the footage it can expand the footage to look correct in the preview. Depending on your intended target output you would either expand the footage to square pixels on output or leave it squeezed.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I haven't seen any comparison tests between 35mm anamorphic and RED cropped to 2.40 for film out. My rough guess based on what I'm seeing looking at my own RED files cropped to 2.40 is that the sharpness is comparable, RED is grainless if exposed properly (noisy if underexposed.)

The main difference should be that you'll have greater dynamic range with film, less grain with RED.

The slick look of many 35mm anamorphic Bollywood movies seems to me something that the RED would be good at creating.
Click to expand...


Thank you david - am planning to take some tests on
red footage and then will get back to u if there shld be any queries.
Thanx for the prompt response. reg
 
LA's pattern of shooting isn't really weather dependent or seasonal (except for TV pilot season, and that's evolving.) It's slow in January right after Christmas, that's all. Personally, I can't really compare the LA job market to anywhere else since I've always been based in LA.
 
I see almost every digitally-shot feature when it comes out in movie theaters... so far, 35mm generally looks better, judging from final results projected in a theater. When you start seeing Best Cinematography Oscar nominations going to digitally-shot movies on a regular basis, you'll know that it doesn't matter anymore which you shoot. I have high hopes for RED though. I'll tell you what I think when I see the final results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top