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 don't know, I haven't played with REDCINE, but how can any cropping be destructive since you aren't changing the original RAW files, just creating new versions from them?

As for changes created in REDCINE being reapplied when building a 4K master from the RAW files using an EDL for conforming, I don't know whether the REDCINE changes can be tacked on as metadata to save time later when conforming.
 
Hey David,
I've tried my best to read through these some 129 pages of questions and answers so I'll try my best not to re-ask an important conceptual question.

You've said often that you don't enjoy working on/viewing generally talky indy films. Ones centered around bars, cars, apartments, usually shot with the dogma, hand-held methodology. I agree these can be just as trite as any big cliche Hollywood mess, but don't you think films like "All the Real Girls" and "George Washington" rise above this (specifically the photography work of Tim Or)? These films are very talky talky, but have beautiful, visual centering. It's a two-course meal with these films. Specifically in those two films, they really capture what it is to be in the South with dialogue and the visual.

I'm not a DP, but I've found this thread very helpful nonetheless. I like hearing about your visual procedures and philosophies. I just see a contradiction. Doesn't the work you did in your "North Fork" capture what Montana is and at the same time temporize the story?

What thinks you?
 
This issue -- talky scripts in ordinary locations -- brings up the importance of the director and their vision for the project. If they really want to find ways of making these sequences visually interesting, through design, location choice, and use of light, then they can get me interested.

The movie I'm doing right now, "Stay Cool", is like that -- we spent most of Friday in an IHOP shooting conversation scenes. But we look for interesting angles or colors to put in the frame when possible and appropriate.

In the case of "Northfork" my idea was to get beyond shooting Montana like a postcard and transforming it into something slightly surreal, what sometimes is called Magic Realism I guess. Hence the desaturation and diffusion techniques.
 
Strobing Issues

Strobing Issues

Hi David,
Did you notice any of these issues regarding strobing when testing for or shooting manure? http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17042

If so, what did you do to address them? If not, what do you think people are seeing. I do see the issue in the clips MacGregor posted in posting #12, but I can't tell if that's just a computer playback issue or a camera generated one. I haven't seen any Red footage projected besides the PJ short.
 
I think the type of viewing system you watch movement on has such an effect (LCD screen versus CRT screen versus projected film, etc., various hertz rates of computer screens, etc.) that I have a hard time seeing what could be caused by the camera versus the display technology.

I haven't really noticed much different about motion with a RED camera other than I'm viewing these images differently (in 720P HD for one thing) versus how I often view 35mm images (projected print or DVD dailies.)

But I'm actually one of those people who don't expect digital photography to be an exact duplicate of photochemical photography, I expect there to be some differences. I don't get too concerned with some minor differences, otherwise it would be like shooting color reversal film and complaining that it didn't look exactly like color negative film. Distracting artifacts can be bad, of course, but so far I haven't really noticed anything unusual about the motion strobing.
 
Hey David,

I'm pondering the possibilities of a shoot a year or so from now and the decision to shoot day or night. The location is an old stone bridge built around 1820, and the action would take place both on and below (not directly underneath) the bridge.

The tree canopy is consistent, but open enough for scattered sun highlights, that could accent soft light used appropriately during the day.

Or, I recalled your comment on china lanterns from the first page of this thread and wondered how feasible on a small indy budget this might be (or if might be a rigging nightmare, which I'm concerned with).

If I rigged up (I'm guessing here) say 20 250w lanters, or 10 or 15 650w lanterns, might that provide a soft blanket over the area? It would be an eerie glow over the scene that I could accent with a few lanterns (lower wattage?) up close and for a hint of backlight.

Given the budget and the rural location I thought this might work? Any ideas? I'm hoping to test it in the spring, but I wonder if I'm forgetting anything or if there's a better way.

Thanks again for your presence and wisdom!

Best,
 
A bunch of Chinese Lanterns with blue photofloods or daylight or Cool White Compact flos may give the scene a nice soft dim moonlight effect but I'm not sure of the amount needed for a large space or how you'd rig them. I've used them more in the woods about five feet above people's heads, in a row for a moving shot, but that's about it.
 
David -

Love your posts. Thank you.

Do you use the Source 4 with a Joker 400 or 800 HMI bulb, or? I see they are quite inexpensive with HPX575 and 750 bulbs, but I would imagine they would put out far more light with HMI bulbs.
 
I use both the 400 and 800 versions depending on how much light I need -- it's not easy to scrim them (the scrim gets very hot and the light flares around the scrim, losing some of the benefits of the Source-4 in terms of not having to flag it) so I first try to pick the right unit. The 800 version can put out a lot of light.
 
David, have you heard anything more about this 4K projection system at IMAX? Is this basically four 2K projectors? What would the max (in terms of height) aspect ratio be? 16:9? Could they possibly do 4:3 or whatever the actual IMAX ratio is?
 
I haven't heard much about the dimensions of the DMD chips from T.I. being used, but remember that many of their digital projector chips are actually around 1.25 : 1 because they were originally built to show computer graphics, not for displaying movies. The original DLP Cinema projectors were 1.2K and used 1.5X and 1.9X anamorphic lenses on the projector so that you could fit a 1.85 or 2.35 movie onto their squarer DMD's without cropping. I believe the current 2K DLP chips are 16x9 though.
 
If you ever talk to anyone there, I'd certainly be interested to learn more about their new digital projection plans. Or if you come across a good article or anything. I've been keeping my eyes peeled.

I hope it is not limited to 16:9, but it might be. I understand that the digital projection is mainly aimed at scanning 35mm at 4K or projecting something like Shrek 4 at 4K to save money on the IMAX filmout, but it would also be cool if people could shoot 4K 4:3 nature and travel IMAX films as well -- pure digital from acquisition to display.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Also, from a practical matter, you can't make every shot in a movie look stunning -- for one thing, it would get a bit wearing, like watching a two-hour commercial, but beyond that, it's hard to devote that much care and time into every set-up, so you have to prioritize.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to mention one of my favourite films "Dead Man" by Jim Jarmusch.
The DoP was Robby Müller

You can press pause at pretty much any point in the film, and the image looks like a perfectly composed still.
 
David - Just wanted to say I watched the astronaut farmer and it was really shot and lit very beautifully.
 
Yes, indeed. Besides having great photography it's a great story as well. All together a very enjoyable film.


David, I have an "over the shoulder" question. How important is character size and distance on an over the shoulder shot. I tend to do OTS shots with a 50mm because it renders a more natural perspective, while if you do with a wider angle it normally makes the foreground actor look too big and a longer make them look too close (no surprises there). But sometimes I find myself cheating or rather trying to cheat not to make the talking actor too small and the foreground one too big even when using a 50mm. This means that sometimes the distances may look artificial or off. When they are standing right in front of each other is not a problem. It will normally look right and natural of the bat with a 50mm. But when they are standing far apart, the talking actor usually looks small and the foreground one way too big. How import it it in your opinion?
 
Where? I must have missed something...

Where? I must have missed something...

David Mullen ASC said:
I use both the 400 and 800 versions depending on how much light I need -- it's not easy to scrim them (the scrim gets very hot and the light flares around the scrim, losing some of the benefits of the Source-4 in terms of not having to flag it) so I first try to pick the right unit. The 800 version can put out a lot of light.
Click to expand...

Sorry, correct me if I am wrong, but I have a degree in Theatrical Lighting Design and am a local designer here in Phoenix and have never encountered an HPL575 or 750w HMI version for a Source Four ERS from ETC.

Am I missing something? Obviously you can use CTB and cut the light down in effective intensity but I would love to see about an HMI Lamp for these.

Any links to examples?
 
ORBITLUSTER said:
Yes, indeed. Besides having great photography it's a great story as well. All together a very enjoyable film.


David, I have an "over the shoulder" question. How important is character size and distance on an over the shoulder shot. I tend to do OTS shots with a 50mm because it renders a more natural perspective, while if you do with a wider angle it normally makes the foreground actor look too big and a longer make them look too close (no surprises there). But sometimes I find myself cheating or rather trying to cheat not to make the talking actor too small and the foreground one too big even when using a 50mm. This means that sometimes the distances may look artificial or off. When they are standing right in front of each other is not a problem. It will normally look right and natural of the bat with a 50mm. But when they are standing far apart, the talking actor usually looks small and the foreground one way too big. How import it it in your opinion?
Click to expand...

It all depends on how much it matters to you. I try to not get too mechanical about these choices, what matters more is the feeling of the shot. Yes, I also tend to use the 50mm for OTS shots.

Sometimes if things start to get confusing, just stick to the actual distances between the actors rather than cheat them too much, because it can affect their performances -- it makes a difference whether you are standing 2 feet from another actor or 4 feet in terms of the emotional connections so you want to minimize cheating too far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top