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

Day for night

Day for night

What would you suggest as best settings/practices for shooting day for night on red...and to complicate it a bit more, in the snow?
 
David,

Do you have any experience and/or comments regarding Century converted Cooke Speed Panchro (S2/S3) prime lenses?

They are not a common lens, but I'm interested in learning more about them.

Any movies that were shot on them that stand out in your mind?

Thanks!
 
I seem to recall that DP Ed Lachman owns a set and shot "The Limey", "Virgin Suicides", and "Far from Heaven" on Cooke S2/3's.

Also, JDC anamorphic lenses are based on those lenses -- look at movies shot on those lenses, from "The Mission" to "Evita" for example.

I can't remember if "The Godfather" was shot on Cooke Speed Panchros or B&L Baltars.

---

Day for night techniques for the RED are the same as for film - the usual rules apply, though since the RED is closer to daylight balance, you may want to use blue-ish filters to get the cooling effect rather than selecting a lower color temp rating.
 
Manure is screened in a few days at Sundance. How did the DI work go? 4K or 2K? Any issues?
 
When I get some free time, I'll sum up my D.I. experiences doing "Manure". Overall, it went well. We added a diffusion pass using a defocused luminence key layered back over the image, to give the movie a sort of glow.

The hardest part was timing a movie where everything was painted brown, which is so close to skintone color. Your eyes go a bit nuts after a few hours in the D.I. suite staring at shades of tan, beige, chocolate, etc.

We'll be screening an HD tape at Sundance; we just did the D.I. right up to the screening date and want to go back later and do a little more tweaking before a film-out step, so it seemed smarter to show it digitally at Sundance and not be locked-in, because the cost of a film-out is so high that one generally never goes back after that to do more timing work.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
For a more subtle and more complicated effect, look at the early flashbacks in "Avalon" -- shot at 16 fps and then every other frame was reprinted to get back to 24 fps, for a silent movie era look.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the possibly silly question, but you're referring to Barry Levinson's Avalon, right? Because there's some strange smeary motion shooting going on at the beginning of Mamoru Oshii's film Avalon (2001) as well, and I have yet to figure out how it was achieved. Appears as if they may have shot at 12 FPS and then had a computer interpolate frames, but really, I have no clue.
 
David,
In the burning rig scene of "There Will Be Blood", there were some odd oval flares. I was wondering if you had noticed these, and if you knew what caused them. It was basically flaring everywhere but an oval chunk out of the middle. I'm guessing it has something to do with anamorphics, but that's all I've got.

Thanks,
Charles
 
Older anamorphics can cause a rainbow oval to flare across the frame from one edge, plus a red horizontal oval ring around a bright point of light -- plus the blue horizontal line and the out of focus lights becoming vertical ovals.

Also a few shots involved converting very old lenses to anamorphic, but that was only used for a few shots.

Look at these flares from the Todd-AO-35 anamorphics used for "Logan's Run":
logansrun8.jpg
 
That's just a very BIG flare because the bright fire is so large in frame. It's actually a flare in one of the spherical lens elements of the anamorphic lens because it's a circular flare that looks like a flattened oval because the image has been stretched horizontally by 2X so that it looks normal (since the anamorphic elements add a 2X squeeze).

You could get that effect on any number of older spherical lens if you pointed the camera at a large bright light that fills so much of the frame and is dead-centered. It's just in this case, it's been stretched into a flattened oval instead of a circle.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
That's just a very BIG flare because the bright fire is so large in frame. It's actually a flare in one of the spherical lens elements of the anamorphic lens because it's a circular flare that looks like a flattened oval because the image has been stretched horizontally by 2X so that it looks normal (since the anamorphic elements add a 2X squeeze).

You could get that effect on any number of older spherical lens if you pointed the camera at a large bright light that fills so much of the frame and is dead-centered. It's just in this case, it's been stretched into a flattened oval instead of a circle.
Click to expand...

Do you think that Anderson may have used his old Pathe camera for that shot and that was why it looked so distinctive. I read on IMDB that he used it in certain scenes: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469494/trivia.
 
Another question, if I may, but lighting related this time.

I was lying in bed the other night, and was thinking about how to light a straight-on closeup of someone lying in bed looking straight up, and not near a window. Lights are off.

My first thought was soft light from above, soft cut on a slight angle top and bottom to create a sort of angled rectilinear vignette.

Any other ideas, or scenes you can think of where this has been done effectively? I find it's always challenging lighting someone up against a flat surface...
 
Well, if you're looking straight down at someone in bed, then you can probably make up a window to one side for a source, like moonlight or streetlight.

Otherwise, you could make up some light leaking through a slit in a door, etc.

Yes, you could also create a soft frontal, underexposed spotlit effect with the sides falling into darkness.
 
Hello Mr. Mullen,

My first question to you as this is my first year ever using cameras to obtain images (i draw and animate usually). I'd like to say this is the best part of reduser, this thread in particular. We're all very honored here in beirut to have access to a q&a with yourself.

I started shooting camcorders, and made the step up to shooting super8mm.

I had the problem of finding a progressive footage solution, for under 5000 dollars. I of course months later learned how to manage interlaced footage better, and am still shooting with camcorders for now, until I get myself a 35mm adapter I guess.

I came across super 8mm, found cameras for cheap, and was able to set up a lab at home, and need a decent projector to complete a scanning setup.

I develop with E6, concentrating my color developer extra 25% - 35% to correct magenta. Magenta seems fine if I shoot under flourescent light.

My question relates to my camera and its lens. I sport a beaulieu 6008pro with a schneider 6-70 and macro zoom lens.

It seems that I can only achieve sharpness and focus from 26mm-40mm. The rest just doesn't happen. If I want a 10mm wide shot, i never nail the focus. I travel slong the entire focus ring painstakingly slowly, taking breaks and lookin again even (just incase I'm mad) and can't nail it.

If I set to 26mm and physically move back I don't get the wide shot I'm lookin for, DOF is still pretty shallow.

I chuckle frustratedly after a year of starving for shallow focus I now crave deep focus. I'm mixing footage for my wide shots, using S8 for 35mm mediums and closes with shallow focus when needed, sony camcorder (lil consumer job but I like it) for the ultra wides, and an HDV for intricate high speed vfx shots, and also to further justify mixing media, since i figure if i have two mixed it'll be obvious i'm covering up a lack of ability in my initial format of choice.

I like 8mm, I'd like to steadily conjure as much clarity as possible through it. Learning the chemistry is amazing when you can do it at home. I've used so far a motorized jobo (nice results, but not engaging to use, good for other ppl's rolls) a spiral lomo, tupperwares with film delicately wound and fully immersed, film shot and cut in ten second lengths (1 meter @ 24fps) and of course scrunched up in a bucket.

I like it, I'm heavy into AE, so I think my choice so far for a digital dream cam is an ikonoskop. I find its the most i'll ever need.

Before aaaall that, I think I'd have to have lenses figured out.

Is my lens bad? Can I not nail focus? there's a small ring in the middle of the viewfinder that kinda looks different. Sometimes when its blurry all round i could swear in that ring it was sharp.

Also, does iris affect focus? and how? I can see everything I do on the lens, except for exposure. the picture neither darkens nor brightens, hence my new sekonic that has made the life and understanding some of the math a whooole lot easier.

THank you mr mullen, I appreciate everyone's patience with me here on red as i am new and am missing a lot i think of the basics.

Tarek Kandil
 
Hi!

When it comes to an outdoor night shot say in the jungle, is the trick to over light the environment then make it darker in post to avoid noise?

Some movies do horrible outdor shots where you know if the camp fire burns out that moonlight will keep everyone's pores visible. I did a scene in a lake/swamp river looking thing it was a great location. I used a red head 1kila watt light and it produce enough light that I was happy with it not looking like the moon was a blue version of the sun. How ever the lack of light made my HD footage look like web cam material.


How would you go about such a scene? :)
 
Entertainment Weekly

Entertainment Weekly

Hi David,

Thank you very much for your time and detailed responses. I have learned much from you.

Are you aware you were in Entertainment Weekly recently? There was a blurb about THE UNITED STATES OF TARA and you seem to be envisioning what you want.

quick shot with my iPhone

IMG_0425.jpg
 
Tarek S. Kandil said:
It seems that I can only achieve sharpness and focus from 26mm-40mm. The rest just doesn't happen. If I want a 10mm wide shot, i never nail the focus. I travel slong the entire focus ring painstakingly slowly, taking breaks and lookin again even (just incase I'm mad) and can't nail it.

Is my lens bad? Can I not nail focus? there's a small ring in the middle of the viewfinder that kinda looks different. Sometimes when its blurry all round i could swear in that ring it was sharp.

Also, does iris affect focus? and how?
Click to expand...

Could be a bad lens or it could be a back-focus problem -- when the back-focus is off, it's harder to focus at the wide-angle end.

Iris affects focus mainly in how it controls depth of field, but also lenses can be sharper at some stops compared to others. Generally a lens is sharpest in the middle f-stops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top