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:
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.
Click to expand...

Dear Mr. Mullen.

Thank you for your answer, was reading about iris and sharpness today as well.

In all embarrasment, what is back focus? I am wikipedia-ing it as well, yet your explanations in reduser have been so clear.

I'm sorry I'm bothering you with the basics, I understand if you are busy.

Excuse my low self-esteem this week, I just posted something about audio, and reading it again i realized i had no clue what i was talking about and got wailed on by a reduser i think is pretty cool. Feel I let him down. Don't feel too good, and things are a bit rough.

Seein my name on a post of yours felt good sir, and certainly helped.

Thanks again for your time, hope all is well

Tarek
 
"Back-focus" pertains to the distance from the back of the lens to the film / sensor, which is not something you can normally fix yourself unless the camera has an adjustable back-focus ring at the lens mount (like the RED does), or the lens itself has a back-focus adjustment ring at the rear (like most professional video zooms do).

Most films cameras don't need much adjustment to their back-focus once it has been set, but when it is necessary, usually a technician does it using shims to adjust the distance between the mount and the film gate.

Now with some consumer cameras like many Super-8 cameras, the lens is permanently mounted as part of the body, so no adjustment is possible.

The way to check if the back-focus is off is to zoom in on something, focus the lens until it is sharp, then zoom back -- if the image goes out of focus as you widen out, then the back-focus is off.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
"Back-focus" pertains to the distance from the back of the lens to the film / sensor, which is not something you can normally fix yourself unless the camera has an adjustable back-focus ring at the lens mount (like the RED does), or the lens itself has a back-focus adjustment ring at the rear (like most professional video zooms do).

Most films cameras don't need much adjustment to their back-focus once it has been set, but when it is necessary, usually a technician does it using shims to adjust the distance between the mount and the film gate.

Now with some consumer cameras like many Super-8 cameras, the lens is permanently mounted as part of the body, so no adjustment is possible.

The way to check if the back-focus is off is to zoom in on something, focus the lens until it is sharp, then zoom back -- if the image goes out of focus as you widen out, then the back-focus is off.
Click to expand...

Our camera's lens in interchangeable, I will look into it now and see what I can do.

Indeed I lose it as I widen, trying now...

Thanks so much Mr. Mullen
 
I'm just finishing two RED D.I.'s but we haven't taken an entire movie out to film yet, just tests. But any D.I. theater should be set-up so that their digital projection is a close match to the look of the prints, so there shouldn't be any big surprises, other than digital projection tends to look a little cleaner, steadier, and sharper.

I'm still trying to get the D.I. facility to give me a complete breakdown of how they converted the R3D files and at what settings, etc. We used a Baselight color-correction system with 2K DLP projection.

Costs vary wildly from one facility to another, but they are similar to any feature D.I. costs other than the lack of scanning costs, nor dust removal costs. But otherwise, it's same: conforming, color-correction, film-out, etc. A big factor is how many days of color-correction do you need.
 
Hi David,

Thanks for sharing your impressive knowledge. Here's a probably stupid question : if an actor wears glasses (normal glasses, with low correction, not sunglasses), is there a trick to avoid bad reflections when he turns his head in an interior lit with sofboxes ? Is there special glass, with no reflection ?

Thanks !

Kristin
 
Usually if you have a whole movie with a character wearing eyeglasses, you get a couple versions: normal, ones with anti-reflection coating, and flat with no coating. And you also sometimes just pop the glass out of the frames in a pinch.

Using glasses with anti-reflection coatings is the most common trick -- it reduces the brightness of the reflection to a dim green-ish reflection.

Fake glasses with flat lenses (take a look at Kevin Costner in "JFK") have the advantage of only reflecting lights at one angle, but when you hit that magic angle, it's a huge reflection. Can be useful for trick shots where you want something particular reflected in the glasses, although normal glasses with curved lenses can be useful for that too, it's just that the curvature tends to shrink the size of the reflection.

Otherwise, the trick is the basic angle-of-incidence = angle-of-reflection issues... i.e. don't put the light where the person is most likely to reflect it. That can be hard since you tend to put the light to catch the person's eyes the best and therefore get reflected in the glasses the best.

Sometimes with super large soft lights, it's just a soft glare in the glasses, which is OK, particularly with anti-reflection coatings.
 
Hello David,

Thanks for all the great info, I always find your posts very useful.

I know you're a pro and way past the basics, but could you recommend any books on the fundamentals of cinematography? could you suggest one or two that really stand out?
 
Kristin Stewart said:
Hi David,

Thanks for sharing your impressive knowledge. Here's a probably stupid question : if an actor wears glasses (normal glasses, with low correction, not sunglasses), is there a trick to avoid bad reflections when he turns his head in an interior lit with sofboxes ? Is there special glass, with no reflection ?

Thanks !

Kristin
Click to expand...

One super low budget trick I learned is to have the actor slightly tilt the frames so that it is just above their ears. Then you don't have to move your lights and there is no glare on the lenses.
 
If someone is interested in a subject, they aren't going to stop at one book, they are probably going to read most of them at some point...

I like reading outdated cinematography books myself, hoping to find some nugget of info on some disused technique or technology that may inspire a new idea. For example, there is a 1970 British cinematography book called "Practical Motion Picture Photography" by Campbell that has short anecdotes by various U.K. cinematographers, from Freddie Young to Ozzie Morris, giving real world applications to basic principles.

But if you want some books to read, I'd look at:

"Cinematography" (Third Edition) by Malkiewicz and Mullen -- I worked on that edition, but just to be clear, the book is aimed mainly at film students about to shoot a project in 16mm, but it covers principles of camera, lenses, lighting, post, etc.

"Filmmakers Handbook" by Ascher & Pincus
"Cinematography" by Brown
"Matters of Light & Depth" by Lowell
"Film Lighting" by Malkiewicz (mixes interviews with textbook info)
"Image Control" by Hirschfeld (about filters)
"Masters of Light" (interview book with top cinematographers of 80's)
"Cinematography Screencraft" (interview book)
"New Cinematographers" (interview book)
"Film Style & Technology: History & Analysis" by Salt, a decade-by-decade look at film technology released over history and its effect of film style

Classic books include the British one I mentioned, plus books like "Painting with Light" by John Alton, and "The Five C's of Cinematography" by Mascelli.

I'd also recommend cinematographer biographies, like "Man with a Camera" by Nestor Almendros. There is also a hard-to-find biography on James Wong Howe by Todd Rainsberger.

I also learned by reading back issues of "American Cinematographer" -- I went to the library while I was an undergraduate at UCLA and read every issue going back to 1925.
 
Actually the reason i said "one or two" books, is because I would like to know more about the basics of cinematography, so that I can as a director better understand the DP's job, and because I am interested in the craft itself, but no where near as interested as a pro DP.

Who knows, maybe I'll get sucked in and read them all.

Thank you.
 
Achieving the Look

Achieving the Look

Hey David,

I get frustrated when I grade my projects because it seems that no matter what I do, I can never get the incredible look that the newer DI movies have.

To see what I mean, notice how good these DI movies look on your HDTV. It looks better than our usual 2K projection theaters!

For instance, since we're on a RED forum, The Knowing has that clean rich darks and rich warm colors look. A great example outside RED is The Zodiac, shot with the Viper. The yellows were amazing in that movie.

I've noticed that most of these movies have been DI'd at Deluxe.
Do they have a secret to achieve that look or was it achieved on set?

Thanks!
 
It's a combination of elements, from the choice of camera, to how it was set-up, to how the scene was lit, to how it was corrected in post, processed, etc.

I'm afraid you're just running up against the challenge that every DP faces -- "how do I make my movie look really, really great, not just adequate?" You spend a long time -- sometimes a lifetime -- trying to figure that out.

Sometimes, not always, it's just the accumulation of a hundred little decisions, and other times, it's a few broader choices you made. I know that's vague...

For example, there was a great article in an old American Cinematographer on getting "clear pictures" by Ken Richter (Oct. 1978 issue). This was a guy who went around the country showing 16mm nature and winter sports footage to audiences. He often got asked why his footage looked so good, particularly since most of it was shot in 16mm. He wrote this article to explain how, but the gist of it was that there was no single "trick" involved -- that sharp, clear, rich photography came down to the choice of camera, lenses, f-stop chosen, filters, exposure, film stock, processing, printing, color-correction, projection and projector lens, theater conditions, etc.

In other words, any single step had a minor effect on quality, but it was accumulative as you went through all the steps out to the end result.

A lot of it came down to contrast as well, since contrast affects our perception of sharpness, so he used contrasty lenses in stronger lighting contrast on higher contrast stock, etc. to compensate for the softness of 16mm.

Truth is that you may do any number of things right, but one step in the process done badly can reduce the quality of the final product. So to some extent, you have to be a quality-control freak.

On the other hand, to get back to the "big picture", a strong graphic image will survive any number of quality-reducing factors. Spielberg once wrote something similar, which I agree with -- if you create a particularly graphic image, like a dramatic silhouette, or someone in a dark room in a single shaft of light, then it tends to survive being mishandled in post or presentation -- it may even look cool if shot in Super-8.

Whereas an extremely subtle image, like a blooming pear blossom tree on an overcast day, all pastels and soft lighting... well, that may look great shot and projected in 70mm, but it may look too mushy if shot in Super-8 -- the "point" of the shot may be lost on the viewer.

That doesn't mean that we should only create strong graphic images, but it may mean that if we have a lot of very subtle touches to the image, if it is a very "delicate" image, you may want to spend more time making sure it is presented properly. I mean, I've seen both "Citizen Kane" and "Days of Heaven" in 16mm prints, I can tell you that the first survives that form of reduction better than the second.

Also keep in mind that Fincher used an expensive noise reduction process at John Lowry's film restoration company for his two Viper movies, to make the noise / grain more consistent throughout the movie.
 
Thank you!

Thank you!

David Mullen ASC said:
It's a combination of elements, from the choice of camera, to how it was set-up, to how the scene was lit, to how it was corrected in post, processed, etc.

I'm afraid you're just running up against the challenge that every DP faces -- "how do I make my movie look really, really great, not just adequate?" You spend a long time -- sometimes a lifetime -- trying to figure that out.

Sometimes, not always, it's just the accumulation of a hundred little decisions, and other times, it's a few broader choices you made. I know that's vague...

For example, there was a great article in an old American Cinematographer on getting "clear pictures" by Ken Richter (Oct. 1978 issue). This was a guy who went around the country showing 16mm nature and winter sports footage to audiences. He often got asked why his footage looked so good, particularly since most of it was shot in 16mm. He wrote this article to explain how, but the gist of it was that there was no single "trick" involved -- that sharp, clear, rich photography came down to the choice of camera, lenses, f-stop chosen, filters, exposure, film stock, processing, printing, color-correction, projection and projector lens, theater conditions, etc.

In other words, any single step had a minor effect on quality, but it was accumulative as you went through all the steps out to the end result.

A lot of it came down to contrast as well, since contrast affects our perception of sharpness, so he used contrasty lenses in stronger lighting contrast on higher contrast stock, etc. to compensate for the softness of 16mm.

Truth is that you may do any number of things right, but one step in the process done badly can reduce the quality of the final product. So to some extent, you have to be a quality-control freak.

On the other hand, to get back to the "big picture", a strong graphic image will survive any number of quality-reducing factors. Spielberg once wrote something similar, which I agree with -- if you create a particularly graphic image, like a dramatic silhouette, or someone in a dark room in a single shaft of light, then it tends to survive being mishandled in post or presentation -- it may even look cool if shot in Super-8.

Whereas an extremely subtle image, like a blooming pear blossom tree on an overcast day, all pastels and soft lighting... well, that may look great shot and projected in 70mm, but it may look too mushy if shot in Super-8 -- the "point" of the shot may be lost on the viewer.

That doesn't mean that we should only create strong graphic images, but it may mean that if we have a lot of very subtle touches to the image, if it is a very "delicate" image, you may want to spend more time making sure it is presented properly. I mean, I've seen both "Citizen Kane" and "Days of Heaven" in 16mm prints, I can tell you that the first survives that form of reduction better than the second.

Also keep in mind that Fincher used an expensive noise reduction process at John Lowry's film restoration company for his two Viper movies, to make the noise / grain more consistent throughout the movie.
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for taking the time to reply!

After I posted my question I went and tried color correcting 2 shots from different spots shot with the RED. Different DPs, different exterior locations, times of day, exposures and lenses.

The first clip was shot by a DP who was used to shooting with RED. The image was super sharp, correctly exposed and interestingly composed.

The second clip was shot by a DP who was shooting with the RED for the second time. Footage was sort of flat, slightly overexposed, not as sharp and grainy.

When I was grading the first clip, it looked really good, like I was looking at a Blu-ray copy of a high quality Hollywood movie that went through an expensive DI grade.

And when I was grading the second clip, there were some ways to make it more interesting but I could never get the grain out or make it sharper so that it matched the quality of the first clip.

So, after observing the outputs from the different source images and after reading your reply, it is pretty clear that there are a bunch of factors involved. Which makes me happy actually. There is no one secret to grading a movie to make it have the perfect look, but instead a quality driven workflow from start to finish.

I guess if it would be as simple as taking bad footage to an amazing colorist to make it look great, amazing DPs would be out a job, right?

Thanks again!
 
Hi David-

First, I am a huge fan of your work (started with Twin Falls Idaho) and think it is awesome you frequent these boards offering all this incredible advice. Thank you!

I have searched these threads and have not found anything regarding "MIN-MAX..."
as a sound approach to cinematography in a DI heavy world.

I overheard this on a recent film shot on RED (Somedays are Better than Others) with the DP being "bummed" as he felt it was necessary evil but it limited his creativity.

Why? What is the nature of a min max approach? I was guessing it meant less "in camera" image manipulation, and rather leaving more room for the colorist to do so in post.

I am curious as to your take on this. Thanks.
 
I haven't heard the term myself so I can't really answer that...

I mean, as a DP, most of us understand that at its simplest, when shooting on film, it's a negative-positive system, i.e. the negative itself is not the final product, it's the print you make from the negative.

So you can think of imagemaking as being a two-step production + post-production process no matter what.

You just have to decide what techniques are the best method to get to the final result. In fact, often doing a lot of in-camera work does lead to the best-looking final result technically because post corrections and processing tricks are kept to a minimum. And artistically, there is a lot to be said for making strong creative choices at the time of shooting and sticking to them, not creating a generic, bland image and trying to add all the artistic flourishes later.

However, some techniques are simply more efficient to employ in the post end of things, and since post is inevitable, then why not employ these techniques? (Unless you might not be there for the post...)

But I don't know what this MIN-MAX technique is, unless it just means placing the exposure dead-center for all highlights and shadows. There are some downsides to this approach, both in terms of visual consistency of noise levels and in terms of getting accurate dailies for the editor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top