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, I did a little research and found out that the MB-20 as well as others have a place to drop in a round filter making those configured with three stages able to utilize four filters at once. I am again considering the use of RPPs, including the future 18mm, and concerned with maintaining detail in the snow on bright sunny days. I suppose I would be able to use an IR in the front, ND in the middle stage, the round circular polarizer in this "other place" which I believe is closest to the lens (what is that spot called?), then use the first stage or "normal" stage closest to the lens for the Grad or Attenuator. All of that going towards trying to maximize the amount of sliding we could do on the grads.

So... would you say that a 5.65 x 5.65 Grad or Attenuator on the "normal" stage closest to the lens would be big enough for use with an RPP 18mm? The RPP's front diameters are 114mm I believe, or about 4.3", but I have no clue about what the 18mm's FOV would require. And when I say "enough" I guess I am asking if it would be an acceptable amount of control for you, and for a project that required the "Northfork" grad look for about 35% of the movie's exteriors?
 
With that much glass in play, I'd like to know how to avoid reflections. (Easy with Panatilt filter tray) but I also use the MB20. I have yet to be in a situation to need that many filters at once but I'm sure once there, reflections....

Roberto Lequeux said:
David, I did a little research and found out that the MB-20 as well as others have a place to drop in a round filter making those configured with three stages able to utilize four filters at once. I am again considering the use of RPPs, including the future 18mm, and concerned with maintaining detail in the snow on bright sunny days. I suppose I would be able to use an IR in the front, ND in the middle stage, the round circular polarizer in this "other place" which I believe is closest to the lens (what is that spot called?), then use the first stage or "normal" stage closest to the lens for the Grad or Attenuator. All of that going towards trying to maximize the amount of sliding we could do on the grads.

So... would you say that a 5.65 x 5.65 Grad or Attenuator on the "normal" stage closest to the lens would be big enough for use with an RPP 18mm? The RPP's front diameters are 114mm I believe, or about 4.3", but I have no clue about what the 18mm's FOV would require. And when I say "enough" I guess I am asking if it would be an acceptable amount of control for you, and for a project that required the "Northfork" grad look for about 35% of the movie's exteriors?
Click to expand...
 
One reason to use ND/IR combos...

Yes, the big danger here is double-reflections, which I seem to get all the time when I combine Polas and ND's without tilting something... one reason I love the simple Panavision mattebox and the ARF tray (Anti-reflection filter tray).

Panavision 4x5.6 matteboxes have a simple wide slot that holds two trays stacked together, so they make a single wide tray that fills the 2-filter slot gap but has a simple metal wedge along the edges that tilts the filters.

All the Arri MB's I've seen have a metal spacer that separates each tray, making this trick near impossible.

Don't really have a solution other than to find ways of eliminating extra glass when possible and that you may find yourself fiddling around now and then to get rid of the double reflection, i.e. taping the glass together and sticking it in front of the lens, somehow tilting the whole mattebox slightly, etc.

On "Northfork" I had the advantage of not only using the Panavision mattebox and ARF (though the grad shots used a non-tiltable 6x6 mattebox) but also taking advantage of the fact that there is a behind-the-lens filter slot on Panaflexes so I could use ND wratten gels.

The downside is that there are several shots from one day of shooting where there is a fuzzy dot in the sky due to a minor speck on the gel... luckily it sort of blends in with the cloud formations. This was pre-D.I. so it would have been too expensive to paint out in post.

Now I have heard that it is possible to get small round filters for behind lenses, either they attach to the back of the lens or the front of the OPLF, but since they affect back-focus, you may need a clear one as well and have the back-focus set for always having a filter behind the lens. At least, you can do this on the Genesis camera.
 
Content

Content

David Mullen ASC said:
Just depends on how hungry you get...
I had limits when I started out, I didn't want to shoot anything too sleazy, too exploitative. And I didn't want to work for people like that.
Click to expand...

I apologize in advance to Roberto and Shawn for taking up valuable technical space (I read your posts as much as Mr. Mullen's). For arguments sake let us say that content is more important than form.:smile5: But only for a moment...

David, because you are so learned (your book has been the most comprehensive and helpful) and successful in your profession, would you mind expanding on the reasons you would not shoot films that are too exploitative? For example, if asked by Argento would you have shot Suspiria?

...I do not wish for any backlash. Everyone will please ignore the question if it is unanswerable in this forum.
With much respect, JTM
 
David,

could you tell me the best resources to get to learn all about cinematography in a in depth and solid way? Everything from purchasing a camera to what is the best editing software to how to do effects ect? Be it books, textbooks, websites, ect just not a film school for me at this time thanks!!!
 
So are there other MB's that I should consider?

Or are you suggesting that using a combo IR + ND with the Pola and Grad would do the trick by itself? In that case, in order to retain full flexibility, I suppose we'd have to rent all of our ND's as IR combos, and still get a clear IR for when we don't need ND's. Right?
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
So are there other MB's that I should consider?
Click to expand...

Another reason for "Panavising" MY RED...

Or are you suggesting that using a combo IR + ND with the Pola and Grad would do the trick by itself? In that case, in order to retain full flexibility, I suppose we'd have to rent all of our ND's as IR combos, and still get a clear IR for when we don't need ND's. Right?
Click to expand...

To retain flexibility, you would need ND without IR as well. Do you really need the IR filter? Can you test shoot w/o IR to tell?
I'm curious as to what you are shooting that requires so much filtration.

The grad on top of ND (more stop loss) PLUS the Pola AND IR... that's a lot of loss... even for snow...
 
It's a lot, but in direct sunlight on a clear day, sometimes putting an ND1.2 on a Red camera rated at 320 ASA "only" gets you down to a 20 ASA -- which is about an f/8-11 split (the "sunny 16 rule" says that at 50 ASA at 1/50th of a second, the f-stop in direct sunlight is f/16.)

Roberto, I don't have a good solution for you, mattebox wise. It's just something to watch out for. If I were about to buy a mattebox, I'd spend some time looking at each physically and seeing what my options were to sandwich filters and tilt them in an emergency. But as my last two shows were Panavision and my next one is, right now I don't need to spend the time doing that research. I just know that I think it's a basic weakness in design for most matteboxes.

As for IR's and ND's, the ideal situation is to be covered with both separate IR and ND's, and combos as well. But that's a lot of filters. Personally, I'd probably just get the ND/IR combos and a straight IR as well, or I'd figure that the IR problem only gets bad on hot days with a lot of ND in the mattebox, not in cold, snowy days with almost no ND, so I'd just get an IR/ND.9 combo and IR/ND1.2 combo and figure if the light is only bright enough to need an ND.6 or lighter, it probably doesn't need IR filtering.

A little IR pollution isn't the end of the world now and then...
 
Jacob Meaux said:
David, because you are so learned (your book has been the most comprehensive and helpful) and successful in your profession, would you mind expanding on the reasons you would not shoot films that are too exploitative? For example, if asked by Argento would you have shot Suspiria?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen "Suspiria" so I can't answer that for sure, but I'm not sure it's considered an exploitation film, which I define as something with a lot of graphic sex and/or violence but without artistic merit or intent. I think a lot of people would say that "Suspiria" has artistic merit.

But this is a personal decision, the things I find uncomfortable to shoot are not the same things everyone else would find uncomfortable. The things I find having artistic merit despite having sex and violence are not the same things other people would find having artistic merit.

But since I find sex and extreme violence difficult to shoot, I have to feel it is artistically interesting and motivated by the story, that it serves an artistic purpose and vision, as opposed to the usual point of exploitation, to merely arose and titillate the audience, to only appeal to baser instincts.

But I'm also a bit of a prude compared to some other people so not everyone is going to have the same line that they won't cross (and the line is not fixed either... I can read some script that I worry is exploitative but after talking to the director, I get convinced that it won't be.)
 
It would take a book to explain that...

Seriously there are a lot of reasons you move the camera.

You move the camera to follow the action or the actor. You move the camera to direct the eye to what's important at that moment. You move the camera to reveal a new piece of information. You move the camera to create a dimension effect that serves the emotional experience at that moment (let's say, fear of falling...) You move the camera to enhance the energy of the moment. You move the camera in order to avoid making an edit.

John Bailey once wrote that when you move the camera, you often (though not always) weaken the lighting and composition, so what the camera movement adds to the moment has to be worth the effort, it has to replace what it is taking away with something else -- usually energy.

Movement is also like anything else in a movie, an effective device that gets less effective the more you use it, just like a close-up. In other words, if every shot is moving, then the movement itself does not stand out as much, it is not as powerful an effect compared to movement in a relatively static movie. That said, it's not a mistake to move the camera a lot, you just have to understand what it's doing for the scene. Occasionally, too much movement is just like too much noise or color, etc. -- it starts to be distracting. So there is an element of taste involved in using it.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I haven't seen "Suspiria" so I can't answer that for sure, but I'm not sure it's considered an exploitation film, which I define as something with a lot of graphic sex and/or violence but without artistic merit or intent. I think a lot of people would say that "Suspiria" has artistic merit.)
Click to expand...

I have to recommend it then. DP was Luciano Tovoli who recently shot Titus. It is likely only a few scenes are worth watching, but the use of color and lighting in them is impressive and bold in a way that is rarely seen.

As I'm sure you've heard before, thank you for your time and wisdom, this forum is an invaluable resource to budding filmmakers.
JTM

(Funny, the only reason that I didn't turn Shadowboxer off in the middle was for the cinematography)
 
Sorry if you've answered this before. It's such a basic question.

How do you approach lighting a room - for e.g. you enter a room and see the natural light coming in through the windows. Do you take the reading first of the natural light coming in, adjust the F-stop first to accommodate that and then artificially light the interior to bring it up to balance the intensity of the natural light?

I hope I'm clear. Thanks in advance.
 
It depends on the coverage and the amount of time we'll be in that room.

If the natural window light looks right dramatically and emotionally (and correct for the time of day in the script) and my meter tells me that there is enough of it, and it's a short scene or one-shot scene that won't take several hours to shoot, I may not do any lighting, or I may decide I need a bit of fill or one end of the room needs a bit more light, etc.

So yes, I do check the natural light with my meter to see what sort of levels I'm dealing with, though usually it's obvious to my eye.

Other times, I'll recreate the natural effect with lighting through the window because I know the real light won't stay consistent -- maybe clouds are rolling in, or maybe the sun is bouncing off of the opposite building but soon will move off of that wall, etc. Maybe the sun is bouncing off of a red brick wall and then through the window... and the light is too warm for the look I want.

I hate dealing with ND gel on windows so sometimes I will light a room to a middle f-stop level or higher just so that the room is balanced better with the exterior view without needing to gel the windows.
 
David,

If money is no object, what is your absolute favorite camera system to shoot on, and why?

It would probably depend on the film, and you can break it down into different styles, genres. You can just say "65mm" for everything, too.

Particularly, when would you choose digital over film, if money was not a factor? Or wouldn't you? And which system?

Have you also wanted to do a big Natural Born Killers / JFK styled mixed format piece?
 
I like variety more than anything, I want to shoot every format ever invented, past and present.

In the abstract, sure, 5-perf 65mm most of the time would be my preferred choice -- all around beautiful quality, resolution, dynamic range, I like the aspect ratio, etc. Next to that would be 35mm anamorphic.

I could say "IMAX" (15-perf 65mm) but honestly, it is not a great all-around format in terms of different shooting scenarios and I don't really want to be shooting a 4x3 format all the time. And once you start cropping it to widescreen, you might as well shoot 5-perf 65mm.

But I'd love to shoot the right movie in Super-8 if possible.

DV is a bit low on my list, it's low in resolution like Super-8 but without the prettiness, the poetry.

As for HD and all the high-end digital cameras, I don't have a favorite, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. The Red One is awfully close to being my favorite though, if only it had a bit more dynamic range, sensitivity, and less noise in tungsten light -- areas that the F35 / Genesis does a bit better, but they are heavy beasts, which is a problem. So maybe the next generation of Red will seal the deal, though everything constantly changes.

I'm looking forward to my next Red project, whatever that will be, to apply what I've learned and work with the new build and color science.

I'd love to try an Arri D21 someday too, or the SI-2K.

I look for opportunities to try new things out on projects where the new technology seems applicable or appropriate. But that's a bit nebulous. For example, years ago I did a comedy on the F900 because after talking to the director, I got the sense that this would be appropriate -- he wanted things like "deeper focus", "longer takes", we had to cover 11 people in every scene on two cameras, so would be shooting a lot of footage, he didn't want grain, he wanted certain poppier colors... it all sort of pointed towards HD even though the director didn't specify a format.

So I wait until I've talked with the director to get a sense of the sorts of things he likes and doesn't like visually, particularly for the project, before I start talking about the pros and cons of different formats.
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
What would you say are some of the project characteristics that would call out for the use of Red One?
Click to expand...

And if I may attach the inverse, what characteristics would specifically deter you from using RED on a project(other than media-specific characteristics like film-grain...etc.)?
 
Before the spate of 35mm sensor cameras like the Red One, Genesis, Arri D21, Sony F35, it was an easier question to answer... I did eight features on the F900, which could create decent quality cinema images but was distinct from 35mm as well. So one could look at a project and think about whether it would work with that "F900 / Rec 709 look" as opposed to shooting Super-16 or 35mm -- sort of three looks to choose from.

But now the 35mm digital cameras come so much closer to a traditional 35mm look that it's a bit harder to say that a project should be in the "Red look" versus the "35mm look". I'd say grain is one factor -- digital cameras produce a somewhat more "plastic" image due to their smoothness of texture. Dynamic range is another factor; I'd prefer shooting film if I thought I was going to be faced with horrendous contrast problems all the time. Travel may be a factor; I find the thought of dealing with foreign labs and shipping stock to far away countries a bit scary. Sensitivity in tungsten light is another factor -- right now, if I had to do a really low-light tungsten shoot ala the candlelight scenes in "Barry Lyndon", etc., the Red is not at the top of my list, sorry to say.

But most movies have a mix of elements so you tend to pick the camera or system that covers you 80% of the time and figure you'll just figure out a way for the other 20% of the time when the camera isn't quite the best option.

Right now, I do think the grainless look of digital works well for comedies, for example, and even the deeper focus of 2/3" HD cameras can be a benefit for some types of comedy where jokes are funnier when staged in depth with layers of simultaneous action.

I thought the b&w photography of "Tetro" was pretty good, shot on the F900 but recorded 4:2:2 to external HDCAM-SR decks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top