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

At 24P, 25P, and 30P, there's not much difference in look between 1/48, 1/50, and 1/60 -- they are close to each other so it just depends on the level of motion in the frame, which is variable. If you shoot 24P with a 90 degree shutter angle (so 1/96, nearly 1/100) even that's fairly subtle until there is a lot of movement, so 1/60 is certain around a normal look at those frame rates. 24P at 144 degree shutter is 1/60 and it's often used for dealing with pulsing AC sources, NTSC TV sets, etc.

If you shot film at 30 fps, most of the time it would be with a 180 degree shutter, so 1/60 is the most common shutter speed for that frame rate.
 
Hi David,
How often do you use smoke/fog on the set when shooting, and in what situations would you find it useful? I've heard that using a little bit of fog in certain indoor shots can create a subtle feeling of depth. I'd like to get your thoughts on this. Thanks!
 
Smoke is hard to work with, hard to maintain the same levels all day long, hard to get even, so you tend to only use it when it really helps to create the right look -- mainly to see shafts of light, which is why it's used more for day interior (or moonlit) scenes and not night scenes with table lamps on (sometimes the bulb lights up the smoke and it can look like the lamp is on fire unless the haze is really even.)

You also use it in night scenes where haze makes sense, like a bar where people are smoking. It's also used in rooms that might be very humid, like in a bathroom while someone it taking a bath or shower, or in a steam room.
 
I smoked most of the day interiors in "Astronaut Farmer" but after the actors started complaining about breathing smoke, I did a few scenes with a Tiffen Smoque filter for some relief. You don't get the shafts of light and if someone blocks the light source causing the halation, the effect disappears, but it's good for a few shots like this:

af10.jpg


I got the Tiffen Smoque filter initially for one reason -- since smoke is dimensional, when the camera is very close to the subject, like an insert, there is no smoke effect, so the shot looks cleaner than the wide shots. So I used the Smoque filter for shooting inserts in day scenes to match the feeling of the smoked rooms.
 
Hi David,

When you shoot RED1 at up 120 fps - the specs say one can only do this at 2K - is the image cropped? If it is and in other scenarios where the image is cropped relative to the lens FOV, how do you approach this?

Gregory
 
I'm in my final week of prep to shoot Season Two of Showtime's "United States of Tara", which will go towards the end of October.

---

Yes, 3K and 2K modes are cropped from the full sensor, so you have to compensate by picking shorter focal lengths. For the conversion from 4K to 2K, it's easy to calculate, you'd use half the focal length to compensate and maintain FOV. There is a loss of resolution obviously which is why if you can use 3K (and not get as high a frame rate) instead of 2K, you'll get better results.
 
David,

I'm a long-time reader of this thread, and it has been an invaluable learning tool. But it's now my turn to ask a question because I have a situation that needs remedied.

I've been fooling around more recently with different combinations of filters and have actually been smearing a UV filter with a light oil (usually just from my own finger) to produce hazy, softening effects (even faking horizontal flares with vertical smearing on the filter). But I just bought a B+W Soft Image filter in hopes of getting some nice soft, hazy images with "halos" around hot spots, much like the frequently discussed techniques employed by Kaminski in many of his works.

Now, I just tested the filter out (I'm shooting on a dvx-100a), and the results were awful. Every circle in the filter is visible on screen unless I go to the longest focal length. Even then, the results are not very flattering. The image is barely softened and I don't get good halation. Do you have any tips for me in regards to working with this filter, or would I be better off leaving it behind? (If you need images, I can post some).
 
Brian Harbauer said:
Jon, is this the only filter you have on the camera? Or is this just one in a stack, and if so, what order?
Click to expand...

Hi Brian. Right now, it's the only filter screwed onto the front of the DVX. I suppose another filter under it might help. But from what it seems, the DVX is producing too much DOF and rendering all of the filter's diffusing circles visible.

Any ideas?
 
Unfortunately, I just found a shooting comparison among many different diffusion filters, including all of B+W's. Turns out that the Soft Image (655) filter that I bought renders the most noticeable circular pattern in the image. This is disconcerting. I suppose that's what I get for trying out a cheaper filter. I surely would have gone for better glass if I had the money to spare (the woe's of college, I suppose).

Also, the image is certainly helped by adding either a UV or even Circ. polarizer under the B+W. I still have to be on a long focal length for it to be of any use. It does, however, create an interesting effect. I'll upload a screen grab in a moment.
 
With a circular polarizer underneath the B+W:

Wide

soft_3.jpg


Medium-long

soft_1.jpg


Longer

soft_2.jpg


soft_4.jpg


I'm just not satisfied at all with these images. I added sharpness in post just for the sake of seeing how the image would hold up, but the filter just isn't what I was hoping for out of the box.
 
I feel as if I'm better off using Magic Bullet for diffusion as I usually do, like in the case of this test shot for an upcoming short I'm doing:

surreal_54.jpg


Thoughts?
 
Hi David,
Thanks again for taking time to answer these threads. I don't know how you find time to do it!

I was wondering If at all or how often you use ellipsoidals to simulate a hot sun effect, maybe if you're on location and not able to put a large HMI outside the window or there doesn't happen to be a window. i know you used them somewhat in Manure for a skylight effect. Have you used them in a window frame pattern and if so, do you create that on set or use a gobo? i know that there can be some color fringing issues if it's not focused correctly.

thanks.
 
If you can afford to spend the time processing all of your shots for a digital diffusion effect, then that may be the best approach for you if you are shooting in DV. I find, though, that some of the "glow" software tricks tend to also cause highlights to clip faster.

With the deep focus of 1/3" DV, you're better off with "mist" type diffusion (ProMist, etc.) rather than something with a visible pattern of lenslets in the glass.

Tiffen and Schneider both make "digital" versions of some of their diffusion filters with a smaller pattern that is less obvious, but you still need to avoid stopping down. Even with a Black ProMist, if you stop down too much, it looks like you have dust on the lens.
 
Michael Epple said:
Hi David,
I was wondering If at all or how often you use ellipsoidals to simulate a hot sun effect, maybe if you're on location and not able to put a large HMI outside the window or there doesn't happen to be a window. i know you used them somewhat in Manure for a skylight effect. Have you used them in a window frame pattern and if so, do you create that on set or use a gobo? i know that there can be some color fringing issues if it's not focused correctly.
Click to expand...

In this scene from "Big Love", I used Source-4 lights inside the room to get the bright slashes of hard light:

biglove11.jpg


biglove12.jpg


The color fringe is sort of unavoidable to some extent, though I sometimes justify it as being caused by the window glass that the light is supposedly going through.

I haven't tried internal window pattern gobos yet. Putting pattern shapes in front of the Source-4 light tends not to work well for getting sharp patterns.
 
Practicals

Practicals

Hi David,

These look great. At what colour temperature were you shooting? The reason why I ask is that the practical lamp seems to be outputting quite a bit of useful light. If you were shooting daylight balanced, what kind of fixture was in the practical?

Gregory
 
David Mullen ASC said:
If you can afford to spend the time processing all of your shots for a digital diffusion effect, then that may be the best approach for you if you are shooting in DV. I find, though, that some of the "glow" software tricks tend to also cause highlights to clip faster.

With the deep focus of 1/3" DV, you're better off with "mist" type diffusion (ProMist, etc.) rather than something with a visible pattern of lenslets in the glass.

Tiffen and Schneider both make "digital" versions of some of their diffusion filters with a smaller pattern that is less obvious, but you still need to avoid stopping down. Even with a Black ProMist, if you stop down too much, it looks like you have dust on the lens.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the reply!

I figured as much. This is definitely the biggest problem, the "dust or water on the lens" look from shorter focal lengths. Hmm...I have plenty of methods for cutting light so that I can open the aperture up, but I'm wondering if I'd be able to make use of the HD ProMist filters at shorter focal lengths. Seems that it would end up as a fairly limited piece of equipment if it can only be used from a certain length on.

I also find that, depending on the shot, digital diffusion does clip the highlights quickly. I might look into a digital ProMist and give it a quick try. If the results are unfavorable, it's back to Magic Bullet for me.

Once again, thanks a bunch for your opinion. It's greatly appreciated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top