Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[David Mullen ASC]

Can you give more information on these Chinese Lanterns you mention? I can't find exactly what you mean, and any lantern I've seen has really inconsistent light. Are you referring to something specific?

Just your basic white round paper lantern like you see at CostPlus or Ikea:
http://www.paperlanternstore.com/evriropala.html

They have just a standard Edison light bulb socket on the end of a cord. I usually make a porcelain socket though from a hardware store because the plastic sockets in theory shouldn't have anything more than a 60w bulb in them, though I've used brighter bulbs than that. With a porcelain socket, I feel comfortable putting a 250w or 500w photoflood in them.

I'm not sure what you mean by inconsistent light though. It's just a light bulb inside a paper ball!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I hope this hasn't been asked. I did several searches but nothing came up so I think I'm safe!

Do you have any idea what the exact lenses Robert Yeoman uses on Wes Anderson's films... and are these lenses usable on a RED?

Thank you!

"Bottle Rocket" was shot in flat 35mm 1.85, mostly with a 27mm Panavision Primo prime lens. The others were shot in anamorphic 35mm 2.40, mostly with a 40mm Panavision Primo anamorphic. He also mixes in zoom lens shots when he wants a deliberately obvious zoom.

You'd have to convert your Red to use a Panavision (PV) mount to use Primo lenses, which are rental only from Panavision. Otherwise, you could use PL-mount lenses of the same focal lengths I mentioned. 40mm is a common anamorphic focal length, though because the sensor area for anamorphic on the Red is smaller than on a 4-perf 35mm negative, you'd have to compensate by using a shorter focal length. I believe in an another thread, we calculated that a 28mm anamorphic on the Red ANA mode is similar in FOV to a 40mm anamorphic on a 4-perf 35mm camera.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

David,
What are your thoughts on Antique Suede, Tobacco, Golden Sepia and Sahara Gold filters? Have you used any of them?

Dipping back into that 'in camera' vs post argument, since these filters arent actually optically changing the light like a diffusion lens (Classic Soft, BPM, etc) and are merely coloring it, is it worth it in your estimation to go down one of these routes?

Thanks

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Generally I don't use warming filters because that's easy to add in post, but one advantage to the filter is just that you immediately get the effect and it will be there in dailies without needing color-correction.

Now if you want a really heavy effect, then I can see using the filter rather than heavily push the color channels in post to get a strong bias.

Though in the case of the Red, it's easy to warm up the image in post -- it's blue-ing it up that is more problematic.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

David, if you were to shoot a winter project, what camera would you pick? If it had to be digital, which camera would you pick then? Would you feel comfortable shooting with upgraded R1-X's?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

The Red with the new sensor would be great to use. The main advantages of the other 35mm digital cameras (i.e. F35 & Genesis) were the lower noise in tungsten, the higher sensitivity, and the greater dynamic range, and to get all of that, you put up with a heavier and more expensive camera... but the new sensor gets rid of those problems/differences and you get the advantages of the R1's smaller size & weight -- and cost.

 

[PhilosopherKing]

David,

Just a quick question, I apologize if this topic has been covered already.

I've been shooting now for several years doing indie features, music videos and commercials. I've been making a living at it; but the material I get offered to shoot is rarely any good. All too often I get approached by a first time director with a bit of money but no clue how to make a movie. I generally shoot anything I get offered; but I'm not sure if I should. Do you think shooting a good looking "bad" movie hurts you more than helps, or vice versa?

Thank you for your time and fantastic insights.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

That opens a big can of worms, how to advance to better projects. There are always times in your life that you have to go where the work is, whether or not it will be satisfying photographically, just to pay the bills and increase your contacts and resume. Plus you never know, some projects turn out better than you would have guessed.

At selective points in your life, you do have to make "course corrections" to veer or steer away from a direction you aren't satisfied with. It may mean holding out for better work for as long as possible, despite the financial burden, or taking a worse-paying job over a better-paying job because the worse-paying one will be more interesting photographically.

To some degree, it is also luck -- a lot of DP's move up with directors who move up, and sometimes you hitch your wagon to a rising star and sometimes you don't, you never know. All you can do in the meanwhile is always do the best work for anyone who hires you, no matter what the pay or circumstances are. Because you never know which of your projects will be the one that everyone sees, so you can't risk "blowing one off", you have to give 100%.

But when the right project comes along that will allow you to "sing" with your cinematography, then jump on it.

After film school, I got lucky and started shooting low-budget indie features right away, starting with fellow graduates. But after about 12 features, many of them straight-to-cable genre thrillers, I was worried about becoming one of those DP's who just shoots that stuff. And I was lucky, the bad movies I was shooting sometimes were not in poor taste or exploitive -- I would get calls from DP's who were 20 years older than me wanting to shoot second unit on my little thrillers rather than shoot another women-in-prison softcore flick. At least I wasn't shooting bikini car wash movies and whatnot, just boring family-in-jeapordy movies that ended up on Lifetime.

So after a number of those films, I decided to concentrate on shooting films that might end up at film festivals, art house fare. That paid off when I shot my 13th feature, "Twin Falls Idaho". Though it only cost $500,000 to make, in 17 days, it got into Sundance, it got me an agent, and it got me a Spirit Award nomination -- plus it was released theatrically. But it paid much worse than what I was shooting at the time, and for three or so years after that, I actually made less money. In fact, in 2001, I think I made only $2000 total for the year! This was because I was waiting for another art movie to get off the ground, "Northfork". I lost a lot of money because that movie kept getting pushed, over a year and a half period. And when it finally did shoot in 2002, I was only paid $5000 total for the entire feature, after hardly working for nearly two years.

But that movie got me another Spirit Award nomination, it was released theatrically, it has a major cast, and the artistic merit of it was enough to propel me into the ASC, though I wasn't even a union member yet (though I did have 23 features to my name by then, but the most expensive was "Northfork" at only 1.5-mil.) But that movie gave me the days to get into the union, and the director's next job was going to be a union shoot, so I joined the IA in 2003. That led to better-paying union features.

But lately I'm in a similar quandary as you, just on a larger scale -- the midrange feature world has shrunk just as I was climbing up it, my last few features were not well-reviewed (not for the photography, just overall), and I get more calls now for television and cable work (which is good, of course). But at some point, I have to decide whether I need to redirect my career back towards features, even though television has its own rewards. I don't know.

 

[MichaelHalsell]

David what is the 'midrange feature' market? Is the compression connected directly/indirectly with the current economic trends? And is this a temporary condition?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

David what is the 'midrange feature' market? Is the compression connected directly/indirectly with the current economic trends? And is this a temporary condition?

In my own book, pretty much any union feature made by the studios for under 20 million more or less, primarily that 5-mil to 15-mil range that the indie divisions of the studios were making before they closed shop.

Why did they close shop? Mainly because no matter what they spent, they were averaging only 10-mil or so in box office receipts, or less (that's just a wild figure, I just mean that they weren't pulling in enough money). And they say that it costs a minimum of 3-mil these days in p&a (prints and advertising) to open any movie theatrically.

On the other hand, distributors at Sundance last week were apparently complaining that the severe drop in midrange indie production has left them with mainly micro-budget movies to buy, with no-name casts, etc. With even a smaller chance of making much money on these movies, and they are harder to market.

The problem is that few distributors want to buy a tiny movie and make back on average under 1-mil in profits, especially if they have to spend 3-mil on p&a for a theatrical.

Anyway, one of the side effects of the downturn in production is that A-list DP's are going after smaller movies. I find myself in the lobby sitting next to Academy Award nominees at job interviews for small movies...

There are a number of factors in play -- the downturn in the overall economy and the lack of credit, years of indie movies underperforming at the box office, the unrest with SAG and that potential strike that didn't happen (but cause a defacto near-shutdown.)

On the other hand, slow years are usually followed by busy years because distributors want product.

 

[MichaelHalsell]

....
Anyway, one of the side effects of the downturn in production is that A-list DP's are going after smaller movies. I find myself in the lobby sitting next to Academy Award nominees at job interviews for small movies...

David forgive my naivety about the feature film industry, but regarding interviewing for projects, what is that process like? I would have guessed that based upon someone with similiar credentials as yours, there would be a less formal process than the traditional 'interview'. Could you shed light on qualifications the typical DP candidate would be required to show and/or what the projects decision maker would be looking for?

2nd question: Let's say on set as a DP, you and the director are not having a good chemistry, not seeing eye to eye in a significant way. Does one acquiesce by 'pulling back' or is standing ground the better approach?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Job interviews have been the same for me ever since I left film school -- you sit down for a meeting with the director and producers. Usually they have already sent you a script, so you come prepared with some ideas. And they have already seen your reel by this point, and have looked at your resume.

The only thing that has changed is that scripts are now sent by email and many DP's have their reels online instead of on DVD (I haven't done that yet.)

You interview them as much as they interview you, to find out if you really want to work for them and to get a sense of what they expect. I try to get the director to exchange thoughts with me in a back-and-forth rather than just tell him my ideas up front -- I don't want to say "I see this movie as blue" only to have him say "I see it as orange" when I'm finished speaking. I don't want to drift completely off the mark. So I come prepared with ideas but I remain flexible to keying off the director's vision once he or she opens up about it.

You also discuss some basic logistics like how many shooting days, where the movie will be shot, possible cast members, etc. They want to get a sense that you are organized, fast, and professional.

You also discuss technical issues like digital cameras, etc. as long as you avoid "geeking out" as I am prone to do, not remembering everyone is as interested in this stuff as I am.

Sometimes I'll bring in some artwork as examples of ideas I have, but sometimes I end up never showing it.

---

On the set, it's important to not undermine the director's authority so you have to watch how you resolve disagreements. Ultimately they are in charge so they have the final word. Probably the only time I really have an issue is when they want me to shoot a shot that won't come out because they don't want to listen to me that it's too dark to shoot. This is more of an issue when shooting film though. In HD, at least I can show them what is going on.

Otherwise, when it comes to creative disagreements, not technical issues, I will explain my reasons as best as I can in a calm manner, that's the best I can do.

I've had only a few projects where the collaboration was less than successful, mainly because the director was inconsistent and uncommunicative, so I could never get in sync with them since they constantly changed their minds about what they wanted and what the look was. But you have to keep in mind that the director is under a lot of pressure, and he may be taking out performance problems or script problems out on the DP or the crew as a way of venting frustration or in some panicked way of saving the project through technical tricks to overcome the acting or writing problems. You'll find that when the script is good and the actors are good, generally the production runs along more smoothly because the main components are working.

 

[Tyler Black]

Hi David,

I have done many many shoot with primarily a 1200 and 575 HMI... then filling in holes with color corrected tungsten. I would like to move up to 4K and 12K units for daylight interiors. I can only assume it would look better, having never used them. The lens diameter is larger and obviously the larger output has benefits. Can you describe the visual benefits of bumping up to larger instruments so I can better fight for them when the project warrants their use?

Thanks as always, David.

 

[Brad Webb]

But lately I'm in a similar quandary as you, just on a larger scale -- the midrange feature world has shrunk just as I was climbing up it, my last few features were not well-reviewed (not for the photography, just overall), and I get more calls now for television and cable work (which is good, of course). But at some point, I have to decide whether I need to redirect my career back towards features, even though television has its own rewards. I don't know.

As far as Television shows go, they usually have a 4-5 season shelf live. You can always ride those out, and then decide to redirect your career when those end.

 

[Matt W.]

I hate to be that guy, but could you take a look at my demo reel in my signature? I'm moving to LA in a few weeks and am going to try to get some grip work to support myself (though so far DPing has been a net loss; heh)... I'm just trying to put something decent together and maybe support myself (until I go to grad school--fingers crossed on getting in)--so I could really use some professional input.

Sorry in advance for the dance music.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Hi David,

I have done many many shoot with primarily a 1200 and 575 HMI... then filling in holes with color corrected tungsten. I would like to move up to 4K and 12K units for daylight interiors. I can only assume it would look better, having never used them. The lens diameter is larger and obviously the larger output has benefits. Can you describe the visual benefits of bumping up to larger instruments so I can better fight for them when the project warrants their use?

Thanks as always, David.

You use larger lights to light larger spaces from further back so that the fall-off across the room is not as dramatic as a smaller light closer to the subject. This makes it easier to recreate natural daylight effects.

For example, if you have a large window in a living room and outside you want to put a 8'x8' frame of diffusion and fill it with an HMI, probably a 1200w is not going to do it (maybe four together would). Nor would a 1200w fill a large window with a single hard light to simulate the sun (though backed-up, it would fill the large window to simulate the moon at night.) However, in a closer shot, a 1200w with a narrower lens, coming through a smaller window, would create a nice hot rim light on someone.

I would move up to the next sized units, like a 2500w, 4K, and 6K, to see what they can do for you. 12K/18K HMI fresnels are very bulky & heavy units so you need the manpower (and power) to use them.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I hate to be that guy, but could you take a look at my demo reel in my signature? I'm moving to LA in a few weeks and am going to try to get some grip work to support myself (though so far DPing has been a net loss; heh)... I'm just trying to put something decent together and maybe support myself (until I go to grad school--fingers crossed on getting in)--so I could really use some professional input.

Sorry in advance for the dance music.

Looks pretty stylish at times, lighting-wise. I would cut it down, cut out the most flat-lit shots (like the three guys sitting at the table, or the closer shot of the girl on the streets with the two guys), anything too ordinary or boring, and drop the dialogue, make it all tighter.

 

[Matt W.]

Thanks very much; I'll cut it down just as you suggest. It's 90% hvx so we had to grade it really aggressively to differentiate it from everything else, but I think that helps.

I took one basic technical class on filmmaking at undergrad but not much else, so your posts here and on cinematography.com in particular have been incredibly helpful to me for additional and much-needed technical info. I know we overdid it, but your suggestion of using fog to add depth and reduce contrast was something we always fell back on, and we used nd grads very often for day exteriors. So thank you again for your feedback and your help in the past, too.

 

[Joel Jameson]

Probably the only time I really have an issue is when they want me to shoot a shot that won't come out because they don't want to listen to me that it's too dark to shoot.

David,

More of a REDcentric issue, but for these cases where <insert your favorite reason here> and you are being told to shoot it that way, would you keep a 1/8 or 1/4 blue filter to attempt to help the blue channel, or just shoot it as is and let post deal with it?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Depends on how important the blue channel info is to the shot versus overall exposure.