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

Thank you so much! Hitchcock is already the director who's influenced me most, but I'd never heard of that book and I'll definitely buy it. I personally prefer Spielberg's staging (rivaled only by Lean's, imo) to Hitchcock's, but I feel Hitchcock has the best command of shot choice of any director, especially among montagists.

I'll pick up the other books, too. I'm so excited to see that Alemendros wrote a book on cinematography! I'm very wary of some directing books, though, because they all seem to teach a few specific tricks rather than give a broad overview of staging and coverage, but I guess to some extent it's all tricks and just a matter of how transparently you use them.

Do you think it's possible to learn to direct or DP by working on set and watching movies? I want to get an MFA so much but I don't have the money and I'm at a huge disadvantage admissions-wise because I come from an academic background (BA in film studies; I think you've read a few of my professors' books, actually)--which translates to the rest of the world as boring and pretentious.

Sorry for the rant. Thanks again for the generous help.
 
Last edited:
You can certain devise your own film education, which is what I did -- I didn't go to film school until I was 26 and had already been shooting for a decade.

Basically it's theory & practice -- you watch movies, you read about movies, you make movies to test and practice what you've absorbed through watching and reading, and then repeat over and over again. I created little short films, under 5 minutes, that were teaching exercises for myself -- for example, I did a short that was all about intercutting of simultaneous action in two locations culminating in a climax at the same place, after studying some D.W.Griffith. I did a short that was all about POV and reaction shots, ala "Vertigo". They were all silent films, shot in Super-8. I did a short that was all about graphic hi-con b&w images, silhouettes, etc.

I never had much chance to watch other people shooting so I can't tell you how informative that would have been early on, though I finally got the chance when I did "Big Love" with an alternating DP -- it was really informative to see another DP light the same actors and sets with the same crew.
 
there is a saying that actors know more about directing than directors do, because they WORK WITH MORE directors, and on more projects. Directors just know what they do themselves.

I bet this can be true of Cinematographers as well. Good gaffers, and directors, etc can bring you ideas from other people though, so that helps.

Jeff
 
Choice of stock in White Ribbon

Choice of stock in White Ribbon

Hello David,

Really love your posts on this forum. So much of the information is incredibly useful to young cinematographers! Anyway, I had a quick question regarding the film "The White Ribbon" that was shot by Christian Berger. It looks beautiful and Christian deservedly won many accolades during this year's awards season. However, I found it interesting that he shot Vision 3 250D 5207 and Vision 3 500T 5219 for a black and white film, choosing to drain the color in DI. Do you have any idea why he would have gone this route rather than shooting a Black and White stock like Double-X 5222? Instinctively, I would think that shooting a Black and White stock would produce truer contrast than draining the color out of a color negative in DI; however, the results were quite impressive. Your thoughts are much appreciated - thanks!

Best,

Matthew Mandarano
 
Berger and Roger Deakins have said similar things as to why they chose to shoot in color negative for their b&w movies:

(1) There was a requirement from some of the investors or distributors that a color version of the movie be available for some markets

(2) The fastest b&w negative is commonly Double-X, which is only 200 ASA and much grainier than 500 ASA color negative, plus few labs handle b&w on a regular basis

Other minor issue is that b&w film is more prone to static problems. It uses an mild anti-halation layer rather than a heavy remjet backing as color negative does -- remjet also serves as an anti-static backing and a lubricant to some minor affect.

B&W film has has less exposure latitude, is more prone to halation.

The main thing that is missing in removing color from a color image to achieve a b&w image is silver grain -- a color image is made up of color dye clouds, not grain actually, which is removed in processing (unless you do a skip bleach process.)

Also, scanners are really optimized for color negative, the density of b&w silver can cause some noise problems in certain telecines & scanners if not set-up carefully.

You can increase contrast in a D.I. session, black level is mainly just a function of where you want to set it digitally. There may be some other black level or gamma problems if you plan on filming out to a color negative but printing onto b&w print stock. But I think "The White Ribbon" was printed onto color print stock.

You won't get quite the same halation around points of light if you shoot on color negative. But the main difference is in the grain structure.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Berger and Roger Deakins have said similar things as to why they chose to shoot in color negative for their b&w movies:

(1) There was a requirement from some of the investors or distributors that a color version of the movie be available for some markets

(2) The fastest b&w negative is commonly Double-X, which is only 200 ASA and much grainier than 500 ASA color negative, plus few labs handle b&w on a regular basis

Other minor issue is that b&w film is more prone to static problems. It uses an mild anti-halation layer rather than a heavy remjet backing as color negative does -- remjet also serves as an anti-static backing and a lubricant to some minor affect.

B&W film has has less exposure latitude, is more prone to halation.

The main thing that is missing in removing color from a color image to achieve a b&w image is silver grain -- a color image is made up of color dye clouds, not grain actually, which is removed in processing (unless you do a skip bleach process.)

Also, scanners are really optimized for color negative, the density of b&w silver can cause some noise problems in certain telecines & scanners if not set-up carefully.

You can increase contrast in a D.I. session, black level is mainly just a function of where you want to set it digitally. There may be some other black level or gamma problems if you plan on filming out to a color negative but printing onto b&w print stock. But I think "The White Ribbon" was printed onto color print stock.

You won't get quite the same halation around points of light if you shoot on color negative. But the main difference is in the grain structure.
Click to expand...

WOW! I love this answer. Thank you many times for your expertise.
:thumbup1::thumbup1::thumbup1:
 
I agree with a lot of people that shooting in color and turning it into b&w in post looks different than the "sooty" textured image from real 35mm b&w stocks... it's rather clean, almost sterile sometimes, if you aren't careful about timing in the right amount of contrast to the desaturated color image.

On the other hand, large format b&w photography, like Ansel Adam's 8x10 plate photography, is very sharp and fairly grainless... and it still counts as "real b&w" so I'm not sure I buy the notion that pulling the color out of color negative is somehow a false form of b&w -- it's just a different type of b&w image than something shot on Double-X.
 
That reminds me of how much I used to love shooting Tri-Pan X stills. I had to give it up though when I left school and had no more dark room access. Even the better labs would print the stuff green... Irritated the shit out of me. :-( I digress.
 
Do you know how many stops of Dynamic Range movie film has?

100 ASA? 400 ASA? (sorry if this has been asked before)
 
I always thought B&W negative film had a few more stops of latitude than color negative film. Maybe it is not a case anymore with the most current color negative filmstocks?

Another advantage with doing desaturation in post is that you can adjust the individual RGB values for instance if you wanted more contrast/deeper tones in the skies etc. This gives more control than using red/orange filters on the lens.
 
The RED Pro Primes show a certain amount of nisen bokeh (the double lined bokeh you can see for example around some twigs in the second picture of this post).

Paul Leeming stated that Ultra Primes show the same effect in this post.

Do you know if this a standard side effect of cine lenses? Do Master Primes, Cooke and Panavision lenses have the same problem?

Is there a standard procedure to avoid nisen bokeh or at least diminish it?

Thanks for this wonderful thread, David!
 
Adrian T. said:
The RED Pro Primes show a certain amount of nisen bokeh (the double lined bokeh you can see for example around some twigs in the second picture of this post).

Paul Leeming stated that Ultra Primes show the same effect in this post.

Do you know if this a standard side effect of cine lenses? Do Master Primes, Cooke and Panavision lenses have the same problem?

Is there a standard procedure to avoid nisen bokeh or at least diminish it?

Thanks for this wonderful thread, David!
Click to expand...

Adrian,

I just wrapped on a short using Master Primes and we experienced this 'nisen bokeh'.
 
Adrian T. said:
Do you know if this a standard side effect of cine lenses? Do Master Primes, Cooke and Panavision lenses have the same problem?

Is there a standard procedure to avoid nisen bokeh or at least diminish it?
Click to expand...

I hadn't even heard of "nisen" bokeh until you pointed it out. I don't see it as a particular problem -- remember, we're talking about moving images, and movement is another element that draws the eye, so I'm not sure how many people are going to think much about the nisen bokeh in out of focus f.g. tree branches.

The compression of the photos being posted for the internet could be exaggerating the effect.
 
Helicopter shoot in Nepal question

Helicopter shoot in Nepal question

David,
I am in Nepal and will be hanging out of a helicopter tomorrow trying to get some decent arial footage with a canon 7D. I wanted to bring my Red cam but it ended up just being to heavy to trek around the himalayas with.

I guess I just wanted some pointers on how I should mount/hand hold the camera what lens and frame rate I should use.
we have 18mm Ziess and a 24-70mm L series glass. A couple of bungie cords and some pillows so needless to say it will be a super gorilla style shoot.

I have thirty minuits in this helicopter with a window open to get these pick up shots for my film Light In The Himalayas so I got to make it count. to get an idea of the look of the film up to this point check out www.lightinthehimalayas.com . Everything up to this point has been shot on the HVX 200 using natural light with as much golden hour as possible.

Thanks so much for your thoughts, wish me luck tomorrow.

yaque
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I hadn't even heard of "nisen" bokeh until you pointed it out. I don't see it as a particular problem -- remember, we're talking about moving images, and movement is another element that draws the eye, so I'm not sure how many people are going to think much about the nisen bokeh in out of focus f.g. tree branches.

The compression of the photos being posted for the internet could be exaggerating the effect.
Click to expand...

It only ever seems to appear when we're shooting foliage... very odd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top