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

I believe that they set up the Arri cameras so that the shutters were "incorrectly" synchronized with the pull down, but only to a certain extent, so that by changing the shutter angle (cameras had variable shutters) you could dial the effect in or out.

Didn't seem to start much of a trend as I haven't seen it much since.

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.

They didn't use it on BAND OF BROTHERS or PACIFIC - at least I haven't seen it.

Also by reducing the shutter angle to 90 or 45 degrees, they were able to get a sharp, non-blurring effect on the action and explosion debris. They felt that this emulated the shutter on the Bell and Howell Eyemos that were used during WW2 but I don't remember that my Eyemos had narrow or adjustable shutters. It's a hyped up, tense effect.

As I recall, the shutter adjustment made a horrible ratcheting sound that was frightening - like you thought you'd broken something but that was normal, as Joe says.
 
Yes, out of sync shutter. Had that problem unintentionally on my first feature back in 1992 so I got to learn all about it...

The film starts advancing to the next frame before the shutter has finished closing over the previous frame, causing the last bit of exposure (the brightest parts of the image) to become vertically blurred.

You can test this in a camera by taking a dummy roll and drawing a squiggly line down the roll with a sharpie then loading the film in the camera. If the shutter is in sync properly, and you look at the film in the gate by removing the lens, and then manually inching the film forward, you shouldn't see the line move at all when the frame is uncovered by the shutter. But if the shutter is out of sync, then just as the shutter is closing over the gate, you see that squiggly line start to move.
 
Thomas Wright said:
Trying to achieve a look must be a creative decision, and that's why we get involved. Do you go with trying to get a film look or do you try to imagine something more now with all the power that the technology has provided David?
Click to expand...

I believe in getting most of it in camera and then finishing it in post. Sort of a 50/50 approach though not quite that breakdown -- bake some of the look into the original but give yourself a little leeway to finish or alter the strength of the effect in post. Like using half-blue for moonlight and then making it bluer or less blue in post to taste.

The thing is that if the original has some of the intended look built into it, it will be more clear in post what the effect is supposed to be, especially during the months of editing before the final color-correction.
 
Ariel Weiss said:
Hi David
Thank you for your time and knowledge.
With the gearnex(www.gearnex.com) price I can consider a gear head and want to ask what do you prefer, fluid or gear? or doe's it depend on the shot? Have you tried or heard about this particular make?
Thank you alot
Click to expand...

I haven't tied Gearnex.

Basically a geared head takes inertia out of the mix (somewhat) -- on a fluid head, a movement wants to keep on moving so stopping at precise moments on a dime is harder to do. Plus with a heavy camera, at some point in an extreme tilt or something, the mass will push on the head and you will be fighting it. So geared head moves tend to be a bit more precise though robotic, fluid head moves tend to be looser but more organic, you sense more the living presence of the operator to some extent, the move is less mechanical-looking. So some of this is simply a look issue, but the other is the fact that the geared head can handle the weight of the camera better -- for example, if you do a fast dolly-in on a fluid head, there is a tendency for the camera to bobble when it comes to a stop due to inertia. Now you could crank up the counterbalance in the head to compensate but that can create other problems because now you may be fighting against that.

When cameras were the size of refrigerators, a geared head was really the only feasible way of operating the camera. Now that cameras are lighter and smaller, it's less of an issue though smaller geared heads are a good idea in theory.
 
Andrew Huse said:
Hello David.
am looking to buy an Arri ST5 Studio Fresnel 5000W Tungsten light, (along with some flo-light LEDs) for use with my 5d/7d and shoot some shorts this summer. I'm worried about power...I'm going to be shooting mostly in peoples houses. Is 5000 watts going to blow the circuit? How am I going to power this monster? Most residence homes seem to be able to reach ~2000 watts but anymore would require a speacial plug or something. Does this Arri Plug into a standard outlet or require a special plug?
Click to expand...

Generally in the U.S. you should round off your calculations and figure that you can use 100w for every amp available, so a 10 amp circuit allows you to use a 1000w light and a 20 amp circuit allows you to use a 2000w light (or two 1000w lamps, etc.). Check the breaker box to see how many amps per circuit you have -- generally a modern house will have 20 amp circuits. Also keep in mind that multiple outlets may share a single circuit.

You lose nearly two stops of light when you use a Full CTB gel.
 
Two quick questions about film:

What's the difference between pushing a stop and printing a stop brighter? I imagine pushing a stop involves soaking the negative in one of its baths for a longer amount of time to wear off more of the emulsion and printing a stop brighter just means exposing the answer print twice as long, but are both methods used and what's the advantage of each grain/contrast-wise?

Lastly, I was messing around with my (very) old Nikon F and I noticed that when I removed the viewfinder/pentaprism/light meter assembly that the ground glass was a fully 3D/stereoscopic image. What gives? This is the most entertaining thing since I looked at my lcd monitor through a linear polarizer and waved translucent objects in front of it.
 
Thomas Wright said:
Out of phase shutter, I think you can dial it in on the Millenium XL. Wicked use of it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIIxlgcuQRU

You can see the crew and the PV boxes so I assume that's how they did it
Click to expand...

That looks more like a filter in front of the lens than an out of phase shutter.
First, the streak goes up and down. 2nd, the streak is consistent.
I could be wrong. Just my first impression.
 
Hello David,

Forgive me if this has been asked before, but...

If you were going to buy a 2/3" Scarlet, which would you buy, the fixed version, the one with the mini primes and which primes would you get, or one with either a PL/Nikon/or Canon mount?

Thank-you for your reply.
 
Ryan Sims said:
That looks more like a filter in front of the lens than an out of phase shutter.
First, the streak goes up and down. 2nd, the streak is consistent.
I could be wrong. Just my first impression.
Click to expand...

I still reckon OOPS, after watching it again, I did think it might be a streak filter but the way the mid to highlights drag too makes me think OOPS, the film is dragged vertically through the gate, hence vertical streaks.

http://www.panavision.co.uk/pdf/dow...llennium-xl-out-of-phase-shutter-examples.pdf

I love the effect, it'd be really cool if this could be included in the next build if possible.
 
Matt W. said:
Two quick questions about film:

What's the difference between pushing a stop and printing a stop brighter? I imagine pushing a stop involves soaking the negative in one of its baths for a longer amount of time to wear off more of the emulsion and printing a stop brighter just means exposing the answer print twice as long, but are both methods used and what's the advantage of each grain/contrast-wise?

Lastly, I was messing around with my (very) old Nikon F and I noticed that when I removed the viewfinder/pentaprism/light meter assembly that the ground glass was a fully 3D/stereoscopic image. What gives? This is the most entertaining thing since I looked at my lcd monitor through a linear polarizer and waved translucent objects in front of it.
Click to expand...

You're asking about underexposing one stop and then either push-processing by one stop to restore the density of the negative to normal, and thus printing at close to normal printer light numbers... versus developing normal and thus getting a thin negative and then using lower printer light numbers to compensate.

Either way you get more grain. Pushing increases contrast though and at higher printer light numbers, you get better blacks in the print (though as you push more heavily, you get an increase in base fog level.) Printing up a thinner negative, you get weaker blacks and thus it looks less contrasty.

You get a little color shifting with push-processing and some colors can look more intense.

Can't answer the second.
 
Felix C said:
If you were going to buy a 2/3" Scarlet, which would you buy, the fixed version, the one with the mini primes and which primes would you get, or one with either a PL/Nikon/or Canon mount?
Click to expand...

Depends on my budget and what I plan on using the Scarlet for. One reason to get the Scarlet with the fixed lens, besides the price and that it's ready to shoot faster, is for a "b camera" in a tight situation like a car interior.

But for general filmmaking, it depends on if you feel you can live with the speed of the fixed zoom and the range of focal lengths.

Recently I was at my old film school and talking to the equipment cage people and they said they got some EX1's and EX3's and in retrospect, they should have gotten more EX1's than EX3's because then with the savings they could have gotten an extra EX1 and most students were just using the stock zoom on the EX3 anyway, they weren't taking advantage of the interchangeable lens option.
 
David, I see you didn't comment on NAB. One thing I'd like to mention, I seem to recall you saying part of your problem with HMIs is that there aren't good small fixtures, well check out the new little HMIs by Dedo light. I saw their 200w, 400/575w and 800/1200w fixtures and was really impressed, amazing little dedo-type fresnels.
 
Shawn Nelson said:
David, I see you didn't comment on NAB. One thing I'd like to mention, I seem to recall you saying part of your problem with HMIs is that there aren't good small fixtures, well check out the new little HMIs by Dedo light. I saw their 200w, 400/575w and 800/1200w fixtures and was really impressed, amazing little dedo-type fresnels.
Click to expand...

I've been very busy shooting in Chicago and missed NAB and most of the talk.

Yes, Dedo HMI's look interesting to me, as well as these new Litepanals LED fresnel-type fixtures.

Trouble is that many rental houses don't carry them, or any odd fixtures, so it's a separate rental, which line producers don't like.
 
In your opnion, What's more important for a TV/Film Director

1) knowing how to tell the story in post production and understanding how the post process works including color grading and finishing.

2) Knowing about how cameras work, lenses and lighting to get a certain mood and how to stage shots to give the most emotional impact?

I understand its important to know both, but is there an emphasis I should focus more on?
 
You have to know both.

Assuming the script works, directing involves telling stories using cinematic tools -- shot size, shot movement, composition, use of light & shadow, editing, and sound design. Not to mention knowing acting and performances.

So a director's responsibilities are in prep, shooting, and post.

Now in terms of post, I'd say that a director has to understand editing and sound design, they don't necessarily have to become experts in grading and mixing, not at the same technical level as a colorist or mixer.

A director Alexander Mackendrick once said (a bit paranoid perhaps) that a director has to understand just enough technology to know when the technicians are lying to him. He also said that directors are easily seduced by technology partly because technical problems are easier than human, emotional problems are to deal with, so being obsessed with technology is a way for a director to avoid his primary responsibility: dealing with actors.

But from a practical level, filmmaking is still garbage in, garbage out -- how you shoot it can't entirely fix a weak script, how you edit and grade it can't entirely fix bad performances, bad shot design, bad lighting.

On the other hand, you can't really know how to cover a scene properly if you don't know editing.

But if you are asking whether you need to know how to grade an image on a Mac using Apple Color, etc. there are a lot more important things to learn as a director than that.
 
Hi David,

I have to do a green screen, slow motion shot, of a beer bottle cap flying/twisting in the air, for a TV commercial. Any pointers how I would shoot this? Light this?
I have my RED, I have a Green Screen, I have the RED zooms (18-50 and 50-150), and I can rent some lights. How/what would you suggest I go about shooting this?
Thanks again.
 
Unless you want to deal with synced strobes (never have tried this) I suggest you get a lot of light, preferably daylight balanced (such as HMI's), though the greenscreen itself can be lit with Kino greenscreen tubes -- you want a deep stop when shooting small objects to hold focus plus you want to shorten your shutter speed a bit to get crisper per-frame motion so you see the flipping cap clearly. In terms of lighting, I'm sure some soft backlight would be nice on a metal cap...
 
Thanks David for the tips, will let you know how it turns out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top