PDA

View Full Version : David Mullen (Discussion about DOF)



Jon Schellenger
05-15-2008, 02:28 PM
Okay guys,

I know this has been brought up and I have done my share of research on the forum. I would be interested to hear what everyone is doing on this- and curious to get David Mullen's input.

So here is the deal-

I recently shot the first week of our indie film about the WWII submarine. We were in very tight rooms on board the sub, so there was not much room to move about. We wanted to use as many practicals on the sub as possible. With that in mind, we really could only use the actual fixtures that were already rigged up on the sub. Mostly they were 40 watt bulbs. We asked about changing those out to get something brighter, however, they said the fixtures and wiring on the sub is the original stuff. They said it could be dangerous to change the bulbs out. We certainly did not have the budget to pull them out and replace all wiring.

David and all - if you don't mind, take a look at the post I placed recently in the field testing / footage area. It is still on the first page, and there are several frames that I posted up from our sub movie. For the most part, I really had a pretty good grip on our focus. We did have some amazing lenses. We rented some Arri Ultra Primes - a 14mm, 24mm, 28mm, 32mm, 85mm, and a 135mm. We used the 32mm and the 85mm the most. We shot at 4K, 2.1, 23.98, 2.35, 320 ISO.

I must admit that most of my experience has been with prosumer and broadcast cameras. We all know how the Depth of field is on those. I have used the Red Rock Micro to help me get some good shallow depth of field before. I love shallow depth of field- but holly cow! The 35mm DOF takes some work to get used to.

I really wanted to keep a very low noise level because I knew that I was going to be watching all the highlights and that I knew I was going to be pulling stuff from the shadows. While doing some tests, we found out it worked really well. You really can dig hard into the shadows to find information just as advertised. I just did not want a lot of grain from digging deep into the shadows- so I elected to shoot with the cleanest image I could get. 320 ISO.

With the practicals on the sub, we helped bump up the fill by using a few arri 650s along with some 150s, and 300s. We had placed some spun on them along with some gels for the most part.

Our stops were between 1.9 - 4.0 but for the most part we sat at 2.0 - 2.8. Our room for movement on the actors was amazingly tight. I already new it was going to be a ball buster, but I just had no experience with it. For the most part we nailed it. Even on some decent moving shots, we set the FF4 with good marks and everyone nailed their marks. Again, for the most part, the actors did not have all that much movement. The small amount of movement was fairly controllable to follow with the FF4. But take an example of trying to shoot hand held over the shoulder and I have to follow someone out of a room. That was damn near impossible to do. I guess by changing the ISO I can get the lens closed down a good bit- however, I think the noise would be so intense that it would not match all the clean tripod shots. Is that the case?

I had major respect for that shot in Good Fellows where the stedicam shot followed them all the way from the car, through the kitchen of the Copa, and to their seats. Damn. Now I have major major respect! : )

So here are some questions for you guys- Please don't think I am dumb, I just want to learn how it is really done on the big motion picture sets. I am very, very familiar with still photography and film stocks. I read American Cinematography so I have a good basic idea of what is done, but I can't recall them ever going deep into how to help control Shallow Depth of Field from being too hard to control.

1. On most motion pictures, don't they pretty much try to shoot for an average F-stop goal for most of the picture? I know scenes change, but isn't there a basic goal they try to achieve?

2. If so, what is the stop usually? The sweet spot of the lens? Or just the look they are trying to achieve?

3. During most interior scenes, do they light the living hell out of it? With insanely bright lights? This way they can keep the film stock speed slow so they can have less grain if that is their goal? Or do they simply go with a faster ISO?

4. For the Red Camera, what is everyone shooting for mostly as far as F stops and ISO? If you want a good clean image, with very little noise, what are you guys doing for interior scenes that require several feet of a focal point? Lighting it with a zillion watts? Or are you guys simply going up on the ISO?

5. I have done much research on the ISO and have seen many examples posted here on line. Most were stills, some were from actual shoots. So what do you guys think is a good indoor ISO to shoot for that still has a good low noise ratio?

6. Last question- should I get a life and quit my day job and go to film school? He he.. (Don't answer that!!!!) But- here is the real question- is there a good place to find information on 35MM DOF and how to deal with it reasonably?

7. Oh, one more last question- What the heck is everyone else doing about DOF with the RED?

Thank you for helping me on this. I look forward to hearing back from you guys.

Jason Sinclair
05-15-2008, 10:29 PM
I'm sure others will answer your questions but have a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjcLPEmDK2I
There's a few parts and the doco is in German maybe even find an english version somewhere like on the dvd version but i watched the german one, you can see how they do it. Das Boot is an amazing film shot in a sub and has full running shots throughout in the tight confines of a sub and through portholes. It is amazing. You couldn't do any of that on a steadicam. Very simple and very affective. One great film too.

David Mullen ASC
05-16-2008, 02:10 AM
1. On most motion pictures, don't they pretty much try to shoot for an average F-stop goal for most of the picture? I know scenes change, but isn't there a basic goal they try to achieve?

2. If so, what is the stop usually? The sweet spot of the lens? Or just the look they are trying to achieve?

3. During most interior scenes, do they light the living hell out of it? With insanely bright lights? This way they can keep the film stock speed slow so they can have less grain if that is their goal? Or do they simply go with a faster ISO?

4. For the Red Camera, what is everyone shooting for mostly as far as F stops and ISO? If you want a good clean image, with very little noise, what are you guys doing for interior scenes that require several feet of a focal point? Lighting it with a zillion watts? Or are you guys simply going up on the ISO?

5. I have done much research on the ISO and have seen many examples posted here on line. Most were stills, some were from actual shoots. So what do you guys think is a good indoor ISO to shoot for that still has a good low noise ratio?

6. Last question- should I get a life and quit my day job and go to film school? He he.. (Don't answer that!!!!) But- here is the real question- is there a good place to find information on 35MM DOF and how to deal with it reasonably?

7. Oh, one more last question- What the heck is everyone else doing about DOF with the RED?

Thank you for helping me on this. I look forward to hearing back from you guys.


Most movies fall into a certain pattern for f-stops, mainly for practical reasons, sometimes for artistic reasons. Most big movies are "lit", have a decent lighting package, so it is not impossible to consider lighting to higher f-stops when necessary, except for perhaps large areas at night.

However, most people opt to light night interiors and low-level daylight interiors, to around f/2.8 on 500 ASA film (usually rated at 320 to 400 ASA.) Some DP's do it because they like the shallow focus, others because they feel that their eyes are trained to see the lighting at that level, because it is not much higher than natural light levels. Plus they aren't overpowering any natural ambience and can use closer to normal wattage bulbs in lamps, etc.

To compensate for shooting at such a wide-open stop, you need a decent focus-puller.

I just finished a night heavy movie and most of it was lit to f/2.8. Now I had some low-light scenes where I had to shoot at f/2.0 but was not happy at the super shallow focus effect, plus the lenses get a little milkier at f/2.0. Sometimes, even though it would have been easier to light to an f/2.0, I got the level higher because I wanted to shoot at an f/2.8 for focus reasons. A few times I lit to even higher levels to get a little more depth of field or to compensate for speed changes. For example, I had a scene the other night where we had a lot of shots at 40 or 48 fps, so I lit to slightly beyond an f/2.8 so that once I ran the camera faster for select takes, I wasn't shooting below an f/2.8.

I have done anamorphic movies where basically I decided to light to f/4 whenever possible. You just get used to lighting to certain levels because you use the same units over and over again and know what the exposures will be like even before you check them with a meter.

I had a few big night exteriors where I had to push the film to 640 ASA just to get an f/2.0 -- I couldn't get any more light for the scene because of the amount of area I was covering.

But generally you want to be consistent with your exposures so your grain / noise is consistent -- especially within the same scene.

One thing to remember is that bigger movies use bigger lights, but often to create very soft lighting effects, so the end result is a low light level even though the original light used was quite bright, because the light is passed through such heavy diffusion to soften it.

Jon Schellenger
05-16-2008, 05:55 AM
Very very interesting David!

Believe it or not, for not ever shooting with a film camera and being with the RED for the first time, I guess we did a pretty good job. The situations you described sound exactly like the ones we had and we ended up dealing with them in a similar manner.

Thank you David for taking a moment out to answer my questions. I do a lot of research and theory, but I still have never had the experience of being on a real film set for any length of time. I always question what I am doing, and if what I am doing is the right thing. Film making is an incredible learning experience that never stops.

Thank you again-

Christoffer Glans
05-16-2008, 06:15 AM
Is it possible to watch some images or footage of this Statusfilm?


I generally like to keep the aparture as wide as possible, not because of DOF but because you reduce natural light with too bright keylights.
I'm in the real low budget independent legue so I'm used to having one big key light and smaller countersources. But when I'm on location (interior or exterior, no studio) it's good to be able to use as much as possible of the already existing lightsources. If you lit up a street and balance the shot for that keylight then there will be an unnatural falloff into the background.
If you can shoot and create the illusion that the streetlights are all there is, then you get a much better depth...

So, I like to be able to use as much existing lights as possible to reduce the feeling of the scene being lit on purpose. Although there is a problem when using long lenses and closeups. Then you need to close the aparture a little.

As for supershallow DOF I think it's only good looking when doing extreme close-ups of things and parts of a human. When in a traditional close-up during a dialogue, it's looking better with 4.0 or more.
I have a fetisch for supershallow dof extreme close-ups of human eyes.
Don't know if it's the cameras love for it's master but there's something compelling about those images... that's why I'm hooked on Lost :)

Then again, any shot should be created within the story's context...

Jon Schellenger
05-16-2008, 10:09 AM
Hi Glazarus-

Yes, take a look at some of the shots I posted under the forum footage/field tests. It should still be on the same first page when you go in there- or check under the second page. It is under "the real truth about Red... Submarine shoot.

As far as getting actual footage, I will see what I can do. I need to go through the director first, so I will check.

I agree with you as well that I love the shallow depth of field. No doubt. I was just curious to see what others are doing on a real motion picture set. After hearing David's comments, I really walked away feeling like I am not a complete screw up!!! He he... We ended up shooting in a very similar fashion as he was mentioning on some of his sets. I guess my research paid off. We really were prepared.

The 35MM DOF is something that will take some getting used to, however, I love the challenge!

Adam Levins
05-16-2008, 12:18 PM
But generally you want to be consistent with your exposures so your grain / noise is consistent -- especially within the same scene.

This is such a good point David. I have several books on lighting and cinematography and it is funny that I don't think I have ever seen this principal /rule broken down so clearly and simply, yet it is incredibly important.

my favorite books are:

Cinematography theory and Practice by Blain Brown

The Negative by Ansel Adams

and

Cinematic Motion by Steven D Katz (which is also good for dirrectors)

You should write a book dude!