Ask David Mullen ANYTHING [Archive]

David Mullen ASC

06-06-2007, 07:30 PM

Please, anyone else who wants to add to my answers too, please do so...

I’m a big fan of Chris Doyle, particular his work in “Fallen Angels”, “In the Mood for Love”, “Hero”, “2046”. He did some nice subtle period work recently in “The White Countess”, though not as snazzy as his work for Wong Kar Wei. I have one of his still photography books, “A Cloud in Trousers”, which has a lot of what looks like push-processed slides. I think in terms of photographing urban landscapes, especially at night, he’s probably Number One.

A DP’s work sometimes falls into two rough categories, naturalism/realism and expressionism/impressionism. Either they are creating a believable effect… or they are distorting reality for a psychological effect. Or course, movies do both, in the same movie, all the time, but some DP’s lean more one way than the other. People like Roger Deakins, David Watkin, Nestor Almendros, Gordon Willis, tend towards a naturalistic approach grounded in reality, whereas someone like Robert Richardson, Chris Doyle, Janusz Kaminski, Vittorio Storaro lean towards a more manipulated distorted reality, either more operatic & theatrical, or more expressionistic or impressionistic. But I don’t want anyone to take these labeling too seriously – it’s just a loose way of thinking about how one works, sees the world or art.

A lot of this, of course, is grounded by the material being adapted, and by the director’s visual taste too. And you can also see documentary impulses weaving through Robert Richardson’s or Chris Doyle’s work, even while they also can be quite theatrical at times.

I’d love to shoot for David Lynch, Ridley Scott, Terrance Malick… just to learn something from them.

Recent movies with good images… well, the Autochrome-inspired flashbacks in “The Illusionist” were interesting… the faux Technicolor look of parts of “Tears of the Black Tiger”… the long takes in “Children of Men”… the overall mood of “The Fountain”… many moments in “The New World”.

Chinese Lanterns: I use them all the time. I haven’t used too many all at once, though I once lit a running shot through the woods by hanging a string of Chinese Lanterns with daylight photofloods in them. In terms of using a lot of them in a grid pattern in a ceiling, that should work fine as long as there aren’t simpler and faster ways to get a soft overhead light effect. Just depends.

Tom Lowe

06-06-2007, 07:47 PM

I’d love to shoot for David Lynch, Ridley Scott, Terrence Malick… just to learn something from them.

Recent movies with good images… well, the Autochrome-inspired flashbacks in “The Illusionist” were interesting… the faux Technicolor look of parts of “Tears of the Black Tiger”… the long takes in “Children of Men”… the overall mood of “The Fountain”… many moments in “The New World”.

Wow. We very much agree. I have not seen “The Illusionist”, but it's crazy that I agree with you completely. For me, the top 3 cinematography masterpieces of the last few years have been: The New World, The Fountain (but this includes all visual aspects) and Children of Men.

BTW, David, how excited are you to see Wong Kar Wai's My Blueberry Nights? It has gotten about the same rating among critics as The New World and The Fountain, so far.

Adrian Correia

06-06-2007, 08:15 PM

Here's a question for David. You helped me when I started working in film about seven years ago by answering questions on cinematography.com and now here we are again....

So, I feel confident in what I can use/do in terms of smaller units....but I always end up getting stumped in terms of larger lights. How can a DP know what kinds of units he should use if he/she does not have experience using bigger units like 4K HMIs, 12Ks, etc. Example....I have to light a large day interior where we need to create a realistic sunlight through three large (10 foot high x 6 six feet wide windows) windows....what units do you use....I imagine this changes depending on what type of effect you want....a softer effect (like shooting through silk or light grid) or a harder one....but how do discern between whether a 4K Par will be enough or should I be using a 12K....is there any way to be sure if you have not used the bigger lights before?

Gavin Greenwalt

06-06-2007, 08:21 PM

David Mullen ASC

06-06-2007, 08:31 PM

Well, to some degree, you get experience over time because as your budgets climb, you get to order the next bigger (and more expensive) light -- so once you've gotten to know the limits of a 4K HMI PAR, you next get to use a 6K HMI PAR.

A lot of this is budget-related, unfortunately -- you may guess that you need an 18K HMI fresnel but you end up with a 4K HMI PAR, so you make do.

You can always knock down a brighter light, so when in doubt, you order the bigger unit.

There is photometric data available for these lights, but to some degree, it's still an (educated) guess. You end up moving a light closer or farther back, etc. to get the intensity right.

If you've got a general package with some larger lights, what happens over the course of shooting over a couple of days is that you quickly learn, for example, what a 5K at ten feet through a 6'x6' light grid cloth gives you, exposure-wise. So maybe the first time, you guess the wrong unit to use and have to swap it out, but after that, you remember. You then get to say "well, that 5K was overkill last time, just bring me a 2K" or conversely, "that 5K wasn't quite enough last time, get me a 10K."

David Mullen ASC

06-06-2007, 08:39 PM

What's your process when lighting a scene do you tend to have a complete image in your head from the start of exactly where every light will fall and then set out with your crew to make it a reality or do you work from very broad concepts such as mood and let the lighting evolve as you see it?

I imagine how the space will be lit and describe what I want to the Gaffer, sometimes very specifically in regards to the unit, sometimes not. But I try to describe the entire lighting set-up, including fill. But that doesn't mean that once I start to see the lights come on, I don't make adjustments -- maybe I'll turn off a light or add one. There are just limits to how much you can play around, change your mind, so you try and get it right.

I usually stare at the space, hopefully on my own time but sometimes in front of the crew, right after the blocking is finished. I light the space in my mind, knowing what areas are off camera, or where special rigging may be involved, and then I describe it to the Gaffer. But he may make suggestions too and sometimes I'll modify my idea if I like his idea.

My general philosophy in lighting is that there is a dominent source or type of feeling to the light -- and all other lights have to feel secondary to the dominant light. This keeps the effect from seeming cluttered from too many sources. This is one reason why I tend to either use very hot backlights with very little fill on the face, or no backlights at all. Either I like the feeling that the scene is backlit (maybe by the sun coming through a window) so it should be strong, or that there should be no backlight or a very mild one to round off the shoulders and hair. I generally don't want things to look like some classic 3-point lighting set-up.

But in a moving shot, actors may move from one source to another, from one dominant light to another.

Brook Willard

06-06-2007, 09:42 PM

Will you hire me?
:shifty: :innocent:

[I kid, I kid]

number6

06-06-2007, 09:44 PM

David, do you often, or ever, even, have a situation indoors where you use available light?

edit: meant to say "only" available light.

dalemccready

06-06-2007, 09:49 PM

hi David,

Fun thread...Okay my questions:

Would you consider yourself a hard or soft man? Were you one and have you become the other? Do you ever wonder if your early lighting was better than the lighting that you do today before you "knew better"?

Do you ever use reflected sources or radiosity? such as bounced Source-4s off the floor etc? Do you prefer neutral lights or do you colour them all to some degree?

(of course I imagine many of these things are project dependent)

Thanks David,

Dale :nerd:

David Mullen ASC

06-07-2007, 12:24 AM

David, do you often, or ever, even, have a situation indoors where you use available light?

Sure. I assume you mean available daylight, not a night scene lit by practical lamps, which is a form of lighting.

If the scene is short and I don't have to worry about light continuity problems from taking several hours to cover the scene, and the natural light looks good and I have enough exposure, sure, I'll take advantage of it.

And in terms of night interiors, yes, I've lit scenes with just practical lamps.

David Mullen ASC

06-07-2007, 12:32 AM

Would you consider yourself a hard or soft man? Were you one and have you become the other? Do you ever wonder if your early lighting was better than the lighting that you do today before you "knew better"?

Do you ever use reflected sources or radiosity? such as bounced Source-4s off the floor etc? Do you prefer neutral lights or do you colour them all to some degree? :

Soft light is more or less the contemporary style because it looks natural. I tend to follow that convention though I look for opportunities for realistically motivated hard light now and then, because I'm not one of those people who want to shoot a whole movie in just soft light. I think you need a little variety in textures to the lighting.

Yes, I sometimes fill or key by bouncing light off of the floor, or lower the contrast and increase the ambience by raking some light off of the ceiling, walls, etc.

Sometimes I look at my earlier work and think it looks more interesting because it's more contrasty and doesn't play it safe, because I didn't know better. I used to notice that my best work in some movies was in the first few days of shooting before I got back dailies and started adjusting my work to fix the flaws I saw. Then when the movie was cut, I start preferring the earlier shots that were rougher and bolder. So it's important to resist the temptation to fix everything in the frame. If I get a kick off of a piece of furniture or some part of the frame is too hot, I like those little accidents.

Renew

06-07-2007, 12:43 AM

Curious about your opinion on the new LED panels (www.litepanels.com, for example)... just the minimal heat output alone makes them interesting to me--I can imagine they would make a big difference in the overall working environment, especially when shooting in close quarters.

Their cost, though--yikes!

David Mullen ASC

06-07-2007, 12:52 AM

They are interesting -- I've been thinking about getting the little one as an on-camera Obie light. Color-wise, I'm always a bit concerned about how skin looks under LED's, flos, and HMI's, versus tungsten.

The question is whether the bigger LED panels are bright enough to go through some large diffusion frames, like 4'x4', 6'x6', etc. The panels themselves are not really large enough for a good soft-light effect.

Ralph Oshiro

06-07-2007, 04:21 AM

Ralph Oshiro

06-07-2007, 04:29 AM

Curious about your opinion on the new LED panels (www.litepanels.com, for example) . . .
If I may add my humble opinion to David's reply . . .

Check out the photometrics for the Litepanels—they're extremely low in illumunation after a few feet, a mere couple of footcandles. Then check the photometrics for the KinoFlo Kamio. The Kamio, is much hotter (about four times hotter), and actually usable at subject-to-camera distances you would more likely be working at.

Ralph Oshiro

06-07-2007, 04:37 AM

Color-wise, I'm always a bit concerned about how skin looks under LED's, flos, and HMI's, versus tungsten.

David:

In my experience, both the 2900K and 3200K Kino globes ALWAYS look a little weird on skin tones to my eyes on video cameras (on BVW600s and HDW-F900s). Kinda pinkish-green, if that's possible. What is your experience with 2900/3200 Kinos and high-end video cameras?

P.S. To me, HMIs ALWAYS seem to look "right" on video. I've never used a Litepanel, but their native daylight color temp with that CTO correction filter you have to put on it worries me a little too.

Michael Lindsay

06-07-2007, 04:39 AM

I would heartily recommend the little 2 lite panel kit...

daylight
dimable without colour temp change
Cool
Battery capable

I think led lighting is one of the most exciting (in a bore the arse of normal people kind of way) things to come along..

I also recomend the foot square lite panel (spot is good cause you can easily soften it) and float it in anywhere... put four together and soften in up a bit and...

Michael (hope to never touch another mini flow kit again)Lindsay

dalemccready

06-07-2007, 04:41 AM

I've recently played with the LED Litepanel 1x1s. they're a good output, quite bright, but frankly quite flimsy. The dimmer on the back appears to be attached straight onto the circuit board and wiggles just waiting for an errant elbow or tool belt to rip it off. Otherwise really promising, especially joined in groups...

Thanks for your answers David, just some thoughts mulling around in my head lately regarding that did-I-do-it-better-before sort of thing. reassuring to read your take on it.

I operated for Bill Wages ASC on a job here in New Zealand and I have to say I've been experimenting with bounced/indirect keys/fill ever since, especially liking the way colour can be transmitted from different surfaces.

Bill is an easy guy to copy, very inventive. Wouldn't bat an eyelid at a fancy new light if it was something he could build in his garage himself. Nice man too!

Thanks again for your time.

Clayton Harper

06-07-2007, 04:56 AM

David,

Boxers or Briefs?

Coke or Pepsi?

Union or Confederate?

Dogs or Cats?

Elvis or Beatles?

Honda or Toyota?

Regards,
Clay

David Mullen ASC

06-07-2007, 09:30 AM

I have a black lab mix and drive a Prius, if that's enough personal info...

David Mullen ASC

06-07-2007, 09:34 AM

Just curious, David . . .

What's your opinion on lighting close-ups noticably different from masters? It's done quite often in mainstream production, but anyone who knows something about lighting can see the difference. This is often done to make the close-up "prettier." I don't mean even major "adjustments," or even total re-lights (but which still emulate the master), which are typically always done on the close-up or turnaround, I mean like, suddenly having a backlight (even if motivated) that simply wasn't even there in the master.

Or is this sort of like the "burn out the windows/don't burn out the windows" kinda thing?

You're talking about cheating, and obviously some viewers are going to be more aware of the cheat than others. You have to ask yourself if the improvements you're getting from cheating the lighting in the close-up offset the mismatch in continuity and are therefore distracting. You also have to factor in the time lost from relighting the close-up. There's no right or wrong answer.

Sometimes cheating the lighting is actually less distracting because once you move into a close-up, the master lighting may be doing something unappealing to the face and you had better clean it up a bit, whereas in the wide shot, you couldn't see the problem.

I try to light master shots so that there will only be some minimal adjustment to the tighter angles, if at all, but that's an ideal scenario.

scriptor

06-07-2007, 12:05 PM

hello David, i m first an editor but shot 2 shorts with a friend and prepare my first alone
i have 2 questions,my first is: if someone call you to light is set and you dont know anything about you gonna find and shoot (maybe just the film spec) what is the few basics lights you would take? (perhaps one for the night and one for the day?)
in others words: is there a basic set of light that can do a valuable job in most of the case?
the second: what little details make you thing a cinematographer is good or bad?
tx u a lot
++

Clayton Harper

06-07-2007, 12:06 PM

I have a black lab mix and drive a Prius, if that's enough personal info...

Two excellent choices.

David Mullen ASC

06-07-2007, 12:23 PM

I don't know if there is a "generic" lighting package -- other than finding out if the location needs both daylight and tungsten lighting, the determining issues, assuming you only have vague details, are the size of the crew to handle the size of the package (no point in getting a 12K HMI if you only have one guy helping you) and the power situation (no point in getting a 12K HMI if you don't have a way of powering it) and the budget (you can't afford that 12K HMI anyway...)

If the restrictions were: (1) house power only; (2) mix of daylight and tungsten; (3) small crew, I tend to favor Kinoflos as part of the package, since they are low in power consumption, switchable between daylight and tungsten, and are naturally soft sources without a lot of grip work needed. Usually I'd carry a couple of 4' 4-bankers. Besides that, there might be a tungsten kit of a couple of 650w and 1K's in a case, maybe some Chimeras for those.

Besides the medium tungstens and the Kinos, then I might add some smaller HMI's if the budget allowed, like 575w and 1.2K HMI PAR's. LED panel lights could also serve some of the same functions as the Kinos.

At the other end of the scale, there might be some smaller tungstens, like Dedolights or Peppers.

If I needed a punchy light that was really bright but under 20amps, besides the 1.2K HMI PAR with a narrow lens, you could get a 1K PAR64 tungsten with a spot or narrow spot globe (the VNSP globes are called "firestarters" I believe.)

I'd also bring some Chinese Lanterns and an assortment of light bulbs.

Now if I knew that there was less daylight scenes and more night interiors, or vice-versa, I could rebalance the package towards one direction or the other, either more HMI's and daylight Kinos, or more tungsten lamps.

Of course, you need some basic grip gear, c-stands, sandbags, flags, and some electric gear like extension cords, power boxes, etc.

If you're stuck using house power, try and scout the location to see how much power is available to you -- it may be an old house with smaller circuits than the typical 20amp ones. You may need to bring spare fuses and you may have to consider running power from next door. You may even have to consider finding the budget for a generator -- some locations have diddly-squat power. I once filmed in a bar where there wasn't enough house power available to run a string of Christmas tree lights.

There was an old add with Julio Macat, ASC where he said that if he had to shoot a movie with only two lights, it would be a 20K and a Dedolight. He was joking, of course, but I can see his point -- you need the little accent lights and you need the big workhorse lights, the big brush strokes and the little ones.

Clayton Harper

06-07-2007, 12:37 PM

There was an old add with Julio Macat, ASC where he said that if he had to shoot a movie with only two lights, it would be a 20K and a Dedolight. He was joking, of course, but I can see his point -- you need the little accent lights and you need the big workhorse lights, the big brush strokes and the little ones.

The poor man's version of this example is a 6K HMI, some gridcloth and a 4x8 silver b-board.

Dan Blanchett

06-07-2007, 01:07 PM

David, I was really impressed with the look of Children of Men, and read that the DP used very little in the way of movie lights. In my upcoming feature I would love to get away with minimal production lights and go for a more realistic, documentary feel, yet still maintain a "filmic" quality. There will be many day interiors, some outside day and night, and a few low light interiors, including hallways.

Given the speed (t3) of the 18-50 red zoom, which I plan to use shooting mostly on the shoulder, how realistic is it to assume I can get away with mostly available light? Particularly if I want shallow DOF on occasion with wider lenses...

Being able to move quickly and shoot a lot of set ups each day with a small crew is a factor as well. (not to mention budget)

Thanks in advance!

David Mullen ASC

06-07-2007, 04:01 PM

T/3 is a bit slow for low-light work, unless you are willing to live with some noise from underexposing and having the brighten the image in post. You can gain another stop of speed by turning off the shutter (360 instead of 180) but with an attendent increase in motion smear which some find to be very video-ish (see some of the action scenes in "Apocalypto" for an example.) You can also gain exposure by undercranking, but then you have motion problems.

If you are determined to use very low levels of available light, like for night exteriors or candlelight scenes, you should get some high-speed lenses (T/2 and faster.)

For day interiors, T/3 is probably fast enough most of the time. And well-lit night interiors.

johannperry

06-07-2007, 04:02 PM

I have a black lab mix and drive a Prius, if that's enough personal info...

My wife keeps on at me to get a prius for her. Do you like yours? (so sorry for being quite so far off topic, straying into cars could be a little dangerous.)

Casey Green

06-07-2007, 04:11 PM

Hi David - thanks for the opportunity to learn.

I was curious what your experience has been like with the Directors you have worked with over the years... as far as how well they have truly understood the technical details of the cameras and lenses that were being used on a project and how important/unimportant that was during the making of the film.

As an aspiring Director of features, I am trying to learn as much as possible (technically) as well as keep the story and actors at the highest priority. So I have often wondered just how much is expected of the Director from a DP's perspective. Since all Directors will have their own unique strengths and talents (as well as weaknesses), I would imagine there would be quite a range in this area...

any stories about this "from the trenches" would also be appreciated.

thanks again,

Kevin Halverson

06-07-2007, 04:20 PM

...At the other end of the scale, there might be some smaller tungstens, like Dedolights or Peppers.

I will second David's suggest here. I love the Dedolight 150 series sources. Their 25:1 spot to flood ratio and really even coverage makes them one of the most useful tungsten sources that I have ever had the privilege of using. Take a look at their photometric data and you will quickly learn that they have a lot more usable punch than anything else in their power range. Their very small physical size make them ideal in situations where no other fixture would work.

The Peppers are great too, but I consider the Dedo's nearly essential on almost every project that I lens.

scriptor

06-07-2007, 04:20 PM

David thank you for your answer that just exactly what i want to know
++

Dan Blanchett

06-07-2007, 05:52 PM

If you are determined to use very low levels of available light, like for night exteriors or candlelight scenes, you should get some high-speed lenses (T/2 and faster.)

Thanks for the feedback. Hopefully I'll be in a position to rent some higher speed primes when needed. (if I can't swing getting the RED primes, that is)

Chris Forbes

06-07-2007, 06:14 PM

David, thanks for the opportunity to pester you. Can you talk for a minute about the ASC. How you got in, what it means for you professionally and personally and the path a young cinematographer can follow to help him achieve this level.

Yash Keough

06-07-2007, 10:39 PM

Hi Mr. Mullen,

I know there have been a lot of questions so I don't expect this to be answered. That said, I am hoping to one day (a long ways away from now considering I'm a first year University student) become a DP. I do own a copy of Cinematography which I believe you had a large role in writing and while there is a huge wealth of information which I have gleaned a ton from, I feel that I am not at the level of knowledge yet where I can advance further in the book than where I am. I am stuck on the film stock section. I am having difficulty understanding how the stock related to light and ties into how you judge what lights to use at what intensities etc etc.

So basically, I am wondering if there might happen to be a book or resource you might be able to recommend I read before that that is perhaps a little more general so that I can better understand the concepts put forth in Cinematography. I hope to take a course this summer on lighting but that depends on my work and how much time I have. Thanks a lot for taking the time to answer people's questions! Oh and I have to agree on The Fountain. That film was absolutely beautiful. Incredible work. And Children of Men was very powerful for me and I believe that was due to the way in which the camera work followed the scene. What was done made me feel like I was there. Anyways, my humble 2 cents!

David Mullen ASC

06-07-2007, 11:46 PM

Casey,
As a director, you will probably delve as deep into any subject as your intellectual curiosity drives you to, regardless of exactly how practical everything you learn is. I love researching about obsolete film processes like 3-strip Technicolor, Cinerama, Autochromes, etc. Don't know the real value in that, but it's interesting to me. How much you need to learn technically sort of depends on what you'll be trying to do, with what equipment, and if you'll be doing it on your own or not. Even among DP's, there are different depths of knowledge - I know one DP who does his own densitometry readings of his negatives while another does his own lens collimination work. This is sort of deeper than I necessarily want to go. Ultimately all that matters is the quality of the work you do. As you shoot more, you'll find more areas that you want to study and explore, while other areas may seem less and less important over time.

What I encourage any filmmaker to do is develop their ability to previsualize, to develop a visual imagination, and find ways of conveying emotion and story information through images. Learning the technical stuff is useless if you don't have a creative idea to express using that knowledge.
___

Chris,
Getting into the ASC: It's an honorary society, membership by invitation only. You need letters of recommendation from three ASC members, then your credits, work are reviewed by a commitee who also interviews you. If they all vote for you, then your name is passed to the Board of Governors, if they vote for you, your name is posted to the general membership; anyone who objects has thirty days to do so, and if no one does, then you're invited and you have to pay a membership fee.

Honestly, I felt I was a bit young and my credits were small to be attempting to join at the time, but I was encouraged to go through the process -- they were looking for new faces that had a passion for cinematography, not just to do it, but to teach and talk and promote it. So my work combined with my writings on cinematography, my research, and my occasional lectures and teaching about it, weighed in my favor. I think it also impressed them that I had written an entire index to the 1970's issues of American Cinematographer magazine. Also, "Northfork" had just come out at the time, which was some of my best work ever. And a lot of members knew me from the time I was a film student pestering them with questions -- even if they didn't know my name, they knew me as the kid who seemed to have memorized a decade's worth of American Cinematographer articles.

Myself, along with a few other DP's, sort of represent the indie feature wing of the ASC...

Obviously I'm honored and flattered to be in there. The best thing is chatting with my heroes -- the last meeting, I had a nice talk with Richard Edlund about "Star Wars"; we also share an interest in Japanese cinema.

___

Yash,
In terms of simpler intro books than "Cinematography", I'm not sure if there are any noticably simpler, though you may find how someone else explains things to be easier to understand -- maybe Blain Brown's book, for example, or the Ascher book. Otherwise, I'd probably read some basic intro to photography books, since the principles are the same regarding film speed, shutter speed, f-stop, etc. I think I started with the old Upton Photography textbook, but also the Ansel Adams series too.

Alexander Nikishin

06-07-2007, 11:49 PM

David, I have a particularly odd question for you.

I'm flirting with a little business venture which requires either a fresh new idea and design.... Or re-hatching an old one for further use.

I won't get into particualrs so forgive me for asking this question in such a vague sense but........

What focus chart and or shape (if any) would be the most or atleast seldomly useful one to be printed on an object that is 3" x 3" 1/2 ?

David Mullen ASC

06-07-2007, 11:57 PM

Don't really know. Maybe the center of a Seimens Star chart would still be useful at that size? Probably not. The only reason I can think of for such a tiny focus chart would be testing MTF of macro lenses maybe...

Alexander Nikishin

06-08-2007, 12:07 AM

That's what I was thinking, thanks David!

Casey Green

06-08-2007, 12:08 AM

David Mullen ASC

06-08-2007, 12:20 AM

Whether or not they are photographically knowledgable, most directors are fairly smart (not all, but most) so it doesn't take long on a feature shoot of putting up lenses for them to learn the effect of different focal lengths.

If I have a lens finder on the package, I can put the actual prime lens up on the finder and let the director watch a rehearsal through it. Then he can say "too wide" or "not wide enough" etc. or get a sense of whether the action is too spread out to capture in one composition or moving shot.

Working like that, it isn't long before the director and DP then start to guess the lens and come to similar conclusions ("let's try shooting the master on the 27mm...") because they've gotten familar with the lenses in the package.

Assuming your lens choice isn't based on practicalities like filming in a small room and trying to get a wide shot, then mostly what you and the DP will be trying to decide on is the level of perspective compression or expansion to use for the shot. An over-the-shoulder looks different on a shorter lens than a longer lens because the focal length affects the relative sizes of the two heads in the shot.

Alexander Nikishin

06-08-2007, 12:27 AM

Now for a normal question....

What do you feel is leading more and more Cinematographers/Directors today to shoot with a very, "MTV" sense of style?

It seems that the days of long, slow, meticulously composed shots are out the window in favor of the wide followed by a usually un-controlled procession of mediums, close-ups, and the more than ocassional ecu.

Perosnally, I'm a huge fan of the Kubrick / Kurosawa framed film. I won't lie though, I think that some films are perfectly fit for an ecu filled extraveganza such as Requiem for a dream.

How much of this trend would you contribute to todays music video, reality tv, in your face sense of media exposure?

Do you think that these decisions have more to do with the Cinematographer or the Director?

I know that many french and spanish films tend to still stick to a slower tempo of story telling but do you see the pacing of Hollywood films ever coming back down to the same tempo of the past in the sense of wider framing and slower more drawn out shots?

Casey Green

06-08-2007, 12:37 AM

David Mullen ASC

06-08-2007, 01:20 AM

Though it makes sense at times, like for action scenes, I'm not such a fan of the "more is more" attitude in modern Hollywood directorial style -- more shots, more movement, more close-ups. It can be self-defeating because you quickly run out of tricks to pull out of your hat when you actually need to get the viewer's attention. In fact, these days it's the occasional extreme long shot that these directors use to create an impact, because the close-up is so overused.

What I tend to like is a little musicality to the directing, where shot size and length is varied like in a symphony -- choppy alternated with fluid, loud with quiet, close with wide, etc. Spielberg is good at that approach. I remember the opening montage beginning the truck chase in "Raiders" -- the quick cuts to tight inserts (doors being slammed closed, foot on gas pedal, googles going on, etc.) emphasized by the beats of the music score, followed by a long slow boom down from a wide shot to reveal Indiana Jones watching on the low hill. It's almost like iambic pentameter or something: short, short, long, etc. (not that that's iambic pentameter...)

The thing is that when your framing gets tighter and tighter, you are almost always forced into making more cuts because so much action is happening outside the frame, so you have to cut to it to see it.

A nice bit of directing is in the climax to Michael Powell's "Black Narcissus" (the attempted killing of Deborah Kerr by Katherine Byron), which was staged to music playing on the set. Although you really should see it on DVD (the colors are gorgeous), you can see the clip on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=black+narcissus&search=Search

Roberto B

06-08-2007, 01:27 AM

What I encourage any filmmaker to do is develop their ability to previsualize, to develop a visual imagination, and find ways of conveying emotion and story information through images. Learning the technical stuff is useless if you don't have a creative idea to express using that knowledge.

at last, there..

something that i can label as the most relevant truth that i could hear from a dp..

Costelloe Michael

06-08-2007, 01:34 AM

David,

Thanks for all your input it makes good reading.You guys sure stay up late, I'm eating breakfast writing this in the UK!

I take it you work mostly on 35mm, most of my commercials work has gone from 35mm to HD in the last two years in the UK. Are you feeling a similar push in the States? And, is it your interest in Indie that leads you to this forum or do you see yourself adopting the Red Camera 4k route through commercial budget pressures?

Mike Costelloe

Casey Green

06-08-2007, 01:41 AM

David,
Thanks for all your input it makes good reading. You guys sure stay up late, I'm eating breakfast writing this in the UK!

hahah - after wrapping on a recent production, I finally can catch up on the important things. :)

number6

06-08-2007, 06:35 AM

David, with high definition displays becoming ubiquitous in the home, and Blu-Ray and HD DVD becoming the consumer standard, will lighting, and even lensing undergo any significant changes to disguise the skin or body imperfections of actors? After all, with the need for more content and the dounward spiral in general health, it will soon be impossible to find apparently flawless-skinned talent, when that is called for. I'm thinking that makeup will be more noticeable to the viewer as well, so how would you approach any problems that a director might present you with, in re: the above?

Kenn Christenson

06-08-2007, 09:07 AM

What about the 40 ft. movie screens we've had over the past 100 years? Film is the oldest high definition format. Why are facial imperfections now just becoming a problem (besides the over sharpening on HD cameras?)

FYI - there is no such thing as "flawless-skinned talent" - never was, never will be. Why do you think they use everything from stockings and Vaseline to Promist?

number6

06-08-2007, 10:02 AM

Alexander Nikishin

06-08-2007, 12:28 PM

Nice clip David, the cuts matched the score very well.

All of my favorite films have a brilliant score that matches the tempo and cuts of the film. If there isn't much of a score, such as in Kurosawa's Ran, the visuals are just so gripping and paced with perfection.

wshultz

06-08-2007, 02:11 PM

David, are you at a point in your career where you pick and choose your projects? How do you choose? Do you still enjoy smaller indie pictures?

Yash Keough

06-08-2007, 04:05 PM

Casey,
Yash,
In terms of simpler intro books than "Cinematography", I'm not sure if there are any noticably simpler, though you may find how someone else explains things to be easier to understand -- maybe Blain Brown's book, for example, or the Ascher book. Otherwise, I'd probably read some basic intro to photography books, since the principles are the same regarding film speed, shutter speed, f-stop, etc. I think I started with the old Upton Photography textbook, but also the Ansel Adams series too.

Thanks Mr. Mullen, I really appreciate your help.

I'll definitely take a look at those and see what I can learn. I think I have a pretty solid (though inexperienced) understanding of most of the basic concepts of film/video that I have been taught such as shutter speed, film speed, ISO etc. What I have found difficult though is gaining a better understanding of the big picture such as determining the required amount of light required to correctly expose for a scene and then how to achieve that amount given a particular speed of film or sensor, or more precisely, how to tie all that knowledge together in order to light a scene.

In Cinematopgrahy, I was finding the descriptions of the different light meters and how they are used to be a little confusing and that seemed to be the main thing holding me back. I will however take a look at those books you recommended as I'm sure another description would be highly beneficial to better understand. I will also be sure to read that Upton Photography book among the others mentioned. I do have a few other books including photography ones but they are all digital and tend to focus on a different way of achieving great shots in terms of metering etc.

Thank you very much though for taking the time to answer my question! :-)

Ramesh Jai

06-08-2007, 05:31 PM

Hello David, (or anyone else)

I will be shooting a TV commercial soon. One of the scene goes like this;

NIGHT - MOVING car, driver with a passenger at the back.

The camera is placed on the hood (bonnet?) of the car so that we see the driver in the fg. with the passenger in the backseat in the bg.

Both the driver and the passenger are dark skinned.

What will I need to light this scene properly? Can I use the car's battery itself? Where do I place the lights?

Anyone has experience lighting these types of scenes please do let me know how to go about it.

BTW I am in Ghana (West Africa). We do not have access to any fancy lighting gadgets. We have very, VERY basic lighting equipment.

Thanks.

chuck colburn

06-08-2007, 05:47 PM

Often the windscreen is removed. If not, it helps to use a polarizing filter to control reflections off the glass.

David Mullen ASC

06-08-2007, 10:18 PM

David, with high definition displays becoming ubiquitous in the home, and Blu-Ray and HD DVD becoming the consumer standard, will lighting, and even lensing undergo any significant changes to disguise the skin or body imperfections of actors?

It's a concern -- 35mm is high in resolution, but since it is so magnified for theatrical projection, plus often it's a multi-generational dupe, there is an inherent softening process going on there, although traditionally cinematographers have had to watch out for facial flaws anyway. And then the 35mm movie went to NTSC and PAL and again, it was hard to see the facial flaws in SD. But now that movies are going to HD and being shown in HD, it can be real problem.

I've been color-correcting some TV stuff that I shot, 35mm-to-HD, and it's been somewhat of a creative challenge to find the happy balance between the desire to show sharp images on HDTV broadcast and trying to be kind to the actors. Me, the producer, the colorist, the post-supervisor all have our opinions regarding diffusion levels. I mean, ideally we'd just shoot everything sharp and add digital diffusion and touch-up work in post as needed (and we are doing a little of that here and there, subtlely) but it's a time/money issue so if I can get it right at the time of shooting, it makes the post go faster.

Truth is, though, that I don't think they cast TV shows by how good the skin of the actors are. Facial structure, maybe, or physique, but they always seem to think that skin problems can be fixed with make-up, lighting, and filters. And of course, it's better to get good performers and work around their minor facial flaws than to get pretty faces that can't act. Honestly, even the actors that are a bit of a challenge to light, etc. are still usually better-looking than the average person... we're usually just trying to show them in the best light, so to speak. And it's partly because it allows the viewer to enjoy the performance more.

David Mullen ASC

06-08-2007, 10:26 PM

You try to avoid removing the windscreen because of the wind problems; besides, for a night scene, moving reflections on the glass aren't so bad.

If this is an urban night driving scene, driving through the most well-lit neighborhoods is a good idea -- then you can just add some weak interior light, run off of the cigarette lighter or batteries. Could be anything -- I usually use Kinoflo Kino car kits (Miniflos) but I have even just used tiny battery-powered flourescent lights from drug stores or hardware stores.

If you are driving through darkness, you have to ask yourself if the real background would be black anyway, why not do the driving shot "poor man's process"? You can put two little lights in the far background to fake car headlights visible through the back windshield, and create some moving light effects on the car.

Some people have also been using a poor-man's rear projection set-up using projected video footage.

David Mullen ASC

06-08-2007, 10:36 PM

Regarding the indie scene, obviously shooting digitally has taken off faster there than in mainstream movies that can afford to shoot in 35mm. So given that digital will take up a larger and larger marketshare of indie production at a faster pace than studio production, the better the digital cameras are, the better these indie films will look. So it is in my self-interest to see high-quality imagemaking tools like the RED camera become commonplace in indie production rather than having to keep resorting to using the F900 as I seem to.

And of course, eventually 35mm will disappear even in studio productions so it's also in my self-interest that the digital tools keep getting better and better, although I think that day is a little farther off than many people here do. It doesn't really matter to me anyway -- I'm just focused on what the state of technology is today and the near future, for practical reasons.

Also, I'm a regular filmgoer, of all types of movies, and I just want movies to look better, regardless of their budgets. So the RED camera is exciting from the standpoint of a moviewatcher as well.

David Mullen ASC

06-08-2007, 10:50 PM

Regarding work, I'm in a bit of a twilight zone right now. I did several months on a TV series, so I still have a little money in the bank, then I took off some time to get some minor surgery, recovered from that, but as I look for something to shoot, it's been difficult -- I'm being a bit picky these days, while I can, but eventually I won't be able to be as picky.

Sometimes I seem to either get sent for consideration bigger projects with appalling scripts with no visual possibilities, or smaller projects where the budget is inadequate for the script's needs, or smaller projects that are also visually unappealing. And some of the scripts have just been too risque for my tastes. Part of me feels stupid for not persuing the bigger project just because it's a dumb comedy with no possibility of interesting cinematography -- at least I'd be paid well. And part of me feels stupid for turning down something because I'm not comfortable with the level of sex and violence in the script. I remember turning down one dumb comedy only to see some big-name DP that I respect take it instead, and then I felt guilty, like I was being a snob or something. Eventually what happens though is that either it pays off for being picky and something great gets offered, or you get desparate and take anything at a certain point.

Things are picking up though in the industry and it seems like I have a number of better scripts coming my way, so who knows what I'll take next.

I'm not so opposed to doing something really low-budget, but there has to be a good reason now, either because the script is so darn visually interesting and the budget is adequate for that material and the director has some good ideas on how to pull it off, or if it's because of a long-term relationship I have with a producer or director. Otherwise, the problem with just taking any low-budget work offered is that it can drive your rates down; there are points in your career where you have to make a stand to push your rates up, even if it means losing some work. But it's painful.

I'd love to say that indie scripts were always more interesting than studio scripts, but actually it's not true. Both can be bad or good. Too many indie screenwriters resort to talky scenes between friends, ala "Swingers" or "Clerks", because they think that's all they can afford to shoot, people talking in apartments and diners and bars and cars. Talk, talk, talk. And we're not talking Mamet or Stoppard here. Sometimes I just flip through a script and if I see wall-to-wall dialogue, it's hard to get excited about reading it.

Tom Lowe

06-08-2007, 11:41 PM

Hey David, I just finished Northfork about an hour ago and thought it was beautifully shot. I loved all of those poetic landscape shots... I watched it on Netflix's Watch Now option, but I was wishing I could see it on the big screen in 35mm. The vast skies with those patches of snow on the barren hills, the almost total lack of saturation -- a visually impressive film.

In some ways the strangeness of the picture and even some of the outdoor photography reminded me a bit of Tideland, though your landscape compositions are better, IMO, and more like expertly framed stills. I don't know if you've seen Tideland but it's a visually interesting picture.

After I watched Northfork I read a few of the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. It must have felt great for you guys to read that glowing review from Ebert and have him compare Northfork to Days of Heaven in the opening paragraph! Wow.

I'm assuming all those cutaway shots at the very end were you traipsing around the countryside with your camera, AC, and tripod? I also liked that backlit shot of the cows and of course the final shot of the plane taking off at magic hour. Was that legit, or was there any sky replacement or anything? Also, it seemed like you were using a rather tall crane in some shots? What kind was it?

Any of your other pictures you are really proud of? I'd like to check out more of your stuff. I bet you would really thrive with the right picture, David -- a chance to really go to town on the type of stuff that Lubezki and Doyle shoot these days.

overlandfilms

06-09-2007, 09:10 AM

David,

Hello and thanks for taking time from your schedule to answer questions within this thread.

A hundred years ago, when I was just getting into filmmaking and TV, I had the priveledge to hang out in George Dibie's smoky little back room at Warner Bros. and talk shop. It was one of a handful of formative experiences that took me from being a young cinema enthusiast into actually contributing to the crafts.

At any rate, your willingness to do this here will certainly have a comparable benefit for another emerging talent.

Being that I do all my work in TV, I'd be interested to know about your practical and creative working style for single-camera film television and what, if any, favorite tricks you employed this past season.

Thanks again for giving back.

wshultz

06-09-2007, 10:45 AM

I remember turning down one dumb comedy only to see some big-name DP that I respect take it instead, and then I felt guilty, like I was being a snob or something. .

Maybe he had finally reached that desperation stage! Thanks for such an inclusive answer, David. I feel like I should be paying a fee here.

Does the producer send out scripts to several DPs asking who's interested? I'd like to understand the process a bit more.

I guess appalling movies get made so I shouldn't be surprised that appalling scripts make it through this process. I admire someone with some standards of what they want to shoot when it comes to the level of sex and violence.

Tom Lowe

06-09-2007, 11:13 AM

I would also be very interesting in finding out how ASC and other top-level DPs get those scripts. I assume you guys all have agents. What agencies are the best-known in terms of repping DPs?

David Mullen ASC

06-09-2007, 02:06 PM

"Northfork" didn't have a post budget for a D.I. or anything -- there are a couple of low-budget efx shots where some extra graves were added digitally in the graveyard, but that's it. No sky replacements -- they really look like that in Montana!

Luckily the local Montana gaffer, J.P. Gabriel, owns a lighting house up in Bozeman and had his own version of a Titan crane, so I had access to a camera crane whenever I wanted. It helped sell the vastness of the Great Plains when you could do a vertical move.

I'm most proud of "Northfork". "Astronaut Farmer" comes out on DVD on July 11, so check that out. I'm proud of all those Polish Bros. movies. "Twin Falls Idaho" is a good example of a small film shot mostly indoors. "Jackpot" too, and it was an even smaller shoot, in 24P HD.

Outside the Polish Bros. movies, although my work in it is not particularly striking, "Akeelah and the Bee" is another movie that I'm proud of.

"Shadowboxer", shot in Philadelphia, is visually interesting but problematic as a movie; some people find it a bit odd, not necessarily in a good way.

---

The pace of a show like "Big Love" is similar to the features I shoot, five pages a day on average, so it wasn't a big cultural shock for me except that the HBO TV crews are top-notch, which made things go faster and easier. So perhaps that's the trick I learned: hire good people. Other than that, I picked up some cool bounce lighting tricks from DP Bill Wages, ASC, who does a lot of interesting things with Source-4's into cards, and 2K's bounced into bedsheets. The thing with TV is to get as much advance work done as possible so you can hit the ground running every day. We usually got our first shot off fifteen or twenty minutes after calltime. The AD's are critical to this. Our B-camera crew had worked on a number of Spielberg's movies, which also go quickly, and I pestered them for a lot of info.

---

Most DP's get their scripts through their agents, though often/sometimes I get contacted directly and just tell them to send the script through my agent to get her into the loop. I'm with a smaller agency, ever since I did "Twin Falls Idaho." There are some big below-the-line agencies in Hollywood.

Tom Lowe

06-09-2007, 03:05 PM

It's lucky for you that on the day you guys were shooting that plane taking off the sky looked so great!

Ace

06-10-2007, 02:12 AM

David, I saw Astronaut farmer twice (with different dates). The landscapes and isolate environments were captured beautifully. I thought that the whole concept of this man being "alone" in his quest was translated eloquently through the visual language. Oh and the way that rocket was lit during the night, it was almost Cathedral like! A sense of holiness almost.

Although not directly cinematography related, I am curious to know how that scene was shot where the windows blast and you see the wife get blown back. If I remember correctly it was one entire take.. How was this accomplished?

David Mullen ASC

06-10-2007, 08:05 AM

We did a digital split-screen. She was on the left side of the frame with windows behind her head that were blown out wth some air cannons, then she stepped out of the frame and we blew out the windows on the right side of the frame in the foreground with air canons. When she was in the shot, we hit her with a blast of air at the same time. The two takes were combined digitally.

We used the same trick for the shot of the guy sitting at his desk when the brick is thrown through the window to his right, did it in two passes.

Ace

06-10-2007, 09:06 AM

Quite an elegant solution. I thought it looked quite natural.. now I know why. No CGI!

Keith Alan Morris

06-10-2007, 12:20 PM

Can you recommend a great restaurant while in LA? How about Palm Springs?

KETCH ROSSi

06-10-2007, 03:32 PM

Hi David,

could you give your professional opinion on the number of cameras needed in a shoot.

I immagine the number to need to be different for each film senarial, but in general, if this can be generalized, how many cameras are in off for a project?

My self I write mostly Drama with some action driven by Lovestory.

His the number 3 a standard for behiond the sholders and the master?

I also imagine budjet to be a factor as if you do not have one you must do with only 1 camera; the more money the more cameras?

I will complete my production package after Cinegear and the final say on RED's delivery scadule, but at this time is very important for me not to over buy but also not to under buy, and not be capable to fulfill the shoting needs.

Thanks in advance for your answer.

Ciao

KETCH ROSSI
www,KETCHFRAME.com

David Mullen ASC

06-10-2007, 04:14 PM

First off, some of what I am describing refers to shooting film, so ignore anything that doesn't pertain to shooting digitally, like worrying about how much footage you are shooting.

For a long time, most low and medium-budget feature production was single-camera -- in fact "single camera" is still used to describe TV shows shot in this style, even though they are rarely single-camera anymore.

I shot many features on one camera, with an occasional "B" camera for heavy days where we needed to get more coverage quickly. But with an extra camera, there are the costs of the extra operator and focus puller for that camera, so most film budgets limited the number of days when a second camera and crew would be employed.

And even on these single-camera shoots, we had to occasionally rent a special camera for unique shots, like a high-speed camera for super slo-mo, or a crash camera, etc.

But even back then, if you went on location away from a city with rental houses, you generally rented two sync-sound cameras just in case one went down, so the issue was how many days could you afford a second camera crew to run that second camera in the package, plus the attendant increase in film consumption that running two cameras caused.

But lately, two-camera shooting as the base norm has become more and more common, and budgeting for more film stock as a result. Maybe these higher shooting amounts are a bleed-thru from more and more people shooting digitally and getting used to those habits of being able to shoot more footage.

So while a single camera is still fine for many small productions, especially intimates ones in small locations with few actors in the scene, it's becoming more commonplace to plan on using two-cameras for a large percentage of shooting, especially big scenes. Of course, even three or more cameras may be employed on really big scenes, but there is a law of diminishing returns when you try and constantly run three or more cameras on everything. Plus the sound crews hate it because you've got wide and tight being shot simultaneously and cameras pointing in different directions at the same time.

The advantage of a two-camera crew and package is that even if you can only work the second camera in there for 50% of the shots, that B-camera crew can either be grabbing second unit type shots or pick-ups or inserts that are missing, or they can be setting up for the next shot, like building the camera onto a crane or putting it into Steadicam mode, so there is no downtime.

But it's really a budget issue, plus it does make a shoot less intimate for the actors when you've doubled the size of the camera crews in small locations, though many actors like having two shot sizes knocked off at the same time so they are not playing the scene over and over again as much. But some actors don't like two-camera shooting either because they feel that the second camera has some sort of compromised viewing position (I know... they probably should leave worrying about such things to the director).

Some editors also like two-camera shooting because then there is better continuity/matching in action between the shot sizes, and more editing options -- but then, others don't like a "dump truck" style of directing where they get hours and hours of footage to wade through just to cut a little scene.

My last HD feature, "The Quiet", was pretty low in budget (under 1 mil.) and we shot most of the movie with a single HD camera that I operated, but we had maybe six days in the schedule with a second camera and second crew for it -- like to shoot a basketball game and a high school prom, etc.

KETCH ROSSi

06-10-2007, 04:29 PM

Thanks very much David, you have given me the exact info I was looking for.

As money is not very big of a issue(I have RED #349/851/852) especially shooting digital, the only reason for my Q?
was really because I like to be present and in focus for each shot and believe that multiple camera shots will not get my full attention, especially so at the begine during my first films.

So at the end I believe I will stay with two cameras, the second one exactly to do the function as you described, set up for the next shot or replace the first one in case it brakes down(hope not!)

And I do think one camera point of view gets more of the actors qualities as he/She concentrates in the one camera angle.

Thanks again, hope to meet you some time, maeby Cinegear?

Ciao

KETCH ROSSI
www.KETCHFRAME.com

David Mullen ASC

06-10-2007, 04:41 PM

Yes, after doing many two-camera shoots lately, I like it when we get back to single camera shooting because it's more controlled, simpler, the crew is smaller, and I can adjust things in the frame to improve the composition.

But now and then, it's great to knock off extra angles with a second camera, like when there are children in the scene. Sometimes when doing a family scene with kids playing in the shot, we'll run both cameras on what the kids are doing first, in case we get something interesting and spontaneous, and in case the kids end up being pulled from the set later when they start crying, etc. You get some great cutaway shots that way.

Hopefully I'll be at CineGear, unless I am working. If I am there, I may have to put some time in at the ASC booth, so you can catch me there.

KETCH ROSSi

06-10-2007, 04:44 PM

Fantastic David I will look for you there, just in case you are not working.
Thanks again,

Ciao

KETCH ROSSI
www.KETCHFRAME.com

Ramesh Jai

06-11-2007, 02:27 AM

Thank you David. Will try back projection and see.

Rob Lohman

06-11-2007, 03:14 AM

Can you recommend a great restaurant while in LA? How about Palm Springs?

Fred 62 (24/7 diner) at 1850 N Vermont Ave is pretty good

Adam C Lubkin

06-11-2007, 01:27 PM

David, are there any visual cliches that you are tired of seeing and/or have an aversion to shooting?

David Mullen ASC

06-11-2007, 01:54 PM

I've already mentioned the "funny" use of wide-angle lenses for close-ups, which is a bit aggressive to my tastes in general, but I've seen it work.

I just get distracted by stylistic touches that don't seem to be motivated, or aren't motivated enough to be worth the distraction. The "Shakeycam" operating style started around the time of "NYPD Blue" is one of those things that really need to be motivated for me if the director wants to use it, otherwise it feels arbitrary.

I know this is not a popular opinion, but I get a little bored by excessive realism sometimes, two-hours of slice-of-life shooting, usually handheld, but probably I'm only bored when the narrative is boring so I start thinking about the technique. When the narrative is interesting to me, then a very realistic style can be very apt and motivated. I guess I'm of the opinion that some element of the filmmaking has to be interesting at any one point, and if it's not the story, dialogue, or performances, and if there isn't interesting visuals or sound design either... then what's holding my interest anymore?

I'm not really one of those people who feel that technique has to always be invisible though -- I see it more like symphonic music where everyone is playing as a single unit but occasionally one instrument or theme becomes dominant and then fades into the background again. So even though narrative cinema is story-driven by definition, now and then the image or the sound or the cutting or the music score, etc. may have its solo moment where it gets to shine before stepping back again.

Cliches are generally bad when they don't work. For example, doing a horror film in a Gothic style is a cliche, but when it works, it can be satisfying. An example is "Psycho" -- Hitchcock generally avoided cliches of the thriller/suspense genre, saying that he preferred shooting a murder in color, staged in a sunny field of flowers, but in the case of "Pyscho" there are some classic elements like the scary house on the hill, a stormy night, dark clouds, moody b&w photography, etc.

Another cliche is the pathetic fallacy of having it rain when someone is sad, but sometimes it works visually. Mozart was apparently buried on a cold winter day but the movie "Amadeus" portrays it as a rainy day, which works visually to match the Requiem Mass playing on the soundtrack. A simply cold but dry day may have not had quite the same theatrical, operatic overtones in film.

number6

06-11-2007, 03:28 PM

I see it more like symphonic music where everyone is playing as a single unit but occasionally one instrument or theme becomes dominant and then fades into the background again. So even though narrative cinema is story-driven by definition, now and then the image or the sound or the cutting or the music score, etc. may have its solo moment where it gets to shine before stepping back again.

Ahhhh, an opening....
David.
Sound from your perspective and experience.

JW Lee

06-11-2007, 06:19 PM

David, incredible thread so far. Thanks for sharing all of this great information, makes a lot of sense. I like your symphonic analogy as a way to mix up the "intensities" of the various elements so the end product is truly an ensemble piece for everyone involved.

I was wondering if you had any rules of thumb or general guidelines on how to efficiently shoot coverage of a scene with a single camera, especially for action sequences. I know this is a pretty open ended question, but I'm wondering what a more nuanced approach than wide, medium, close, might be.

David Mullen ASC

06-11-2007, 06:51 PM

It's a rather broad question... when it comes to dramatic scenes (or even action scenes) I do sometimes think about whether to shoot it subjectively or objectively, though most movies are a mix of both. Hitchcock is a prime example of the subjective approach -- you shoot the scene from the point of view of the main character and intercut his POV's with his reactions. This creates a strong connection between the viewer and the main character, who are essentially experiencing the scene together, learning information at the same time, etc. The downside of the subjective approach is that you can get so locked-up in the perspective of the character that broader intellectual or social ideas are harder to introduce -- it's hard to create enough emotional distance.

"The Godfather" and its sequels are good examples of a more objective approach to the coverage, though the film follows Michael Corleone mostly. There is a somewhat proscenium approach, a tableau presented in medium and wide shot mostly, that creates just enough emotional distance to allow some satire and political themes to rise in conjunction with the family story. Although there are more subjective scenes, like when Michael shoots the two people in the restaurant.

I remember the criticism of "The Color Purple" when it came out, that it lacked the social context that someone like Martin Ritt or John Ford would have brought to the story, but I think that's because Spielberg made the movie so relentlessly subjective (maybe the book is like that too), almost Hitchcockian, so all you experience emotionally is whatever Celie is going through, so a broader historical or social view is hard to introduce.

As far as action goes, again, following the character and what he experiences is a good starting point, but you also tend to want to emphasize motion and any dynamic qualities to the action through how it is composed, cut, camera is moved, etc. I mentioned this before in the discussion on focal length, but James Cameron once talked about using long lenses for lateral motion and wide-angle lenses for forward & back movement, in both cases to enhance the speed of the motion.

The Hong Kong action films are a good place to start; they make great use of exciting camera angles, quick moves, and quick cuts.

Tom Lowe

06-11-2007, 07:26 PM

Hey David, I was wondering if you are a DLSR buff these days? Certainly some of your shots in Northfork reminded me of stills. With digital cinema cameras heading the way of Red and Dalsa - using DLSR-style CMOS sensors - it seems to me that many DPs might be taking an interest in DLSR photography, to become accustomed to its ways of capturing images.

David Mullen ASC

06-11-2007, 08:25 PM

I've been thinking of getting one but keep putting off the purchase for various reasons (everytime you wait, it seems a better model comes out.) I want to get back into still photography again.

I've been shooting HD off and on since 2000, and betacam before that, but that's 3-CCD photography... yes, shooting DSLR and working with the images in Photoshop would be good practice. A lot of DP's that I know already shoot that way (Owen Roizman is an excellent still photographer and often works with a DSLR, I remember a lecture/demo once by Don McAlpine showing how he uses DSLR shots as a previz device...)

Tom Lowe

06-11-2007, 08:29 PM

Yeah a good friend of mine who is a London School of Film MFA guy surprised me about a year ago by saying he hadn't messed around with DLSRs yet. He was really curious about RAW most of all, I think. Since then he's gotten one and is alll into it now. Even a cheap crop DLSR like the Rebel XTi is a lot of fun to fool around with.

Shawn Nelson

06-12-2007, 08:19 AM

Where can I find David's online set diaries? I found the Northfork one, but that was all! Are there any others?

Robert Sanders

06-12-2007, 12:54 PM

Fred 62 (24/7 diner) at 1850 N Vermont Ave is pretty good

That places kicks ass.

David Mullen ASC

06-12-2007, 09:14 PM

Where can I find David's online set diaries? I found the Northfork one, but that was all! Are there any others?

Some are in older archives that are no longer searchable, but I did one for "Astronaut Farmer" -- here's the first one:
http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/index.php?showtopic=8238
You have to find my threads titled with the movie's name and "Week 1", "Week 2", etc. scattered around that time frame.

I did a search for "Dot" (which became "The Quiet") and came up with pages for "Akeelah and the Bee", "Astronaut Farmer", "Solstice", etc.:
http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=1dc4c1155611f70951b21731ec9bcd32&search_in=posts&result_type=topics&highlite=dot

Bruce Allen

06-12-2007, 09:19 PM

Fred 62 (24/7 diner) at 1850 N Vermont Ave is pretty good

That places kicks ass.

Haha, that's one block away from my apartment. Redusers, PM me any time you're planning on going to eat there (after work hours)... I will meet you.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

ghostcar

06-12-2007, 10:49 PM

Hi David, I`m a 2nd AC working on a feature tltled "Gothic Tales" Ha ha. Cliche? Not sure yet. I sure hope not. The stories are based on works by Poe and the budget is about 1mil. Were using the F-900.
But, my personal queston is... (I) have a feature that`s not a talkie but a mixture of Sci-Fi/Romance and forgive me for saying but I am desparate to know Christopher Doyle`s lighting - Int. Night set ups - to push that look for certain scenes, and, do you think it`s possible to get that look using a Genesis or Red? or even F-900? Your best guess is more than acceptable. PS thanks for the great films.

Charles Angus

06-12-2007, 11:13 PM

David Mullen ASC

06-12-2007, 11:27 PM

(I) have a feature that`s not a talkie but a mixture of Sci-Fi/Romance and forgive me for saying but I am desparate to know Christopher Doyle`s lighting - Int. Night set ups - to push that look for certain scenes, and, do you think it`s possible to get that look using a Genesis or Red? or even F-900? Your best guess is more than acceptable. PS thanks for the great films.

Doyle sort of has two looks that he alternates between -- there's that saturated, sometimes grainy "pushed slide film look" (though he shoots color neg) you see in movies like "Fallen Angels" and "2046" and there's the soft, pastel low-con look of movies like "Lady in the Water" and "The White Countess", although "2046" and "In the Mood for Love" can fall either way (the prints being somewhat more muted than the DVD releases, so people have conflicting impressions of these movies.)

He oftens uses some mild diffusion in his movies, like Classic Softs in "The White Countess", and lately he's been shooting Fuji stocks.

Sure, I think that look can be created using the RED camera; you'd want to do some testing though. Obviously you can try to match his lighting style and unique camera style. Colors, contrast, can be manipulated to come close. But don't underestimate the contributions of the production designer to the look of those Wong Kar Wei movies. Doyle's photography is coordinated with the colors and layout of those sets and costumes.

David Mullen ASC

06-12-2007, 11:32 PM

David,
I was wondering if you know anything about the Kodak 52/7299 HD Scan film. Is it all that Kodak cracks it up to be (ie. able to be rated from 100 to 1000, shoot 56k or 32k with no correction, match any existing stock, etc.)?

It's a very wide latitude stock which is inherently somewhat soft & pastel-looking. I also think it's a bit grainy at 500 ASA, but that's the nature of super low-con 500T stocks, just like their discontinued '63 stock used on such movies as "Elephant" and "Lost in Translation".

I think Kodak should have come out with a slow-speed version, especially for the 16mm market, but then they couldn't claim "one stock for all situations" if there were two versions.

I haven't shot it myself, but some DP's swear by it. Personally, for most types of shooting situations, I find the regular Vision-2 stocks and Fuji Eterna stocks to have enough exposure latitude / dynamic range.

As far as using the Kodak TK box to make '99 look like another stock, let's say '18, I don't know why you wouldn't just shoot on '18 instead then.

Charles Angus

06-13-2007, 02:48 PM

Thanks for the info.

Charles

Tom Lowe

06-13-2007, 04:15 PM

David, I ran across a really nice copy of your book Cinematography (http://www.amazon.com/Cinematography-Third-Kris-Malkiewicz/dp/074326438X)(Third Edition) at Barnes and Noble today. Are you guys working on a new edition, or am I safe to buy the third edition? It looks like it's got some really great practical advice - especially about actual lighting setups.

David Mullen ASC

06-13-2007, 05:05 PM

No plans for a Fourth Edition so get the Third Edition, the one I contributed to.

The publisher seems to ask for a new edition every sixteen years or so... the first one was 1973, then the next was 1989, now this one was published in 2005. You can do that with an intro to film technology book (barely) but not a digital technology book. I'm afraid that if I wrote a digital cinematography book this year and published it next year, a third of it would be outdated by the time it hit the bookshelves.

When I worked on the Third Edition, the publisher told us that the book could not get any longer, which meant I had to drop some stuff (like 16mm optical printing, near extinct) to make room for the new stuff (like D.I.'s, special lab processes, expanded lighting section, etc.) But then they asked me if I could cover digital cameras as well as 16mm cameras and I said it was impossible given the book length restrictions - that topic would be its own book. Plus it would get dated so much faster.

Sales on that book trickle in yearly, mostly due to film school purchases. Kris, the original author, thought the book would be dead by now but requests kept coming in, hence the order from the publisher to write a new edition. It's funny because back in the 1980's the original publisher was bought out by Simon & Schuster, who told Kris that they would not renew the contract. So he said that was fine... because Focal Press had just contacted him about publishing the book (which was the truth.) Suddenly when Simon & Schuster realized that some other publisher thought there was a market for the book, they said "uh...no, you can't have the rights back -- because we're going to republish it."

After the Tenth Edition of the ASC Manual eventually comes out, edited by Michael Goi, ASC (I'm writing one small article for it), I get the task of editing the Eleventh Edition in a few years. It's a big job because the digital side of things is evolving rapidly.

Tom Lowe

06-13-2007, 06:06 PM

yeah, trying to write anything about digital/HD cinema technology is crazy, because as you say, even within a few months it can be outdated! heh. i was browsing the shelves at Barnes and Noble and there were all these "digital cinema making" books. but when i opened them up, they have all this detailed information about the XL1, HDW-700, etc... hahaha!

well i'm looking for a simple book to learn the basics of cinematography -- mainly lighting and working with light, with particular emphasis on natural-light, outdoor cinematography. i'm not a DP myself, I'm a director, so it should just cover the basics and not go into too much detail about particular film stocks and such. the directors i admire like kubrick and malick have very strong basic knowledge of photography and working with light, so that is the type of knowledge base i am hoping to build up. any basic cinematography books you might recommend?... aside from the one you worked on, which i will pick up.

David Mullen ASC

06-13-2007, 07:15 PM

Tom Lowe

06-13-2007, 09:59 PM

If you haven't, you might want to read some of the Ansel Adam's books on photography.

If you're interested in natural light cinematography, read Nestor Almendros' autobiography "Man with a Camera", who espouses a very simple, natural approach to filmmaking. I also like the interview book "Masters of Light", which includes Almendros.

Kris Malkiewicz's book "Film Lighting" has a lot of good lighting advice from various DP's.

Oh geez, I didn't even know Almendros had an autobiography! It's super expensive, used, but I'm going to get my hands on this ASAP... I loved his brief interview in Visions of Light.

Yes, I have been reading some of Ansel's books at my local library. I need to read more for sure.

Thanks a lot, David.

Jim Arthurs

06-14-2007, 08:24 AM

David, thanks for taking the time to do this with us!

I've just started to watch the first season of Big Love (via Netflix) and can see some of the challenges you must face as well with your cast; three lovely ladies, but of different ages and skin types, and craggy Bill Paxton thrown into the mix as well!

Does this present much in the way of challenges in regards to diffusion and close ups, and do you feel any pressure (besides your own esthetic tastes) in dealing with the situation? Or were these issues "solved" by a style or formula from the first season that you now match?

Also, more generally, is it difficult to match up with the look of the other two DP's from season one and do you feel able to make your own impact on the look, while not ignoring the shows established visual style?

Regards,

David Mullen ASC

06-14-2007, 09:28 AM

I slowly navigated my way through the creative process of modifying -- not outright changing -- the look of the show. Season Two will not look stylistically different from Season One, by design. HBO was very happy with Season One and didn't want a lot of changes. I was hired as the "second" DP and Jim Glennon, ASC, from Season One, was hired as the "first" DP, so I had to follow his lead.

My only mandates from the producers and HBO were: (1) make the day exterior backyard set on the soundstage look more believable for outdoors; (2) flatter the cast a little more while keeping the naturalistic tone of the show.

So I shot some tests of the backyard set, which had a new 180 degree backing of mountains (the old one had some seams that were visible in the sky -- we moved the welded part into the mountains) and some more trees to break it up. They seemed happy with my tests. The key really was to increase the contrast of the lighting and be logical about where the "sun" was coming from.

Jim Glennon tried to avoid any diffusion filters by using the old 20-100mm Cooke zoom wide-open -- that was their approach in Season One. I tested some really mild diffusion filters, the lightest we could find, as an emergency back-up. Jim suggested we switch from Kodak '18 to the lower-contrast Kodak '29 (Expression 500T), which was a little softer-looking. He hadn't used it before (some DP recommended it to him) but I had shot some big sections of "Akeelah and the Bee" with it so was used to it.

Jim shot most of the first episode of Season Two, all except the last day, when he fell ill. I shot his last day and then the second episode, and when he didn't recover, I shot the third episode. Haskell Wexler shot the fourth episode as a favor to Jim and on the last day of that shoot, we heard that Jim had died at the hospital.

Bill Wages, ASC came in on the seventh episode to take over as the co-DP. So stylistically, our approach kept being subtlely modified by each new DP that came in. Bill shot three episodes, Haskell one, Jim the first one, and I shot seven out of the twelve.

Bill and I sort of ended up using larger, softer lights than Jim used. Jim wasn't such a fan of the big single-source soft-light approach ("boring" was what he told me) -- he liked to "sculpt" faces more, fill from the same side as the key, etc. But Bill and I used big soft sources partly as a way of being more flattering while being natural-looking (Bill comes out of documentaries and has a very realistic tone to his lighting). We also experimented with some mild diffusion as well. Bill Wages was more bold about letting things fall-off in the background, which I liked personally, but I was recalling the first few notes we got when we started the season about not letting the backgrounds fall-off, so I was playing that a little safer.

That's the odd thing, you get studio notes about not doing certain things (like "don't let the walls go dark") and then later when you have to do it anyway for some reason, sometimes no one notices, so then you're not sure how much to believe the original notes you were getting. The fact that Haskell Wexler and Bill Wages were coming into the situation fresh and therefore doing some new techniques that hadn't been approved before, and they seemed to be accepted, freed me to incorporate some of their ideas into the approach of the show.

Bill and I are also bigger fans of the "hot spot" in the frame, that uncontrollable, overexposed bit of bright sunlight coming into a set, which adds life and realism I think. Jim did that much less often. Jim, though, did teach me to fill from lower than the key, which helped soften the shadows of the bags under the eyes.

But this is all subtle only-a-DP-will-notice sort of stuff. I think you'll find a general consistency between all the episodes.

Rudi Herbert

06-14-2007, 11:31 AM

If I may David,

Here's a hypothetical question for you. What would it take to bring in an artistically-oriented, technically-proficient, indie-friendly DP who has now paid his dues and is in demand for high profile jobs into a small production in Europe for about 2 months? What steps would I need to take, what contacts to make, who to call, what is the path to getting my project considered by someone such as yourself? Through an agent or agency, how?

I ask because, though we've done all of our photography in our team for years, I really want to make an investment and bring in a DP that can really contribute and enrichen our work, since it will be a period piece with really demanding scenes. Provided a DP were to like the script and after meeting with the production team felt our people had what it took to get what is an unusually ambitious story from script to conception (with a small budget still), would someone like yourself be somewhat attainable (provided whatever salary/conpensation concerns were met) or as an ASC member the motions that must be followed would put such DP basically out of consideration?

Obviously, you can only reply on your behalf, but I will assume that others at your level would approach this matter with somewhat similar sensibilities...

Thanks much,

Rudi Herbert

donatello b

06-14-2007, 12:39 PM

many DP's work on 100+ mil budgets and then you'll see them doing a low/no budget as a favor or because they love the script .. it helps if you know the DP by a few degress of separation ... also remember if you don't ASK you will not get a answer which means NO - however if you ASK then odds might be more on the NO side but there's a chance of a YES ...
bottom line will be the SCRIPT ... don't be afraid to ASK ...

and speaking of Jim Glennon ... when i 1st started in the business .. i called a production company that was shooting a movie and Jim was the DP .. i didn't know him and i didn't know anybody on the production .. i left a message with production company asking to speak to DP about coming out to set to watch( learn) lighting ... 2 days later i got a call from Jim - spoke with him and he invited me out to the set ... if i didn't ASK i would have never seen Jim light and learn from him ....

David Mullen ASC

06-14-2007, 01:00 PM

Generally you would go through the DP's agent -- in my case, the New York Office.

I did shoot a small HD feature in Russia with pick-up scenes in Mexico and a one-day music video in the U.K., but that's about it for my out-of-country shooting experience, other than a betacam industrial for Disney at a factory in Bangkok, Thailand back in '94.

I consider all sorts of projects -- obviously I'm trying to move up to bigger ones, but any visually interesting smaller ones too if it works with my schedule. Unfortunately, I also get a lot of low-budget visually uninteresting stuff coming my way all the time.

Many people have told me stories of Jim Glennon's helpfulness to beginners over the past year. He was possibly one of the most positive-thinking, uncynical people I have ever met, and always quick to call a young person a "genius" and compliment them.

Jim Arthurs

06-14-2007, 01:38 PM

David, thanks for your excellent and detailed reply! It's VERY gracious and educational of you to allow us to pick your brain.

I've always been curious as to how DP's on serials manage to work with the accepted style and yet still impart their own visual stamp on the material. Very sorry to hear about the passing of the earlier DP...

I look forward to watching the show through the seasons and following the evolution.

Joel Kaye

06-14-2007, 01:49 PM

visually interesting smaller ones too if it works with my schedule. Unfortunately, I also get a lot of low-budget visually uninteresting stuff coming my way all the time.

Can you expand on visually interesting vs. unintersting a little more? Do you see it in the script? Or in discussions with the director?

What's a good example of very visually interesting to you?

Robert Sanders

06-14-2007, 04:11 PM

The challenge: The bulk of the movie takes place inside an old building in downtown Los Angeles during a power blackout. It's night. The only practical sources are flashlights, candles and lighters.

What do you use? Divas? Chinese lanterns? Kinos? Didos? A combo of them all?

Would you overlight the set, get a good well-lit neg, and then print it down (or crunch the blacks in a DI) to avoid noise/grain?

David Mullen ASC

06-14-2007, 07:40 PM

I'd shoot some tests to figure out a good combination of fast stock (maybe push-processed), fast lenses, bright flashlights, etc. to be able to get the most exposure out of those items as possible so I know what sort of base level I need to light to. It's generally good to work at a low-enough level so that these natural sources do as much real lighting as possible.

Terry Delahunt

06-14-2007, 08:04 PM

Gavin Greenwalt

06-14-2007, 08:21 PM

also remember if you don't ASK you will not get a answer which means NO - however if you ASK then odds might be more on the NO side but there's a chance of a YES ...
bottom line will be the SCRIPT ... don't be afraid to ASK ...

I think this is something a lot of less experienced people miss: professionals aren't that much different from yourself. They might be more talented, experienced and well known but they're still people not dieties. They have phones, they check their email over coffee every morning and for the most part they're driven by the same desires as you.

I'm working on a spec spot right now and my boss just mentioned yesterday that one of the heads of Nike marketing was bored and would be more than happy to provide feedback because he had nothing better to do.

People are people.

David Mullen ASC

06-14-2007, 08:35 PM

Hi David and co,
Apart from adjusting lighting (i.e. using soft lighting to lessen the chance of 'hot spots' off shiny metal surfaces), what other methods have you found to work well in dealing with hot spots off shiny machinery etc. A spray? If so which spray? Any advice would be appreciated.
Thanks

Besides softening the lights or using flags or nets over the object, Dulling Spray is a common technique to knock down a shiny spot. A Pola filter on the camera sometimes helps.

Shawn Nelson

06-14-2007, 10:56 PM

David,
Recently I really enjoyed the video by Christina Aguilera, Candyman. I'm reallly into swing/big band era stuff so to see a neo-retro take on it was fun. I'm curious how they did the look of it. To me, it simply looks like a ton of softlight. But how would you go about getting this look? Thanks!

David Mullen ASC

06-14-2007, 11:02 PM

Yes, it looks like a huge softlight set-up. Don't know the specifics -- could be spacelights on a grid with an additional silk underneath.

Terry Delahunt

06-15-2007, 04:19 AM

Besides softening the lights or using flags or nets over the object, Dulling Spray is a common technique to knock down a shiny spot. A Pola filter on the camera sometimes helps.

Thanks David, I must get some Dulling Spray.

Simon Dean

06-15-2007, 07:53 AM

For flat surfaces - i.e. mirrors, I've seen stick on translucent plastic too. A bit tricky to put on, but easy to get off. Also helps prevent reflection of unwanted objects.

Thanks David for this excellent thread! It is very very helpful.

David Mullen ASC

06-15-2007, 08:37 AM

Yes, if the shiny object kicking back at you is far away enough and out of focus, there are all sorts of crude tricks, like just taping some black paper tape over the hot spot. If a car across the street is kicking the sun into the lens, you can put a square of black cloth (duvetine) over the spot.

Truth is, though, that I like hot kicks in the frame so I am loathe to dull things down unless it is a real problem.

wshultz

06-16-2007, 10:30 AM

Hi David,
When you're hired, who decides on the gear used for the production? Do you use what is furnished or do you have input on tripods and peripheral gear?

David Mullen ASC

06-16-2007, 04:07 PM

Sometimes the format itself may already have been decided by the time I am hired (35mm, HD, etc.) though I may have input on the finer details (aspect ratio, Super-35 vs. anamorphic, 3-perf vs. 4-perf, type of HD camera, etc.)

I will usually suggest the film stocks, the camera package, etc. write up some lists so that the bidding can begin at rental houses. So sometimes I'll have to write separate breakdowns for Kodak and Fuji stocks, or Arriflex and Panaflex cameras, etc. I warn the producer about any special post processing the director and I would like considered in the budget, like a D.I.

They crunch the numbers and usually I have to make some sacrifices somewhere, or get on the phone myself and plead with the rental house for a deal (like for anamorphic lenses, let's say.)

Sometimes I get asked for a grip & electrical list but I really hate doing that before the Gaffer and Key Grip are hired. I'd rather send my lists to the Gaffer and Key Grip, let them add to it (because I'll never remember half the little stuff they need) and submit it themselves. Again, then the process of cutting down the list comes in once the bids come back from the rental house.

I also submit a list of what I think will be special equipment days, like film-video playback, camera cars, cranes, high-speed cameras, extra cameras & crews, etc.

Generally the process goes well and I have a lot of input, though I try and work within the budget -- I'm not unreasonable. My equipment lists tend to be very tight and accurate, without much fat to be trimmed. Once I did work with a producer who wanted to dictate to me and the director all technical aspects: format, aspect ratio, camera package, etc. because he didn't want to adjust his original budget. He basically said "we're doing this film in standard 1.85 35mm with a photo-chemical post." So he got really upset at me when I even broached the idea of shooting in 2.35 or doing a D.I., even though I had done these things on movies with smaller budgets. That was the only time I've really been dictated to that specifically.

Of course, when I did Season Two of "Big Love", the technical groundwork had already been established.

Tom Lowe

06-16-2007, 05:09 PM

Hey David, speaking of equipment, I know that some up-and-coming DPs, especially MFA grads from top schools, can get "free" rentals from Panavision and other vendors when they are shooting low-budget indies. The idea is, I guess, to establish brand loyalty with these young guys, so when they become established, they will be loyal to Panavision, Fischer, etc.

Is this also true of someone like yourself, who is already very well established? If a well-established DP takes on a low-budget feature, can they pull strings to get similar camera and equipment packages on loan from Panavision or whomever? How much pull do ASC guys have with camera and rental houses? Or is that question too vague?

Zk2007

06-16-2007, 06:24 PM

David, with all your experience with HD, if you had to shot an extremely dark movie in HD with low key lighting and lots of shadows, many night exteriors and interiors, how would you deal with the problem of noise? That’s one of the weaknesses of HD in low light and looks much worse than film grain. Would you crush blacks in camera to try to get deep dark shadows, would you shoot it bright and get the dark shadowy look in post at the risk of degrading your image on a extensive color grading process, what do you feel would produce the cleanest image?
Specially when dealing with the 1/3” HD cameras I find the noise level unacceptable in low light situations.

David Mullen ASC

06-16-2007, 07:26 PM

I did a little creepy drama in HD (24P/1080 HDCAM on the F900), an under-1 mil. movie called "The Quiet". I had some minor noise problems in blue light when I boosted the gain to +3db (which is normally mild) -- but the noise was not really visible when I color-corrected it on a 50" CRT HD monitor in a DaVinci suite, but was more visible on the film-out and on LCD screens later. Here are some frames from the DVD:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/quiet1.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/quiet2.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/quiet6.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/quiet9.jpg

If a camera is noisy, basically you want to shoot at 0 db or -3db, even if this means using more light, and don't go crazy underexposing your night scenes; leave a little final darkening for post.

Blue in particular seems noisy in HDCAM, so in the future, I'll probably avoid boosting the gain when shooting under blue lighting. And probably expose a little more fully then darken in post. This was one of those shoots though where the director really kept wanting me to go darker and darker -- I should have darkened her monitor instead of underexposing more and more.

Tom Lowe

06-16-2007, 07:29 PM

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/quiet1.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/quiet9.jpg

Gorgeous.

David Mullen ASC

06-16-2007, 07:37 PM

I didn't put my boring shots up...

This shoot was a good example though of what a director contributes - the script was set in a house and a high school, and is a drama about incest and lies, basically. The settings were quite mundane and being such a small shoot, my instinct was to use minimal lighting and go for a semi-documentary style. But the director wanted as much mood as possible to create more of a pyschological state, and wanted many scenes to be very dark, so many times in the house, we had dialogue scenes set in moonlight when in real life, someone would have switched on some lamps. It was an all-white modernist house with a lot of windows, so it wasn't as interesting when it was all lit up. Often instead, I'd light the trees outside the windows and leave the room dark, giving it more of a Grimm's fairy-tale quality.

Tom Lowe

06-16-2007, 07:49 PM

David, do you prefer indoor or outdoor cinematography?

David Mullen ASC

06-16-2007, 07:55 PM

I like variety. You do one thing too long and you start wishing for the opposite. Location interiors make you crave for sets you can control, sets make you want to go outside and shoot in natural light, being outside all the time makes you want to go inside and light something...

Tom Lowe

06-16-2007, 08:01 PM

BTW, do you by any chance have a copy of Almendros's book, David? I'd be willing to US post you some great books and DVDs as an exchange for a month or so, all the postage paid by me of course. I'm in OC.

David Mullen ASC

06-16-2007, 08:26 PM

Yes, I have the softbound 1984 edition. I once ran into a second edition, 1986, that had a few extra pages.

I have quite a number of cinematography / filmmaking books, some hard to find, some not, like Freddie Young's cinematography textbook, James Wong Howe: Cinematographer by Todd Rainsburger, Haig P. Manoogian's "The Film-Maker's Art".

I have a taped-together paperback copy of Jeremy Agel's book on the making of "2001" which I bought in high school and read until it fell apart...

One of my favorites is a little textbook on early 1970's cinematography written in the U.K. and full of quotes by British cinematographers, Russell Cambell's "Practical Motion Picture Photography". Of course, most would find this one as dull as dishwater and horribly dated, but a lot of my early heroes were U.K. cinematographers of that period.

Sam Druckerman

06-16-2007, 08:27 PM

... don't go crazy underexposing your night scenes; leave a little final darkening for post.

This was one of those shoots though where the director really kept wanting me to go darker and darker -- I should have darkened her monitor instead of underexposing more and more.

Pearls.... Thanks David.

Please share more frames with your commentary.

How about some you're really proud of with comments?

This thread ....... Rocks.

wshultz

06-16-2007, 08:59 PM

I think that's hilarious that you'd darken the monitor for the director. I bet that stuff's done more than anyone will admit! Was "The Quiet" released?

David Mullen ASC

06-16-2007, 09:59 PM

"The Quiet" on out on DVD. It had a brief theatrical run last August.

Here are some frames from "Akeelah and the Bee", shot in 35mm anamorphic. The first frame shows the use of a tilt-focus lens to hold split-focus, the second frame shows the use of a split-diopter to hold focus:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/akeelah2.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/akeelah3.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/akeelah6.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/akeelah7.jpg

David Mullen ASC

06-16-2007, 10:00 PM

In the final spelling bee, we had some 24P HD material that was shot at a real spelling bee that we needed to use in order to create a montage, so I shot our actors in HD as well on the F900. You can see some comparisons between the 35mm anamorphic footage (shot with GlimmerGlass diffusion) versus the 24P HD footage of the same actors, shot clean, though not intercut in the movie -- the HD footage was kept in one sequence.

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/aatb351.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/aatbhd1.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/aatb352.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/aatbhd2.jpg

Dan Blanchett

06-16-2007, 10:09 PM

Speaking of darkening the monitor, with REDCINE won't we be able to apply a look that can be fed to the monitor? That will help in maintaining a consistent style from shot to shot and scene to scene without compromising the lighting and exposure.

I saw "The Quiet" on DVD a few weeks ago. I think you did a good job of creating the darker mood the director asked for. I also enjoyed the special commentaries/interviews on that DVD. The movie would have taken on a different feel had Thora Birch been available for the role of Dot, but Camilla Belle did a commendable job on short notice.

Dan Blanchett

06-16-2007, 10:13 PM

You can see some comparisons between the 35mm anamorphic footage (shot with GlimmerGlass diffusion) versus the 24P HD footage of the same actors, shot clean, though not intercut in the movie -- the HD footage was kept in one sequence.

Thanks for the stills and insight into your process. I've been wanting to see this movie. I'll have to add it to my short list.

Gavin Greenwalt

06-17-2007, 01:49 AM

David this is a purely speculative question but you might have some insights from your onset experience.

Do you see the job of a colorist changing in the coming years as more productions move to a digital meta-data oriented workflow with onset grading? Obviously the need for a post grade will remain as it always has, but who do you see taking over the onset look creation? Will the DIT evolve into an on set grader? Will a new position evolve? Who will "darken the monitor" as directors expect more and more accurate feedback in realtime?

Fergus Meiklejohn

06-17-2007, 03:56 AM

thanks for those pictures david

the first of the each pair would be the 35mm film yes?

Zk2007

06-17-2007, 05:32 AM

Thanks David.
Since stretching the blacks or raising gamma to get more details in the shadows tend to introduce noise, I thought crushing the blacks would produce a cleaner image, as long as you are sure you won’t need any of the information in the shadows.
So do you feel shooting it bright and darkening in post is the better approach?
I find it pretty trick to do when you going for a low key high contrast look.

Darkening the Director’s monitor is a good trick. I wonder if I should darken my own monitor to prevent me from under exposing all the time when trying to get a dark moody look (LOL)

JohnF

06-17-2007, 07:11 AM

I did a little creepy drama in HD (24P/1080 HDCAM on the F900), an under-1 mil. movie called "The Quiet". I had some minor noise problems in blue light when I boosted the gain to +3db (which is normally mild) -- but the noise was not really visible when I color-corrected it on a 50" CRT HD monitor in a DaVinci suite, but was more visible on the film-out and on LCD screens later...

...Blue in particular seems noisy in HDCAM, so in the future, I'll probably avoid boosting the gain when shooting under blue lighting.

If you don't mind my saying most electronic camera seem to have noise/codec issues with blue. I believe that part of the problem is that the imaging devices have to be really pushed to be sensitive to the colour blue as the semiconductors involved are much more sensitive in the IR/red region of the spectrum. This might be well changing but I still notice blue problems most of the time - often the "what-you-see" resolution drops in the blue range (when compared to red)- esp dark blues.

I think the same applies to LCD screens which have the same issue with blue and are merciless with dark images - I just don't work with them or watch them for just that reason. I'm still a CRT man and I suggest to all a side by side comparison... it can be quite shocking.

JohnF

David Mullen ASC

06-17-2007, 07:45 AM

There are DP's who look forward to on-set scene-to-scene coloring, but I'm not one of them -- my time is limited enough on a set. I don't believe that adding post time to shooting time makes sense. I mean, I don't mind doing a little of that for special scenes, like a dream sequence or a day-for-night scene. But then, I tend to shoot 5-pages-a-day dramas, not commercials or music videos, so I can get away with a more straight-forward approach to the look.

And I think it makes more sense when working with a camera recording in linear video gamma / color space for broadcast / monitor display, especially in an 8-bit compressed format -- not a camera recording RAW data in 10-bit Log mode, which is more like a film negative. With a RAW camera, you are more concerning with recording information that can be manipulated later.

Now of course, some people will want to create looks on the set using LUT's so they can get dailies and on-set monitors to look correct; I'd probably go for a halfway approach, create some pre-built general LUT's for the set and for dailies, as opposed to coloring each scene on the set.

---

Yes, the first frames are from the 35mm anamorphic version.

---

I wouldn't go as far as saying "shoot bright" for dark scenes, just that one should resist the temptation of underexposing them too much. You don't want clipped highlights afterall.

I tend to have a "halfway" philosophy in general when it comes to doing things in camera or in post. Get the look halfway down in camera but finish the look in post. This gives you some flexibility in post to correct, but makes sure that you aren't having to make extreme corrections just to get where you want to be.

Casey Green

06-17-2007, 10:37 AM

David Mullen ASC

06-17-2007, 10:48 AM

That would be a good thing to test, although I'm not sure if adding more blue in post is the same thing as pumping up an underexposed blue record. Having some green in the blue light may just help in terms of sharpness more than noise.

In other words, would you get more blue noise if you shot the scene in white light and made it blue in post, versus shooting it in blue light? On the other hand, if the blue-green lighting already had the desired amount of blue in it, so in post all you were doing was subtracting green, would there be any benefits? I don't know.

The solution may be to just make sure you aren't trying to add any more luminence or blue saturation in post because your image is too dark, hence why I think backing-off on the underexposure, maybe shooting at -3db (as they did for all the bluescreen work in "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow"), may solve the problem.

Casey Green

06-17-2007, 11:15 AM

David,

thanks for elaborating. Yes, I guess I was thinking along the lines of shooting using green tones in the lighting rather than blue, thus allowing the camera to possibly better pickup the detail in low light, if there were issues with blues.

Then, once the image is digital, shifting the greens back to blues, similar to adjusting hue (not sat.) on a live-camera using a color corrector. It would indeed make an interesting test.

By the way, I like your "meet half way" approach to adjusting during production vs. post. Seems to make a lot of sense.

thanks,

David Mullen ASC

06-17-2007, 04:34 PM

David,
Then, once the image is digital, shifting the greens back to blues, similar to adjusting hue (not sat.) on a live-camera using a color corrector. It would indeed make an interesting test.

One problem could be if you had other colored sources in the scene, like a tungsten lamp or a flashlight, etc. It's harder to shift the green to blue without shifting the color of the tungsten towards magenta or something, unless one carefully isolates the moonlight colors from the other colors in the frame before applying a correction.

But I think the question is whether putting some green in your moonlight, then shifting it back to blue in post, would improve sharpness, noise, or both, or neither. Something to test.

It's similar to the idea of shooting a red-lit darkroom scene under magenta lighting instead of red to improve sharpness, then correcting it to red in post.

Casey Green

06-17-2007, 06:29 PM

One problem could be if you had other colored sources in the scene, like a tungsten lamp or a flashlight, etc. It's harder to shift the green to blue without shifting the color of the tungsten towards magenta or something, unless one carefully isolates the moonlight colors from the other colors in the frame before applying a correction.

But I think the question is whether putting some green in your moonlight, then shifting it back to blue in post, would improve sharpness, noise, or both, or neither. Something to test.

It's similar to the idea of shooting a red-lit darkroom scene under magenta lighting instead of red to improve sharpness, then correcting it to red in post.

Ahh, yes. That sounds like a good one too. I just love learning more tricks of the trade. I'm sure you always work a few good tests into your pre-production schedules. Maybe next show, you can find a reason to try this one. ;)

thanks again,

Paris Remillard

06-19-2007, 01:40 PM

Howdy. Do you care to elaborate on the source 4 and 2k bounce techniques you mentioned earlier?

David Mullen ASC

06-19-2007, 03:06 PM

The ETC Source-4 is a ellipsoidal lamp like a Leko:
http://www.etcconnect.com/product.overview.asp?ID=20080

It's usually got a 650w globe but is as bright as a 1K. With different lenses, you can create different sized circles and then with the leaves, you cut the circle to whatever shape you want, usually masked to just hit a white card that you've added to some part of the set. So it's a fast way of getting a controlled bounce source with a minimal amount of flags, if any. You can almost shine a Source-4 right at a camera and as long as the beam itself isn't hitting the lens, you shouldn't have flaring problems -- there's very little spill beyond the circle it projects.

There is also a 575w and 800w HMI version that is fairly punchy.

I also use Source-4's to put a little bright square of light across a table top or on a wall, to suggest a little patch of bright sunlight coming through a window.

Ramesh Jai

06-21-2007, 03:51 AM

Hi David, I am sure you have been asked this before but please humour me with a simple answer - if there was only one lens you could use for filming TV Commercials, which one would it be. (It could be zoom or prime).

I am not necessarily talking about brand name but if you do have a preference, pray do tell. Thanks.

Cail Young

06-21-2007, 06:19 AM

The ETC Source-4 is a ellipsoidal lamp like a Leko:
http://www.etcconnect.com/product.overview.asp?ID=20080

It's usually got a 650w globe but is as bright as a 1K.

750W, surely, unless they've changed away from the HPL lamp I know and love from my theatre days :)

I didn't really imagine 'theatrical' lights got used in high end cinema, I guess mainly because compared to your 2Ks and 5Ks they're not usually that punchy...

David Mullen ASC

06-21-2007, 08:34 AM

Yes, I'm sure you're right -- 750w, not 650w.

As for one lens for all shooting situations I might come across, it would have to be a zoom then, but the question is whether to go for a big, sharp, fast zoom with a wide range of focal lengths... or something small and handholdable with a limited range and perhaps not necessarily as fast. It sort of depended on whether my directors would get more pissed off at not being able to go longer than 100mm or not being able to use the camera handheld or on a Steadicam...

Otherwise, it would have to be two lenses to cover both situations, probably both of them zooms, like a lightweight Cooke S4 T/2.0 15-40mm and a Ang. Optimo T/2.8 24-290. Not that I could afford either lens...

Ramesh Jai

06-21-2007, 10:07 AM

wshultz

06-21-2007, 10:33 AM

David, since you've shot both feature and television, I'm wondering how different you approach the cinematography. I got to thinking about it after watching the latest "The Lot" this week. The judges have been critical two or three times that the shooters needed to go wider on shots. Gary Marshall made the remark that if you go wide, they'll give you a few million for a feature but if you stay close they'll give you a few thousand for a soap opera. What interested me was that I thought the framing and comps looked fine but then I realized I'm watching on TV while they're watching a projection.

I recently was editing a straight-to-DVD educational short for which a feature director had been hired (Eric Karson). He commented a couple of times that he felt I was editing to close ups too quickly. Not having edited for the big screen, I was wondering if I was thinking TV while he was thinking big screen.

Thanks for your comments. We should compile all this into a book.

krd

06-21-2007, 11:01 AM

I recently was editing a straight-to-DVD educational short for which a feature director had been hired (Eric Karson). He commented a couple of times that he felt I was editing to close ups too quickly. Not having edited for the big screen, I was wondering if I was thinking TV while he was thinking big screen.

Walter Murch has an interesting technique for editing on the small screen, when the film is destined for the large screen. He makes paper figures of a size properly scaled to an audience member in a theater, but based on the size of the video monitor he's using. Then he puts those scaled figures in front of the monitor. And he claims that does it for him, he's suddenly editing for the big screen.

Haven't tried it, but who knows.... In general, it's a commonplace that most editors hold shots for shorter intervals when editing on small screens, than they would if they were constantly screening work print on a large screen. Which can be a problem, when there's no work print and/or large screen projection available.... You finally see it large, and realize the rhythms are off, but it's too late then.

David Mullen ASC

06-21-2007, 06:59 PM

You probably should occasionally look at what you're editing on a screen that is similar in size to what you intend the final product to be seen at.

Of course, the problem today is that people are watching things on either their 40" Plasma screens or on their iPods... you can't win.

I do find that if you establish the visual language of a film, that a typical scene will use shots of a certain distance and close-ups will be used sparingly, etc. people get used to that style, hence why watching an old John Ford movie on TV, despite the looser framing, we get used to that language. If you use a lot of close-ups from the beginning, the audience will get used to that style of expression.

Matthew Rogers

06-21-2007, 07:47 PM

David Mullen ASC

06-21-2007, 09:10 PM

It looks very nice, rich, technically spot-on. The exterior shots of the kids are great, especially the end ones when they are drinking the water (looks like an overhead silk or something, judging by the reflection in the glass.)

My only possible comment, if you're looking for ways to improve it, is that the interior shots could indicate the fact that it is daytime better -- right now, it feels a bit "lit" and day interiors, especially in a house, tend to look more like natural window light is illuminating the space. The hard rake on the cabinets, for example, feel more like a movie light is doing that than window light or even kitchen lights. Softer light, a little single-sourcey (more contrast) and a little dimmer, with hot splashes or slashes of light at the bottom of a wall or on the floor, would make it feel more real, less evenly lit.

cliffordwright

06-22-2007, 01:39 PM

www.imdb.com clifford e wright. i am doing feature in st. petersburg russia where i live now and want to get you involved. email me your or your agent email at wrightpict at hotmail.com thanks. cliff

Ramesh Jai

06-22-2007, 04:59 PM

Hey David, another question for you, this time with a little visual example. Here is a short clip of something I shot today. This is by far, I feel, the best lighting that I have done (coming more from the Camera Op/Editing side of things.) I wanted to see what you thought of the lighting and how I could improve on it. http://www.mediafire.com/?1dgyzdguy4z

Camera was JVC 100u with stock lens.

Matthew
I love the tracking..very smooth and consistent.

Personally I felt the interiors were lit a bit harsh. I also felt (now that's me) that maybe you could have shot the exteriors a little bit later in the day. The shadows seemed OK but the highlights were washed out.

The slomo turned out pretty good..

The picture quality was nice and I found it a bit difficult to believe it was shot with the JVC100.

I am not familiar with the term 'stock lens', what did you mean by that?

Cail Young

06-22-2007, 07:17 PM

I am not familiar with the term 'stock lens', what did you mean by that?

The JVC GYHD100U comes with a lens.

Matthew Rogers

06-22-2007, 07:24 PM

I love the tracking..very smooth and consistent.

Personally I felt the interiors were lit a bit harsh. I also felt (now that's me) that maybe you could have shot the exteriors a little bit later in the day. The shadows seemed OK but the highlights were washed out.

The slomo turned out pretty good..

The picture quality was nice and I found it a bit difficult to believe it was shot with the JVC100.

I am not familiar with the term 'stock lens', what did you mean by that?

We were planning on shooting later in the day (5 PM or so here in Tennessee) but our talent (friends, aka free!) had to be somewhere so we had to shoot earlier in the afternoon (around 3:30-4:00.) The dynamic range of the camera is not that wide so it's really hard to expose for someone in the shadows and keep the highlights.

Why do you now believe it was shot with the 110? I've been thinking lately that if you don't have a high contrast ratio, the image seems to hold up better. I'm going to to try and start shooting more stuff with big, heavy defused lights to see if it works better with the camera.

Stock lens means the 16.5x lens that came with the camera.

David, when you throw a splash of light to make it look like it's coming through a window, do you do anything special light gelling it blue or anything? I just don't understand how to not make it look like another hard, tungsten light?

Matthew

David Mullen ASC

06-22-2007, 10:32 PM

Well, in real life, hard sunlight coming into a room would be very hot and bright, almost uncontrollable. And it probably would come through a window and hit the lower part of the room, the base of the cabinets, etc. You wouldn't get hard light on the top part of a cabinet unless it was really low sunset light beaming right in (and then it would be orange and not too bright) or you had some odd skylight with a clear window in it allowing a beam to come in and hit the upper cabinets in a downward slash.

But again, it would be very sharp and very hot, overexposed. Now, in video, this may look rather clippy so you'd want to keep it confined to small areas in non-distracting places, like across someone's lower half, or at the lower part of a table, chair, wall.

I don't have a good example, but here's a shot that I did in "Twin Falls Idaho" showing the idea of the brighter slash of light at the lower half of someone to suggest sunlight:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/tfi7.jpg

Simon Dean

06-23-2007, 01:30 AM

That is great advice, thanks David! I like that shot, although the bottom is bright it doesn't distract from the top part.

2 questions;
The bright light has slightly soft edges, was that flagged?
What kind of stop difference is there between the two? (Bright and dark)

I'm really interested in the 2nd question as there is a shot in the Gladiator where Russell Crowe's face is half bright lit by (what looks like) sunshine and half in shade and yet both sides are completely visible. I know this is why film is so much better, but I'm interested to know what you can get away with on video too.

David Mullen ASC

06-23-2007, 08:51 AM

On film, I usually don't measure the overexposed areas in a set-up like that (even five stops over would have some faint detail, but this is more like three or four stops over) -- in that shot, which was lit with a Xenon coming through a window and then putting a diffusion frame halfway down in front of the beam to create a "soft topper" (or cutter), I think I metered the face and then underexposed it one stop.

The sharpness of the cut depends on how close the diffusion frame cutting/topping the hard light is to the subject and how sharp the light being projected is.

In video, I'd split the exposure a little more to hold the detail in the bright area and if it still couldn't handle it, there are tricks like using the Knee or DCC (Auto Knee), or using a net on the bright area to knock it down, or using an ND grad from below, or simply using a less heavy diffusion frame so the difference is less extreme.

wshultz

06-23-2007, 09:30 AM

David, do you determine ambience level first or do you do keys and fills and then determine the background ambience. Is this usually something bounced off a ceiling or wall or does it often take care of itself?

Adam C Lubkin

06-23-2007, 06:32 PM

David, if you wanted to approximate the look of 70's films (for instance Car Wash or Minnie and Moskowitz) but were shooting digitally, how would you go about it? If the question is too vague please let me know and I'll try to elaborate. Basically, there's something I love about the look of films from that era (which I also find in my dad's still photos from '71-'76). I'm trying to express what it is but haven't found the vocabulary yet.

David Mullen ASC

06-23-2007, 11:48 PM

"Ambience" is usually the result of light bouncing around a room, so I set the primary lights first and see how that affects ambience before I add to it.

I tend to think of light in terms of what is the primary effect in the scene, all other lights creating a secondary effect. Maybe the primary effect is a soft side-light from a window, or a strong backlight, etc. Now in a moving shot, an actor may move from room to room and through different effects.

---

1970's movies come in all sorts of looks -- "The Godfather" is pretty different in tone and texture than "The Towering Inferno".

Some people feel that "Zodiak" is a good example of a 1970's feeling created digitally, though mainly in color and contrast, not use of grain.

It would be easier to create the feeling of 1970's film stocks if you were transferring the digital image to film for projection, but if it stays digital and is digitally projected, you are much farther from a 1970's visual experience in terms of shooting and presentation. And while you could add grain digitally, that tends to only play well on large screens -- most grain that is small enough for the big screen to not be distracting pretty much disappears on a small screen. And you don't want to add such large grains that it looks ridiculous on the big screen.

There are other visual clues of 1970's cinematography, like use of obvious zooms ("Munich" did some of that).

Alexander Nikishin

06-24-2007, 01:34 AM

David, did you get the chance to check out the Dalsa footage?

If so, what are your thoughts on the similarities and differences between 4K Dalsa and 4K Red?

Any preference between the two if the budget weren't a factor?

It was great to finally meet & greet with you, I didn't know you were such an entertainer in person. :biggrin:

David Mullen ASC

06-24-2007, 09:14 AM

I saw parts of Dave Stump's Dalsa footage for that short film before, a couple of months ago. The screening was too far removed from when I saw the RED footage at NAB for me to make any meaningful comparisons now. All I can say is that both looked good. Clean, sharp, and film-like.

Budget is not the only factor -- the size of the Dalsa and the complexities / burden of uncompressed 16-bit 4K RAW are other major factors. In an ideal world where I had no budget or time issues (never will happen), I'd just use both on the same shoot. Otherwise, in theory, the RED camera would be better for more typical filmmaking needs until the Dalsa gets physically smaller and recording its 4K output gets easier (either by adopting some form of compression or hoping data recorders get smaller but with higher memory storage capacity.)

Ramesh Jai

06-24-2007, 01:31 PM

I am not a DOP but a film director with a passion for lighting. I always argue with my DOP over lighting for a master shot and close ups.

I believe that once you set up lights for a master shot you shouldn't touch the lighting again for close ups. I believe that maintains lighting continuity. (I don't always win my argument with my DOP).

What are your views? Thanks.

Dominique Grenier

06-24-2007, 04:13 PM

Hi David, I'm learning the zone system that Ansel Adams contributed to develop, but for still pictures, and I was wondering how it can be related to cinematography? I'm sure it can be used, but is it? does time allow? or does at some point you get so used to it that its like second nature and therefore really quick to do?

Thanks for all this great infos, I learned so much while reading this thread!

Dominique Grenier

06-24-2007, 04:16 PM

Hey David, another question for you, this time with a little visual example. Here is a short clip of something I shot today. This is by far, I feel, the best lighting that I have done (coming more from the Camera Op/Editing side of things.) I wanted to see what you thought of the lighting and how I could improve on it. http://www.mediafire.com/?1dgyzdguy4z

Hey, I really liked this approach where someone submit his work and other, more experienced people, comment and critic the work. I find it very useful as we all do the same "mistakes".

Anybody else would like to submit their recent work? Unfortunatly, I can't right now since I've got nothing to show, but I will later on in the summer...

David Mullen ASC

06-24-2007, 05:08 PM

I believe that once you set up lights for a master shot you shouldn't touch the lighting again for close ups. I believe that maintains lighting continuity. (I don't always win my argument with my DOP).

I don't believe in that -- the point of making a movie is to tell a story well, not to automatically maintain lighting continuity. That's a technical issue that shouldn't supercede creative issues. Audiences don't go to movies to see perfect lighting continuity, they go to see a captivating story or because they like a certain movie star, whatever.

There are two reasons why you might change the lighting when you move in closer, though the intent is to not be obvious about it.

One, the positions of the lights in the wide shot may have been compromised in order to stay out of a complex moving shot -- in other words, you couldn't quite light the room the way you wanted to because of the camera move, meaning that some of the lighting unit positions were merely chosen because there was nowhere else to put them that was out of the shot, so you rely on the tighter coverage to fix any mistakes in the look caused by this compromising, especially if you are attempting to simulate natural sources.

Two, when you change shot size significantly enough, you change the level of information that the audience is seeing. In a wide shot, a high light (which may be so high in order to get out of the camera's view) may produce unattractive bags under the actor's eyes or not enough light in the actor's eyes, or make a scar or fold in the skin stand out... but in a wide shot, the defect isn't noticable. In a close-up, it may become very distracting for the viewer, so you adjust the light, maybe lowering it a little or softening it a little, things you couldn't do in the wide shot because there was no room. You wouldn't leave the distracting bit of ugly light on the face just to mechanically maintain lighting continuity. That's like saying you can never adjust the positon of props and furniture in the frame to get a better compositon in the tighter angles, that everything must stay exactly where it was even if it makes a boring composition, or a distracting one.

In other words, NOT cheating the lighting or the positions of things in the frame may actually produce a shot that looks like a mistake, even though it actually matches the widest shot perfectly. It may throw the viewer out of the movie rather than drawing them into the movie.

Also, sometimes directors are in a hurry to shoot, so the DP will light the set only as good as it needs to be for a wide shot. But if he knew that the lighting also had to be good for tight details that weren't visible in the wide shot, they may take more time lighting the wide shot, and have to resort to elaboarate rigs to hide and mount that extra light -- when if they could have just fixed it for the closer angle only, the solution may have been very simple and fast, like bringing in a small eyelight to clean out the bags under the eyes.

Continuity is a tool like anything else in a movie... and you use it when it benefits the scene and you manipulate it or ignore it when doing that instead would make the scene better. We're talking about narrative fiction here, not a cinema verite documentary where changing the location through lighting or adjusting the furniture may be construed as "dishonest".

The trick with cheating is just to maintain the feeling of the wider shots in terms of mood, contrast, color, direction of light, while adjusting it to benefit the subject in the frame and the story point you're trying to make.

If you can light a wide shot of a room perfectly so that all closer angles can be taken without making a change, obviously that would be ideal, but it doesn't always happen.

What if the director wants a character's face to look like it is being lit by the flickering light of a TV set in a dark room, and wants to dolly 180 degrees in an arc, showing the TV set and then the actor sitting in a medium shot? In the wide shot, you may hide a small light behind the TV set or a piece of furniture to suggest the key from the TV set, but it may be too hard and projected-looking to be completely believable. IF you have a chance to shoot a close-up of the actor, you may wish to bring in some softer lighting rig that more accurately creates the effect of the flickering glow from the TV set, but this rig would not have fit in the room in the wide shot.

And what if the point of your film was to create a romantic ambience where the lead actors look stunningly beautiful in their close-ups? And what if you had to cast actors who were attractive but not quite as glamorous as the scene required? Or perhaps this is a flashback and the 40-something lead actors are having to play themselves as 20-something college students, so careful close-up lighting is needed to hide the real years visible on their face? It would be self-defeating to your own project to insist that the lighting in their close-ups had to be the wide master shot lighting with no changes, if the end result was that they didn't look convincingly younger for the scene.

Ramesh Jai

06-25-2007, 12:44 AM

I don't believe in that -- the point of making a movie is to tell a story well, not to automatically maintain lighting continuity. That's a technical issue that shouldn't supercede creative issues. Audiences don't go to movies to see perfect lighting continuity, they go to see a captivating story or because they like a certain movie star, whatever.

There are two reasons why you might change the lighting when you move in closer, though the intent is to not be obvious about it.

One, the positions of the lights in the wide shot may have been compromised in order to stay out of a complex moving shot -- in other words, you couldn't quite light the room the way you wanted to because of the camera move, meaning that some of the lighting unit positions were merely chosen because there was nowhere else to put them that was out of the shot, so you rely on the tighter coverage to fix any mistakes in the look caused by this compromising, especially if you are attempting to simulate natural sources.

Two, when you change shot size significantly enough, you change the level of information that the audience is seeing. In a wide shot, a high light (which may be so high in order to get out of the camera's view) may produce unattractive bags under the actor's eyes or not enough light in the actor's eyes, or make a scar or fold in the skin stand out... but in a wide shot, the defect isn't noticable. In a close-up, it may become very distracting for the viewer, so you adjust the light, maybe lowering it a little or softening it a little, things you couldn't do in the wide shot because there was no room. You wouldn't leave the distracting bit of ugly light on the face just to mechanically maintain lighting continuity. That's like saying you can never adjust the positon of props and furniture in the frame to get a better compositon in the tighter angles, that everything must stay exactly where it was even if it makes a boring composition, or a distracting one.

In other words, NOT cheating the lighting or the positions of things in the frame may actually produce a shot that looks like a mistake, even though it actually matches the widest shot perfectly. It may throw the viewer out of the movie rather than drawing them into the movie.

Also, sometimes directors are in a hurry to shoot, so the DP will light the set only as good as it needs to be for a wide shot. But if he knew that the lighting also had to be good for tight details that weren't visible in the wide shot, they may take more time lighting the wide shot, and have to resort to elaboarate rigs to hide and mount that extra light -- when if they could have just fixed it for the closer angle only, the solution may have been very simple and fast, like bringing in a small eyelight to clean out the bags under the eyes.

Continuity is a tool like anything else in a movie... and you use it when it benefits the scene and you manipulate it or ignore it when doing that instead would make the scene better. We're talking about narrative fiction here, not a cinema verite documentary where changing the location through lighting or adjusting the furniture may be construed as "dishonest".

The trick with cheating is just to maintain the feeling of the wider shots in terms of mood, contrast, color, direction of light, while adjusting it to benefit the subject in the frame and the story point you're trying to make.

If you can light a wide shot of a room perfectly so that all closer angles can be taken without making a change, obviously that would be ideal, but it doesn't always happen.

What if the director wants a character's face to look like it is being lit by the flickering light of a TV set in a dark room, and wants to dolly 180 degrees in an arc, showing the TV set and then the actor sitting in a medium shot? In the wide shot, you may hide a small light behind the TV set or a piece of furniture to suggest the key from the TV set, but it may be too hard and projected-looking to be completely believable. IF you have a chance to shoot a close-up of the actor, you may wish to bring in some softer lighting rig that more accurately creates the effect of the flickering glow from the TV set, but this rig would not have fit in the room in the wide shot.

And what if the point of your film was to create a romantic ambience where the lead actors look stunningly beautiful in their close-ups? And what if you had to cast actors who were attractive but not quite as glamorous as the scene required? Or perhaps this is a flashback and the 40-something lead actors are having to play themselves as 20-something college students, so careful close-up lighting is needed to hide the real years visible on their face? It would be self-defeating to your own project to insist that the lighting in their close-ups had to be the wide master shot lighting with no changes, if the end result was that they didn't look convincingly younger for the scene.
Thank you David. You have been very elaborate in your answer. I also see you have a lot of passion (I guess every film maker has).

Ok. I see your POV. What I am against is when you cut from a LS to CS and the intensity of light seems to have changed. For me that doesn't work.

I think that has more to do with the DOP's experience. Will take your views into account when I am filming next (in a few hours).

Would you ever (or any experienced person in your field) consider coming down to Ghana to lecture on lighting?

We have a film school here and though we have experienced lecturers the students feel that people with field experience can enlighten them more. I am a past student of that film school.

A long shot but I tried...

David Mullen ASC

06-25-2007, 09:38 AM

Sure, I'll go anywhere I'm invited to lecture if the film school is picking up the expenses, and I'm not working at the time -- but if it's a smaller school without much of a budget, they may find better ways of spending their money than bringing some guest lecturer in from the U.S. I'm not "worth" spending too much of a film school's yearly budget on, not for a one-time lecture.

The key to cheating lighting on close-ups is to maintain the intensity, direction, color and contrast of the light while usually adjusting it to be a little more flattering or more realistic actually (i.e. usually softening the key light.) A wide shot where all you could do is put some 216 on the doors of a 1K, in the close-up, you could use a Chinese Lantern or a Chimera on the 1K or some other larger, softer light coming from the same direction and set to the same intensity.

The other rule is that the more you change the camera angle when going from wide to tight, the more leeway you have in cheating the lighting. For example, if the closer shot was at a right angle to the wide shot, although that's a more extreme case.

If you are just jumping in from a knees-up shot to a chest-up shot on the same line (which would be an awkward cut, by the way) then the lighting can't change much, if at all, because the two shots are too similar. But if you were cutting from a knees-up shot to a head-and-shoulder shot that was also 45 degress shifted to one side, you have enough of a visual change in background to cheat the light more on the tighter shot.

Ramesh Jai

06-25-2007, 10:25 AM

David Mullen ASC

06-27-2007, 06:26 PM

First you have to factor in how long Magic Hour will last -- if you are in northern Sweden, for example, it can like that for hours, but if you are in Southern California, maybe fifteen minutes. This affects how much coverage you can hope to achieve, or how many takes you will be able to get. Unless you have a game plan for faking more angles after the light has gone completely, or conversely, when the sun is out, then you have to keep things pretty simple and short. Using more than one camera can help.

Since that time of day tends to be low in contrast, you generally don't need lighting, except maybe very weak light into the eyes (could just be a bounce card). The only argument for artificial augmentation, like some soft lighting on a face, is to smooth out the differences as the natural light changes and prolong your shooting for a few minutes. But honestly, it's better to capture as much of the natural ambience as possible. The other argument for additional light is if you were shooting a face against a bright backlit sky to balance out, rather than go for a silhouette effect.

Generally I figure the light should feel under key, at least one stop underexposed overall. Maybe two stops for more of a dim twilight feeling, especially when it is juxtaposed against some evening lighting coming on. Then the twilight can get much more underexposed in relation, because you have some bright highlights in the frame from lamps coming on, windows, etc.

Grads and Attentuator filters can sometimes help keep the sky down while letting you expose more for the ground.

Whether you want the Magic Hour to be golden, blue-ish, or neutral is up to you and the look you want to achieve.

Tom Lowe

06-27-2007, 08:30 PM

In terms of shooting around magic hours, it makes sense to me to try to do stuff without too much dialog, and if their is dialog, make sure the actors are very well rehearsed for it. Then try to do the scenes in masters/oners, or have two cameras rolling. If you try to go for coverage during a sunset or sunrise, the light changes so fast (in California, as David pointed out) you will probably have a hard time matching the shots in post. Even ten minutes can see massive changes in light when you are outdoors.

Adrian Correia

06-28-2007, 01:16 PM

David - I have a question...latest episode of Big Love. Bill goes to visit his brother in prison after he confesses to the police to poisioning Alby Grant (sp?)....a small visiting center with overhead flourescent lighting.....slightly cool, blue/green color of the lighting...white walls, but great contrast! How did you achieve this....negative fill and skirted overhead lighting? Is that color tone achieved entirely in post? Just I have short in August shooting on the HDX900 in similar conditions and this is close to what the director is talking about. Thanks!

David Mullen ASC

06-28-2007, 05:13 PM

That was shot under a 2-tube flourescent shop light that I had the art department hang; it was just ordinary Cool Whites. I shot a grey scale under white (tungsten) light just so that the dailies would leave the green in.

I didn't really do much more than that -- I kept the practical close to the actors so that the wall whites would fall-off a little in brightness, and I used a small Kinoflo with the same green color for an eyelight. That's about it, very simple lighting, almost all practical. I may have had another small Kino for a soft edge light.

Adrian Correia

06-28-2007, 05:22 PM

thank you sir!

Ramesh Jai

06-29-2007, 02:51 AM

Hi David,

I am about to shoot two TV commercials. Both interiors.

The client has asked that the commercials be 'bright'. Does using more light = bright? OR have you used minimal lights and still had a 'bright' image? Any tricks?

BTW I am shooting with a Sony DSR570P. I have access to 4 x 800W and 3 x 2K.

Thanks.

PS. The HMI's that imagewest.tv are selling, anyone used them before? Any good? Thanks.

www.apex-advertising.com

David Mullen ASC

06-29-2007, 08:39 AM

Brightness is a function of exposure. You make real sunlight look as dark as moonlight (day-for-night) so what matters is how you expose your light.

Assuming you want to shoot at 0 db, you need enough light to expose normally for your particular camera, whatever that level is. Any more, and all you will be doing is stopping down the lens / shortening the shutter / using minus db / using an ND filter in order to keep the exposure normal in brightness.

So you don't necessarily need a lot of light for a "bright image", just whatever gets you the image you want for the gain level / f-stop / shutter speed you plan on using. You could manually set your camera to 0 db & f/2.8, let's say, and whatever is the normal shutter speed (1/60th?) for your camera (NTSC? PAL?), and then light until you get the look you want.

You should ask what they mean by "bright" though. They may mean "evenly lit" as opposed to having hot highlights.

One argument for using more light, even if it means switching in some ND to compensate, is if you are filming in a day interior with a bright background and want to balance more between the inside and outside, though using ND gel on the window will allow you to keep the light levels inside lower while still balancing for the windows.

I once did a low-budget movie where the Gaffer begged me to light a scene by himself. It was a night scene in an office so all I said is "make it moody like it's the middle of the night with just a few lights on".

I come back and he's managed to simultaneously overlight the office -- lights were everywhere, he must have used thirty units -- but the key level was so LOW that I could barely get an f/2.0. So this is a case where a guy thought "dark" meant "use lower light levels". But darkness is more a function of contrast, not light levels. I didn't have time to relight the office so I just knocked down what I could to increase the contrast. But when the dailies came back, the office looked exactly like he lit it -- overlit-looking. And then he complained that the lab and the colorist had incorrectly transferred the footage. But they hadn't -- THAT'S how it looked on the set. As you can imagine, I never let this gaffer light anything unsupervised again.

If you overlight a scene and the key level is only an f/1.4, and you shoot it at an f/1.4, it will look overlit, just with very little depth of field. And if you underexpose it instead to compensate, it will just look overlit and underexposed.

Ramesh Jai

06-29-2007, 12:35 PM

Thank you David. You really do have a lot of patience when explaining. I am humbled.

Gregory Karydis

06-30-2007, 08:17 PM

This is incredible!
Thanks so much David, I am a SFX TD and I hope to make the most out of the advice you have given over your posts here.

I plan to come back with some questions of my own as I intend to shoot my first movie when I get my RED One.

Pierce Cook

07-04-2007, 11:08 AM

David,

Thanks for taking some time out to do this! I re-read through the whole thread to make sure I wasn't asking any repeats...

I have a few (a lot) of questions for when you can spare the time.

First, if you were to build a camera package from the ground up, what would you include, down to the assistants box. Camera/lens package, matte box, follow focus, tripod head, sticks, short sticks, air, measuring tape, light meter, etc..? Admittedly I ask in part because I'm trying to build up a new package of my own, and would find your thoughts on the subject invaluable. In part too I ask because a few films I worked on, notably James Wan's Death Sentence which is not yet out (DP was John Leonetti, great guy) had so few shots on sticks (I remember a single one, but I didn't work every day) I was surprised.

Second, relating to my reasons for the first, what is a good filter assortment, in your opinion?

Third, what are your feelings about light metering with digital? Is it more or less necessary?

And last, what do you think of Freddie Young's work, in particular Lawrence of Arabia?

Thanks again!

Warm regards,

Pierce

David Mullen ASC

07-04-2007, 03:24 PM

You pretty much mentioned everything, except batteries (important!) You'd probably get a more accurate list from a 1st AC.

The essentials tend to be, besides, the body, power & power cables, lenses, sunshade or mattebox, tripod head and sticks, plus whatever you are recording to (film mags and film, data recorder, whatever.) And of course, if this is a digital camera, some way of seeing the image while operating. Plus accessories to go into handheld mode and for focus-pulling (I'm starting to drift from the pure essentials.)

Basic filters: ND's, Pola, 85 (if using tungsten stock in daylight)
Next basic: UV, optical flat (clear), diopters, ND grads
Less important: diffusion (many types), warming filters, low contrast filters, colored grads, fluoro filters
Even less common: split diopters, b&w filters

ND's are probably the most necessary to carry around.

I carry a meter, but I've done whole features in HD where I've never taken it out. Digital cameras are essentially light meters.

"Lawrence of Arabia" in one my favorite movies of all time, not just for the cinematography.

pat@hpnc.com

07-04-2007, 05:07 PM

Quick question David. When going from still photography to video/film what the biggest change. I guese I mean what tends to trip people up. I know I had read about Robert Capa and when they talked him into shooting film for an asignment he just shot it like his still camera. Pointed it strait at the subject and shot of a short burst of frames.

David Mullen ASC

07-04-2007, 05:28 PM

You have to think in terms of whole sequences, not individual shots, and how that sequence will cut. So there has to be a visual design and consistency to the series of shots that make up the scene. And hopefully, this extends further, that there is a design or structure to the sequences that make up the whole movie.

Sometimes you look at a great sequence in a Hitchcock movie, for example, and the individual shots are nothing particularly special -- it's how they work as a sequence, how they move the viewer, provoke a feeling, etc. that matters.

Also, from a practical matter, you can't make every shot in a movie look stunning -- for one thing, it would get a bit wearing, like watching a two-hour commercial, but beyond that, it's hard to devote that much care and time into every set-up, so you have to prioritize. And to do that, you have to understand how the sequence will be edited and what the important beats of the scene are, pick your battles. Also, it's important that you understand what exactly it is that you want the audience to pay attention to in the scene -- you don't want some beautiful light effect, no matter how award-winning, if it distracts the viewers from the key element of the scene or shot --- an actor's performance, for example.

pat@hpnc.com

07-04-2007, 05:51 PM

OK thanks for the advice David. Very helpfull.

Pierce Cook

07-05-2007, 07:47 AM

"Lawrence of Arabia" in one my favorite movies of all time, not just for the cinematography.

Nice, one of mine as well :).

Thanks again! What're you working on coming up?

Pierce

David Mullen ASC

07-05-2007, 08:36 AM

I'm in negotiations to shoot a feature right now.

wshultz

07-05-2007, 09:29 AM

David, when you're done, or if you can now, tell what a "negotiations" process looks like.

Adrian Correia

07-05-2007, 01:20 PM

David, when you're done, or if you can now, tell what a "negotiations" process looks like.

actually I would be very interested in hearing about this...

David Mullen ASC

07-05-2007, 03:12 PM

Well, since it goes on between my agent and the producer, I just hear the results, good or bad...

wshultz

07-05-2007, 07:57 PM

Oh now you're just teasing us...!

Just what does an agent do for you? How many films did you have to do before you can hope to get one?

David Mullen ASC

07-05-2007, 08:58 PM

If you're at a point where you have regular work coming in, of a decent quality level, it's probably the point when an agent would take an interest in you. Basically, agents tend to find you rather than the other way around -- or at least, it works better that way since then you know the agent is a fan of your work.

I had a movie that I shot play at Sundance, which is when my agent contacted me and expressed an interest. This was around the time of my 12th feature or so, when I had been shooting for about seven years. It can happen faster for others, especially if you have a good start. I've seen recent film school graduates who are DP's with agents already, even though they only have some short films to their credit (but really good-looking short films that won awards and went to festivals.) I tried early on to find on, but none were interested in me, so I waited until it was sort of inevitable. There comes a time when basically agents start approaching you.

wshultz

07-05-2007, 09:14 PM

Thanks David. After 12 features, does an agent still provide such a significant boost to what you might have been able to do yourself?

Chris Gearhart

07-05-2007, 09:27 PM

There comes a time when basically agents start approaching you.

Already happened to me. These two guys wearing suits with dark sunglasses and earpieces asking me about a Red revolution, and whether I had given any money in support of subversive activity. I sent them Chuck Colburn's country address and something about a millitant cult.

Seriously, though, David. Have you ever seen a dual-directorship work? Could you ever see it work in a serious feature? Say one who is strong on performance, and another that works closely with the DP with blocking and on-set leadership? Or perhaps one where the line between DP and director gets a bit blurred on set?

I feel silly even asking this question, but there it is.

chuck colburn

07-05-2007, 09:41 PM

A cult has to have more than one party. Oh crap I forgot about Jake.
Anyhow you didn't need to give them the address as anybody and I do mean ANYBODY can be found. lol

David Mullen ASC

07-05-2007, 10:23 PM

Sure, it's possible in theory for a two-director set-up to work, though difficult. I haven't really had any experience in that situation, though the Polish Brothers work very closely as a team, but it's not a co-directorship.

donatello b

07-06-2007, 08:50 AM

does a agent tell you about every "interest in you for a project " that comes to them or do they screen out the ?? perhaps not enough $ , or they know you don't like certain ? , or do they screen out scripts etc ...

does your agent also look for commercial ( spots) type work or just long form ?

David Mullen ASC

07-06-2007, 09:28 AM

I hear about everything that gets sent through my agent, with the caveat "this one is probably too small to interest you..." etc.

I have a separate agent for commercials, but frankly, with only one national spot to my credit, that's a harder field for me to crack. I had one lined up two weeks from now, but now a feature job has meant I had to drop out of that commercial.

C.H.Haskell

07-06-2007, 09:40 AM

I am assuming you take feature work over commercial? Mainly cause it means more work for you?

David Mullen ASC

07-06-2007, 03:51 PM

I prefer features -- I like narrative cinema where the cinematography plays a supportive roll to the story and acting. That can happen in commercials too, just less often. Plus you get a visible credit during a movie so people know who shot it...

Or to put it another way, my love of movies got me into filmmaking, not my love of commercials. So I want to make movies primarily.

Tom Lowe

07-06-2007, 04:22 PM

Hey David here are a couple of caps from that movie Millennium Mambo shot by my new hero "Mark" Lee Ping-bin.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare2/millmambo/MM_1_Sm.jpg
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare2/millmambo/MM_3_Sm.jpg
http://daily.greencine.com/archives/millennium-mambo.jpg

You might enjoy seeing what he was able to do with what looks like a very limited budget.... and a lot of talent.

It's available on Netflix's Watch Now, but the aspect ratio there is 4:3... which is a little infuriating. I don't know why Netflix chooses to offer so many great movies at a TV-style aspect ratio on Watch Now. :( I can't remember 100% for sure, but I think Northfork had a seriously reduced aspect ratio on Watch Now, as well.

The other movie I watched recently by Lee Ping-bin was Flowers of Shanghai, but frankly, though the photography was beyond awesome, the picture itself was incredibly slow.

krd

07-06-2007, 04:55 PM

Try The Puppetmaster (dir. Hou, 1993, DP Lee Ping Bing).

Tom Lowe

07-06-2007, 05:28 PM

Try The Puppetmaster (dir. Hou, 1993, DP Lee Ping Bing).

It's number 2 in my netflix queue already! :)

Jason Murphy

07-07-2007, 10:06 AM

Adrian Correia

07-07-2007, 10:30 AM

the french region 2 of Millennium Mambo is anamorphic widescreen - and really beautiful!

www.dvdbeaver.com - outstanding comparisons of classsic, foreign, independent film DVDs....

Andrew Benz

07-07-2007, 11:10 AM

Thanks Tom for the heads up on Li Pin-Bing... and thanks Adrian for the website... great, great thread---thanks to David as well for all his time and the incredible manner in which he shares his knowledge...

Cheers Ya'll

Andrew

Tom Lowe

07-07-2007, 11:45 AM

Just FYI, though, while the cinematography for The Puppetmaster is breathtaking, the DVD is one of the worst transfers I've ever seen. Pan and Scan, greenish, poorly digitally manipulated, and way too contrasty.

Li Pin-Bing is amazing, though. Everyone interested in cinematography should look at some of the work he's done.

Pan and scan? Is this what netflix is going to send?

BTW, I'm trying really hard to find a copy of Reflections (Ai li si de jin zi) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0490784) but I'm having no luck at all. Anyone know where I might be able to find it? I wish I had some friends in Taiwan!

Jason, was it you who PM'd me about Lee a while back? If so, much thanks!!

krd

07-07-2007, 01:24 PM

I believe The Puppetmaster was shot 1.33. That's what I remember seeing in the theater, anyway.

But the DVD transfer is indeed substandard, which is a pity.

Edit: Just looked at the DVD again. Unless you're prepared to color correct it in your head, don't bother. It's a mess, as Jason noted.

Tom Lowe

07-07-2007, 06:12 PM

is that the version netflix is going to send me. :(

no better copies?

Adrian Correia

07-07-2007, 06:34 PM

Tom -

yesasia.com for reflections

http://us.yesasia.com/kr/PrdDept.aspx/section-videos/code-c/pid-1004581448/

just click on the "English" button - expected release date is July 30th, 2007

no english subs though...unless you just want to watch the pretty pictures....I am sure HKFlix.com will feature copies from neighboring countries shortly thereafter that have english subs....they always do...

Tom Lowe

07-07-2007, 07:06 PM

zak forrest

07-07-2007, 08:13 PM

I know this is not a popular opinion, but I get a little bored by excessive realism sometimes, two-hours of slice-of-life shooting, usually handheld, but probably I'm only bored when the narrative is boring so I start thinking about the technique. When the narrative is interesting to me, then a very realistic style can be very apt and motivated.

whats your opinion of gus van sants newest three, and also bela tarrs work

Adrian Correia

07-07-2007, 09:37 PM

Hmmmm.... I wonder if I could even play that DVD disc in my PC?

Are you sure there are no English subs?

And thanks for that link!

There are player programs for PCs that do circumvent region coding and can convert PAL to NTSC and such....just not sure which ones.

The site says no english language track or subtitles...then again yesasia.com is wrong...often...

I am sure there will be other editions available rather quickly....just keep checking yesasia.com and HKFlix.com.

Jason Murphy

07-07-2007, 11:02 PM

is that the version netflix is going to send me. :(

no better copies?

Unfortunately, at this moment, there aren't any better copies, to the best of my knowledge (though I do keep hoping that the Criterion Collection will eventually put out Hou's 'Sadness Trilogy' - City of Sadness, Puppetmaster, and Good Men, Good Women - in a boxset sometime). I've seen The Puppetmaster 5 times on 35mm; it's marvelous. Each time I've seen it on 35, it's been projected at 1.85:1, so I assume that's the proper aspect ratio. Hou or Li may prefer the full frame composition for DVD, though I kind of doubt it.

Have only been able to get through the DVD a few times, and that's only because I was doing a close viewing of a few scenes for an essay I was writing on Hou Hsiao-hsien's work. The transfer's kind of painful. But probably still worth it; The Puppetmaster is a fascinating film, one of the best of the '90s, in my opinion.

EDIT: Speaking of excess realism, David, was wondering if you'd seen anything by the Dardenne Bros. (your description of pet aesthetic peeves sound a lot like their movies; however, their narrative precision is pretty remarkable).

Chris Nuzzaco

07-07-2007, 11:07 PM

David,

When you were starting out, what was it like making the leap to full time DP? I ask because I'm now starting to walk that line, I have my first low budget feature coming up in August if all goes well. I've also shot numerous short films as well as some pilot TV shows, one of which is headed to the New York Television Festival, which is basically the Sundance of pilot TV. So I'm starting to get some notice, but I'm still wondering how this jump is going to work....

Did you just go out and find work? I've managed to pull that off and nab some smaller projects. Usually I'll find an ad on a local film list serve and send in the requested information (reel, resume, etc).

Thanks!

David Mullen ASC

07-08-2007, 07:58 AM

It makes me feel old to say "back in 1991 when I graduated film school, there was no internet..." (actually there was, I guess.) But I don't recall going online much until the mid 1990's.

I had a part-time job at a sound efx company logging in efx into their database, while shooting on the side. I did one feature during that time, and then the next year, a fellow graduate hooked me up with a second feature. About that time, I decided to quit my part-time job and just concentrate on shooting. I started to get some EPK work through the editor and director of my second feature, so that paid the bills. That... and a wife with a full-time job with a healthcare plan.

The work just snowballed, but in slow-motion, one job leading to the next. Editor of the second feature introduced me the director of my fourth, producer of the fourth hired me to shoot four more features, directors of some of those features hired me, etc. Even an actor on two of those features hired me to shoot a feature he was directing.

Chris Nuzzaco

07-08-2007, 08:34 AM

I had a part-time job at a sound efx company logging in efx into their database, while shooting on the side.

Good to know I'm not the only DP out there pulling a part-time job! I work part-time in a video lab for a university, but they recently put me back on contractor status, so I'm only guaranteed one day a week at best, needless to say freelance shooting has become a very big priority for me.

Did you start out in California? I'm actually in the DC metro area, so the market is a bit weird over here.

David Mullen ASC

07-08-2007, 08:52 AM

Yes, I've been in Los Angeles since 1982.

The Tiffen Low-Con filter has sort of a mild fog-filter effect and was used on a lot of movies in the 1970's, notably "Barry Lyndon".

The Tiffen Ultra-Con doesn't have that "blooming" effect (halation) around lights though it will wash-out the image completely if you pan the camera into a big glare or light. It lifts up the blacks and lowers contrast without the softening effect that a Low-Con gives you. So it's more subtle in general.

I haven't used the other filters like the Soft-Con, etc.

roryhinds

07-08-2007, 09:01 AM

Hi David

What would be in your minimum filter kit that are must have items?

Regards
Rory

David Mullen ASC

07-08-2007, 09:33 AM

I think we already had that thread somewhere...

Minimum would be ND filters and a Pola. If you had a film camera, an 85 filter too.

C.H.Haskell

07-08-2007, 01:45 PM

Greetings redusers...

David and Tom, I really enjoy checking on this thread so again thanks for keeping up. I am recently jonsing for some good foreign cinema, I think I am just a tad bit burnt out on HUGE summer blockbusters with insanely bloated budgets. So can anyone please recommend a lower budget title you may have recently stumbled on that focuses more on story and cinematography. I have so been busy that I feel a few good movies are slipping pass me, and I trust many of your opinions.

I would like to see Millennium Mambo Tom, even just for the cinematography…those stills are quite captivating and you mentioned it had a limited budget. It's just those lower budget titles tend to yield a very creative result cause the artist and story tellers are forced to problem solve creatively when they are financially tapped. Got to love being resourceful when its in your favor.

Best

David Mullen ASC

07-08-2007, 05:38 PM

Well, if that's all you've got, I guess you'll be shooting in short bursts and recycling the same lit area over and over again...

I've also strung Chinese Lantern with blue bulbs (either blue photofloods or compact flos) in them for soft moonlight in the woods.

Keith Nealy

07-08-2007, 09:37 PM

This is not a foreign film, at least to Americans, but I would highly recommend "The Astronaut Farmer."

It is a small story where the cinematography plays an vital role by making every scene beautiful and poignant. The landscapes and scenery shots create the warm feeling of "home" while the principle photography works to reveal subtle character and personality without getting in the way.

There is so much variety of shots it could be used as a primer for cinematography techniques.

The story is great, the acting makes it come alive, and the cimematography takes it to the level of a great American movie.

Many thanks to David for his great work and sharing his mana'o (knowledge) with us all.

Aloha,

Keith

Tom Lowe

07-10-2007, 07:59 PM

Just FYI, though, while the cinematography for The Puppetmaster is breathtaking, the DVD is one of the worst transfers I've ever seen. Pan and Scan, greenish, poorly digitally manipulated, and way too contrasty.

Li Pin-Bing is amazing, though. Everyone interested in cinematography should look at some of the work he's done.

OMFG, you were not kidding. I just got the DVD from netfilx and it is easily the worst DVD transfer in world history. This make VHS look like 1080. :waaa:

I cannot dishonor the movie by watching this version, so I'm sending it back.

wshultz

07-11-2007, 01:19 PM

Hi David,
I got to watch Astronaut Farmer last night. What a fun movie! I got a kick out of the outtakes as well. When they were throwing the brick through the breakaway glass that wouldn't break, "arnold" wasn't even at the desk. How do you plan a shot like that? Was this a full scale rocket model in the barn? What was your biggest challenge with this movie? (Besides keeping Virginia from laughing)

chuck colburn

07-11-2007, 02:07 PM

Speaking of Billy Bob...
He and his band are going to be playing at the Rogue Theater in Aug.

http://www.roguetheatre.com/calendar/

wshultz

07-11-2007, 02:33 PM

I might try to catch that act.

David Mullen ASC

07-11-2007, 07:10 PM

The brick toss was shot as a split screen, except for the fact that the brick failed to break the window the first time (we used real glass, since the actor was not in the room when we shot that half of the split.)

Trouble was that the brick and flying glass cross the vertical split, so some roto work was done to keep the desk top from the original take with the smashing glass and bouncing brick, and have the actor above the desktop edge in the split screen. Sort of an L-shape split screen I guess...

The rocket was built full-size in the barn set (also built.) The house next to the barn was a modified structure already there from some previous commercials and features shot on that ranch.

Zakaree Sandberg

07-12-2007, 07:38 AM

David,
I made another thread regarding this.. but I would like to hear from you..
As a non-union, fresh out of school, indi cinematographer/co, there are Many things I am unsure of.
One happens to be health care for independent contracted film makers. Since I do not plan to work for a network, I figure I should figure this out asap!

Do the unions have health care coverage? how does it work? Or do you basically have to take care of it all on your own? Is your family covered? How much does this cost?

David Mullen ASC

07-12-2007, 03:48 PM

When I was non-union, I was covered by my wife's healthcare from her job. Now that I'm in the union (IATSE) I have a pretty good healthplan. But I have to work a certain number of hours per year doing union work to keep my access up -- I can also "bank" a certain number of hours when times are good to cover the slow periods.

Michael Hastings

07-12-2007, 04:29 PM

Tom Lowe

07-12-2007, 06:24 PM

Don't want to start a firestorm, but maybe that universal health care thing wouldn't be so bad?

No derailing please!! :)

pat@hpnc.com

07-14-2007, 11:43 PM

If you really want to talk polotics try http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/index.php

Now back to the topic of the thread.

Casey Green

07-15-2007, 07:21 PM

Hi David,

I actually had a question for you in regards to another thread.

The topic: "Monitor Output Color Correction":

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3238

Would you mind taking a look and giving me your feedback of what you think of the potential of these features RED will offer. And perhaps how you might use this flexibility during production or even on-set?

I suppose you could answer here or there?

thanks for your time,

David Mullen ASC

07-16-2007, 03:17 PM

I don't really have much to add other than it's a good idea, especially if you are going for a stylized look. Since I shoot mainly features, I know there will be a shot-to-shot final color-correction, so I don't like to spend much set time dealing with color-correction. So I'd probably set a few basic looks for the whole show rather than get too fancy.

Casey Green

07-16-2007, 06:53 PM

OK, thanks you for the response, though. I think perhaps other forms of production might take advantage of this more so than narrative cinema. It's going to be fun watching how different projects use the RED One's features in different ways.

Chris Nuzzaco

07-16-2007, 07:39 PM

David,

I recently went full time freelance. I have a big network client I'm shooting 3 commercials for using my Andromeda system. I found out today that they would like to have control over the color correction. I'm not too sure of how I should feel about that, as I've always supervised color correction, in fact I'm usually the guy who does it. A big part of how I shoot is based on how the image will be manipulated in post. Do you ever run into this kind of situation? How do you deal with that?

Thanks!

David Mullen ASC

07-17-2007, 05:42 AM

I've talked to some top commercial DP's and they tell me that even after they do their final color-correction, the client often goes back to the original and re-color-corrects it their own way. So I guess it's something that you have to deal with -- they are paying a lot of money for a product, so there are limits to how much you can claim artistic authorship over the image. With narrative work, there's a little more leeway traditionally given to the director and DP in terms of color-correcting the image to their aesthetic intent, but even there, you can run into interference from producers, distributors, etc.

istvanttt

07-17-2007, 06:09 AM

Good morning David,
I risk top ask you a question which I don’t even know if it makes sense, as far as it is based on an information I got from a friend who is not in this business.

About 8-10 years ago my friend visited the DP Alex Phillips Jr in Mexico City. During this visit Alex showed my friend a box and offered him to observe the environment looking thru an opening in the box. My friend was totally excited on the way he saw the lights of the environment. My friend told me that Alex said something like the following: “As experienced DP I always thought to know everything about lights. This was true till I got this box, because only now I know what light and lightening is about...”

Apparently there where strange collocations of internal mirrors, maybe some lenses also which collected and bundled the light-rays and gave an additional help for the DP to decide the where to put the lights.

Well, since years I try to find somebody who has an idea what this box could have been. My friend insists that he was not drunk that day :), actually he is a scientist in children medicine and works now for the WHO in Myanmar (Burma). So I kind of trust him.

Any idea what this box could have been?
Thanks
Istvan