Ask David Mullen ANYTHING [Archive] - Page 2

sharkguy

08-09-2007, 10:08 PM

David,

I know you addressed this on another forum a year ago - does RED 4K 60fps affect any of your previous thoughts?
http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/lofiversion/index.php?t15157.html

Ken and company,
what are your thoughts on shooting 24p vs. 60p. I've been bouncing between both the past three months and my personal preferance is 60p. I also had a discussion with some folks on a recent bbc shoot with giant humboldt squid for the new series called "Life" and when they arrived to the boat that was our first discussion. They chose 30p for the sequences we shot, but after talking with the DP he said most of his library is 60p and it seems most versatile.

Anyway, each has it's own benefits, but for a stock library it seems 60p allows you more motion control (slow down images) and a larger percentage of u/w footage that ends up being kept--at least in my case. I think i blow 50% or more of what I shoot underwater when shooting 24p and can never get the fish to take 2.

Thoughts?.....
Actually, I would like to get some input on the 24P/60P thing too. My gut feeling is the more information we capture the better we are - that is the highest resolution and the highest frame rate.

I think we can only get 24P right now in 4K REDCODE RAW (the spec says 30fps but Jim said in a recent post that it may be a later update to get 4K at 30fps eventually)

My feeling is I will shoot 4K whenever possible and I think we should shoot the highest frame rate we can as well, and do pulldowns in post. However, I haven't been doing a lot of editing in the past few years so what seems like it should be easy in Final cut, may be more difficult than I think.

David Mullen ASC

08-10-2007, 09:09 PM

In most of my narrative feature work, slow-motion is used sparingly, though you need it sometime.

The trouble with shooting at higher frame rates and pulling frames to get to 24 fps is that it looks like you shot it at 24 fps but with a narrower shutter angle, because your per-frame exposure was shorter than it would be if you shot at 24 fps

Omada

08-13-2007, 12:54 PM

David, I have a couple of non-technical questions if you'll indulge me. Have you ever been starstruck while working on a project? If the answer is "yes" then... have you ever done/said something really stupid because of this? Let's get some humour on this topic, quick.

One serious question (in case I get a simple "no" to the above)... what's your observation of how "known" talent goes about their craft and relating to the director, opposed to unknown talent? I know you've worked with both and have probably observed certain tendancies (other than stars requesting bigger trailers). Are most celebs high matainance on set?

I've found that known actors like to test new directors, often challenging them and sometimes asking obscure questions with no immediate relevance. Don't ask me how I know. :whistling:

David Mullen ASC

08-13-2007, 01:56 PM

Actors are all different, some demanding, etc. and it doesn't seem to be related to how famous they are. In fact, most of the famous stars I have worked with have been very professional. If they are demanding, it's mainly in the ways that make sense, like having a quiet set, time to rehearse, not be distracted by last minute adjustments. So they demand that you be on your game, be ready, when they show up so that they can just concentrate on acting, which I respect.

Sure, some of them like to throw their weight around, though mostly that's off-set.

I don't really get starstruck -- the only two times have been when I chickened out from introducing myself to Vittorio Storaro and Sven Nykvist when I had the chance. I've since chatted briefly with Storaro, but I missed my chance with Nykvist, which I regret. I have felt a little intimidated by some big-name actors, not because I was starstruck, but more that I didn't want to screw something up.

explosive

08-17-2007, 08:44 PM

Okay, here goes...How do you feel about lighting with china balls? It seems like I saw a thread somewhere where someone mentioned a DP who lights primarily with china balls.

I know this is not my thread, but for what its worth china balls are great, but dont get stuck to just them, you know. They are just one tool.

I have a friend who wasnt happy with the way the china balls lit his set, so he lit it instead with a several hundred candles. The result was SPECTACULAR.

ibloom

08-19-2007, 01:53 AM

Hey David,

I really appreciate all the effort that you put into this community and many others.

My question for you is how do you break down preproduction:

-What kind of planning do you do on paper, and how do you organize that work?

-How involved are you in choosing shots and coverage depending upon the director.

-On a feature how much time do you spend in preproduction (best case scenario).

-What kind of preproduction work is done in collaboration with the director/producers?

-and with the art department?

-and on your own?

-How involved are you in the selection of your crew (and what advice do you have in this area.)

-Do you build or plan rigs and special equipment?

I guess I'm asking these questions because I've gotten to the point where ok I can make a living shooting but I use some of the same tricks over and over and most of those tricks are just ways to get just a pleasing result in a fast paced environment. I really want to improve my work on an artistic level and I feel like that has to happen in preproduction. Maybe you can suggest some better questions toward this end.

IBloom

David Mullen ASC

08-19-2007, 05:59 AM

I sort of reached a point in shooting low-budget movies where my lighting/composition was pretty advanced but I was reaching a quality limit imposed by the limits of the budget for production design. You get to a point where you can't get around the fact that what's in front of the camera determines visual quality and impressiveness more than how you shoot it. So you need to start working with better production designers and shooting on better locations, with better sets, better costumes, etc. You can light a scene like a Vermeer, but it makes a big difference if you are shooting in some friend's white-walled apartment versus some beautiful old wood-panelled library, etc.

Ideally, I have a month for prep on a feature minimum. It takes three weeks just to go through a feature script with the director scene by scene and talk through every possible idea for shooting, if we meet for four to six hours a day (which is sort of a mental limit -- you get burned-out after awhile.) And generally the last two weeks of prep are taken up with tech scouting, meetings with departments, crew hiring, the director in casting and rehearsals, etc., so you need that time before that last two weeks of prep to just talk ideas with the director, ideally while wandering around the locations.

ibloom

08-19-2007, 09:01 AM

It takes three weeks just to go through a feature script with the director scene by scene and talk through every possible idea for shooting, if we meet for four to six hours a day (which is sort of a mental limit -- you get burned-out after awhile.) And generally the last two weeks of prep are taken up with tech scouting, meetings with departments, crew hiring, the director in casting and rehearsals, etc., so you need that time before that last two weeks of prep to just talk ideas with the director, ideally while wandering around the locations.

Thanks David. What kind of information do you prepare in diagrams or notebooks?

IBloom

David Mullen ASC

08-19-2007, 01:55 PM

It varies, from a detailed shotlist to storyboards, etc. On my latest movie, we are in one location for a month, so we spent two weeks shooting still photos of every set-up in there using stand-ins to create a photo storyboard.

Most of the time, though, it's too much work to describe (through a shotlist or storyboard) every shot in a movie before prep runs out -- I generally get through two-thirds of the movie and catch up for the rest before we get to those days on the shoot.

On shows that are mostly dialogue scenes where the blocking and rehearsing with the actors will have a major effect on how it's covered, the director and I will be more vague in our planning, just discussing transition shots (how to get in and out of the scene), or general look and feeling to the camera movement (handheld, Steadicam, dolly, etc.). But during prep, it's important to identify any special equipment needs so it can be budgeted and ordered (or denied due to budget) -- like a camera crane.

Obviously any shotlists, etc. are only something to work from as a starting point on the day -- you have to leave yourself open to inspiration, as long as you keep in mind your time limit. You can't walk in with a reasonable plan to shoot 22 set-ups that day, for example, but on the spur of the moment, decide you need 100 set-ups actually when you start the day and have no plan for how to deal with that (like have a B-camera there).

adaml

08-19-2007, 05:14 PM

David, do you have any preference among the different models of director's viewfinders?

David Mullen ASC

08-19-2007, 07:07 PM

No, haven't really used those much. I have a lens finder these days on set for lining up shot (you put the actual camera lens on it) mainly for dolly moves, otherwise I'm pretty good at guessing what lens to use for a set-up based on the amount of optical compression I think it needs or simply the space restrictions. You soon learn that an over-the-shoulder shot feels different on a 40mm versus an 85mm, for example.

I just got a Nikon D40x which also serves as a sort of finder on scouts since the focal lengths are similar.

Justin_Kirch

08-19-2007, 07:30 PM

David, I've always been curious as to how a PROPER shot list is composed. Do you have any examples?

David Mullen ASC

08-19-2007, 08:14 PM

I have no idea -- I just use my own shorthand, like:

Sc.1: Kitchen - Day
#1 WS of Dick and Jane / slow DOLLY into MS
#2 OTS past Dick onto MCU Jane
#3 OTS past Jane onto MCU Dick
#4 CU Jane / DOLLY 180 degrees around to see Dick walking out the door (48 fps)
#5 INSERT: letter in Jane's hands

Omada

08-20-2007, 09:46 AM

David, have you seen Haskell Wexler's new doc "Who Needs Sleep?" I just saw the trailer at http://whoneedssleep.net

He advocates a 12-on, 12-off schedule, which is something I'm looking into for my next feature. It's more expensive to shoot this way but I'd bet the quality of the flick would greatly improve with a fresh crew and fresh talent each time out. Starting a production day well rested can't hurt. I've sacrificed shots in the past because everyone on my team lacked the energy to continue performing at a high level as the hours wore on. I think I'll eat the additional costs next time and do a 12-on, 12-off. What do you think?

mmost

08-20-2007, 09:56 AM

He advocates a 12-on, 12-off schedule, which is something I'm looking into for my next feature. It's more expensive to shoot this way ...

More expensive than what? Killing the crew and still not making the day?

More hours doesn't always equal more pages. This has been shown to be the case time and time again. The only sensible argument I can think of for 14+ hour days is limited availability of cast members. And even then, performance is going to suffer.

David Mullen ASC

08-20-2007, 10:25 AM

Most movies budget around 12-hour days because there is overtime and turnaround issues anyway, so it becomes less cost effective to work longer days, not to mention the costs of a guaranteed meal every six hours, the fact that the crew works more slowly after twelve, it gets dangerous on set or to drive home, etc. Of course, they also budget for a few days of more than twelve hours because that happens.

The 12-on/12-off rule would just make it more official, to limit the day to 12 hours with a 12-hour turnaround, rather than the 10 hours off most crews get.

So personally I think that a 12-hour day max is a smart idea -- we're talking 12-hour days, of physical labor on hot film sets. In most other industries, the notion that we have to fight for a 12-hour work day is insane.

The problem is that most schedules and directors are overly ambitious, want more set-ups per day, so aren't willing to accept what they can get within twelve hours of work.

The trouble is that the number of shooting days is really based on budget, not the reality of the script. You may breakdown a script and determine it needs 35 days minimum, but then the budget only allows 30, let's say. Now a smart writer-director-producer would cut the script or rewrite it to fit better within the 30 days (or find more money for the extra 5 days) but unfortunately most just try and cram 35 days of work into 30.

fightordie

08-20-2007, 11:25 AM

I have worked on a great many films with a great many directors.
David brought up something that I have begun to notice regarding ambitious directors. Having worked with some old school directors who could get all their shots in 10 hours was a pleasure to watch and experience. They did their homework and came in prepared. The knew what they wanted.
But the majority of directors today have no regard for doing their homework or being prepared.They do not know what they want. Every crew memeber comes prepared for the most part and will catch hell if they are not, yet that standard is never applied to the director. They have been given carte blanche to create as they go. And meaning no offense to David or other sensible DP's I have seen the elevation of the DP, in their own minds, to godlike status, that have such ego's and take control of a set, lighting it for hours on end with no regard for budget or people. And yet have seen old school DP's light a similar setup in a quarter of the time.
12 on 12 off will never happen. Egos and bad work ethics will always be there on the above the line folks and a schedule must be kept. I've had crew member friends flip their cars over because they fell asleep at the wheel. Yet I have those same crew members saying they want as much overtime as they can get because, you know, the more money you make the more toys you buy the more bills there are and the cycle continues.

I personally think a 10 to 12 hour workday with a minimun of 10 hours turnaround would be heaven.

Omada

08-20-2007, 11:42 AM

fightordie, the 12/12 schedule might not get a universal pass, but it allows indie directors like myself some leverage when bringing expereinced people onto a project. If a seasoned and valuable crew member is choosing between a back-breaking studio flick or an indie picture with a 12-12 or 10-14 schedule, it can sway the favor toward the independent. Then again, I'm one of those guys who shoots 3-pages a day. This luxury isn't available to studio filmmakers whose projects are funded by a long-existing business model. If my project is funded by an investment broker, for example, he just wants a finished movie that will get a decent ROI, regardless if we shoot for 90 days or 9 days. I'm personally a big fan of the 10-14 schedule, though it drives some producers bonkers. But they're not the ones sweating.

wshultz

08-20-2007, 01:32 PM

Does the 10 or 12 hour day include meal times? or is it then 10.5 hours?

David Mullen ASC

08-20-2007, 01:35 PM

Usually you don't count the meal break, so it's more like a 12.5 hour day (6 hours work, half-hour meal, 6 hours work) but if you have 12-hours off, this means your call time drifts a half-hour later every day at least, which is a problem if you are daylight dependent. So some sort of flexibility has to happen to avoid that, whether it means 11.5 off or you count the meal as part of the 12 hours.

khmuse

08-20-2007, 02:46 PM

Violating the 12 hour turn around period will generate both penalties and over the course of a project, less happy and less productive crews. I try to fight to keep the long days near the head of a shoot and plan for shorter days near the end, if for no other reason than to compensate for the inevitable pushed schedule that tends to arise at the end. I have noticed that talent is less often asked to turn around in less than 12 hours (must have bigger penalties).

Jay A. Kelley

08-20-2007, 02:53 PM

I stick to the 12 hour off rule pretty tight. The job is hard enough without suffering lack of sleep.

There are always exceptions. but they need to stay that way.. Exceptions
Jay

red1225

08-20-2007, 03:07 PM

It would be nice to hear some of the European folks...I bet they only work for 8 hours and drink wine at lunch...Perhaps it's time???!!!:blink:

Christian Berg

08-20-2007, 03:30 PM

8 hours? we only do 6 and we want 5 weeks of vacation.
hehehe...

idli_007

08-20-2007, 04:10 PM

Hello David, I am a Director based in Mumbai have you had a chance to see any of our bollywood films? They are mostly musicals and what is your take on them?
pk.

David Mullen ASC

08-20-2007, 04:57 PM

The only Bollywood musical I've seen was recent, "Jhoom Barabar Jhoom", which I enjoyed. I saw it at a movie theater in San Fernando (who wouldn't enjoy a movie with two such incredibly attractive lead actresses dancing in tight clothing...?)

The trailers for other Bollywood films before the feature looked fun too. The production values seem incredibly high -- reminds me of the output of the Hong Kong film industry.

I've only seen a few other Bollywood films at film festivals years ago. All I remember was that it was a period romance, beautifully lit.

Cardmaverick

08-20-2007, 07:28 PM

http://www.yashrajfilms.com/microsites/jbj/microflash.html

Yeah, very good lighting, but I'd argue that its also very slick color grading too. I always tell my clients that half of my work is done on the set, the other half is in post...

idli_007

08-21-2007, 02:31 PM

Hey nice to hear that bollywood is catching up with guys like you and particularly mainstream films....hope you could visit here and we get to meet technicians like you to interact with our guys out here....have you ever been to india?
pk.

David Mullen ASC

08-21-2007, 06:43 PM

No, I've never been there.

TimPipher

09-08-2007, 09:19 AM

Hello David. Thanks, as always, for your generous help.

In my three camera greenscreen set-up, due to camera tracking considerations (data tracking, not physical tracks), two of my three cameras will be on jibs.

This will afford me the capability of easily putting lots of movement in as many shots as I want.

My question is, in general, will putting lots of movement on the shots -- maybe the majority of shots -- add to the interest and production value of my productions, or is it likely to be distracting at some point? If in doubt, should I err on the side of movement, or on more locked down shots?

David Mullen ASC

09-08-2007, 10:17 AM

A well-designed, well-executed move always adds production value but hopefully it is motivated by the content and mood, not distracting the viewer away from it. There are certain dramatic moments where a simple lock-off shot is the best so that the viewer just looks at the actor's performance.

I don't really believe in just moving the camera for its own sake because then it looks random and you lose the power of precise composition and lighting when you do that too much. However, it can be motivated at times, lots of rough movement, ala an action movie like "Bourne Ultimatum" (though I think they went too far in pushing that approach for the quieter scenes.)

There is the cost problem of doing a lot of jib arm moves in front of a greenscreen and tracking them into plates, plus creating plates with similar moves.

TimPipher

09-08-2007, 12:32 PM

There is the cost problem of doing a lot of jib arm moves in front of a greenscreen and tracking them into plates, plus creating plates with similar moves.

As always, thanks David. Actually, my 3D evironments are created in advance, and composited live through an Orad virtual studio system. The two jibs are encoded to link up with the Orad and virtual sets live, so creating plates with similar moves won't be necessary -- we should be able to move as we see fit and the sets still be in proper perspective.

GlennChan

09-08-2007, 01:39 PM

Tim,

Do you ever get the problem with the camera tracking not working perfectly if the rig bends (e.g. if you decelerate too fast)?

joelnet

09-08-2007, 02:11 PM

As always, thanks David. Actually, my 3D evironments are created in advance, and composited live through an Orad virtual studio system. The two jibs are encoded to link up with the Orad and virtual sets live, so creating plates with similar moves won't be necessary -- we should be able to move as we see fit and the sets still be in proper perspective.

Very cool studio Tim. I think you're on the right track. (so to speak)

Has David got his hands on RED yet? Any comments on the initial stuff on this forum?

TimPipher

09-08-2007, 04:38 PM

Tim,

Do you ever get the problem with the camera tracking not working perfectly if the rig bends (e.g. if you decelerate too fast)?

Hello Glenn. We're just finishing our building construction now and don't have the system in place yet -- I'm probably 60 to 90 days away from opening. The timing should be not be too bad, though -- my three Reds are scheduled for January.

I haven't heard of the bending problem. The jibs will most likely be from mo-sys or General Lift.

By the way, I hope we can do some business together some day. I've admired your posts and taken special note since I was born and raised in Toronto and travel there (or just north of there) every chance I get.

TimPipher

09-08-2007, 04:44 PM

Very cool studio Tim. I think you're on the right track. (so to speak)

Thanks Joel. Everything we have (other than our building, of course) will be portable via our two beautiful motorhomes. If you ever have a project that you think my set-up would be good for but can't come to Florida, I'd love to pack up and transport it to AZ.

joelnet

09-08-2007, 05:11 PM

I'd love to pack up and transport it to AZ.

I don't want to hi jack David's thread... but maybe. Just maybe.

So David, how 'bout that RED? You're very talented, well established, you know and love film - but you have shot HD for various reasons. Is RED now on the menu?

GlennChan

09-08-2007, 09:33 PM

I haven't heard of the bending problem. The jibs will most likely be from mo-sys or General Lift.
It might be more on dolly shots that you might have that problem. I don't know too much about the different tracking methods + systems out there myself, but from what I've seen/heard... if the system does mechanical tracking (i.e. the angles between all the parts), it has to assume that the parts aren't bending. If the parts are bending then the tracking info will be off. (*I'm not 100% sure if this is true. Just the explanation that I heard.)

There are some other tracking systems and they have their own limitations.

2- You can also run into some greenscreen problems and limitations... where 95% of the shots have to be re-keyed. You have to deal with things like hair, reflections, motion blur, etc. etc. If you look at Lazytown, the stuff with high motion doesn't key 100% perfectly.

If you want to add shadows, then you'll have to key things in post of course. So for this type of work it can really pay off to have a VFX supervisor in pre-production (before props are made) and to do camera tests.

3- While this type of work has some shortcomings (and I am a little jaded because you can spend a lot of time fixing keys), there's also some advantages to shooting virtual sets.
- You get to shoot in a controlled studio environment.
- The sets can look really nice if you have good artists.

TV shows like Lazytown and feature films like 300 look pretty nifty.

GlennChan

09-08-2007, 10:05 PM

David:
To pull this on topic a little more, I'm curious as to your opinion on virtual sets.

Do you feel that they are creatively less/more interesting?

David Mullen ASC

09-09-2007, 01:34 AM

As a DP, I'm not so interested in spending a lot of time shooting people against a greenscreen -- it's not really why I became a DP. As a filmgoer, heavy CGI movies like "300" or "Sin City" fascinate me because I have a graphic arts background in painting and drawing, but unless I decide to get into the post side of efx work creating these backgrounds myself, I see virtual reality movies as being more fun for the post guys than for the DP. I like being on location and using and manipulating natural light, or lighting sets to feel natural. I like environments.

I've been shooting a feature (Super-35 3-perf Arricam) for the past five weeks out in New Jersey, with two weeks to go, so I've been out of the loop on the RED developments other than what I've seen here. The footage looks fantastic, best digital cinematography I've seen except for the similar Dalsa footage I've seen, so I'm excited to get a chance to shoot with the RED camera.

I would say though, spending some time in a D.I. suite playing with my Super-35 images, that 35mm can look gorgeous -- what I've seen of the RED so far looks more like DSLR photography to me than the gentle 35mm Fuji Eterna negative I've been shooting for the past month; the RED stuff is very clean and sharp, vivid, which I love... but I'm also hoping to see some footage with a more romantic quality, less technical, more evocative.

But the clarity of the RED images excites me -- I would love to use it for a widescreen landscape movie in the style of the CinemaScope westerns or Cinerama travelogues with big sharp wide images on the big screen. Or conversely, a "Collateral" urban nightscape movie shot in ultra low light levels.

TimPipher

09-09-2007, 05:37 AM

There are some other tracking systems and they have their own limitations.

You can also run into some greenscreen problems and limitations... where 95% of the shots have to be re-keyed.

If you want to add shadows, then you'll have to key things in post of course.

Due to construction red tape with my county government, I've had more time than I wanted studying tracking methods. It's my belief that mechanically tracked systems (like encoded jibs and camera heads) do a better job than systems using infrared beams etc.

I'll be compositing live through the Orad system and Ultimatte chromakeyers. We'll be able (I believe) to tweak the Ultimatte before we record the scene, then watch it live, to hopefully make sure we don't have keying problems.

This Orad virtual system is very sophisticated -- virtual shadows are added to the virtual objects (based on the real lighting). These virtual shadows then also fall on and bend on the real objects and people. It's pretty amazing. It's all live so we can be confident that it has worked before moving to the next scene.

TimPipher

09-09-2007, 06:15 AM

I like being on location and using and manipulating natural light, or lighting sets to feel natural. I like environments.

I'm with you on that. My favorite thing is to be somewhere I'd otherwise have no connection with and drink in how the locals live, the scenery they look at etc. That's one reason I like movies -- I imagine what it would be like living there. Movies can also help me re-connect with places I've been before. That's one thing I loved about The Astronaut Farmer. Several years ago my travels took me to Las Vegas , New Mexico, where you shot a good portion of the film, and it was great to see it again.

I'm hoping I can keep some of the fun for the DP (and me), even on my greenscreen set-up. It would just be less time on location and with a smaller crew and less (or no) cast. For example, if a movie was set in Las Vegas NM, a small crew would go there to shoot all the movie's exteriors. This small crew would also shoot real background plates, to in effect insert the cast into New Mexico from the comfort of the studio in Florida.

Although the time and fun of being on location would be significantly shortened, there might be other advantages for the DP. For example, it would probably be impractical for the DP to take his wife and/or family to most location shoots. But with my plan, re-creating the location in my Florida studio, maybe the DP's family could come along for a vacation on the beach.

David Mullen ASC

09-09-2007, 10:25 AM

On the movie I'm shooting right now in New Jersey, I did a night exterior shot on Fuji Eterna 500T pushed one-stop (and rated at 640 ASA) with the new T/1.3 Zeiss Master Primes, shot wide-open. It was lit with just four 1K PAR's on a 40' Condor (plus I added a mercury-vapor practical to the abandoned diner we found), and those had scrims in them to get the level down to a T/1.3 so that I could capture the ambient streetlighting and glow in the horizon. This is a digital snapshot taken with my Nikon of the set-up:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/night3.jpg

Now of course the 35mm version is a little grainier, but it also has more detail due to the wide dynamic range of Fuji Eterna. But it's an example of where a camera like the RED would come in handy -- I probably could have done the same shot on the RED with the normal T/2 lenses I was carrying, maybe even had lit to an even lower level and get more exposure from the real streetlamps.

Rob Lohman

09-09-2007, 10:48 AM

Man, that still certainly looks interesting David! Do let us know (when you can) what movie that is...

joelnet

09-09-2007, 10:49 AM

Now of course the 35mm version is a little grainier, but it also has more detail due to the wide dynamic range of Fuji Eterna. But it's an example of where a camera like the RED would come in handy -- I probably could have done the same shot on the RED with the normal T/2 lenses I was carrying, maybe even had lit to an even lower level and get more exposure from the real streetlamps.

Very cool shot. If I'm understanding this the pars on the condor are lighting the phone booth (gelled?) and the sodium vapor light is the yellow pool of light on the right. Where are the pools of green light coming from? The street lights? If so, are they gelled? Seems like such a dramatic color. The streetlights in the distance are very warm.

You're right, this should be RED territory. At ISO 1600 what would RED look like. I'm hopeful that RED can pull off the romantic images you mentioned also. It's not ever going to look just like film, but it's sure going to allow for a lot of experimentation and instant feedback.

Matt Uhry

09-09-2007, 11:04 AM

Hi David,

How do you like the Master Primes ? Obviously they are sharp and well corrected... but do they have a personality ? Any issues besides size and cost ?

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

David Mullen ASC

09-09-2007, 11:13 AM

The Master Primes may be the best lenses, technically, I've ever seen -- it's bizarre how you can't see any loss of resolution when you go to T/1.3. They are heavy, yes, though nothing like the anamorphic lenses I'm used to.

Personality-wise, it's the clear & crisp Zeiss look. Actually, my only point of reference are Panavision Primos, which I have been using for years, and the Zeiss Ultra Primes seem very similar to Primos, and the Master Primes just a bit crisper than either of those.

Haskell

09-09-2007, 11:17 AM

Nice work David, I only wish you had a RED in your hands now cause this one of those scenarios that many of us want to see how RED performs in. Well keep it up and look forward to hearing more about this picture.

Cheers.

GlennChan

09-09-2007, 12:59 PM

Tim... our discussion is getting off-topic so check your private messages.

And this thread rocks by the way. Thanks to David for sharing his insight and experience.

zak forrest

09-12-2007, 01:51 PM

David you should have a blog. It would definitely be one of the most popular blogs ever in this realm. I only ask because you mention stuff like "maybe when the rules of the forum change" etc... and I'm just thinking why is he waiting for some thread to arrive when he can have a blog that everyone and their mother would be visiting as much as they visit HDforindies...

The "ask David anything" thread is pretty much like a blog anyways..

-=-= *** What do y'all think of shooting Red in the way Jim described that would let you see the RAW debayer (I think it was some setting called Linear, but I will have to go back and look at Jim's post), and then just do an "old school" type of grade at the very end, like how Harris Savides shot Zodiac?

David Mullen ASC

09-13-2007, 04:33 AM

Not sure what you mean -- look at a 10-bit Log RGB image on set, debayered from RAW, and just get used to the low-con look until I color-correct the final project?

vsv

09-13-2007, 06:06 AM

David you should have a blog.

Agree.

zak forrest

09-13-2007, 11:56 AM

Not sure what you mean -- look at a 10-bit Log RGB image on set, debayered from RAW, and just get used to the low-con look until I color-correct the final project?

yeah i'm not sure if i would be able to stick to the savides/zodiac way of working because im sure i would want to use the power of RAW sometimes, but yeah, savides didnt digitally correct the green cast of the viper on zodiac, he talked about how the technical stuff was too much for him, and the only way he could make sense of everything was to just work with the "raw" image that came off the viper, so he would correct for the green cast with magenta filters on the lens of the camera instead, and as if he was shooting film, shoot to get it the way he wanted right there on the set, and then later they did a sort of mild, "standard" color grade, almost as if they were using printing lights instead of digital tools. i was really into this when i read about it, because i loved how, just like when harris shoots film, he kind of found the "organic center" of the viper, and took that as far as he could.. i forgot the other details of the article now, but he liked correcting with magenta filters in camera instead of digitally for other reasons too, one of them was that he got more information in a certain channel later, and it was "better" than if they corrected the green out digitally, again im fuzzy on it, but it was something like that.

anyways i was kind of into doing this with red, working with the "raw" look of the image that it naturally has, etc... but maybe staying in the raw format somehow, just putting a lut on it that is the equivilent of raw debayer, and then keeping the color correction simple later on...?

David Mullen ASC

09-13-2007, 12:19 PM

It's not really a "RAW" look you're talking about, but a "Log" look, the Log that emulates the standard 10-bit Cineon Log RGB file used for scanning and recording film in a digital intermediate.

Tom Sigel also operated his own camera on "Superman Returns" and got used to just looking at the 10-bit "Panalog" output of the Genesis without a LUT (the director's monitor got a viewing LUT.) I can see the appeal of that, though I'd be afraid of basing lighting decisions on an overly milky low-con image.

ShawnH

09-15-2007, 10:49 AM

Hi David

Could you talk some about smoking the set? For instance, the pros and cons of smoke machines versus something like Fog in Can. Does smoking the set really eat up a lot of time and delay shooting? And what about the health aspects of breathing in all that atomized baby oil? Have you ever used actual smoke? (I’ve read about some home-made smoke boxes that burn sawdust and ground corn, etc to produce smoke effects on the set.)

What about smoking the set when shooting DV or HD. I’ve heard and read various reports saying it’s not as effective as when shooting film and not really worth the bother.

Thanks,

Shawn

David Mullen ASC

09-15-2007, 11:34 AM

You haze a set when you want that softer lower-contrast smoked look (like in a bar scene) and/or want to see shafts of light -- whether you shoot DV or film, doesn't matter. It works just as well in either.

The best are professional hazemakers, not fog machines -- hazers put out a diffused stream of smoke rather than big puffs that have to be wafted around.

The key to smoke is really to shoot in a sealed, draft-free set. Smoke always will move until it has filled a space evenly -- you can't smoke just part of a room or a hallway that connects to other hallways where there is a draft.

The time-consuming aspect is that you have to keep an eye on the level of smoke and keep adjusting it. If the room is particularly sealed and smalled, that's not too hard, but in other spaces, you have to worry about the level dropping even during the take.

Smoke machines use a heated chemical/water mixture -- I wouldn't burn anything to create real smoke because of the dangerous particulate matter it would create.

Tom

09-22-2007, 07:14 PM

Hey David, I've got a real specific question for you this time.

Others are encouraged to chime in, as always.

Here's the scene, as written:

====================

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/8000/starsvl1.jpg

FOREST - NIGHT
John and Andie (girl) walk into a clearing in the woods. They sit on the forest floor and look up through the trees at the Milky Way.

ANDIE
Oh my god.

JOHN
Lie back. Now hold up your hand up, like this...

POV - we see John’s silhouetted hand against a sky full of thousands of stars. Then POV of Andie’s hand against the stars.

JOHN
If our eyes could see forever, your hand right now is blocking out more stars than there are grains of sand on every beach on Earth.

It’s very dark, so we really only see outlines of them. It’s also quiet, except for the sounds of crickets. Their conversation is basically taking place in the dark. In a hushed, almost religious whisper...

JOHN
Do you hear that? It’s quiet.

====================

Questions:

1. How could I shoot that scene of the hand silhouetted in front of the Milky Way? The only way I can think of is to shoot a timelape plate looking up through the trees, then somehow composite in the dark hands? The problem with this is that the stars will obviously be moving very fast across the sky, timelapse style.... which may turn out of kind of cool, possibly. But I was wondering if there are any special effect "plates" of a sky full of stars, complete with twinkling effects or whatever makes it look real, that I could buy and then use for the composite? Or could I possibly shoot a single frame like this and get it "video-ized" so it looks like footage rather than a still? Any other ideas come to mind? The POV shot would only be like 2 or 3 seconds long, max.

2. I guess I would choose a night when the moon will be a as bright as possible to shoot the two characters in the woods, but I do not want to use any artifical light at all if I don't absolutely have to for this shot. Knowing what you know about RED and its low-light abilities, do you think I could shoot with only moonlight for this? I don't care if it's really dark. I want it to be. That way the voices are everything.

thanks

David Mullen ASC

09-22-2007, 10:02 PM

Moonlight is too dim to get a usable image for moving images shot anywhere close to 24 fps -- even if you got an image, you wouldn't be happy with the level of noise. Plus what if it's not a full moon that night or a cloud blocks the moon?

Truth is that a shot like that would be an efx composite. Since the trees are silhouette anyway, you could shoot them against a white daytime sky or a dusk sky and pull a luminence key. Then put a starfield behind them, whether or not it is a still photo of the real Milky Way or a piece of artwork (I've done some of those in my past, pinholes punched in black posterboard with some airbrushed haze on the front side of the board, put tracing paper on the back, etc.)

Now in "reality" a camera lens at night (or your eye's iris) would be so wide-open that your hands would be very blurry in front of your face if you focused on the stars, so you'd have to shoot the hands in silhouette (again, against a white field for a luminence key or a blue/green field for a chroma key -- though a compositor would probably just make it a luminence key) -- shoot the hands in focus -- and let the compositor decide the degree of softness of the hands.

"E.T." did something like what I'm talking about for one scene -- they needed a shot of pine trees blowing/swaying in front of the stars, so they shot some trees moving in the wind against a daytime sky and pulled a hi-con matte, which they put in front of a background piece of film of a starfield artwork to create an optical printer composite of silhouette trees moving against the stars. Here's the shot from the original release of "E.T.":

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/et1.jpg

You'd want the starfield plate to have enough blue-ish atmospheric haze so that you get a good silhouette effect when you place black trees in front of that background, otherwise you'd have black trees composited over a black starfield.

Tom

09-22-2007, 10:13 PM

David, thanks for that info. Jeez... a lot of that sounds too complex for my little show. But then again, I'm always willing to do anything for a great shot.

Would the grain in the moonlit scene necessarily be so pronounced? As long as I left the camera at ASA800/T2 or whatever is normally capable of shooting 4K super-low-light shots that can hold up at 2K downsamples, as long as I am willing to live with near total darkness in the shot, and I don't try to push it, won't I be left with a very dark image still worthy of the description in the screenplay? Or are you saying that light that low will definitely trigger horrible noise in any camera, even RED?

BTW, have you seen any of the low-light ASA1000 tests from early RED guys? Forum member Shawn has an awesome little test up called "Up in Smoke" or something like that on the footage forum here.

number6

09-22-2007, 10:29 PM

Tom, something about your scene is bothersome to me. They walk out of the woods into the clearing apparently using only half or quarter moonlight (in order to get the starlight/darkness contrast you seek). And even though your image shows what are probably lodgepole pines, still, they are tall enough and thick enough to make walking through woods full of fallen trees etc. difficult. Should they appear into the clearing using something like a small led light to light the way? It would show up about like a dozen or so units of star pouer on the image, but would give the audience comfort that they weren't walking blind. Once they get into the clearing, maybe a shot of a crescent moon off to the side through tree branches removes the fear of darkness that some may harbor. Remember, most movie goers have never been very far from a streetlight their entire lives.

Don't mean to interfere, just adding thoughts to be pondered or discarded as you see fit.

David Mullen ASC

09-22-2007, 10:31 PM

At 800 ASA at T/2, a scene lit by real moonlight would be so dark as to be unusable probably and you'll find yourself trying to bring it up, hence the noise. Sure, if you left it nearly pitch black, it wouldn't be noisy...

I just did a movie where I lit some night exterior scenes to T/1.3 at 800 ASA and the levels were much higher than real moonlight.

The best thing would be to take your digital still camera, unless you've received the RED camera, and do some tests and see for yourself. Set your camera to the shutter speed that you'd probably be shooting at, then test to see what ASA level is needed to get enough exposure. I think you'll find it to be more than 800 ASA, unless you are willing to undercrank and have your actors move very slowly...

Generally you'll find that a moonlit scene would need to be about two to three stops under key exposure to feel dark... yet allow the audience to see something of value (and give yourself something to work with in color-correction). Below that (like four stops under key) and you have a scene so dim that any ambient light in the movie theater or living room would be distractingly / annoyingly brighter in comparison, which is the problem. No one watches a movie in a purely black room with no ambience. So even a dim scene has to have enough luminence to draw your eye and overpower the viewing room's ambient light. And if you don't expose enough for that luminence, you'll find yourself adding it in post color-correction, hence the noise problems.

Also think that if there was a full moon that night bright enough to record information on the ground, it would probably be way too bright to see stars beyond the moon, especially for a camera (your eyes may adjust).

I would guess at the higher ASA levels of the RED camera, like 6000 ASA, you could shoot actors stumbling around at 24 fps in real moonlight if you had a fast lens. It might be an interesting effect. But at 800 ASA, I doubt it unless you undercranked for longer shutter times.

joelnet

09-22-2007, 10:38 PM

David, thanks for that info. Jeez... a lot of that sounds too complex for my little show.

Your shot can pretty easily be tested ahead of time.

I helped on a 35mm VFX shot of a starfield with a pretty experienced VFX director and I asked about just shooting real stars and he said his experience was they were hard to shoot and didn't look right projected. Just about any starfield you see in a movie is an FX shot according to him. We had an artist photoshop a starfield and it was awesome... actually he painted it a 4K so we could pan it over a 2K shot.

I think David's prescription was dead on target. As FX shots go it's a pretty easy one.

Tom

09-22-2007, 10:48 PM

Tom, something about your scene is bothersome to me. They walk out of the woods into the clearing apparently using only half or quarter moonlight (in order to get the starlight/darkness contrast you seek). And even though your image shows what are probably lodgepole pines, still, they are tall enough and thick enough to make walking through woods full of fallen trees etc. difficult. Should they appear into the clearing using something like a small led light to light the way? It would show up about like a dozen or so units of star pouer on the image, but would give the audience comfort that they weren't walking blind. Once they get into the clearing, maybe a shot of a crescent moon off to the side through tree branches removes the fear of darkness that some may harbor. Remember, most movie goers have never been very far from a streetlight their entire lives.

Yeah, the lead character John could have a small red LED headlamp on, a prop which plays often in this movie I'm working on.

Generally, I think the idea is that you shoot in as much moonlight as is humanly possible. The milky way plates you would shoot at other times, when there is no moon.

number6

09-22-2007, 10:52 PM

Yeah, the lead character John could have a small red LED headlamp on,

How appropriate.:)

Tom

09-22-2007, 11:02 PM

lol.... only here.

David Mullen ASC

09-27-2007, 12:01 AM

I'm out in the Mojave Desert visiting my parents, and being a full moon tonight, I decided to take my light meter and my Nikon to see what it would be like to shoot a scene by real moonlight.

Figuring that two-stops underexposed would look about right for a moonlit scene, the real moonlight, according to my incident meter, needs to be shot at 8000 ASA at f/1.3 at 24 fps with a 180 degree shutter to end up two-stops underexposed.

I took some photos, at 800 ASA, f/3.5, with a 4 second shutter speed, which is a bit more exposure than what I mentioned above:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/moonlit1.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/moonlit2.jpg

Just for fun, I took a photo of my car with a 30 second exposure:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/moonlit3.jpg

Now one thing this experiments teaches me is that a night with a full moon is a bad time if you want to see stars -- normally the desert night sky is full of stars but the moon is too bright tonight to see many.

The photos also suggest that faked day-for-night is not so far off from the look of real moonlight in the desert...

flameop

09-27-2007, 02:15 AM

Your last shot is a great starting point for working backwards like you say.. D4N :)

S

Tom

09-27-2007, 06:56 AM

Wow, thanks, David. Those photos really serve to illustrate the points you made earlier. I guess artificial light is something I probably I can't avoid in the case of this scene.

So, given how the scene reads, and given the fact that in reality two people lit by only the Milky Way (which is extremely dark in the first place, in order to even see the Milky Way in all its glory), what in your opinion would be my absolute minimum electrical light augmentation to keep this as realistic as possible? Maybe a gelled 1K or 2K raised high above them, plus a lot of moonlight? I'm trying to avoid needing a big gennie for this show. One of my big pet peeves is overlit night scenes. It's one of my only complaints about the cinematography in The Fountain, for example. The "jungle" scenes in the beginning of that movie appear way too overlit for me. Then again, as it's written, I've kind of boxed myself in. I'd be very interested to know how you might handle shooting this, if realism was your highest priority?

Also, your point about shooting stars in moonlight is one I've been learning for a while with timelapse. I've found that a 1/3 moon is the best, because it causes the sky to glow a beautiful blue, but also allows the stars to shine. If you watch the end of Baraka, Fricke lights a bunch of his star trail shots with what appears to me to be about a half moon. Then again, he shot that picture in 65mm, so maybe he had more dynamic range on his side. I use various tools, including weather.com's "sky simulator," to plan which nights the moon will be out at the right time, but also be in an ideal phase. What this usually comes out to is only a handful of days in any given month that are ideal, when both the moon's phase and the moonrise/set times sync up... and this doesn't even take into account the weather!

OcularLimpidity

09-27-2007, 07:06 AM

Great pictures David. Natrually lit scenes are close but the fact that you have to use 8000ASA...

Tom

09-27-2007, 07:18 AM

I'd still be curious to see a test of something like ASA 1200 or 1500 at T/1.3 on the RED with a full moon overhead. Could you make out any moving shapes? Faces? Bodies? Anything?

We get RED 400 Nov 30th, so this is one test I'm thinking of trying.

Haskell

09-27-2007, 07:21 AM

**(off topic)** nice your avatar pic tom...I am glad we are not enemies!

Rudi Herbert

09-27-2007, 09:03 AM

Great point David, the truth is, night-for-day footage with blue filters does look startingly close to this at a fraction of the effort and pain. And that last 30 sec exposure is amazing, so well lit yet so obviously not daylight, what a uniquely different feel to it, amazing really...

David Mullen ASC

09-27-2007, 09:34 AM

The moon is a big single source in the sky, so what would be "realistic" is to light a moonlight scene with a big source, far away, that lights everything with an even level. Doesn't matter if it is an 18K HMI or a tweenie -- that only affects the light level you want to work at, which is based on the f-stop, camera speed, ASA rating, etc. you want to work at.

The problem of shooting against starlight is that it is so dim that you'll probably be at an unacceptable level of noise if you want to shoot at 24 fps (probably you'd do some trick like shoot at 6 fps with a 360 degree shutter to gain more exposure and have your actors barely move). Certainly any artificial light to balance with starlight would have to be incredibly dim. Whether or not it is a 1K, whatever, depends on how far away it is.

The truth is that real moonlight out in the desert looks "fake" to your eye, so if you replicate it with lighting, it will also look fake -- a big light all over everything, and not necessarily at a backlit angle. The moon can be dead overhead and produce a noon-type sunlight effect, just much dimmer. It can be front-lighting everything flatly. Just depends on the camera's relationship to the moon.

But if the moon is the only source in a scene, and you're not trying to balance its level with some other source (a match, a flashlight, etc.) then there is no reason why a smaller light would be more "realistic" than a big one -- if anything, a bigger light farther away would be more realistic than a smaller light closer.

Other problem you run into is when you shoot in the woods -- a big light far away may get so blocked-up by foilage that hardly anything reaches the ground. This is one reason why you often end up using multiple small lights like PAR's to punch through gaps in the canopy.

Tom

09-27-2007, 04:09 PM

But David, keep in mind that the scene is actually supposed to take place under a milky-way-lit sky (super, super dark), so using a full moon would actually be "artificial" light. :) I would shoot the star background plate weeks away from the moon-lit actual scene in the woods with the actors.

So I guess the question is, if the moon is not bright enough, what would "realistically" mimic the type of light from the milky way? It would be extraordinarily dark if we wanted the audience to believe the two main characters could see their hands in front of the milky way stars.

David Mullen ASC

09-27-2007, 04:31 PM

Again, you run into some conceptual problems -- one is that it is near impossible to hike around by starlight, two is that you would not be able to read any expression on anyone's face by starlight, and three, you run into the problem again of screen brightness -- what would be "realistic" is for there to be a dim soft light on the ground that was four or five stops underexposed, but that would look like crap on a movie theater screen or TV screen due to light polution in the theater or living room. The audience would be more aware of the exits signs in the theater than what was going on the screen. And the problem is even worse for TV viewing where you aren't being surrounded by an incredibly dim but at least incredibly big image.

So the notion of "realism" is almost irrelevant here, most people don't have a frame of reference anyway for what real starlight on the ground looks like.

But considering that starlight is a soft source (if you'd even call it a source) then you'd want to either shoot it (1) overcast-for-night, (2) dusk-for-night, or (3) use a big lighting balloon or other soft bounce lighting unit at night. Or a mix -- dusk-for-night or overcast-for-night for your widest shots, and soft top lighting at night for your close-ups. I've created a soft night effect in the woods by stringing Chinese Lanterns in the treetops with daylight blue photofloods (daylight compact fluorescents might also work.)

I certainly wouldn't underexpose it more than by three stops if you want any signal to play with in post (I usually stick to a two-stop underexposure). It's always easy to make something another stop darker, but bringing up something too underexposed looks like crap.

The thing with really dark/dim scenes is that you have a basic problem of directing the viewer's eye to what is important (audio of course helps a lot). This requires fairly careful camera placement to build, shot by shot, a sequence where it feels dark... but the viewer isn't just looking at murk and wondering what's going on in the frame too often (now and then is fine). And you still get into the issue of whether you want the audience to see the actor's expressions or not.

And just like with shooting the moon or anything else in the sky, you have the split exposure problem of the fact that the ground is so much dimmer than the objects in the sky, since the sky is the source. So some sort of piecemeal approach is necessary to create the sequence, maybe dusk-for-night when looking at the ground, and post efx when looking up at the sky (or real night sky photography but undercranked, etc.)

David Mullen ASC

09-27-2007, 04:49 PM

As you can tell, I'm always somewhat cynical about notions of "reality" in filmmaking -- reality is sort of what you manage to convince a viewer is real, whether or not it is real. And for the most part, they are willing partners in being deceived. And when you get into things like night photography, notions of realism break down even further -- nighttime landscapes almost cry out for an impressionistic approach, being closer to the landscapes of dreams and nightmares.

I was talking to my gaffer on the last show about my theories of unreality in movies -- for example, in real life, most restuarants are lit to show off the architecture, not the people, and in real life, most people try to sit outside of the lights, not under them. And sometimes where they are under them, they are horribly lit by toppy spotlights. And there are horrible shadows and multiple shadows everywhere. Yet the needs of the story and the performance often mean directing the eye to see the action and the acting beyond what would be realistic. And often for aesthetic reasons, we "clean-up" the real lighting in a space to get rid of bad shadows, etc. and conversely, this often makes the space look more "naturally" lit!

Tom

09-27-2007, 05:11 PM

haha, good points. I'm still a philosophical die-hard on "realistic," natural-light photography, but you make good points about killing multiple shadows indoors, etc.

As far as the shot we were talking about, I think it's just going to be too complicated for my little show, so there's a chance I will scrap it and replace it with a similar scene in an alpine sierra meadow at sundown.. something that fills the same emotional space and progression of the story.

By the way, since you brought up day for night/dusk for night, I've never been a big fan of that technique. The classic shot that really turned me off from day for night was that night surfing scene in "Point Break"... it looked super unrealistic to me. Basically, there was too much reflection off the water and waves, which made it obvious that the scene was shot in the afternoon and then brought down in exposure/brightness. Did you hate this scene as much as I did?? Maybe they should have piled on a huge stack of pola filters? I'm just really skeptical of day for night.

David Mullen ASC

09-27-2007, 05:54 PM

What about the day-for-night in "Days of Heaven"? And is night lighting more "realistic" or does it just seem that way because it is obviously shot at night no matter how badly it is lit?

Tom

09-27-2007, 06:18 PM

Are you talking about the wine in the river scene from DoH? If so, yeah, it was a little odd. But still I love all the shots in that movie! :)

I guess the good day for night shots are the ones I probably never even noticed! Do you know some good examples I could check out, David?

JasonMurphy

09-27-2007, 07:05 PM

As an aside, Tom, have you seen The Proposition (dir. John Hillcoat, dp. Benoit Delhomme)? It's an excellent Western, and it has a wonderful nighttime sequence in it in the desert with moonlight and stars. Pretty sure it was accomplished using compositing as mentioned above, but it's gorgeous regardless.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/1679_1190944483.jpg

Also, Tom & David - this is a great discussion here. Thanks!

Tom

09-27-2007, 07:08 PM

JasonMurphy

09-27-2007, 07:15 PM

No, but it has been VERY high on my list of things to see. Is there by any chance an HD version of this?

Not that I'm aware of, sadly. It'll happen eventually, though, I'm sure.

Tom

09-27-2007, 07:23 PM

Yeah. You know, I had The Proposition shipped to me by netflix, and I used DVD Shrink to put it on my harddrive. But when I went to watch it like a month later, DVD Shrink had done a horrible job of encoding, with all the motion horribly blurred, so I had to delete it.

Since then I have learned to either use light encoding on DVD Shrink, or no encoding at all. The long and short of it is that I will have to bump this back up to the top of my queue.

BTW, I recently got "The Searchers Bonus Disc" and it was quite good, with a lot of behind the scenes stuff of Ford and Wayne and the picture... it was a good use of netflix. There is a "behind the scenes" doc hosted by some studio WWII-propaganda-style guy that had me LOLing. I ripped it and might have to upload it to youtube. :)

number6

09-27-2007, 10:30 PM

Film Ylem

09-28-2007, 05:58 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.

David, man...I'm in love with my girlfriend, but your stock just went through the roof if it's possible for a heterosexual male to love another man. :) I'm totally kidding. That even made me uncomfortable. Hahaha.

Anyway, I completely LOVE Fallen Angels and all of Doyle's and Wai's collaborations for that matter - as a matter of fact the video Wong Kar Wai did for DJ shadow "Six Days" influenced my first "professional" music video.

There's a shot in Fallen Angels where the main character is sitting in a storefront and the edges of the frame go all liquidy. How was that shot done? I tried emulating it with Super 8 and ran water down a pane of glass when I was in film school, but it didn't have the same feeling.

Could you shed some light on the technique?

Film Ylem

09-28-2007, 06:02 PM

Tom

09-28-2007, 08:32 PM

I was only joking, man.

I would encourage people to rent or buy that Searchers Bonus DVD. It was apparently one of the first-ever "behind the scenes" docs shot for a movie. There are some classic shots of stuntmen flying off horses, the sprawling camp that was set up for the production in Monument Valley, and footage of Wayne and Ford guzzling beers in their on-location saloon. :)

Film Ylem

09-28-2007, 09:36 PM

David Mullen ASC

09-28-2007, 09:42 PM

There's a shot in Fallen Angels where the main character is sitting in a storefront and the edges of the frame go all liquidy. How was that shot done? I tried emulating it with Super 8 and ran water down a pane of glass when I was in film school, but it didn't have the same feeling.

I recall that shot being undercranked and step-printed back to normal speed, hence the steppy motion of the background people and the water -- but as for how they got the water to flow the way it did, I don't know. Doing shots of artificial rain hitting window glass is always a bit trial and error, trying different angles & intensity of spraying & dripping until it looks right.

Film Ylem

09-28-2007, 10:15 PM

I recall that shot being undercranked and step-printed back to normal speed, hence the steppy motion of the background people and the water -- but as for how they got the water to flow the way it did, I don't know. Doing shots of artificial rain hitting window glass is always a bit trial and error, trying different angles & intensity of spraying & dripping until it looks right.

Thanks David, appreciate the time. It is so cool being able to ask you questions. You the man.

liquidigital

10-01-2007, 09:09 AM

David, I had a question, but I'm going to save it until I do a little more reading. Too much stuff to process :)

Rudi Herbert

10-01-2007, 11:52 AM

David,

Also, if and when you have the time. I just watched Ridley Scott's first film, "The Duellists", and enjoyed it tremendously, forgot what a little gem it is. Astonishing cinematography for my taste. I remember seeing the film back when I was about 12, in black and white TV, and still realizing that every frame had to be "composed" because they looked like renaissance paintings each and everyone. Probably one of the first films that made me realize that cinematography was a conscious and omnipresent art/tool in moviemaking. Then this time around, some 26 years later, I went ahead and watched "Alien" right after it, and marveled once again, at Scott's flare and nack for cinematography. Though his films have a credited cinematographer, it is usually him, or at leasat it was on those two first films, the one that handled the camera and composed the shots. And realized, once again, the extensive use he makes of smoke to add depth to his scenes. What's your take on this technique, provided of course the scene allowss it? What do you think in general of Scott's camera work or eye? Is it a style that works for him because as a director he has already every scene mapped out in his mind or would you change/disagree with some of his options or approach? Some cinematographers whom I much respect claim his camera work to be a bit obvious and manipulative, though I disagree...

Just a question of your very own perception rather than a critical assesment,

David Mullen ASC

10-01-2007, 02:36 PM

I'm a big fan of Ridley Scott's work.

Ignoring the use of smoke for the moment, or the stylized cutting/camera movement (of late), if you look at Ridley Scott's lighting philosophy, for the most part, it is grounded in realism -- light comes from real sources/directions (or a source is simulated) and there is very little fill light, and people often go dark or silhouette. I talked to a crew member who worked on "American Gangster" (shot by Harris Savides, a minimalist) and he said that despite truckloads of equipment and a big crew, often they would shoot for days in available light with just a bounce card as the only lighting instrument.

The "painter's eye" comes in how he composes for these light sources, often making them a prominent visual element in the frame.

The smoke is an exaggeration, so to speak, of natural aerial haze, etc. though often I notice when the smoke won't stay still (due to a draft on the set perhaps) he has the characters smoking a cigar or cigarette to justify the drifting haze/clouds.

It's a style that some people refer to "romantic realism" -- sort of an exagerrated realism meant to simulate natural light at its most beautiful or poetic.

jaadgy akanni

10-01-2007, 03:00 PM

David, do you think it would possible to anamorphicize a spherical lens, perhaps with a filter? I believe such a filter doesn't exist but perhaps one could be designed to give us at least the look of anamorphic glass-with the oval shaped bokeh, you know.
Another way could possibly be to do it by way of software within the camera itself, like a preset that makes the sensor anamorphicize the image seen by the lens. HAHAHA I know I sound a little crazy, but hey!

fergus

10-01-2007, 03:42 PM

I love Ridley Scott's movies too, but we should give his cinematographers their due: John Mathieson for example is a pretty special DoP...

David Mullen ASC

10-01-2007, 04:10 PM

No, I don't think a filter, other than an actual front anamorphic lens attachment (which would not be optically great -- see the ones made for DV cameras), can simulate all the quirks of anamorphic photography, other than the blue horizontal streak filter that Vantage makes.

Billy.Summers

10-01-2007, 06:16 PM

Greetings David,

Curious about your thoughts/opinions regarding the Angenieux 25-250 HP in conjunction with "Lucky" RED #13 (that's the lens I think I am going for). I have also considered a Cooke 25-250 MKII or Cooke 20-100 and the Angenieux 20-120 T2.9

These seem to be quality lenses in my price range that will allow me to add a wide angle prime and Telephoto to fill out me kit.

Thank you in advance for your expert opinion. I seriously appreciate you taking the time to share your opinion/experience.

Best,

Billy Summers-

David Mullen ASC

10-01-2007, 07:04 PM

I wish I could help you, but shooting mostly on Panavision gear over the past decade has meant that my experience with zooms (which I generally have avoided in the past) has been the Primos, and the old 20-100mm Cooke (which we use for almost everything on "Big Love", my first TV series). Oddly enough, I have no hang-ups about using zooms in HD, but normally I dislike 35mm zooms (particularly 10:1's) and prefer using the primes.

The classic T/3.1 20-100mm Cooke, though, is a very well-designed lens and covers 90% of the common focal lengths I use. I wish it was a T/2.8 though... and sharper. There is also a faint fall-off/portholing effect when shooting wide-open, nothing bad.

On my last show, I had probably the best-quality zoom I've ever used, the new Zeiss T/2.6 16.5-110mm Master Zoom -- super-sharp, even wide-open. But it's the biggest lens I've ever seen; it makes an Ang. Optimo look like a lightweight zoom.

penfever

10-03-2007, 09:47 AM

David Mullen, I have a question for you...

What is it that typically attracts you to the projects you choose to do? Is there any one "key element" that makes you want to sign on to a particular show?

Also, where might someone post to solicit DP reels for a project?

David Mullen ASC

10-03-2007, 11:41 AM

It depends on how desparate I am at the time for work... right after a bigger show, I feel more confident about turning stuff down, but if I hit a dry spell...

Also, I do projects for people I know from previous jobs.

Mainly when I look at a script, I look to see if it needs me in particular, my skills. I don't want to work on some indie movie where all they need is a competent DP. I'm sort of beyond proving myself to be competent.

I also get turned off by talky scripts because covering dialogue can get boring. But if the dialogue is good enough, then it doesn't bother me as much. But I get too many indie comedy scripts of friends talking in diners, then in their kitchens, then in their cars, etc.

I like visual scripts, but generally those are harder to shoot, so I look to see if the schedule and budget are realistic. If I get a movie that is all night exteriors of people chasing each other through backyards, woods, etc. with stunts, etc. and they tell me that it's an 18-day feature, I usually don't get involved because I know how much longer night photography takes. Early on in my career, I went to a job interview for a horror film with monsters at night in a graveyard and it was an 18-day schedule. When I told them the problems with that, they didn't hire me. Later I asked the DP who did get hired how long the movie went and he said they went 7 days overschedule, which is nearly double the original days budgeted.

I don't like to get involved with projects I perceive as potential train wrecks, hence I try and get an idea of the producers and director, to see if they know what they are doing.

And just to maintain my healthcare access, I have to work a certain number of union days per year...

Generally you get reels from the below-the-line agencies that rep DP's.

Shawn Nelson

10-08-2007, 08:51 PM

David,
Thanks again for this thread, it's phenomenally helpful.

What are your thoughts on lens-mounted ring lights such as the Kino Kamio 6e? I've never been able to use one and can't quite picture when you'd want to use one in narative work. I've heard they're useful on music videos, but features?

Another one (sorry if you already answered this), but what fixture do you prefer to use for eye-lights?

Lastly (for now :-), outside during direct noon-time sunlight, what specific rag do you find yourself most often using and on what frame? A 12x12 quarter silk? A 20x20 full artificial, etc?

Thanks again.

David Mullen ASC

10-08-2007, 09:04 PM

I have yet to use a ring light, but apparently the Kino Kamio has the advantage of being a small-enough ring that you don't see a big donut-shaped light in the eyes of the actor.

But this ring effect in the eyes is probably the main reason why it isn't used much for theatrical feature work -- on a 50' screen, that can be distracting. Plus it's a bit unnatural.

When "Alien Resurrection" came out, a number of people posted in cinematography forums about seeing the cluster of Kino Miniflos taped around the mattebox, reflected in Sigourney Weaver's and Winona Ryder's eyes as a square-shape.

In harsh sunlight, I alternate between regular silk (when I want a lot of softening, as if the actor was in the shade of a building or tree) and Half Soft Frost, which only loses a half-stop of brightness. It's more like Opal (but not noisy) and softens nicely without losing the feeling of the sunlight.

Whether I use a 12'x12' or a 20'x20' depends on many things (how much wind for one thing) but mainly how much area I want or need to cover and how easily I can keep the stands out of the shot.

Cardmaverick

10-08-2007, 09:27 PM

I don't like to get involved with projects I perceive as potential train wrecks, hence I try and get an idea of the producers and director, to see if they know what they are doing.

Amen to that David! I take the same approach.

I recently got an offer to DP a super low budget film, and the first thing I'm told is its a 12 day shoot....

RED FLAG!

This is before I have even been given a script to look at. In fact, when I asked for it, I found out it wasn't done yet... Oh, and they want to shoot early November of 2007! Yikes. I'm already half way out the door on this one... Oh, and only 30 grand to work with, as in total budget for the whole thing, pre-production, production, and post.

I have some general rules of thumb:

If anyone tells you how long a shoot is before consulting you, get ready to run... Most of these people have no idea of what is really required to make a script come to life photographically. Furthermore, these types of people usually don't have much experience anyways, so before you know it, people are locking in locations without consulting you on how long you really need to be there, etc..

Film offers for unfinished scripts... this says a bunch. It says the person likes to rush things, and is probably an idiot to work with. Why on earth would you push around a half finished script? Thats like trying to sell a book with no pages in it. I can understand looking around for DP's early on, but full on job offers and no finished script? Just silly.

Unprofessional correspondence. I know email is email, but if you want me to take you and your project seriously, please, sign your name and give some contact info at the very least. I have had people send me offers and not even sign their name. I just don't even bother with these types, clearly not detail oriented enough to make a film.

*End of rant*

Shawn Nelson

10-08-2007, 09:30 PM

Thanks David!

I tried to find a 12x12 called 'Half Soft Frost' on B&H and I couldn't.

Did you mean Silent Frost
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/187446-REG/Matthews_319745_12x12_Overhead_Fabric_.html

or
"1/4 Stop Silk" which, according to specs, actually stops .6 stops?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/33027-REG/Matthews_319613_12x12_Overhead_Fabric_.html

David Mullen ASC

10-08-2007, 09:36 PM

I guess it was more than just four Kino Miniflos around the mattebox in "Alien Resurrection", judging from this frame grab:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/alienfour2.jpg

Yes, there is a product called Half Soft Frost.

Cardmaverick

10-08-2007, 09:40 PM

I love creative eye lights. Andrew Lesnie used a bunch of christmas tree lights for Galadriel (spelling?) in the first Lord of the Rings film. She is like the elven queen or something. The scene has a bunch of close ups, and all the other characters eyes have simple dots, but she has a galaxy!

I really like the technique if it helps the story out.

Shawn Nelson

10-08-2007, 09:47 PM

David, I was able to find one vendor (Barndoors) that actually sells a 12x12 Half Soft Frost. Interestingly, the Matthews web site doesn't even acknowledge it. Perhaps it's really new or old and discontinued?

It is an interesting look on that screen cap, I can now see why you'd stay away from a ring light.

What is your eye light method of choice?

David Mullen ASC

10-08-2007, 11:46 PM

Fill light in general can create a reflection in an eye... Here is an example from my own work in "The Astronaut Farmer" where the fill light (a 4' 4-bank Kino) created a reflection in the eyes, as well as the key and some windows in the room):

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/af4.jpg

But in terms of a special light for the eyes, I only do it on special occasions, like a romantic close-up. Or when I have very toppy light, like from an overhead softbox.

I also do it sometimes for dark moonlit scenes so that I have a bright glint in a very underexposed face, so you still notice the expression in the actor's face.

My most common technique is to use a Dedolight over the lens, sometimes mounted to the camera itself with a bracket, sometimes armed over the lens on a c-stand arm. I usually snoot the light with some blackwrap. Occasionally instead of a snoot, I'll use the beam projector attachment that turns the Dedo into a tiny Leko/Source-4.

When I want a more frontal key light that serves as an eye light as well, I'll arm a Tweenie over the lens.

Other way I create an eyelight is with a Kinoflo, sometimes a 2' 2-bank over or under the lens. On some close-ups of older actresses, I will have two 2' 2-bank Kinos on each side of the lens, low, to fill-in the bags under the eyes. I've been thinking of trying two Kino Barfly lights (which are dimmable) under the lens on a double-head arm on one stand.

I've used real Obie-type lights before, and recently, I used the small LitePanels LED light over the lens, on a moving Steadicam shot. It can be powered thru the camera and is dimmable.

Truth is, almost anything can be used for an eyelight.

You see lots of Kino eyelights in the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, with their telltale horizontal line reflection.

Here is another example from "The Astronaut Farmer" of a Dedolight eyelight in a dinner scene lit with an overhead Kinoflo:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/af1.jpg

And here is an example of a Dedolight eyelight in a dark moonlit scene, which you can barely see on the camera left eye:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/af2.jpg

As you can see, I generally knock the eyelight way down so it's not too obvious, because on the big screen, you can still see it pretty clearly.

Shawn Nelson

10-08-2007, 11:58 PM

Wow, thanks, I think I understand it. I really appreciate this.

krd

10-09-2007, 09:49 AM

David, did you see Roger Deakins' comments in the current A.C.? He says he finds anamorphic too clean and "pristine", and he prefers S35mm, which is more "real".

I guess I make this point too often, but take the Deakins' comment, along with Soderbergh's apparent preference for windowed 2K on at least one project, as reported by Jim Jannard, and it does seem to suggest that increased absolute resolution, in and of itself, isn't always desirable in dramatic cinema.

Seems to me there's still a case to be made for *shooting* 4K, particularly given the demerits of d-cinema at lower resolutions. But I wonder if the brain doesn't effectively disengage once its perceptual limit is reached or neared in the delivery format, since there's nothing for it to "fill in"? The effect being, you tend to view the projected image as "spectacle" rather than drama.... And there's less imaginative/emotional involvement in the drama as opposed to the spectacle of the projected image, which may be grand, but isn't drama in the usual sense.

Anyway, that's the best I can come up with, from my own subjective responses to 65mm and 4k projection. But never having seen Red footage projected.

What do you think?

David Mullen ASC

10-09-2007, 10:51 AM

I don't think there is one way to shoot a movie, resolution-wise or anything. Hyper-clear, immersive "you are there" images like with 65mm or the old Cinerama format, or IMAX, are just as legitimate as shooting in Super-16.

Look at "Saving Private Ryan" and "The Thin Red Line", both WW2 movies. The first is shot in a grainy, desaturated style in the 1.85 format, the second in 35mm anamorphic with very clean, pristine, saturated (or normal saturation compared to SPR) images, almost like 65mm.

Is one approach "better" than another? You could say that the first is more impressionistic rather than realistic I suppose, or at least, its "reality" is derived from the look of 1940's combat photography and newsreels, while the second has a "you are there" immersive big screen quality.

What I like about higher-resolution images that are fine-grained is that they create more of the effect of a "window" onto reality that allows you to step into the image, not look AT an image. They are more 3D in a 2D format. Surface grain and lower-resolution have a flattening effect that is more 2D - however, that may also make it more pictoral, more painterly therefore. Kubrick was right to use 1.66 35mm for "Barry Lyndon" but 2.20 65mm for "2001".

As for shooting in 4K, it can be argued that Roger Deakins, while shooting in S35, is still shooting "in 4K", so it's not particularly like he's going for a low-resolution look. And he's never been much to use graininess as a look other than a few movies. But he's not necessarily against surface grain either as a texture (otherwise, he wouldn't have done the partial bleach bypass on "Jarhead" and "Jesse James".)

Personally, I think the reason Deakins doesn't like anamorphic has more to due with optics than graininess. He likes the practicality (size, weight, speed, close-focusing, shorter focal lengths) and look of spherical optics. He's shot entire movies on 200 ASA stock (like "The Shawshank Redemption") that were fairly pristine-looking.

babubu

10-09-2007, 12:40 PM

Informative David!
Babu

krd

10-09-2007, 02:46 PM

What I like about higher-resolution images that are fine-grained is that they create more of the effect of a "window" onto reality that allows you to step into the image, not look AT an image. They are more 3D in a 2D format. Surface grain and lower-resolution have a flattening effect that is more 2D - however, that may also make it more pictoral, more painterly therefore.

No disputing that "stepping into" an image could be desirable for certain projects, but I wonder if movies aren't emotionally engaging because they present a pictorial 2d image -- suggestive, but without being literal, which gives the mind something to do. A hyperreal image seems to engage a different part of the brain.

When 4K acquisition and projection becomes commonplace, for all sorts of projects, I guess we'll find out.....

David Mullen ASC

10-09-2007, 03:56 PM

I think you're generalizing too much about the movie experience -- an action movie, for example, tends to require a more physically immersive experience than a drama.

There is always the problem with more hyper-real photography that there is a greater burden on the part of the filmmaker to convince the audience that the fictional elements of the movie are believable -- that the sets are real locations, that the costumes are real clothing, that these actors are real characters, etc.

So yes, to some extent, the 2D image with its rhythmic 24 frame cadence, which is very non-real, can have the contradictory effect of enhancing the realism of these "fake" elements of classic filmmaking. And the opposite, let's say a 3D image running at 60 fps that is hyper-sharp on a giant screen, can have the effect of making everything put in front of the camera look staged, artificial. But that also suggests that the solution, to some extent, is to do everything better, work harder at being convincing.

Movies are as much a psychological experience as a visceral one, so there is no single standard for what constitutes "realism" in narrative cinema -- it is generally a construct, a creation of an artist.

krd

10-09-2007, 05:37 PM

We could beat this one to death, but I'm not thinking so much of "realism" in the conventional sense, as absorbing the viewer in a fiction, whatever its content. Will audiences accept that a world presented in grainless high resolution is an imaginary one, to the extent the filmmaker wishes to create such a world?

These are not new questions in aesthetics, but it seems to me 4K may answer them. Or perhaps 65mm did answer them -- sort of.

David Mullen ASC

10-09-2007, 08:11 PM

Certainly 65mm movies such as "Lawrence of Arabia", "2001", "Patton" didn't "suffer" from a lack of being engaging due to the clarity of their images -- the opposite in fact. In "Lawrence of Arabia" the 65mm photography & music wordlessly demonstrates and explains the fascination that Lawrence had with the desert.

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/loa1.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/loa2.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/loa4.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/loa5.jpg

CraigWB

10-09-2007, 10:16 PM

What are the costs of shooting a 65mm these days?
I've herd it costs alot more than 35 mm but I haven't really seen any numbers.

David Mullen ASC

10-09-2007, 10:38 PM

With film, you pay for real estate -- 5-perf 65mm is one perf taller than 4-perf 35mm and twice as wide, so it roughly works out to be twice as expensive for a 1000' roll, which runs slightly shorter than it does in 4-perf 35mm.

Cameras themselves can actually be cheaper to rent (being older) than the current state-of-the-art 35mm sync-sound cameras.

Processing is higher, and harder to find, and so is finding a telecine for editing, and scanners for D.I. work. I think CFI and FotoKem do 65mm processing & printing work here in Los Angeles.

Compared to overall production costs of a typical studio feature, 65mm is not particularly a financial burden. The real disincentive is the lack of 5-perf 70mm venues for releasing the movie, meaning that the most likely release scenario would be 35mm reduction prints. It's hard to get a director excited about shooting a movie in 5-perf 65mm when you tell him that it will probably not get released in 70mm prints, just 35mm.

Tom

10-09-2007, 11:06 PM

If it were not for the coming of 4K+ digital cameras, I would love to see a comeback of 65mm.

Nolan could have shot his Dark Knight entirely in 65mm, for example, to be DRM'd (assuming there is a 65mm DMR process) and released on IMAX screens, in addition to regular theaters. I wonder how seriously Singer considered 65mm for Superman Returns? I seem to recall him talking about it.

But I think digital technology is the best hope of getting back to 65mm quality. 6- or 8K sensors the size of 5-perf 65mm would be cool.

AquaVideoRed206

10-10-2007, 06:03 AM

Man it would be nice to see this projected properly in a real theater!!

Certainly 65mm movies such as "Lawrence of Arabia", "2001", "Patton" didn't "suffer" from a lack of being engaging due to the clarity of their images -- the opposite in fact. In "Lawrence of Arabia" the 65mm photography & music wordlessly demonstrates and explains the fascination that Lawrence had with the desert.

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/loa1.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/loa2.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/loa4.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/loa5.jpg

Tom

10-10-2007, 06:53 AM

Man it would be nice to see this projected properly in a real theater!!

Four words: Aero Theater LA 70mm

AquaVideoRed206

10-10-2007, 06:53 AM

But I think digital technology is the best hope of getting back to 65mm quality. 6- or 8K sensors the size of 5-perf 65mm would be cool.

What are the issues with a 65mm size sensor in terms of available lenses and even further reduced DOF? Is that desirable or would it be better to get the 6 or 8 K pixels into the S35 size and be able to use all of the standard lenses?

Four words: Aero Theater LA 70mm
I live in Florida,but may come out for LART. What's showing?
PS. Never mind just pulled it up - gotta love the internet. Missed it on Sep 15. http://www.americancinematheque.com/Aero/aeromastercalendar.htm

Tom

10-10-2007, 07:31 AM

What are the issues with a 65mm size sensor in terms of available lenses and even further reduced DOF? Is that desirable or would it be better to get the 6 or 8 K pixels into the S35 size and be able to use all of the standard lenses?

I live in Florida,but may come out for LART. What's showing?
PS. Never mind just pulled it up - gotta love the internet. Missed it on Sep 15. http://www.americancinematheque.com/Aero/aeromastercalendar.htm

I think the trouble with cramming more pixels into a S35mm size sensor is that it doesn't help with increasing dynamic range or reducing noise, as I believe a larger 65mm-size sensor would.

There's probably a lot of 65mm glass sitting around collecting dust right now. But yeah, DOF would have to be taken into consideration. Some might like the 65mm DOF, others not.

Forum member Sam Druckerman does a great job of keeping everyone posted here about LA 70mm showings, so talk to him or make a post before you come out for LART.

David Mullen ASC

10-10-2007, 09:13 AM

The Phantom 65 has a 65mm-sized 4K sensor, basically twice as wide as their 2K sensor in the Phantom HD camera.

Yes, you run into problems cramming too many photosites into the same size area. For a 2.20 : 1 70mm aspect ratio at 8K, you'd need a 28MP sensor (8000 x 3600). If you make it 6K, which is probably enough for a 70mm release, (6000 x 2700), that's a 16MP sensor, not too far off from the RED sensor.

Of course, some argue that the 4K RED image projected in 4K looks close enough to 65mm photography.

I don't see 65mm depth of field as being a particular advantage (anamorphic 35mm has a similar problem since it uses similar focal lengths, which tend to be twice as long as with spherical 35mm photography.) The only reason to make the sensor 65mm wide is if it solves heat and sensitivity problems.

You would probably use medium-format (and even some of the 35mm still format) lenses adapted for use. The Arri 65mm cameras uses adapted Mamiya lenses I think, made for Hasselblad use.

AquaVideoRed206

10-10-2007, 10:13 AM

I don't see 65mm depth of field as being a particular advantage (anamorphic 35mm has a similar problem since it uses similar focal lengths, which tend to be twice as long as with spherical 35mm photography.) The only reason to make the sensor 65mm wide is if it solves heat and sensitivity problems.

Thanks, you answered my question re DOF, and with that said it seems like the S35 sensor with say that 6K resolution is the most practical evolution. That is about the same density of photosites as on the latest DSLRs, so should be manageable, particularly as sensors improve, and it leverages the existing lenses.

4K seems to be the big leap. The rest of the evolution will probably be less radical even if it happens fairly quickly.

nalu

10-10-2007, 04:45 PM

hi David,

Interested in your thoughts on using RED for documentary/EFP production. Basically the idea of shooting as a one man band in an unpredictable fast paced environment.

I know RED may not be the ideal camera for these situations but it would be great to hear how you would approach such a mission. Stick to 4K with Red zooms, light weight matte box and stop down to help with DOF, or go 2K. 2K with a S16 zoom of the B4 servo lens route.

What do you think??

David Mullen ASC

10-10-2007, 04:53 PM

Depends on if you are specifically shooting a documentary for the big screen, in which case, shooting in 4K might be worth it, especially for a nature/landscape documentary.

As for 4K capture-to-2K (or HD) in post versus 2K-windowed... just depends on how comfortable you will be with the focusing issues and what lenses you want or need to use. Again, that might depend on the nature of the shoot. Some doc / EFP stuff is very controlled, more like a commercial/narrative shoot, while others are more run and gun, guerilla-style.

If you need a 10:1 handholdable zoom lens, you might want to stick to 2/3" / Super-16 optics.

You could consider shooting both methods/modes, 4k full-sensor for wide shots or when you want a shallow depth of field, then 2K windowed mode for wild verite-style shooting, handheld, etc.

Shawn Nelson

10-14-2007, 07:04 PM

David,
What are your thoughts on FAY lights? According to my reading, they were designed to be used as day fill. Have they fallen out of favor and replaced by modern HMIs? 5000k seems fairly low temp as a fill, especially in comparison to the more typical 5600k or 6000k. Mole FAY lights go dirt cheap on eBay all the time though the bulbs are not cheap.

David Mullen ASC

10-14-2007, 11:19 PM

Dichroics are still used now and then; for example, some people put FAY's in every other globe position in a Dino for a half-blue moonlight color without gelling.

Just for regular day work, they use a lot of power and put out a lot of heat in relation to their light output compared to an HMI.

Phil Bates

10-26-2007, 10:53 PM

Dave, I have been trying to compile the following list of examples of dynamic range. I wonder if you have gathered this kind of information yourself --or know where I can find it. Can you help me fill in the blanks, or see how close I've guessed?

Print, white to black ink: 4 f-stops?
DV camera: 6 f-stops?
Pocket digital camera: 7 f-stops?
Digital SLR shooting RAW: 11 f-stops?
Typical HDV camera: 8 f-stops?
F900 10.5 f-stops?
Red: 11.5 f-stops?
Motion Picture Film: 12 f-stops?
High end digital projector ___ f-stops
Motion picture film projector ___ f-stops
Typical outdoor scene on a bright day, from highlight detail to shadow detail: ___ f-stops
Typical outdoor scene on a cloudy day: ___ f-stops
Typical indoor scene lit with incandescent: ___ f-stops
What the human eye can see at once: 22 f-stops?

[any other common examples you might know]

Thanks,
Phil

www.artbeats.com