Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[khmuse]

3 stops under equals to 6:1 right?

No. 3 stops is an 8:1 ratio.

1 stop = 2:1
2 stop = 4:1
3 stop = 8:1
etc

[lugpolla]

Anamorphic gives you a bigger negative area which reduces grain, but otherwise, the rich colors are probably just from slower film stock overexposed a little and printed down. In these shots, that's real sunlight overhead and probably a big white bounce for fill.

There were a few shots in the movie where they used a Color Enhancer filter (it looks to me) like then NASA lands a helicopter on the oil rig to pick-up Willis and Tyler. This filter (designed to make reds pop more) tends to give you rather sun-tanned looking faces, almost plum-colored, so it's a bit dangerous to use.

There were other day scenes where they used a big light to create a late afternoon / sunset effect, maybe a Dino.

Thank you Mr. Mullen. I'll shoot some tests with the Kodak 50D, and the color enhancement filter.

[ORBITLUSTER]

David, can I also add another question? Do you feel filtration in HD should be done on camera (filters) or in post? I have heard both ways. I have heard you should shoot as clean as possible because if it's too sharp it's always easier to make it softer in post than to make it sharper. But I have also heard that post filters can add artifacts and that if you feel you need filtration you should use filters on the lens. What's your take?

[ronx]

Why do women live longer than men?

[Poi Boy]

superbowl ?
-A

[David Mullen ASC]

David, can I also add another question? Do you feel filtration in HD should be done on camera (filters) or in post? I have heard both ways. I have heard you should shoot as clean as possible because if it's too sharp it's always easier to make it softer in post than to make it sharper. But I have also heard that post filters can add artifacts and that if you feel you need filtration you should use filters on the lens. What's your take?

There's no right or wrong answer. If you know what you're doing, you've shot tests of the filters, looked at them on the big screen (if this is intended for the big screen) and like the results, then why not use them if they give you the look you want? The trouble sometimes with leaving things for the final color-correction is that the editor and director will spend months sometimes looking at the footage during the editing phase without the look you intend... and they will get used to it, making it near impossible to convince them to add the look later. Plus there may be a political reason to make the lead actress look her best early on rather than at the end of post. Plus you may not be there at the end of post, or the place they decide to finish the project at may not be able to do diffusion effects.

On the flip side, you may decide that digital diffusion is closer to the look you want than optical diffusion (for one thing, with some digital diffusion techniques, blacks halate as much as whites, which doesn't happen with optical diffusion.) Plus you can control it better shot to shot, assuming you color-correct looking at an image that is the size of the final display format (it's hard otherwise to make good guesses as to the amount of sharpening or softening to add when looking at a smaller monitor for material intended to be seen on a big screen.)

Digital diffusion tricks may also tend to de-noise / de-grain the image, which may be a good thing if you want that.

I like lens diffusion but I tend to use a grade lighter than the filter strength I really like, just to be safe and not overdo it (it's always better to under-diffuse by accident than over-diffuse -- a shot with too little diffusion generally does not look like a mistake but a shot with too much is distracting.)

[Shawn Nelson]

David, continuing on in the idea of on-set diffusion, what do you think of putting nets on the backside of a lens? I'm not actually sure what that looks like but I read about it.

[David Mullen ASC]

What I also like about diffusion filters is the happy accidents you get, some uncontrollable flares and halations.

Nets are lovely, back or front. My only problem with nets is that you can't get them in evenly-spaced grades from barely-there to subtle. They tend to be heavier in effect than the lightest grade of glass diffusion.

I made two net frames glued to a chipboard edge, of two different brands of ultra-sheer pantyhose -- here are photos of the filter and the effect on a candle flame:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/net1.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/net4.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/net2.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/net5.jpg

[David Mullen ASC]

"War of the Worlds" is pretty heavily diffused at times. Here are some front-netted shots:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/wotw1.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/wotw2.jpg

And these are some shots made with a Classic Soft filter (not the lightest):

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/wotw3.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/wotw5.jpg

Some good examples of rear-netted movies:
Excalibur, Lost Highway, From Hell, Snow Falling on Cedars

[The Third Man]

Nowdays Dior black stockings are pretty polular on the back of the lens.

Also used in "Atonement" by Seamus McGarvey BSC.

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/dior-stocking-filter.jpg

American Cinematographer Magazine (December 2007, pages 34-35) (http://www.theasc.com/cgibin/store/acsstore.cgi?user_action=category&category=Subscriptions)

[Shawn Nelson]

Some good examples of rear-netted movies:
Excalibur, Lost Highway, From Hell, Snow Falling on Cedars

Thank you David!

How can you tell, by looking at something, if it was front vs rear netted?

[Alexander Nikishin]

David, how many stops would a black vs. white stocking take off and how do you determine the amount of loss due to it?

[LEON]

Alexander, why don't you just try to put the material over your light meter and you will already have you an idea of the amount of light change ?

[David Mullen ASC]

In theory, rear-netting should be more consistent in strength across different focal lengths. You tend to get less of a "star filter" effect that a front-net on a wider-angle lens creates (but it can still happen even with rear-netting).

Some people say rear-netting is more subtle, but on a longer lens, a front net may be more subtle actually because you are looking through less of the material.

I haven't shot with rear-nets before so I haven't tested them for light loss. For front nets mounted on a frame, I just hold it over my meter dome. The really fine ones only lose 1/3 of a stop but a heavier one may lose nearly a stop.

On "Big Love", my co-DP, Bill Wages, had this 4x5 front net made from a fine nylon black tule/veil material, not a pantyhose. It was very subtle and we could ignore the light loss from it. It was something similar to a #1/2 Classic Soft in strength, or a #1 Soft-FX. You can find material like that in a large fabric store.

[ORBITLUSTER]

There's no right or wrong answer. If you know what you're doing, you've shot tests of the filters, looked at them on the big screen (if this is intended for the big screen) and like the results, then why not use them if they give you the look you want? The trouble sometimes with leaving things for the final color-correction is that the editor and director will spend months sometimes looking at the footage during the editing phase without the look you intend... and they will get used to it, making it near impossible to convince them to add the look later. Plus there may be a political reason to make the lead actress look her best early on rather than at the end of post. Plus you may not be there at the end of post, or the place they decide to finish the project at may not be able to do diffusion effects.

On the flip side, you may decide that digital diffusion is closer to the look you want than optical diffusion (for one thing, with some digital diffusion techniques, blacks halate as much as whites, which doesn't happen with optical diffusion.) Plus you can control it better shot to shot, assuming you color-correct looking at an image that is the size of the final display format (it's hard otherwise to make good guesses as to the amount of sharpening or softening to add when looking at a smaller monitor for material intended to be seen on a big screen.)

Digital diffusion tricks may also tend to de-noise / de-grain the image, which may be a good thing if you want that.

I like lens diffusion but I tend to use a grade lighter than the filter strength I really like, just to be safe and not overdo it (it's always better to under-diffuse by accident than over-diffuse -- a shot with too little diffusion generally does not look like a mistake but a shot with too much is distracting.)

Thank you David. Yes, testing, testing and then some more testings. I just wanted to know if you shared the opinion that soft filters in post introduces artifacts. I guess you don't really think it applies, at least not a a general rule.
I have another question about light fixtures. Apart from HMIs, what is in your opinion the best/highest output per watt when it comes to lights? Par64s, Flos? I would like to get some big-ish lights like 3kw-5kw and am wondering what kind should I get. I'm mainly interested to use them as fill or to bring the overall brightness of a scene/room up. Thanks David.

[David Mullen ASC]

A 5K is an awfully big light to use for fill in a typical room, unless it is a huge room... For a soft key light, yes, I can see that, like through two frames of diffusion.

Yes, PAR's tend to pack more punch than fresnels when you start using narrower lenses. But usually you need that extra punch for strong backlights or keying a large area, etc.

Generally you don't need much for fill, as minimum as possible, and you'd want a light with a very wide beam and even spread, which PAR's can do if necessary with wide lenses, but so can open-faced units and fresnels. Maybe I'd use a 5K fresnel bounced into a 12'x12' frame for a large night exterior, for fill. Inside a typical room, I'm more likely to bounce a tweenie (650w).

A 5K PAR is more likely something I'd put on a rooftop, let's say, to backlight a front yard at night or on a crane to create a streetlamp effect. Roger Deakins used a 5K PAR on the nose of the train for the opening night scene in "The Assassination of Jesse James."

I often recommend tungsten 1K PAR 64's with spot or narrow spot globes, or the 1200w HMI PAR, because they are the brightest lights that are under 20 amps, for use in a household circuit. For a 5K, you'd need a generator or a tie-in generally.

[ORBITLUSTER]

Thanks David.
Yes I know 5K is a lot for a room. But today we filmed with a system rated at about 100 ASA and we then threw a 35mm adapter on it that makes it lose 1 stop (at least) of light. We had a room of about 25x25 feet and we had two 1K fresnel, a 2K fresnel, a 2.5k soft box and 2 300w fresnel for eye lights and it wasn't enough. We still have some more to film with this system before we can complete our short but it seeem we better get some more lights. But as power is always a concern I thought I would ask which light gives the highest output per watt.

[Alexander Nikishin]

David, speaking of large lights that can be used on a house-hold circuit....

Have you used the Barger's? If so, what are your likes and dislikes about the unit?

[David Mullen ASC]

Haven't used it but it seems like a good way of getting a big soft light.

Check them out here:
http://www.barger-baglite.com/

[Alexander Nikishin]

I've got a 6 light Barger and it's real nice for soft light as you've said.

Not too practical in tight spaces due to the large size of the med. or large Chimera needed but a great tool considering you can get nearly the same fc's as a 5k but run off of 3 edison's.

[ORBITLUSTER]

Those seem to be an interesting light Alexander. I was trying to think of a way to avoid tungsten lights because they can explode. We had a 2K quartz open face explode yesterday for the second time, even though they have a fan at their back. But the Bargers seem to rely on smaller quartz lamps to output 5k. We did have a 5K quartz open faced yesterday. It was really open faced as it had no glass or grill on it and was fully open. It had a big 5K quartz but after the 2K exploded we didn't want to risk having the big 5K explode close to the actors.
We had a 2.5k soft light by Ianiro (this one http://www.ianiro.com/slight2500.asp) but it wasn't enough to bring the room overall brightness up. We are thinking about using the 5k version next time (this one: http://www.ianiro.com/slight5000.asp) and see if does a better job. The thing is that the system needs so much light that getting a stronger key like a spot is not enough. We have to bring the whole exposure level up before we can even start shaping the light. My friend's father is an old TV cameraman from the 16mm days and he was joking around telling us "So much for the digital technology, you guys need as much light as they did in the old film days back in the 30's." Well in the case of our system we couldn't say much.

[David Mullen ASC]

In the past 17 years shooting 30 features, I've rarely had a tungsten globe explode (some have burned out though.)

Yes, if you're worried about it, don't put an open-faced unit right next to an actor (and you should only use small PAR's for overhead lights pointing straight down because the others overheat.) But there's no reason to stop using open-faced lights, especially for a bounce pointed away from an actor. And definitely there's no reason to avoid tungsten lights!

If you have a lot of problem with exploding globes, I'd say you have a voltage problem, not a globe problem...

[ORBITLUSTER]

In the past 17 years shooting 30 features, I've rarely had a tungsten globe explode (some have burned out though.)

Yes, if you're worried about it, don't put an open-faced unit right next to an actor (and you should only use small PAR's for overhead lights pointing straight down because the others overheat.) But there's no reason to stop using open-faced lights, especially for a bounce pointed away from an actor. And definitely there's no reason to avoid tungsten lights!

If you have a lot of problem with exploding globes, I'd say you have a voltage problem, not a globe problem...

I'm thinking it's the light fixture itself. I have four of them and this is the second that explodes. We bought them semi-new so I'm thinking somebody may have touched the quartz bulbs with the finger and left fat on them before we purchased them. Yes, thankfully the light was pointed away for bounce but it damaged the location's floor. :(
By the way, would you have anything to add to the light matter? As to what is the best way to efficiently raise the exposure/brightness level in order to get good results with the system we are using? Thanks.

[AngusChandler]

I like to bounce a 575w or 1200w HMI par bounced into the ceiling/wall to bring up the exposure.

c.

[ORBITLUSTER]

Yes, bouncing is a good way. But we were bouncing a 2k off the ceiling plus had a 2.5k soft and it wasn't enough. So since it seems we will have to get some big fixture, probably a 5K, I'm looking for the best Watt-output(brightness) ratio. A quartz will generate an incredibly amount of heat at this size and we can't afford HMIs. So I thought of Flos but I dont know.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Soft lights are generally bad for heavy fill bounces in that a soft light has a shorter throw than a par or fresnel.

I'd guess that your 2.5k soft (which I'm not quite sure how you managed to run off of house power) was only giving out that of a 1.5k in your ceiling bounce situation.

Hard lights such as fresnels or pars penetrate alot deeper into your frame.

I would use a soft light bounce if I were looking for a softly lit image though, I guess it all depends on the quality of light you're looking to achieve.

[ORBITLUSTER]

The 2.5k was not bounced. As it is a soft light, the type that has the quartz bulbs pointing backwards at curved white reflector, it was pointed directly to the actors. We were not filming at a residence so power was not a problem.

[David Mullen ASC]

You have to ask yourself if the method you are shooting, which requires such a high and unnatural light level for a simple interior scene... is counterproductive to saving money if you end up needing 5K's and 10K's and generators, etc., plus counterproductive to achieving a natural look.

Sure, if I were stuck lighting interior night scenes to 50 ASA, I'd get the huge lights out, but I better have a good reason for using such a slow process!

Generally, HMI's are more power efficient than tungsten, which is one way of getting more light for less wattage. But then you're in a 5500K balance.

Otherwise, if you are doing a tungsten-balanced scene for 3200K and need a 50 ASA level, you're just talking about getting big, powerful lights. The most bang for the buck are probably Maxi-Brutes (6-lites, 9-lites, 12-lites) with narrower globes.

[parisrem]

As far a flos go, I just got an industrial fluorescent fixture that is made to light warehouse spaces and it is super bright. It uses 54w T5HO bulbs and a 4-light fixture is almost as bright as a Kino-flo image 80. I had to add a baby plate to be able to put it on a light stand, but it's actually pretty light weight and low cost. $160-ish with bulbs. Kinda guerilla, but works great.

[Alexander Nikishin]

T5HO bulbs? Are they 6500K?

[parisrem]

T5HO bulbs? Are they 6500K?

No they're 5900K 96 CRI. I know that Barbizon also has 3200K (or maybe 2900K, I can't remember) as well. I just got them so I haven't critically tested them. But they worked without a hitch on a couple of small shoots, and looked great. I did take meter readings, though, and compared them to the photometrics on the Kino-flo website. It seems that T5 bulbs are much more efficient than the T12s that Kino-flo uses (in the image and 4-banks and others).

Here's where I got them:

http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/t5_high_bay_specifications_111_prd0.htm

I haven't put them through the ringer yet, so proceed with caution. But they seem promising so far for a cheapy. But the $8 shoplights at home depot can be pretty great too as long as you know what you're getting into. Oh, and they weight like 12 or 13 lbs in case you're interested.

Anyway, sorry, don't mean to hijack David's fantastic thread. I never want to write much in this thread for fear of disrupting the flow of all of the great advice. Thanks again, David, for your generosity on this forum and others. It's very much appreciated.

[Esmaile]

David I need a pro set of lenses for my Redcam, I like working in low lights & natural light, so i decided to bay a high speed ultra prime set or s35 MK lll set (if i can find a good set) so my qustion is:
1. Is there any big different from MK to Ulta prims in case of performance in low light?

2. Is it enough for regular work If i own Just a MK lll set or ultra set ? I mean i can work with super high speed lenses in high contrast and daylight like standard lenses ?

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, a Zeiss Super-Speed is one-stop faster than a Zeiss Ultra Prime.

However, for most low-light work, T/2 on a Zeiss Ultra Prime will be fast enough; T/1.3 on a Zeiss Super Speed is rather soft, so it's sort of a worst-case scenario in terms of when you want to open them up all the way, plus T/2 on an Ultra Prime will be sharper than T/2 on a Super-Speed.

But maybe you really do plan on some worst-case super low-light work at T/1.3. Hope you have a good focus-puller...

A set of Zeiss Ultra Primes should be a lot more expensive than a set of Zeiss Super-Speeds.

Yes, you can shoot Super-Speeds fine outdoors in daylight using ND filters.

I assume you are talking about Zeiss Super-Speed prime lenses when you say "S35 Mk III" unless that refers to a Canon lens or something. Or are you referring to Zeiss Standard Speeds?

(Oh, I see online that you are referring to Optical-Elites when you say S35 Mk III, which are also T/1.3 lenses. I've heard those are good lenses. Don't know how they compare to Ultra Primes but are probably similar but perhaps not as well-built. Sure they are fine outdoors.)

[JasonAvalos]

hi i'm a writer-director with a red and am very hands on with other areas (cinemat.,VFX,sound,etc.) i want to do some stop-motion with my red? any suggestions? Also don't know too much about lenses but some basics. should i buy a set of lenses or try a few types out or maybe get atleast 1 lens 18-50mm so i can atleast shoot with my beautiful camera! - Jason

[David Mullen ASC]

You could do stop motion with a DLSR...

I don't know specifically about shooting single-frame on the RED.

The issue for you is whether this is stop motion miniature work, i.e. do you need special close-focusing wider-angle lenses. Otherwise, I'd say get the 18-50mm zoom as a starter lens.

[weirdcrew]

(Oh, I see online that you are referring to Optical-Elites when you say S35 Mk III, which are also T/1.3 lenses. I've heard those are good lenses. Don't know how they compare to Ultra Primes but are probably similar but perhaps not as well-built. Sure they are fine outdoors.)

Hi guys,

They're great lenses (just purchased a set). I had them lens projected and they are in both design and characteristics almost identical to COOKE S4's. They look great on screen as well. Glass and mechanics are really good, no questions asked.

BUT there's a few things. One is that is not easy to deal with the Russians so maybe you should go with a US dealer like Abelcine. The Russians have a very corrupt import/ export system and therefor sending lenses back and forth is a hustle.
Two, don't expect them to be 100%, they're more like 95-98%. There's always a blemish here and there (not optically) which can be annoying, but for that price it's hard to say if that's what you get, I don't know. I'm not sure if they have a lower inspection tolerance then the other makers like ZEISS ARRI and COOKE.

Don't get this wrong. I love them, but I have problems with all lenses. Nothing that will affect the image (at least not yet), but small imperfections that shouldn't be there and it's difficult to exchange them because of the Russian import/export system.

PS I should add that they're "softer" on T1.3 but are almost equal to the COOKE S4 on T2 and definitely as sharp on T2.8

fred

[gunleik]

Hm

Where can I find info on these lenses?

Gunleik

[Cardmaverick]

David,

When you are preparing for a film, do you ever prepare some lighting plans? Like a drawing of a set from overhead with lighting instruments for various shots? I've heard of this being done before, but I find it done more in TV where blocking and actor/talent positions are more locked down and rigid (think talk shows, etc...).

Thanks,

[David Mullen ASC]

I haven't had to draw up lighting plans on any of my shoots, not yet.

[weirdcrew]

Hm

Where can I find info on these lenses?

Gunleik

You'll find some at http://www. optica-elite.com/ (http://www.optica-elite.com/)

Otherwise just PM me and I'll try to help as much as I can.


fred

[Cardmaverick]

How long before a shoot do you know what you'll do as far as lighting is concerned? Do you sorta just go over your pre-production notes the night before and put it all together in your head? I can usually do that if I have enough prep and the director doesn't change things up left and right at the last minute. How far in advance do you know about the actors blocking for a scene?

Just out of curiosity, do you ever feel exhausted after a film shoot? I find myself needing a good couple of days rest after a big shoot, but then again, I sometimes fill several positions on these shoots due to smaller budgets. Some shoots have felt like athletic events!

Thanks,

[David Mullen ASC]

Depends on how far in advance I need to plan the lighting. For a large night exterior where I have to decide whether to get a condor and how high it should be and where it should park and whether to put a Dino in it or an 18K HMI... I have to usually decide around the time of the tech scout, if not earlier, so it can be budgeted for.

Same goes for lighting a large interior space. Do I need scissor lifts outside the windows? Do I need extra HMI's? Do I need a lighting balloon? Do I need to rig to a high ceiling?

But for a typical house interior, usually you light that with your standard lighting package you are carrying for day and night scenes. In the tech scout, you pretty much figure if there's a window, you might want to put a light outside of it, and the Gaffer and the Key Grips knows this too, so they look around for where to park the generator, where to run power into the building, etc.

Usually during the tech scout, the director and I will have a good idea of how we'll be shooting the scenes so I can give some early notes to the Gaffer and Key Grip, like "I'm thinking of rigging a 4-bank Kinoflo above this dining room table" or "we need to build a softbox for this room and leave it rigged up there". Generally you don't need to tell the crew every bit of lighting detail weeks in advance. For a small scene, you can wait until after the blocking rehearsal sometimes to figure out where the lights are going. Again, there will be an assumption made that for a day interior scene, you will probably want some lights outside the windows so those will be standing by, ready to move into position.

If we've storyboarded the movie, then I may have some definite ideas of how each scene will be lit as well. Other times, I may be deciding as I'm driving to work that morning, or after I see the blocking rehearsal.

During prep you'll probably make some rough lighting decisions in case you need help from the art department, like certain practicals installed, or using blinds instead of sheers on windows, etc.

I'll break a script down into some sort of visual game plan that may include certain colors that I need to be motivated by certain types of practicals. For example, I may decide to add some fluorescent shop lights to a garage versus tungsten practicals, because I want that cyan-ish light for the scene that Cool White tubes will give me. Maybe I'll want to add a mercury vapor streetlamp to the side of a barn or something for that odd color. Or certain neon signs added to a bar. This sort of stuff you have to think up in advance so it will be there on the shooting day.

As soon as you are scouting locations, you are probably thinking about how to light that location.

It's really night exterior work where I need the director to commit in advance to which direction we are shooting in.

[Esmaile]

Hi David Thanks for giving use these valuable information,i have another question about buying lenses:

David as you and all guys know Ultra Primes are very expensive,there's no argue in the quality and performance but if I could buy just 3 of that stuff for regular story telling so which ones you guys will suggest?why?

BTW,any clue about Ultra prime 8mm the latest lens from arri zaiss is it a
good choice to regular wide shooting?what about the performance?is there
any one who experienced that?

thanks to all

[David Mullen ASC]

Zeiss makes both an Ultra Prime 8R (super wide-angle 8mm lens that is corrected to remove barrel distortion) and the Ultra 16 8mm (which is designed for Super-16 and won't cover the 35mm frame.)

The 8R lens would be a special use lens, it's so wide-angle, nearly fish-eye.

I'm not the person to ask about buying lenses, I don't own anything. It would be very hard to limit oneself to three focal lengths and it would depend on whether you wanted to bias the three towards the wide-angle or telephoto end.

For example, you could get a 32mm, 50mm, and 85mm Ultra Prime but would probably be screaming for a wider-angle like a 24mm. You could have each lens double in focal length, but those are pretty big jumps to live with, like a 24mm, 50mm, and 100mm for example.

You could go with a 24mm, 32mm, and 50mm -- but then you might be screaming for something longer than 50mm.

[AquaVideoRed206]

Zeiss makes both an Ultra Prime 8R (super wide-angle 8mm lens that is corrected to remove barrel distortion)

The 8R lens would be a special use lens, it's so wide-angle, nearly fish-eye.



BTW,any clue about Ultra prime 8mm the latest lens from arri zaiss is it a
good choice to regular wide shooting?what about the performance?is there
any one who experienced that?

thanks to all


Been using Ken Corben's 8R, purchased primarily for underwater use. Yes, it is pretty much a specialty lens since it is so wide that you get perspective "distortions" on anything close, but to avoid confusion - it really is rectilinear with virtually no barrel or "fisheye"-like distortion. We put it on the projector and it is amazingly sharp even at the extreme corners. A phenomenal piece of engineering - hence the $30K price tag.

[Esmaile]

David you're right it's rung to limit my work by three lenses, to be honest,i'm willing to buy more primes in the near future but for now, i want to buy the most important and critical lenses at first to start my shooting and i'll add more lenses,
so what you think?is it a bad idea?

[Esmaile]

Aqua thanks for sharing men

[David Mullen ASC]

David you're right it's rung to limit my work by three lenses, to be honest,i'm willing to buy more primes in the near future but for now, i want to buy the most important and critical lenses at first to start my shooting and i'll add more lenses,
so what you think?is it a bad idea?

Only you can decide which three lenses you can be limited to. Certainly it is possible -- apparently David Fincher shot "The Game" with only three lenses (though of course they carried more, plus zooms.) But it places a creative restriction on the director, so you have to decide what three focal lengths you think you will need. It depends on how much you favor or like to avoid very wide-angle shots, or conversely, very telephoto shots. Or whether you can live with each lens being double or half the focal length of the other. Which means that if you decide, for example, that this shot needs a middle focal length like a 50mm, and it's not quite right in the space you have... you won't be able to adjust and use a 32mm or 85mm instead because your options are to use a 24mm or 100mm instead.

Which may be fine -- Ozu, after all, shot all of his movies on a 50mm. As a cinematographer, I have to give the director more flexibility than that, but as a director, you can choose to be more limited in your choices of focal lengths. A director can say "I only want to shoot this project on a 32mm, 50mm, and 85mm" (for example) but as a cinematographer, I can't tell the director "You can only have a 32mm, 50mm, and 85mm to shoot this project on."

Sure, you can start with three and eventually add two more -- generally, most prime lens sets are around five to six lenses.

Or you can look for a cheaper but more complete set of older primes, like Zeiss Super-Speeds.

[Emmanuel Cambier]

Hi David,

On the same matter of lens choice, I wanted very much to ask you a question, only it concerns the Master Primes.
If you were to pick 6 lenses among the 14-16-18-21-25-27-32-35-40-50-65-75-100-150.
Those questions may start to become boring to you, but your advice is precious, and at least I give 6 lenses to choose from. :)

Emmanuel

[Esmaile]

You are a nice man David ,i really thank you for your cool advices

[David Mullen ASC]

Hi David,

On the same matter of lens choice, I wanted very much to ask you a question, only it concerns the Master Primes.
If you were to pick 6 lenses among the 14-16-18-21-25-27-32-35-40-50-65-75-100-150.
Those questions may start to become boring to you, but your advice is precious, and at least I give 6 lenses to choose from. :)

Emmanuel

Well, six is a lot easier than three...

I'd probably pick:

18, 25, 35, 50, 75, 100

But that's sort of based on working around the 50mm in either direction, because it's hard to imagine not carrying a 50mm. But if you picked a 40mm and 65mm to work around, then you could maybe go:

16, 21, 32, 40, 65, 100

I don't know... personally I rarely go wider-angle than 21mm except maybe one or two shots per feature where I'd use an 18mm, but that's just because I'm not a big fan of super wide-angle shots in narrative work. So I always carry an 18mm, but I don't use it much. But some directors may insist on a 16mm.

[Emmanuel Cambier]

Thank you so much, David.
Both sets are very atractiv, I guess i'll have to flip coins.

Emmanuel

[Joofa]

David, How much does a feature length DI film scan cost? Thanks for any help.

[David Mullen ASC]

Depends on the scanner, amount of footage, HD, 2K, or 4K, and whatever deal you can get. I really don't know. Four years ago I got a bid for a Spirit HD transfer for a D.I. and the charge for the transfer alone was around $10,000 out of an overall D.I. bid of about $100,000.

[Esmaile]

Hi David I'm trying to get this look in my shooting.could you please tell me a little
about these shots? did you got them by lighting or in post?if lighting what kind of light did you use & how?

[David Mullen ASC]

The shot of the car was mostly luck -- we had just arrived and a storm was coming in, so I set-up the camera as fast as I could to get this wide shot with the dark clouds, enhanced by an ND.6 grad filter (I used that filter all the time in Montana to hold sky detail). After two takes, it socked in and became a flat grey sky for the next few hours (and it rained on us...)

The close-up was basically soft backlit by a Kinoflo behind her (an 8-tube Image80). There was a little Kinoflo fill but the extra touch was a Dedolight with a blackwrap snoot on the end to create a little strip of light on her eyes.

The shot of Nick Nolte and the boy -- I had a 12'x12' white griflon outside the window to hide the view of a busy city street. I didn't light the griflon though so it just has ambient daylight on it. Over the top of the griflon, with the stand behind it, I had a 6K HMI PAR shining through as a backlight. To the right side of frame I had a Kinoflo sidelighting the face (a 10-tube Wall-O-Lite but diffused down.) Probably some Kinoflo fill overall.

The interiors were smoked generally. And some form of ProMist diffusion was on the lens.

I also flashed the negative but did a skip-bleach process to the prints, to reduce color saturation. But the video transfer was from a normal I.P. (with the flashed image on it) so I had to digitally simulate the skip-bleach effect by adding contrast and lowering color saturation.

I shot most of the movie in daylight temp lighting but on tungsten stocks with no correction filter, then timed most (but not all) of the blueness out in post.

[Joofa]

T But the video transfer was from a normal I.P. (with the flashed image on it) so I had to digitally simulate the skip-bleach effect by adding contrast and lowering color saturation.



Great shots David. I have a question. When you do digital bleach simulation do you raise contrast first and then lower saturation, or do you lower saturation first and then raise contrast? Thanks for any help.

[David Mullen ASC]

It was done on a DaVinci for the home video transfer; I don't know which order the colorist twisted the knobs. It's a real-time color-corrector so you aren't rendering your effects. Plus the whole movie had this look so once you do the first few images you are just tweaking from that basic look.

I'd probably do the gamma and black setting change first because they affect chroma (saturation), so if you did saturation first, you'd probably end up adjusting it again after you changed the gamma and black levels.

[Joofa]

It was done on a DaVinci for the home video transfer; I don't know which order the colorist twisted the knobs. It's a real-time color-corrector so you aren't rendering your effects. Plus the whole movie had this look so once you do the first few images you are just tweaking from that basic look.

I'd probably do the gamma and black setting change first because they affect chroma (saturation), so if you did saturation first, you'd probably end up adjusting it again after you changed the gamma and black levels.

Thank you very much. It was very informative.

[parisrem]

How do you find the results of the digital skip bleach? Do you think that it adequately represents the look that you set on the film prints?

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, watching a movie on a TV set is such a different experience than a projected 35mm print that notions of exactly matching the look sort of go out the window. Keeping that in mind, yes, for the most part, I felt I kept the same look.

Skip-bleach leaves silver grain in the film, which a digital simulation doesn't do. That type of grain adds a texture to the print but it's hard to see in standard def resolution TV because there isn't enough resolution, so even if I transferred a skip-bleach print, I'm not sure it would show up.

The contrast difference between an I.P. and a skip-bleach print is pretty extreme, causing you to crush the blacks in the transfer off of the I.P. Some of those Spielberg movies shot by Kaminski that used a silver retention print process (A.I., Saving Private Ryan, War of the Worlds, etc.) were transferred from a low-con print rather than an I.P. -- a low-con print is a little softer, grainier, and higher in contrast (despite the name "low-con print") compared to an I.P. which is more like original negative. You can see in the DVD's of those movies a rougher looking transfer. I didn't want that sort of softness and roughness though in the transfer of "Northfork". You go too far in a transfer of an indie movie and there are TV markets that won't want to show it, unlike a Spielberg movie where they will show any transfer done no matter how it looks.

[Esmaile]

joofa I've seen a colorist who was doing the skip bleach(bleach B/pass)in this way:
1.make a copy of the original clips
2.de saturate it
3.add some contrast to it
4.mix it with the original clips on the time line
BTW..As DAvid said you should adjust the contrast at first.

[Esmaile]

David you did a nice job in montana.great look nice shooting I really appreciate that.....please let me tell you my good teacher.

I shot most of the movie in daylight temp lighting but on tungsten stocks with no correction filter, then timed most (but not all) of the blueness out in post.
Well David you did it in this way , but what if i want to get this look digitally bay shooting with red one ,do you have any technical notes to mention?
Regards,:)

[Joofa]

joofa I've seen a colorist who was doing the skip bleach(bleach B/pass)in this way:
1.make a copy of the original clips
2.de saturate it
3.add some contrast to it
4.mix it with the original clips on the time line
BTW..As DAvid said you should adjust the contrast at first.

Thanks Esmaile. I appreciate your advice. The reason I asked David this question was that because I wanted to know how professionals grade. I am not a professional colorist and I wanted to know how they do things. Though, I have my own take on that and it is below:

The oder that you mention is what I also think should be the order of steps for various reasons. But, before I go into that, a comment about what David mentioned as increasing Gamma changed saturation (chroma signal). I don't know about the internal implementation of each software, however, many times the Gamma curves are applied to each of red, green and blue color values, which I think is not right. The right step would be to convert chroma/luma to linear space (relative) luminance /chrominance and then apply gamma on (relative) luminance only, leaving (relative) chrominance as it is and then convert (relative) luminance / chrominance into luma/chroma. This way the apparent saturation should not change.

Now coming back to order of steps. I would first set the black point. Now afterwards there are so many combinations in how the software is internally implemented -- is it setting contrast the "right" way on only linear space (relative) luminance, or the "standard" way of applying to both luma and chroma and hence having effects every where; is it applying the curves and levels operation to (relative) luminance only or to both luma and chroma, etc.

To me it appears that in some combinations if I do de-saturation first, then it will give me more head room for contrast increase before clipping starts happening vs. contrast first and then de-saturation. Though, I am not entirely sure about this. Hence, I personally, may have a preference for de-saturation first and then contrast change.

Though, at the end of the day, as David mentioned you just derive a look that you like in whatever way, and then just remember the steps to get that look on each frame -- at that level its just about seeing the image the way DP/Director wanted it to look like, and not whether we took the right / wrong steps (according to color theory) to get there.

[David Mullen ASC]

Well David you did it in this way , but what if i want to get this look digitally bay shooting with red one ,do you have any technical notes to mention?
Regards,:)

It's mostly about art direction & lighting, getting that look. Desaturating the image, giving it a cold bias, adding contrast, crushing the blacks, etc. are simple to do in post color-correction but you should be working with footage that is closer to the final look. Trouble with taking normal footage with a lot of saturated color in the frame and trying to remove it is that you start messing with your fleshtones more than if the art direction, costumes, and lighting were closer to the look you want.

I will say that any process that involves adding more contrast in post and crushing the blacks... that you may want to test to determine if extra fill light is needed, or more eye lights, or if the wardrobe color needs to be adjusted, etc. to compensate, so you don't lose too much important shadow detail.

[benfilm]

Hi,

I'm sorry if the question sounds stupid (just an amateur here): do ISO numbers on DSLRs correspond to ASA numbers on standard 35mm film stock?

If I am not mistaken, the width of most DSLR's sensors is 22-24mm, the same as the width of Super35, so for a given focal length the framing (at least horizontally) would be the same on a DSLR and on Super35. If in addition I choose ISO 200 and shutter speed 1/50s on the DSLR, would the resulting photo be a more or less accurate approximation of what a 200 ASA film stock with a 180 degree shutter angle would give, with the same f-stop and focal length?

Thank you.

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, more or less.

ISO (International Organization of Standards) was just the international version of ASA (American Standards Association), which is now actually ANSI (American National Standards Institute). But Kodak film uses EI (Exposure Index) numbers instead, but it's all the same numbering system. EI 100, 100 ISO, 100 ASA, all mean the same thing.

You should test to see if any compensation is needed (for one thing, not all lenses are really the same in terms of exposure despite the T-stop or f-stop markings) but more or less it's the same on both a DSLR and a film camera. Just that digital favors a little underexposure and color negative film favors a little overexposure. Just keep that in mind if you are using the DSLR as a light meter.

[benfilm]

Okay, thank you.

I am about to buy a DSLR. I was thinking about the Canon EOS 40D + lens EF-S 17-85mm IS kit, plus the inexpensive Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens.

1) Are there DSLR models which are in some way specifically adapted to cinematography, models that DPs use on or off the set?

2) In particular, is there a way crop the optical viewfinder to the 1.85 or 2.39 ratios?

[David Mullen ASC]

No, there aren't DSLR's specifically modified for cinematography. I think the Kodak Look Management System software supports some high-end DSLR's but not others though (haven't used it myself.)

Since most DSLR shots by a cinematographers are for lighting references, getting a perfect 1.85 or 2.39 composition has not been much of an issue. I don't know what the issues are in marking up the groundglass but I assume it's possible.

[parisrem]

I think that the 40D has interchangeable focus screens. So though 1.85 or 2.39 markings aren't standard, I'm sure that you could have someone mark or etch those guides for you.

[AngusChandler]

Consider a Tamron 28-75mm for your 40d if you're jsut using it for previs. Obviously not as sharp as the comparable Canon L lens, but a nice zoom range (imo) and a constant 2:8 aperture. That's what I use - very handy setup for checking back to previous days work, matching shots, etc. Also a rough and ready light meter (if you're careful).

[harryclark]

Check out Fortunato Procopio's website:
http://www.fortunatoprocopio.com/ff/ffmain.html
Fortune is an old friend and a mentor to me. He designed a really simple way to use a film SLR as a finder, fitted with a custom groundglass and matching 4-mil clear filter over the aperture.
You can do location scouting and see what "a 50mm looks like right here", for whatever format you are shooting. We did a couple of indie movies that I operated and he and the director made a complete photo board for every scene. It really helped us keep a tight schedule with a small budget. Of course we made changes "on the day" but at least everyone knew where we were staring from.
I don't know that he's tried to update the system for DSLRs, but you might contact him and ask.
BTW, David, your kind demeanor and rational though process reminds me of Fortune very much.
Cheers,
Harry

[benfilm]

Great topical information, thank you very much to all.

I will probably do some more hesitating for a few days before buying it.

[benfilm]

1) Something I find confusing: when people talk about focal lengths used in movies, they indifferently take examples from anamorphic and spherical movies. But there is a 2x factor involved: is there an implicit convention here?

2) The rule "a lens of 50mm is about the human eye" comes from 35mm still photography, but if I am not mistaken it is false for most movies because it doesn't apply to spherical focal lengths: it would give a horizontal angle of view of 23.7°, which is obviously much narrower than the human eye. Applied to anamorphic focal lengths it computes to 47.5°, which seems reasonable (applied to 35mm still photography it gives 40°).

Again, are there any implicit conventions when people say "50mm is the human eye"?

[David Mullen ASC]

There is a difference between matching field of view to human vision and matching perspective. Human vision has quite a wide view -- the Cinerama format, for example, used a 145 degree field of view to create an immersive experience on the big screen; IMAX often uses very wide-angle lenses. In both cases, the image on the very large screen combined with the very wide view helps stimulate the peripheral vision of the viewer as happens in real life; you could say in that case that the "normal" view is in the center of the big screen and the wider-angle edges are just to engage peripheral vision.

A "normal" lens in film is not one that matches human field of view, it's one that does not either enlarge or shrink the size of the subject when comparing the view through the viewfinder to the view with your eyes standing next to the camera. Essentially it maintains a normal perspective to the scene, neither wide angle or telephoto. But I don't really believe in the concept of a "normal" lens anyway.

A 50mm anamorphic lens has the field of view of a 50mm spherical lens vertically but a 25mm spherical lens horizontally. Thus overall it "feels" more wide-angle than a 50mm spherical lens. With a 50mm anamorphic, you do have something that seems closer to human vision, i.e. a "normal" degree of enlargement/perspective but increased horizontal view.

[Shawn Nelson]

A 50mm anamorphic lens has the field of view of a 50mm spherical lens vertically but a 25mm spherical lens horizontally. Thus overall it "feels" more wide-angle than a 50mm spherical lens. With a 50mm anamorphic, you do have something that seems closer to human vision, i.e. a "normal" degree of enlargement/perspective but increased horizontal view.

Then why don't people appear "squished", flattened, or otherwise stretched horizontally when shot in anamorphic?

[Dominic Jones]

On the neg/prints/etc they do - you use a similar lens on the projector to "unsquish" the image. This is what allows you to store a 2.4:1 image within the area allowed for sound aperture prints (the actual ratio on the neg or print is 1.2:1, slightly more square than the 1.33:1 Academy aperture it sits within).

It was designed to allow for very wide formats without sacrificing too much real-estate (and therefore resolution, of course) on the film...

Slightly incidentally, you can still observe some horizontal compression on anamorphically shot films in some cases, particularly in the background of shots that employ a very close focus - but that's a factor of slightly less than optimal lens design (or to be more accurate, compromising between perfect optics and the desire for greater focus range), rather than an inherent flaw in the concept.

[David Mullen ASC]

On the neg/prints/etc they do - you use a similar lens on the projector to "unsquish" the image.

Yes, and in a video transfer, you electronically unsqueeze the image.

4-perf 35mm theatrical prints come in two types: "flat" (spherical) for matting in the projector to widescreen (usually 1.85), and "scope" (anamorphic) with a 2X image squeeze (and a 1.20 projector gate) that is unstretched to 2.40 by the anamorphic projector lens.

[benfilm]

There is a difference between matching field of view to human vision and matching perspective.


If I understand things correctly, field of view is the only factor.

When I stand next to the camera, the perspective (in the sense of compression of space, the relative sizes of objects at different distances) does not depend on the lens at all. In other words, standing next to the camera if I take a photo of a group of objects arranged at different depths (eg a big crowd), with a very telephoto lens, and then with a wide-angle photo, the relative sizes of these objects will be exactly the same in both photos. If I crop the wide-angle photo with a pair of scissors, I get the exact same photo, only smaller.

Actually my question was very practical: in a previous thread (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6938&page=3) you said "Psycho was mostly shot with a 50mm lens. Hitchcock did not like distorted perspectives too much."

That's the kind of statement I don't get. Did you mean 50mm in 35mm still photography equivalent, or the actual focal length of the spherical lens? Psycho was shot with spherical lenses, so 50mm computes to 23.7° horizontal field of view, which feels much narrower than the eye.

[David Mullen ASC]

If I understand things correctly, field of view is the only factor.

When I stand next to the camera, the perspective (in the sense of compression of space, the relative sizes of objects at different distances) does not depend on the lens at all. In other words, standing next to the camera if I take a photo of a group of objects arranged at different depths (eg a big crowd), with a very telephoto lens, and then with a wide-angle photo, the relative sizes of these objects will be exactly the same in both photos. If I crop the wide-angle photo with a pair of scissors, I get the exact same photo, only smaller.

Actually my question was very practical: in a previous thread (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6938&page=3) you said "Psycho was mostly shot with a 50mm lens. Hitchcock did not like distorted perspectives too much."

That's the kind of statement I don't get. Did you mean 50mm in 35mm still photography equivalent, or the actual focal length of the spherical lens? Psycho was shot with spherical lenses, so 50mm computes to 23.7° horizontal field of view, which feels much narrower than the eye.

Well, that's why you are confused, because "normal" lenses don't match field of view of human vision.

Human vision has quite a wide-angle field of view, but we don't consider wide-angle lenses to be "normal" lenses, we consider them to be wide-angle lenses.

Hitchcock and Ozu preferred the 50mm lens for the perspective, not the field of view, though your notion of perspective may be different than mine. Perspective in that sizes and distances of objects seem undistorted, neither stretched by a wide-angle or compressed as with a telephoto.

Now you have to remember though that modern widescreen formats like 1.85 are cropped down from the old 1.37 Academy and thus lose some vertical field of view, so a 50mm feels slightly tighter today than it did in the 1940's. Of course, "Psycho" was a 1960's movie but Hitchcock's experience was with pre-widescreen formats.

Whenever you get into discussions of what "normal" is, you fall into personal opinion.

Roman Polanski thought that wide-angle lenses were "normal" to him and they shot "Chinatown" almost entirely on a 40mm anamorphic lens because the DP and him felt it was close to a "normal" perspective, though some would find that to be a wide-angle lens.

Generally in modern 35mm spherical movie photography, the "normal" range is anywhere from 35mm to 65mm-ish, maybe even 75mm, in terms of presenting an undistorted perspective on reality. But again, I'm not talking about matching human vision's field of view, which is quite wide-angle.

If you define "normal" as the length of the diagonal of the frame in millimeters, I think the standard 1.85 4-perf 35mm frame is more like 28mm or 35mm (not having done the math) compared to a 1.50 8-perf 35mm still camera frame.

It's all rather academic -- you use the lenses that give you the look you like.

[vincelucero]

this is the best thread ever. thanks for your time david.

[benfilm]

If you define "normal" as the length of the diagonal of the frame in millimeters, I think the standard 1.85 4-perf 35mm frame is more like 28mm or 35mm (not having done the math) compared to a 1.50 8-perf 35mm still camera frame.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35mm_film#Technical_specifications, the projector aperture for 1.85 is 21mm x 11mm, so the diagonal is 23.7mm (nothing to do with the 23.7° from before): with the rule "normal focal length = diagonal" a normal lens would be 23.7mm, which feels small and that was why I was asking the question in the first place (this rule computes to "normal lens = 53.1° angle of view"). Same for the projected Academy diagonal: 25.8mm, feels small. But the diagonal of unsqueezed anamorphic is 45.4mm (43.2mm for still 35mm), which is closer to the 50mm focal lengths we expect.

But since, as you say, in actual practice a lot of lenses (not just around 50mm) are going to feel more or less "normal" in the final image, I won't worry about that 50mm value anymore.

About that perspective thing, I was just making the point that, although it may feel counterintuitive, perspective (which is, as you said, the relative sizes of objects at different distances) only depends on your position relative to the objects, not at all on the lens you use (all this becomes incorrect in macrophotography because subject-object distances become comparable to focal lengths).

Contrary to basic intuition, when you look at two people who are at different distances from you, if the closest one is exactly two times as big as the furthest one, then as long as you don't move, whatever you use (your eye, an extreme wide-angle, a long telephoto -- as long as the two people remain in the frame), if you look in the direction of the two people, the closest one is always going to remain exactly twice as big as the furthest one. Although in wide-angle you are going to see a lot more than just the two people.

But again, it works only if you don't move. In practice, you move; you walk further away and increase the focal length, so in that case the sizes of the two people will be closer, that is, perspective changes.

The point is mostly theoretical, but still, I find it interesting to note that, strictly speaking, perspective depends only on position, not on the lens: the lens only changes the field of view, not the perspective (again, with the definition that perspective is the ratio of the sizes of objects at different distances, which is the correct definition). We associate long lenses with compressed perspective only because we move away when we use long lenses: in reality compressed perspective is not a property of long lenses -- only narrow field of view is. It sounds obvious when said differently: a long lens just takes part of an image and enlarges it uniformly, it doesn't affect perspective in any way.

[Jens Jakob Thorsen]

I tend to feel that a 50mm lens on a 36x24mm still is a wee too long for "normal" human perception. it feel more like a 46-48mm.
On super 35mm film the 32 feels very close to that "distortionless" state that a "normal" lens should achieve(a 35mm feels a little long for me)
My 3 favourite lenses are the 28mm,40mm and the 65mm on super35.
Certainly nobody would claim that the 40mm anamorphic is even close to normal as are talking close to a 20mm spherical.
I think I remeber reading about Polanski having big discussion with John Alonzo(an underestimated DP in my opinion, who also did wonderfull work with Mike figgis in "Internal Affairs","Scarface" and one of my favorite films "Harold and Maude")about using the 40mm as the main lens. This was especially a n issue when shootin medium closeups and closeups of Faye Dunnaway. As allways the genius filmmaker Roman Polansky prevailed and proved that his lens dogma for this film worked for the story.

[Jens Jakob Thorsen]

On another note I would like to hear your thougths on this subject that concerns backflare from the OLPfilter
www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=157675&posted=1#post157675

[Shawn Nelson]

David, have you seen the movie "Diving Bell and the Butterfly"? I am curious what your thoughts on it are. I watched it on Saturday and was shocked at just how subjective you could really push a movie. Never would I have thought that repeatedly breaking the fourth wall could work so well for a serious narrative fiction, neither could i think that simply blurring the screen could make me want to cry. I was surprised it was done by Janusz, as it didn't feel like his other work, no lighting in the shots called attention to themselves.

[David Mullen ASC]

I thought it was a great work of cinematography, exactly what cinematography is all about. I was amazed that such a restrictive style could be so expressive and dramatically involving. Yes, the lighting is natural; it would be hard to justify something more theatrical and stylized (except for the character's fantasies.)

[davide]

Hey David,

This is my first time posting on reduser but I've been visiting the site regularly ever since this thread started in the off topic forum. It's up there with Painting with Light as one of my favorite places to look for techniques and advice on cinematography. (This gets a nod as I don't have to check it out from the library every time I want to read it).

I'm currently prepping for a shoot and was hoping to get yours, and anyone else's on this forums advice. The scene takes place in Afghanistan, but I'm going to have to shoot it in or around NYC. It's a medium-wide (28mm or so) static shot of archaeologists in the desert stacking up crates to be loaded on a truck. The perspective is going to be straight on and perpendicular with the horizon.

In order to cheat it I was hoping to film it like in these pictures. The first is credited to Michael Reichman at Luminous Landscape. The other is the work of cinematographer John Alton in The American in Paris.

I figure that with the foreground silhouetted and the background a bunch of haze and swirling sand I can get the vibe of the deserts of Southern Afghanistan without actually being there. Any thoughts on how to best go about this using an indoor set? Would it help to composite in a mountainous landscape background? All help will be greatly appreciated. This is going to be shot on a DVX100.

Conversely, if anyone knows of a place around the NY metro area that could be cheated for this (maybe a sand quarry surrounded by mountains) that would be great too. Thanks!

[David Mullen ASC]

A hazemaker (smoke machine) and strong (warm) backlight basically, though if you also want real dust in the air, you probably have to go with something like ground walnut shells (I think that's the product) -- Fuller's Earth is no longer considered safe to breathe.

[dracul]

hmmm, well i feel like an idiot not seeing this thread earlier. Well, Mr Mullen, I cannot delete the thread now so please have a look at "For Mr. David Mullen Shooting Dark"

Thank you

[dracul]

My question is about the sunlight on the back wall. Assuming the budget was available for one of those 24 bank 6k Pars on a crane/generator would you have one of these standing by to throw in a situation like this or would you just fire a 18k off a scissor lift?

The reason I ask this is more of director flexibility. If you use the Crane it can back up more and perhaps the director wants to show a bit out the window without the crane in shot but the 18k on scissor would have to be much closer.

[Fovean]

I tend to feel that a 50mm lens on a 36x24mm still is a wee too long for "normal" human perception. it feel more like a 46-48mm.
On super 35mm film the 32 feels very close to that "distortionless" state that a "normal" lens should achieve(a 35mm feels a little long for me)
.

This is a very interesting idea...

I don't remember when, but somewhere in my filmmaking learning curve, I learned that the 50mm lens, in Academy 35mm, was, quote, "an eye-real lens." Meaning it perceives space as we humans do. Many years later I met an old writer - a beautiful man who was blacklisted back during McCarthyism and somehow stayed alive and writing anyway. He was an on-set writer for John Ford who was, to hear the writer tell it, a fan of the 50mm lens. But John Ford wore an eyepatch - he could only see out of one eye! The writer firmly believes that's why Ford's compositions are so strong - he wasn't burdened with true depth perception...

But as I grow as a cinematographer, I choose the 50mm less and less. I put it up and it feels like I couldn't make up my mind about the shot - it's an odd in-between size. For "eye-real" I'll shoot a 32mm when I can get it, a 35mm if I can't. In Academy, anyway. I have yet to shoot Super35.

But then again, it's all about the story. Maybe "eye-real" or "normal" perception is a 50mm on one movie, a 28mm on the next...

[dracul]

Mr. Mullen,

Could you confirm if this is an ideal way of exposing the following shot of yours.

[JasonAvalos]

for that indoor nyc , i would talk to a few production designers too. walnut sounds right and you might if you have the time play with a few other textures(sands,etc) to see how much of it you want to see cause that is was sells a shot like that. besides the great silhouette,etc. - Jason

[David Mullen ASC]

Mr. Mullen,

Could you confirm if this is an ideal way of exposing the following shot of yours.

I don't think you're getting my explanations of how I expose a shot.

In this case, since this was just for video transfer to HD, I didn't rate the stock much slower than normal -- it was low-con 5229 (Expression 500T) rated at 400 ASA. I just exposed her face for what my meter said was correct for 400 ASA, so her face is 1/3 of a stop overexposed technically.

If this was for theatrical projection, I might have rated 5229 at 320 ASA instead or used a different stock (5229 is a bit grainier than other 500T stocks.)

Now the transfers for the show were on the contrasty side, the colorist taking the lower contrast negative image and darkening the blacks more.

Exposing a face two stops over and printing down to normal would be the same thing as rating 500 ASA stock at 125 ASA, which is rather low and hard to light for. Like I said, I usually rate a stock either 2/3's over or 1/3 over, not two stops over. I would only expose a face two stops over if I wanted it to end up looking two stops over.

You've got to separate how you rate the stock from how you expose for a look, otherwise you're just going to confuse yourself. If the stock rated 2/3's slower than rated by the manufacturer gives you good blacks, then using the rating, you just expose things for how bright you want them to look in the frame. If you want a face to look normal in brightness, you just expose for that. You let your slower ASA rating create the necessary overexposure so you don't have to think about it (and two-stops is too much in general to correct for.)

The problem with too much overexposure is that you get milkiness all over again because you've pushed too much highlight information into the flatter shoulder of the characteristic curve, so your highlights start to grey-out and lose detail.

I mean, if you really want to actually meter faces and overexpose them for a later "normal" look rather than simply setting your meter to a lower ASA rating, that's up to you but I find it confusing to constantly have to remember to expose differently than what my meter tells me.

But at the most, I would only overexpose by one-stop and bring it down to normal.

[dracul]

ok. that makes sense and yes it is easier. But in this shot there is pretty big difference between the key and the fill from camera side. Looks like a 3 to 3 1/2 stop difference. So that would mean you underexposed the fill about 2 1/2 stops correct? And this is still ok for a clean no grain look in the shadow?

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't measure fill, I just add a little by eye and the film picks it up. The overall noise or grain is based on overall exposure, not how much fill I used -- unless I make a mistake and end up in post trying to lift up detail in the shadows and get noise. But since I generally don't do that that, I get away with adding fill by eye.

Also, Expression 500T is a low-con stock so it naturally sees in the shadows, so it's easy to over-fill if you're not careful. I set up some fill light and then knocked it down until I could barely see it by eye. That usually is around three-stops under compared to the key.

Before you start a project, you should shoot a simple ASA test, a simple over and underexposure test (which is similar but not the same thing), and a simple lighting contrast ratio test just to see what sort of ratios look nice, but try and memorize how they look by eye and get used to lighting by eye. People make more mistakes ignoring their eyes and following their meters too much. If it looks wrong to your eye, then it's going to look wrong.

Most of the people who have horror stories about grain and noise are used to shooting in 16mm or with consumer DV gear -- in the first, you've got a small negative that is naturally grainier, and in the second, you've got cameras that often automatically pump up the gain as you get closer to shooting wide-open on the lens.

[BigLu]

This is Page 85!!!

I am impressed.
I wish I had a good question but I don't.
So ill ask you a bad one, hope your listening.

MR. MULLEN,
Greetings.

My "work-flow" has been.
1994
Started as a reel to reel editor, into Non-Liner Editor / Beta-Cam & HD operator owner, learned lighting due to necessity, second unit DP and second unit Director depending on TV show or project, now I am back in post as a colorist which I absolutely love.

But all I have ever wanted to do is Direct.

Now that this RED camera is out something I can have as my own.
This is more of a reality than ever.
With a strong background in post production, and years as a beta operator.
Can you give me a guiding light on how to best developed into a useful Director with the eyes of a colorist / camera operator.

I doubt you started as a DP, can you share how you got there.
Details would be so helpful.
I took a bumpy road myself but I feel im closer than ever.
Feel free to tell me how to attack this.

I have never had the opportunity to communicate with an accomplished FILM Director of Photography as yourself.

So your words will resonate and carry a lot of weight 4 me.

I appreciate your time.
Thank you,
Luis Flores Jr.

[David Mullen ASC]

I spent a decade shooting my own short films in Super-8, from the time I was 15 to 25. During that time, I got a BA in English Lit from UCLA but spent most of my time reading about filmmaking at the Arts Library there.

Around the time I was 25-26, a shot a few small projects in 16mm, some of them karaoke music videos -- I was hired to direct and shoot them by a USC grad who was producing a bunch of them. They had budgets of around $2000 each.

I then went to CalArts for three years to get my MFA in Filmmaking. Though I entered with the thought to direct, everyone was blown away by the cinematography in my Super-8 shorts and I started to get asked to shoot 16mm thesis projects as a DP. I must have shot nearly twenty 16mm short films while I was in film school. I also shot one 35mm short film during that time. I was almost 30 when I graduated.

After graduation, I worked part-time at a sound effects company doing database entry work, for about two years.

But a year after graduation, I got asked to shoot a 35mm feature for a fellow student, a non-paying job with hardly any budget but a lot of donations. A year after that, I got hired to shoot a 35mm thriller that went straight to cable and home video, but the budget was nearly 1 million dollars. So with two features to my credit, I quit working part-time at the sound efx company and started looking for shooting jobs. I mostly did a bunch of under-1-mil features in 35mm, but I also shot some infomercials in betacam for a production company. I cracked the 1-mil budget mark around feature #20.

In the 17 years since graduation, I've shot 30 features. I joined the union after my 23rd feature, in 2003. I'm currently working on a Fox Atomic feature called "Jennifer's Body", written by Diablo Cody and directed by Karyn Kusama.

[BigLu]

Thank you.

[joelnet]

I cracked the 1-mil budget mark around feature #20.
.....
In the 17 years since graduation, I've shot 30 features. I joined the union after my 23rd feature, in 2003.


That is an awesome breakdown of just how much work it has taken to get as far as you have. Look at the the obsessive dedication since the age of 15. Add to that the ability to play well with creative people, all the travel etc. all the crazy direction you've probably heard. It's friggin' impressive. Congrats, and way to go, you deserve it!

I noticed particularly the 20 features under $1 million. (not to mention the other 100 low or no pay shorts etc. you worked on prior to that)

I'd guess that's where the bulk of the narrative projects live. With the business being what it is, the under $1 million dollar feature market is turning into the under $250k feature market from what distributors have been telling me.

I'm just thinking of John Sayles last movie. It was $5 mil with Danny Glover and he couldn't get a good distribution deal. He got $1 mil for DVD rights and that's about it so far. The likelyhood of him breaking even is poor.

Do you have a sense for how the marketplace is changing and any advice for investors/producers?

[David Mullen ASC]

From my perspective now shooting union films, it's a bit different -- the studios have sort of given up on the mid-range films and concentrated on making blockbusters. After buying indie films for decades, all the studios set up an indie division of some sort or another, modeled on companies like Miramax (owned by Disney now).

So I got sort of lucky -- just about the time I was struggling to get above the 1-mil feature mark (and only making about $20,000/year shooting them), the studios started making more "low" budget (for them) films in the 5 to 20 million mark, and being the studio producers, they were all guild signatories so they were all union productions. And it's very hard to make a union feature for much less than 3 mil.

So now you've got a number of movies being made under low-budget IA agreements (1 to 6 mil.) and then movies made under the normal IA contract rules.

Just jumping to shooting union features doubled my income right off the bat, so in one year I went from making $20,000/yr to $40,000 to $60,000/yr, which was much better.

As for profitability, that's a problem for all movies -- a big-budget movie can make or lose a lot more than a little one, and there is a point with really small budgets where the return in investment, though the tiny movie can more easily turn a profit, just doesn't excite Wall St. investors, agents, producers, etc. They'd rather gamble big and earn big when it pays off.

But it is hard nowadays to get a movie into a theater and turn a profit. Because of P&A costs, a little indie film really has to earn at least 3 or 5 million at the box office, and most rarely do. However, even a mediocre box office showing causes some push in sales in home video and cable because those secondary markets benefit from the marketing done for the theatrical release in terms of increasing awareness. It's much harder to get a title that goes straight to video seem like a "must rent" (or buy) if the consumer just hasn't heard of it.

But because of rising production costs (not in crew so much as other factors) I've noticed that a budget doesn't get you as far as it used to. A 10-mil feature "feels" like a 5-mil feature from three years ago in terms of schedule and equipment, etc. (the things I notice as a DP.)

Unfortunately, the business model of the under 1-mil non-union feature is much harder to earn a living from for anyone other than the producer who owns the title (and actors maybe, since they still tend to be SAG productions.) It tends to work more for the first-time director trying to break-in but you can't sustain that level of work to put together a tiny budgeted indie movie over and over again. If you spend two years looking for financing and pitching a small project to private investors, that's two years where you aren't earning an income. And once the little movie gets made, you may still be deferring your salary as a director to get it made, hoping the sales will be enough to get you some money. But often even that isn't enough, and you wait years for profits to trickle in from home video and cable... and you start the ball rolling all over again looking for investors for the next indie movie.

Most directors go broke doing that more than a few times and start looking to get hired on something bigger that actually pays.

[joelnet]

Most directors go broke doing that more than a few times and start looking to get hired on something bigger that actually pays.

You're a wealth of knowledge, I appreciate it. In the interview I listened to about Sayles' Honeydripper the producer stated she felt these days any movie headed for a theatrical release would require 20 million in P&A. Simply put, most small movies will never see widespread release because of that.

It's interesting for you to note that production money doesn't seem to go as far these days while at the same time the money being offered by distributors is down.

What is driving these costs up and lowering production value at a time when technology seems to be making some things less expensive? Do you see solutions?

Apologies for veering off cinematography, but the thread title mentions ask "anything" and most RED owners have a vested interest in the business side of things whether they are producers, rental houses or shooters. :-)

[dracul]

So as a business investor producing these under 1 million straight to video features, do you think they are still profitable? If so how profitable? I see for instance plenty of horror films with no name actors coming out regularly. Are there profitable? Aside from the budged how much do they spend on publicy, advertising?

[David Mullen ASC]

Above-the-line costs keep rising (star actors, big-time directors and screenwriters, plus studio costs, overhead, etc.) and material costs have been rising (wood, metal, fuel, etc.) Below-the-line salaries have not risen at the same rate. I'd hate to find cheaper ways to shoot a movie as a DP if it only means more money is given to above-the-line folks and it doesn't buy me some extra shooting days or something, something that will benefit my work. Of course, finding a cheaper way to make the movie may make the difference in the movie getting made at all, which of course benefits the crew that gets hired, assuming they want to work on that film.

Sure, these small horror films make money because it's a popular genre not driven by star actors. Whether the market is becoming glutted right now is another matter. Some distributors are starting to look for more variation and originality in the horror films, more crossovers to other genres. Or simply ignoring out the cheap-looking ones in favor of buying ones with more production value.

Low-budget producers, the successful ones, make money because they know their market -- they make enough films per year to keep feeding the distribution chain because they know it can take years to see profits trickle back in (often a market you sell to has at least six months before they have to even start sending profit shares back to the producers). So they are getting money back on some film they shot two years ago as it makes the rounds in all the foreign markets, while they are making their current film. And perhaps they either have a pretty good lock on who will want to buy the film, or they even have some sort of pre-sale done to some market. Sometimes these movies are in profit before they even get made thanks to pre-sales (though those have dwindled over the years.) These producers and distributors have long-term contacts with their markets, and know what will be bought and for how much, before they even make the movie. It's not without some risk, of course.

But all of that doesn't necessarily benefit the crew people, who don't share in these profits. And the rates that many of these low-budget productions pay are not high enough to really support yourself, unless you think it fair that a skilled grip or electrician earn the same yearly salary as someone working at MacDonald's. It's sort of a production model that benefits younger people looking for entry-level work into the industry, but few stay there. So these low-budget producers benefit from the constant influx of new people trying to break into the industry who are willing to work cheap. It's not a bad system, necessarily, since the studios no longer have the B-Movie divisions like in the classic days. But there are also limits as to the quality of a crew you can regularly put together when you're paying very low rates; it's very hit or miss.

[dracul]

thank you for your input. Any idea how much profit they make?

[David Mullen ASC]

Nope. Producers are rather secretive when it comes to true production costs and true profitability, as are everyone else in the chain. The less information is made public, the more they can manipulate expectations in their favor.

I learned a long time ago that in Hollywood, it matters more that you act and look successful than if you actually are successful. Perception is almost everything; the people that "win" are the ones that survive long enough until true success comes along. In the meanwhile, they have to play the game as if they were major players, part of the successful crowd, and hope reality catches up before the bills come due. It's sort of like the U.S. economy and Wall St. in that regards; the economic numbers are one thing, but there is also this issue of perceptions, moods, expectations, fear, greed, etc. which drive the market. The worth of the dollar is really not based on anything physical.

Real success ultimately is not about how much money you make, it's about the ability to do what you love doing. So people hang in there in Hollywood hoping to get to do what they love doing. And some people, despite the lackluster sales of their previous movies, keep moving from project to project because they are perceived as rising up instead of dropping down. The ultimate success is that they are still in the game. If your last movie was a flop and you still get another movie into production, you're successful.

[dracul]

Thank you Mr. Mullen. I am very interested in entering the low budget or b movie industry as an investor for 2 reasons. Provide my own opportunity to direct/shoot, and number 2, make a profit hopefully, but, if I break even the first few I would be satisfied as long as the movies are decent.

I must of course do research and educate myself on the business side/ market first. Can you recommend a path or point me in the right direction?

Shooting on red to video market how much do you think this would impact the budget of a 500k feature?

[Abu Reno]

Hi Dave, Love reading your posts!! I figure you'd be the one to get your opinion on Elite Optica. Have you ever shot with these lenses? Obviously they would be the older lenses and not the new ones that were just released.

[David Mullen ASC]

Thank you Mr. Mullen. I am very interested in entering the low budget or b movie industry as an investor for 2 reasons. Provide my own opportunity to direct/shoot, and number 2, make a profit hopefully, but, if I break even the first few I would be satisfied as long as the movies are decent.

I must of course do research and educate myself on the business side/ market first. Can you recommend a path or point me in the right direction?

Shooting on red to video market how much do you think this would impact the budget of a 500k feature?

I'm the wrong person to give business advice... you should talk to some distributors and sales agents of the type of movies you want to make to get a sense of the market (plus watch the movies they are distributing.)

RED's impact on the budget? Sort of depends in comparison to what. DV? 35mm? RED seems like an ideal camera for the low-budget filmmaker...

[David Mullen ASC]

Hi Dave, Love reading your posts!! I figure you'd be the one to get your opinion on Elite Optica. Have you ever shot with these lenses? Obviously they would be the older lenses and not the new ones that were just released.

I haven't shot with them, but I've always heard good things about the Elites over the years.

[Shawn Nelson]

David,
If (or back when) you face the situation of shooting near window(s), and needing to balance to tungsten for interior, what type of gel do you like on the windows? 1/2 CTO? 3/4 CTS? Full? Any ND?

[jimarri]

Hey David,
Our opinions on "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" seem to correspond. What fantastic cinematography, especially in serving the story line! One of the things I really loved was the camera operation, in particular the car shots, and in particular the car shots when he was driving with his son near the end of the movie. It was an interesting mix of mechanical ability and human fluidity. Do you know anything about the rig they used to achieve that mix?

[davide]

Hi David,

Thanks for your advice on the scene I'm planning. Once it's done I'll upload screen shots to show it went. I was also wondering if you had read Paul Schrader's book, "Schrader on Schrader." And if so what did you think of this claim he made in the chapter on film noir:

"Because film noir was first of all a style, because it worked out its conflicts visually rather than thematically, because it was aware of its own identity, it was able to create artistic solutions to sociological problems. And for these reasons films like Kiss me Deadly, Kiss Tomorrow Goddbye and Gun Crazy can be works of art in a way that gangster films like Scarface, Public Enemy and Little Caesar can never be."

Do you agree that the core meaning of film noir film lay in their cinematography just as much as, if not more than, in their narratives? Do you consider cinematography to be something that complements and emphasizes a film's story or shapes it and gives a it different meaning than the bare script could ever have had? When you shoot do you think of yourself as representing the story visually or trying to give, as Schrader put it, "artistic solutions" to the themes raised by the script?

I guess one of the movies that makes me wonder about this is: He Walked By Night. The story of that film is pretty much no different than something you would get on Dragnet. But the visual style of Anthony Mann and John Alton on that film is far different than any TV show. Do you think that gives the film's story a different message than if the script had been turned into an episode of Dragnet?

thanks,
davide

[David Mullen ASC]

David,
If (or back when) you face the situation of shooting near window(s), and needing to balance to tungsten for interior, what type of gel do you like on the windows? 1/2 CTO? 3/4 CTS? Full? Any ND?

Full CTO would convert daylight to tungsten. How much ND just depends on how much I had to darken the window.

I never find the color of any orange gel on the window to look right for matching to tungsten. I usually use HMI's. On my last movie, I did gel a workshop with Full CTO on the window but that was because I was lighting inside with Cool White fluorescents and I wanted them to look blue-green compared to the windows so I needed a 3200K base for "white" so the 4800K Cool Whites would look cooler in comparison.

[David Mullen ASC]

Hey David,
Our opinions on "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" seem to correspond. What fantastic cinematography, especially in serving the story line! One of the things I really loved was the camera operation, in particular the car shots, and in particular the car shots when he was driving with his son near the end of the movie. It was an interesting mix of mechanical ability and human fluidity. Do you know anything about the rig they used to achieve that mix?

I don't know what rigs they used for driving scenes. I'm out of town about to shoot a feature, so I don't have access to the American Cinematographer article to see if they said anything about that.

[David Mullen ASC]

Do you agree that the core meaning of film noir film lay in their cinematography just as much as, if not more than, in their narratives? Do you consider cinematography to be something that complements and emphasizes a film's story or shapes it and gives a it different meaning than the bare script could ever have had? When you shoot do you think of yourself as representing the story visually or trying to give, as Schrader put it, "artistic solutions" to the themes raised by the script?

I guess one of the movies that makes me wonder about this is: He Walked By Night. The story of that film is pretty much no different than something you would get on Dragnet. But the visual style of Anthony Mann and John Alton on that film is far different than any TV show. Do you think that gives the film's story a different message than if the script had been turned into an episode of Dragnet?


The semi-Expressionist lighting in film noirs suggests hidden psychological states of mind that reflect the story and setting, so yes, I think it's a genre where the meaning is partially driven by visual style, or at least, it is enhanced and made more clear by the visual style. I'm not sure there is definitely a hard line between noirs and gangster films, nor that one can be art and the other not (were "The Godfather" movies gangster or noir films? Aren't they artistic?)

The Expressionist style suggests a broader meaning to the small crime story in a noir, that we are looking at primal human behaviors and perhaps even seeing elements of spiritual issues like Good vs. Evil. Maybe because to some degree, Expressionism reminds us of classic fairy tales, like by the Brothers Grimm. Or also that the darkness used is both obviously visual but also symbolic of the dark parts of the human soul.

[jimarri]

I don't know what rigs they used for driving scenes. I'm out of town about to shoot a feature, so I don't have access to the American Cinematographer article to see if they said anything about that.

American Cinematographer had a lot of good stuff on the lenses and in camera techniques used, but very little about the camera movement - none about the car rig.

FWIW, I rarely even check my email when I'm on a feature. That you still take the time to answer our queries here, while you're working those kind of hours . . . . Well, I'm just blown away. Thanks for all that you do for the worldwide cinematography community.

[ORBITLUSTER]

Hey David, a question about the F900's HyperGamma curves. Between the 4 of them, which ones do you recommend for what applications, situations? Thanks.

[David Mullen ASC]

I haven't used them -- Hypergamma was a feature added to the F23 and the F900R, but I don't recall it being an option in any F900 I ever used.

On the F23, the Hypergamma feature allows extended dynamic range without getting into the flat LOG emulation, so how aggressive of a gamma manipulation you want to do depends on what look you want and whether it is for a film-out (but don't want to use Sony LOG) or broadcast.

I don't think there's a free lunch in video, so generally the more aggressive a gamma manipulation is in terms of squeezing more dynamic range out of the image, the more likely you'll start to see things like noise in the shadows. So if this is just for broadcast work, I'd probably use one of the less strong Hypergamma choices, though I haven't studied them in detail. It probably also depends on how you will be color-correcting in post, and in terms of scene content.

Like I said, I haven't used it myself yet.

[Luc Montpellier csc]

Hi David,

I'm a Toronto based DP. I'm about to start a round of tests on the camera and was wondering what your thoughts are on the fact that you're not able to monitor a live RAW image on set like the Viper and Genesis... I find this to be a fundamental flaw in working the RED into a traditional production environment. I've shot a series on the Viper, and I found myself constantly referring to the live FILMSTREAM image on set. Do you or anyone know if this is being considered in future firmware versions?

Thanks for your time.

[Bruce Allen]

Luc, the idea is that future firmware versions you can view using whatever LUT you want (including one that shows the whole RAW range). I think you would create the LUT in RedCine or RedAlert and then upload it to the camera. Hasn't been implemented yet though.

David, thank you so much for this thread BTW.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[David Mullen ASC]

Hi David,

I'm a Toronto based DP. I'm about to start a round of tests on the camera and was wondering what your thoughts are on the fact that you're not able to monitor a live RAW image on set like the Viper and Genesis... I find this to be a fundamental flaw in working the RED into a traditional production environment. I've shot a series on the Viper, and I found myself constantly referring to the live FILMSTREAM image on set. Do you or anyone know if this is being considered in future firmware versions?


To be accurate, the Viper and Genesis do not produce a RAW image -- RAW means an image from a Bayer-filtered single-sensor pre-conversion to RGB. The Viper is a 3-CCD camera and the Genesis has an RGB striped filter. Besides, you can't really look at a live RAW image anyway, by definition, it needs to be converted to RGB to be a viewable color image.

And the natural output of the Viper's three CCD's is somewhat linear -- what you get with the Viper in Filmstream mode is a minimally-processed HD signal (no options like gain or Rec 709 color matrix or white balance) that has been gamma encoded to produce a LOG emulation, in the tradition of a Cineon Log scan of film. The Genesis also produces its own LOG emulation (Panalog) and the Sony F23 has their own version. All of those LOG emulations are 4:4:4 10-bit 1080P.

The Arri D20 is a 2.8K RAW camera but can produce a 4:4:4 1080P signal with a couple of choices for LOG emulations.

Since all of these cameras are designed to create a 10-bit LOG signal (and again, LOG is not the same as RAW), you have the option of viewing this flat-looking LOG image on a set monitor, or running it through a LUT for proper monitor viewing in gamma-encoded Rec 709.

The RED records RAW but creates a gamma-encoded Rec 709 8-bit 720P 4:2:2 signal for monitoring purposes.

I think what some people have been asking for is a LOG output for the RED, with the notion that this milky, flat-looking image would be somehow more indicative of the dynamic range being recorded in RAW (and then have the option of applying whatever LUT's they want for manipulating the live monitor image.)

While I'm not sure that it has to necessarily be in a LOG format, perhaps some sort of monitor output that is very low in contrast so that the recorded detail at the extreme ends of the RAW capture are visible would be useful.

[AngusChandler]

David,
How do you feel about new DP's who may never have used film learning to light by looking at a monitor/wvfm? Do you think that lighting to a monitor can impair the development of the eye required for the job? Or is it just the new way, with metering the key and lighting be eye going the way of the dodo? Just looking for your thoughts on the differences in learning to light differently.

Sincerely,
Charles Taylor

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think it matters much whether you learn by using a light meter or a waveform (another type of light meter) or just a monitor, though any DP has to be comfortable with a meter -- they may have to scout a location or pre-light a set without the camera being there.

Learning to expose is a subset of learning to light, and ultimately you are learning how to use the best tool you have, your eyes. A meter can't tell you whether to light soft or hard or from high or low or from the side or make it warm or cold... Ultimately a meter reading should just be a confirmation of what your eyes are telling you.

Now, if a process is particularly poor in dynamic range (like cross-processed reversal) then metering becomes more important because you have such a limited range to work in.

[Policar]

David,

I'm shooting a short film that contrasts a horror movie aesthetic (slasher films) with a teen comedy aesthetic (Clueless). In terms of mis-en-scene and camera movement/framing I've figured out mostly what I want to do, but I need some help with lighting.

My kit (which I can expand if necessary) is going to be a couple 650s, a few 300s, a few inkies, china lanterns, a couple 1ks (with medium softboxes), two kinoflo 4-banks, a firestarter or two if necessary (never used them, though), and a 1.2kw HMI. The shoot is 95% interiors, a mix of day and night. I may rent a Honda generator, too.

Anyhow, for the horror scenes (95% night interiors) I figure I'll do a grainy/de-saturated warm look with a nearly nonexistent (but very cool) fill. I am thinking of using undiffused fresnels for key and backlight and a 4800K china lantern for a very little bit of fill? (One character retains a "comedy" look so I'm going to hit him straight on with a 650w softbox.) But I prefer soft light. Can I get away with using big soft sources and relying on a lack of fill for a creepy dark look? Also, should I bring my backlights a stop or two higher? Are fog machines good for fill? Any tips for creating "pools" of light? Any movies that really embody the slasher movie aesthetic that I should watch first?

For the high key scenes, how do you light that? Movies like clueless have no shadows whatsoever. Is it just a wash of kinoflos facing straight on? Or is it a big top source? Can I emulate this by bouncing an HMI off the ceiling? But wouldn't this result in shadows under the eyes? Also, how much should I mix color temperature in each setting?

And quickly: Do you know if Bringing out the Dead used ENR or bleach bypass? I thought that movie looked great and much better than Casino, though maybe I just saw one on DVD and one on laserdisc.

Also, I think (but am not sure) that CTO3/4 corrects as much as CTB and that CTO (full) corrects for a bluer-than-5600K source.

And thanks in advance for the help. This thread is great.

[Tom]

David, did you see Michael Clayton? Thoughts?

[David Mullen ASC]

"Bringing Out the Dead" was shot in 35mm anamorphic with net diffusion and used an ENR process on the prints; "Casino" was shot in Super-35 with spherical lenses, blown-up to anamorphic -- I don't know about the prints. ProMist diffusion was used.

Full CTO is designed to convert daylight to 3200K tungsten but it all depends on how you define daylight, which is reality is all over the map. "Photographic" daylight, according to Kodak, is 5500K.

Full CTB is designed to convert tungsten to daylight.

If you look at MIRED shifts, 5500K is 182 (1,000,000 divided by 5500) and 3200K is 313.

So to shift daylight to tungsten or the other way around, you need a MIRED shift value of 131 (+131 for orange gel and -131 for blue gel.)

According to the Lee swatchbook (and Rosco doesn't necessarily use the same values) Full CTO has a MIRED shift value of +159 and 3/4 CTO has a value of +124. Full CTB has a MIRED value of -137 and 3/4 CTB has a value of -113.

So you could say that Full CTO is too much and 3/4 CTO is not enough to shift 5500K to 3200K. But the truth is that daylight is a mix of warm and colder light, and HMI lighting can often drift much bluer than 5500K, often more like 5600K to 6000K, so they made Full CTO more orange than +131.

As for horror lighting (about to start shooting a horror film myself) you have to be more specific about the light sources you are emulating -- hard moonlight coming through a window, etc. Unless you are shooting b&w and are not so concerned about creating realistic source lighting. But in color these days, you need to start with a grounding in what the natural light would be before you start adding to it. In terms of soft lighting, it's all about flagging it down off of the walls to create more contrast, and using less fill. And coming from a side or 3/4 angle rather than frontally.

Fill is a case-by-case situation as to where it can come from, whether it's a bounce or a diffused light or a light on the lens, etc. You're not really supposed to notice fill.

"High key" just means that there is a predominance of highlights in the frame whereas "low key" means there is a predominance of shadows, underexposed areas, in the frame. Either style can follow natural source lighting -- for example, a bright fluorescent-lit supermarket is naturally high-key.

I liked the photography of "Michael Clayton" quite a bit; moody but natural, low-key.

[Deanan]

Full CTO is designed to convert daylight to 3200K tungsten but it all depends on how you define daylight, which is reality is all over the map.

Literally all over the map because daylight varies depending on location.
5600k correlates to midsummer day at high noon in Washington, DC.

[Policar]

Thanks for the extremely informative reply. FWIW, Rosco CTO3/4 and CTB (full) both have MIRED values of 131 so while I was mistaken in this being the reason for CTO looking funny or overcompensating, you can see why I'd bring it up.

I should have been more specific re: horror lighting. The fill is from moonlight through a window, the key lights are motivated by lights around a kitchen, the main location in the film. What you say re: soft sources needing flags makes a lot of sense and since I don't have the budget/crew to set up multiple flags quickly, I'll stick to undiffused fresnels, I think.

But just reiterating: in Clueless and movies like that, do cinematographers generally use a strong frontal source (kino wash) or a top source (chimera on ceiling; hmi bounced off ceiling). I have the motivated light sources already pretty well defined and can probably justify either look. The film "quotes" specific genres so I want to nail the look of each.

[David Mullen ASC]

Soft sources like from Chimeras and Kinoflos naturally contain some spill and can use egg creates to control spill further, so are good when you don't have a lot of flags.

But I'd say that carrying some flags and c-stands is sort of mandatory in the case of creates interesting areas of bright and dark on a set.

Unless it is a really low-level source like candlelight or other dim sources, it's a bit odd for me when moonlight is bright enough to register as fill on a room with the lights on, unless the lights go out in the scene so you are transitioning from a lamp-lit to moonlit space.

There is no standard approach for a movie like "Clueless" -- generally the DP creates a big soft key light, how big depends on the scene and the space and the camera move, same for whether it comes from overhead or the sides. Even on a movie like that, there is some logical justification -- is the source a soft overhead ceiling light or sky light? Is it from a floor lamp? A window? Could be a 12'x12', 6'x6', 4'x4' soft key, just depends. How much fill they use, how they do the fill, whether they use a Kino or not, it just depends, but fill is also generally soft. The only time fill is not soft is when it's a weak, small eyelight over the lens. Otherwise, you generally don't want to notice the fill light casting a shadow. The fill is sort of a mechanical light designed to control contrast and should be subtle. Otherwise, if you key is soft enough and wraps around the face enough, fill may not be necessary. Also, in some light-toned rooms, there is enough ambience from the keys bouncing back to fill in the shadows. Sometimes all you need to do for fill is put a white card opposite the key to bounce a little of it back in.

Rather than throwing a lot of light around in a room, it's better to start out thinking about the space and where the light may be coming from, and start to simplify everything. Too many sources, too many backlights, too many ways of filling, and it all becomes an overlit mess. I feel that in any scene, there should be a dominant source and all other lights are secondary in feeling, if noticeable at all.

[Policar]

Thanks again for the help. Due to this being a small student film, I think I'll only have two flags and two c-stands and I am shooting on location, so that was my concern about avoiding the use of too many flags. I don't have egg crates but I'll build some.

And this is all great advice: I'm going to re-read all this a few times before starting on light diagrams.

[Rudi Herbert]

David,

I just saw a screening of a restored version of the 1968 classic "Once upon a time in the West", showing here at the Miami International Film Festival. Print looked good, a bit of CA on some edges here and there, but for the most part, tack sharp as was Leonne's style. Amazing what a difference it made to watch that film on a big screen (I'm not old enough to have seen projected it originally, so it was all DVD and VHS until now), and suffice it to say that the 2:45 hours went by a lot quicker than in the "comfort" of home. Anyway, my question to you was this: I understand this film was shot on the "techniscope" (or is it technoscope?) format, where basi