Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[arrinick]

Arri lights will last forever, they are a good investment. Mag ballasts are a lot more reliable than electronic, and as long as you obey the rules, there should be no flicker issues.

Buying Arri is always a good choice. All parts are still in stock, and Irem is still making the Ballasts, so no worries there.

Nick

[Mark Crabtree]

I have an older Arri 2.5k and a 4k. I ditched the mag ballasts for electronic as the mags were so freaking heavy. I mostly use 1.2 and 575 because most of my shoots don't include a genny, and without a genny these bigger lights are useless. Great on the bigger jobs though.

[Shawn Nelson]

I have an older Arri 2.5k and a 4k. I ditched the mag ballasts for electronic as the mags were so freaking heavy. I mostly use 1.2 and 575 because most of my shoots don't include a genny, and without a genny these bigger lights are useless. Great on the bigger jobs though.

Mark, it's fairly easy to make a dyer drop that will give you two 30amp 110v plugins off of a standard dryer plugin available in pretty much every apt and house. I run my 2.5kw LTM HMI Par without problem. Also if you have access to 50amp range sockets, you could make a range drop that would power your 4k as well.

[Mark Crabtree]

True, we used to do that, but we have found that we have better dependability with a generator, considering all the issues that tieing in to a location involve. Like condition of the box, wiring, experience of the electrician and security of the tie in site. So, we go genny or we use edison only. It make it problematic to do our own low budget projects with these lights, which is why I'm looking for a used crystal controlled genny.

[Shawn Nelson]

True, we used to do that, but we have found that we have better dependability with a generator, considering all the issues that tieing in to a location involve. Like condition of the box, wiring, experience of the electrician and security of the tie in site. So, we go genny or we use edison only. It make it problematic to do our own low budget projects with these lights, which is why I'm looking for a used crystal controlled genny.

You misunderstand me, I'm not talking about tieing in, just plugging into an existing 30amp 220v dryer socket, very plug and play, requires no 'electrician' beyond a grip to plug it in.

[Peter Majtan]

I think Shawn Mark did understood (correct me if I am wrong...). He was referring to the condition of the wiring in the location (blowing fuses, hot ground, etc...). We have accidentally pull down the power of an entire apartment building (36 flats) in India due to faulty wiring in the apartment where we were filming...

[Shawn Nelson]

I think Shawn Mark did understood (correct me if I am wrong...). He was referring to the condition of the wiring in the location (blowing fuses, hot ground, etc...). We have accidentally pull down the power of an entire apartment building (36 flats) in India due to faulty wiring in the apartment where we were filming...

He couldnt have understood what I meant, because 'condition of the box', 'electrician', 'tieing in' and 'security' have NOTHING to do with the method I am doing, simply taking a known good 30amp socket and using it within bounds.

[Charles Angus]

Just cause its a "30 amp socket" doesn't mean that it can handle 30 amps, doesn't mean the wiring is good, etc.

Anyway...

[Shawn Nelson]

Just cause its a "30 amp socket" doesn't mean that it can handle 30 amps, doesn't mean the wiring is good, etc.

Anyway...

Thats why I suggest a dryer socket thats currently in the habit of sustaining a 30amp draw from a dryer. Oh well, I've hijacked David's thread long enough. Rent gennies.

[supernovafilms]

Thanks everyone. Great info.
Heres what the seller suggests (his own words pasted) for location low budget that i will fill with some kinos and lanterns.

Hello - 2 X 1.2 pars @ $4200 (with lamps) - $8400
2 X stands @ $180(with lazy legs) - $360
1 X 1.2 lamp - $750
2 X shot bags - $50
sub total $9560


for the budget, I would go for this -

1 X 200 arri fres(with 2 lamps) - $1500
1 X 575 ltm fres(with 2 lamps) - $1500
1 X 1.2 quartz colour fres(3 lamps) - $2000
1 X 1.2 par (2 lamps) - $4950
1 X smaller stand for 200 arri - $70
3 X larger stands with lazy legs - $540
4 X shot bags - $100
sub total - $10660

Does it look like a good buy? Which way would you go?

[Yannick Hagman]

1 X 200 arri fres(with 2 lamps) - $1500

Are you sure? This go for 450$-550$ on fleabay.

[supernovafilms]

hmi?...

[Yannick Hagman]

Hi doens't write HMI, but if so, then it's another thing.

[Dominic Jones]

They're all HMI strengths, so I would presume that's what he means. Arri tungsten (fresnel) units come in 150w, 300w, 650w, 1k (and above, of course) - the only units I've ever seen in 575w and 1.2k are HMIs...

To Supanova, that looks fairly sensible, but you are missing anything with lots of punch, although I'm guessing from the dollar values you are in the US, where units like 2.5k's are more problematic due to the low wall power output - here in the UK, I'd be loath to go without at least one 2.5k unit if you're shooting day ints, but if you want to run off mains and are in the US, it's probably a moot point.

Just a thought...

[supernovafilms]

he said meter readings on the 1.2 par measured 1/3 stop under a standard 2.5 so it was better to go the pars because you could wack the two together if you needed (like through a window) or use separately (considering my low budget) The 1.2 's are also small. They are more expensive than the 2.5 's he is selling. Also the power equation.

[Mark Crabtree]

He couldnt have understood what I meant, because 'condition of the box', 'electrician', 'tieing in' and 'security' have NOTHING to do with the method I am doing, simply taking a known good 30amp socket and using it within bounds.

Sorry for being cryptic, but yes I understood. We used to do this but only if our electrician felt good about the wiring. We have had some problems and it is not fun to have to call the fire department, so we have made a policy of staying with generators or smaller lights. Plug in or tie in, you will always be at the mercy of the physical conditions of the building.

[Robert Sanders]

Hey Mr. Mullen - I was wondering what your thoughts are on the new G-Series anamorphic lenses from Panavision?

[HDhead]

David will be at the RED L.A. User Group this Saturday July 26th.

He will conduct an informal round table. To RSVP and for a chance to win a $580 video breakout box from Element Technica sign up for the event here:

http://www.kappastudios.com/?page_id=21

[David Mullen ASC]

Hey Mr. Mullen - I was wondering what your thoughts are on the new G-Series anamorphic lenses from Panavision?

They sound great but I wonder about their availability. I like the quality of Primo Anamorphics but they are ridiculously huge, so a new series that manages to keep the size down is great.

[Robert Sanders]

They sound great but I wonder about their availability. I like the quality of Primo Anamorphics but they are ridiculously huge, so a new series that manages to keep the size down is great.

Considering the anamorphic element is in the front of the lens, will they flare and vignette like the older C's and E's (and I mean in a good way)?

And their wide angle anamorphic zoom looks killer.

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, the G-Series has the traditional anamorphic look.

[Shawn Nelson]

David,
Is there anyway to get the anamorphic horizontal blue flares without using anamorphic lenses? One DP I talked to thought he'd heard of a glass filter for such things.

[David Mullen ASC]

Vantage makes an anamorphic flare filter but it is expensive. There are also 2-point Star Filters but they are a bit cheesier...

[Eric Lin]

Hi David. I had a quick question about using 35mm prime lenses on the Red One. I did a quick search of the forum and have read a lot of conflicting messages and wanted to get your take on things. Given that the Red One is a super 35mm size sensor, I would assume that you would be able to only use Super 35mm primes on it but have read that some people were able to use 35mm primes with standard 35mm coverage on the red one without "portholing" (ie, they were able to get enough coverage over the image sensor area). Others reported they got portholing. I'm asking because I'm prepping for a low budget feature and we may be borrowing some prime lenses but I think they are standard 35mm primes and I won't be able to test the lenses before production starts rolling. I'd appreciate any insights you could give. Thanks!

Best,
Eric Lin
NYC
DP

[davide]

Hi David. I had a quick question about using 35mm prime lenses on the Red One. I did a quick search of the forum and have read a lot of conflicting messages and wanted to get your take on things. Given that the Red One is a super 35mm size sensor, I would assume that you would be able to only use Super 35mm primes on it but have read that some people were able to use 35mm primes with standard 35mm coverage on the red one without "portholing" (ie, they were able to get enough coverage over the image sensor area). Others reported they got portholing. I'm asking because I'm prepping for a low budget feature and we may be borrowing some prime lenses but I think they are standard 35mm primes and I won't be able to test the lenses before production starts rolling. I'd appreciate any insights you could give. Thanks!

Best,
Eric Lin
NYC
DP

What make and model are the lenses? That's the important thing to know in determining whether they will cover the full super35mm frame.

[David Mullen ASC]

The recorded 4096 pixel wide area off of the RED sensor is standard 35mm in width (22mm wide instead of 24mm, which is the width of the full 4.5K RED sensor and is the width of Super-35).

But the majority of 35mm optics cover Super-35 anyway. However, some lenses do show more light fall-off around the edges, and the problem is more obvious when you shoot Super-35 instead of regular 35mm.

[Eric Lin]

The two lenses are Standard 40mm Zeiss lens and a Canon 300mm modified with a Century Optics PL Mount. I spoke to some rental houses who say they send out the Red one with standard Zeiss lenses (not even Superspeeds!) and haven't heard any of the older Zeiss lenses portholing. I guess I was thinking that Super 35mm frame was offset like on a film camera (where the added negative area takes up the soundtrack area) but the Red one centers the sensor so theoretically most 35mm lenses cover the area. Am I getting that right?

[estebanred]

We have a camera with the zeiss standards, we tested the 14,16,24,32,50,85,100macro no problems whatsoever. Moreover they look nicer than the master primes, they give the image a texture I dont know.. a look.. Its awesome. The other lenses in my opinion give you a sharper video look. But the areas covered by the lenses are perfect. You will have no problem.

[David Mullen ASC]

The two lenses are Standard 40mm Zeiss lens and a Canon 300mm modified with a Century Optics PL Mount. I spoke to some rental houses who say they send out the Red one with standard Zeiss lenses (not even Superspeeds!) and haven't heard any of the older Zeiss lenses portholing. I guess I was thinking that Super 35mm frame was offset like on a film camera (where the added negative area takes up the soundtrack area) but the Red one centers the sensor so theoretically most 35mm lenses cover the area. Am I getting that right?

Technically Super-35 is centered for the film frame -- it's standard 35mm that is offset to the right to allow room to add an optical soundtrack stripe on the left side when contact printing. But since contact printing is not relevant to a digital camera, of course the sensor is centered with the lens.

[mail4joeg]

David,

In another thread you mentioned something huge, and which should be explored more fully:

"Hopefully you edited your framing chart into the master or delivered it separately, but anyway, during the D.I. color-correction session you can choose to either look at the whole frame, 2:1, or letterbox it to 2.39."

This sounds like some high end software with vectored windows, etc. What do you mean by editing a "framing chart" into a "master?"

Which software does this and how does it work?

The only way I know how to "edit" framing into anything is destructively. I take it you mean a non-destructive file that accompanies the clip?

[David Mullen ASC]

I just meant that usually you shoot with your camera a physical chart with the framelines drawn/printed on it that match your viewfinder framelines.

The editor uses that piece of footage as a reference to mask off his monitors or check from framing problems if necessary -- and should put a few frames of that footage, that frameline chart, at the head of reels to be filmed-out.

The framing chart allows you to see if there are problems later concerning framing, since it serves as a reference point.

[mail4joeg]

In Redcine you have the option of moving the cropping all over the place, right? How can this info be incorporated non-destructively? Or can it?

It appeared that you could export a cropped version, but this wouldn't be the raw footage. How does "conforming" factor in?

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't know, I haven't played with REDCINE, but how can any cropping be destructive since you aren't changing the original RAW files, just creating new versions from them?

As for changes created in REDCINE being reapplied when building a 4K master from the RAW files using an EDL for conforming, I don't know whether the REDCINE changes can be tacked on as metadata to save time later when conforming.

[Jayd]

Hey David,
I've tried my best to read through these some 129 pages of questions and answers so I'll try my best not to re-ask an important conceptual question.

You've said often that you don't enjoy working on/viewing generally talky indy films. Ones centered around bars, cars, apartments, usually shot with the dogma, hand-held methodology. I agree these can be just as trite as any big cliche Hollywood mess, but don't you think films like "All the Real Girls" and "George Washington" rise above this (specifically the photography work of Tim Or)? These films are very talky talky, but have beautiful, visual centering. It's a two-course meal with these films. Specifically in those two films, they really capture what it is to be in the South with dialogue and the visual.

I'm not a DP, but I've found this thread very helpful nonetheless. I like hearing about your visual procedures and philosophies. I just see a contradiction. Doesn't the work you did in your "North Fork" capture what Montana is and at the same time temporize the story?

What thinks you?

[David Mullen ASC]

This issue -- talky scripts in ordinary locations -- brings up the importance of the director and their vision for the project. If they really want to find ways of making these sequences visually interesting, through design, location choice, and use of light, then they can get me interested.

The movie I'm doing right now, "Stay Cool", is like that -- we spent most of Friday in an IHOP shooting conversation scenes. But we look for interesting angles or colors to put in the frame when possible and appropriate.

In the case of "Northfork" my idea was to get beyond shooting Montana like a postcard and transforming it into something slightly surreal, what sometimes is called Magic Realism I guess. Hence the desaturation and diffusion techniques.

[SF Geek]

Hi David,
Did you notice any of these issues regarding strobing when testing for or shooting manure? http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17042

If so, what did you do to address them? If not, what do you think people are seeing. I do see the issue in the clips MacGregor posted in posting #12, but I can't tell if that's just a computer playback issue or a camera generated one. I haven't seen any Red footage projected besides the PJ short.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think the type of viewing system you watch movement on has such an effect (LCD screen versus CRT screen versus projected film, etc., various hertz rates of computer screens, etc.) that I have a hard time seeing what could be caused by the camera versus the display technology.

I haven't really noticed much different about motion with a RED camera other than I'm viewing these images differently (in 720P HD for one thing) versus how I often view 35mm images (projected print or DVD dailies.)

But I'm actually one of those people who don't expect digital photography to be an exact duplicate of photochemical photography, I expect there to be some differences. I don't get too concerned with some minor differences, otherwise it would be like shooting color reversal film and complaining that it didn't look exactly like color negative film. Distracting artifacts can be bad, of course, but so far I haven't really noticed anything unusual about the motion strobing.

[Pierce Cook]

Hey David,

I'm pondering the possibilities of a shoot a year or so from now and the decision to shoot day or night. The location is an old stone bridge built around 1820, and the action would take place both on and below (not directly underneath) the bridge.

The tree canopy is consistent, but open enough for scattered sun highlights, that could accent soft light used appropriately during the day.

Or, I recalled your comment on china lanterns from the first page of this thread and wondered how feasible on a small indy budget this might be (or if might be a rigging nightmare, which I'm concerned with).

If I rigged up (I'm guessing here) say 20 250w lanters, or 10 or 15 650w lanterns, might that provide a soft blanket over the area? It would be an eerie glow over the scene that I could accent with a few lanterns (lower wattage?) up close and for a hint of backlight.

Given the budget and the rural location I thought this might work? Any ideas? I'm hoping to test it in the spring, but I wonder if I'm forgetting anything or if there's a better way.

Thanks again for your presence and wisdom!

Best,

[David Mullen ASC]

A bunch of Chinese Lanterns with blue photofloods or daylight or Cool White Compact flos may give the scene a nice soft dim moonlight effect but I'm not sure of the amount needed for a large space or how you'd rig them. I've used them more in the woods about five feet above people's heads, in a row for a moving shot, but that's about it.

[Pierce Cook]

Hm, thanks. I'm anxious to try it with a small amount and see if I can calculate how many I'd need for a larger area.

When I try this in a few months I'll post results here. Thanks for the reply. :)

[Douglas Underdahl]

David -

Love your posts. Thank you.

Do you use the Source 4 with a Joker 400 or 800 HMI bulb, or? I see they are quite inexpensive with HPX575 and 750 bulbs, but I would imagine they would put out far more light with HMI bulbs.

[David Mullen ASC]

I use both the 400 and 800 versions depending on how much light I need -- it's not easy to scrim them (the scrim gets very hot and the light flares around the scrim, losing some of the benefits of the Source-4 in terms of not having to flag it) so I first try to pick the right unit. The 800 version can put out a lot of light.

[Douglas Underdahl]

Thanks.

[Tom]

David, have you heard anything more about this 4K projection system at IMAX? Is this basically four 2K projectors? What would the max (in terms of height) aspect ratio be? 16:9? Could they possibly do 4:3 or whatever the actual IMAX ratio is?

[David Mullen ASC]

I haven't heard much about the dimensions of the DMD chips from T.I. being used, but remember that many of their digital projector chips are actually around 1.25 : 1 because they were originally built to show computer graphics, not for displaying movies. The original DLP Cinema projectors were 1.2K and used 1.5X and 1.9X anamorphic lenses on the projector so that you could fit a 1.85 or 2.35 movie onto their squarer DMD's without cropping. I believe the current 2K DLP chips are 16x9 though.

[Tom]

If you ever talk to anyone there, I'd certainly be interested to learn more about their new digital projection plans. Or if you come across a good article or anything. I've been keeping my eyes peeled.

I hope it is not limited to 16:9, but it might be. I understand that the digital projection is mainly aimed at scanning 35mm at 4K or projecting something like Shrek 4 at 4K to save money on the IMAX filmout, but it would also be cool if people could shoot 4K 4:3 nature and travel IMAX films as well -- pure digital from acquisition to display.

[AntonyCASAFilms]

Also, from a practical matter, you can't make every shot in a movie look stunning -- for one thing, it would get a bit wearing, like watching a two-hour commercial, but beyond that, it's hard to devote that much care and time into every set-up, so you have to prioritize.

I just wanted to mention one of my favourite films "Dead Man" by Jim Jarmusch.
The DoP was Robby Müller

You can press pause at pretty much any point in the film, and the image looks like a perfectly composed still.

[maxwax]

David - Just wanted to say I watched the astronaut farmer and it was really shot and lit very beautifully.

[ORBITLUSTER]

Yes, indeed. Besides having great photography it's a great story as well. All together a very enjoyable film.


David, I have an "over the shoulder" question. How important is character size and distance on an over the shoulder shot. I tend to do OTS shots with a 50mm because it renders a more natural perspective, while if you do with a wider angle it normally makes the foreground actor look too big and a longer make them look too close (no surprises there). But sometimes I find myself cheating or rather trying to cheat not to make the talking actor too small and the foreground one too big even when using a 50mm. This means that sometimes the distances may look artificial or off. When they are standing right in front of each other is not a problem. It will normally look right and natural of the bat with a 50mm. But when they are standing far apart, the talking actor usually looks small and the foreground one way too big. How import it it in your opinion?

[pretopost]

I use both the 400 and 800 versions depending on how much light I need -- it's not easy to scrim them (the scrim gets very hot and the light flares around the scrim, losing some of the benefits of the Source-4 in terms of not having to flag it) so I first try to pick the right unit. The 800 version can put out a lot of light.

Sorry, correct me if I am wrong, but I have a degree in Theatrical Lighting Design and am a local designer here in Phoenix and have never encountered an HPL575 or 750w HMI version for a Source Four ERS from ETC.

Am I missing something? Obviously you can use CTB and cut the light down in effective intensity but I would love to see about an HMI Lamp for these.

Any links to examples?

[David Mullen ASC]

Source-4's can be adapted to take the Joker 400w or 800w HMI fixture -- you can see one here:

http://www.redmanmovies.com/rentals/description.cfm?id=7053
or go here:
http://www.k5600lighting.com/
and click on "bug-a-beam" under accessories

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, indeed. Besides having great photography it's a great story as well. All together a very enjoyable film.


David, I have an "over the shoulder" question. How important is character size and distance on an over the shoulder shot. I tend to do OTS shots with a 50mm because it renders a more natural perspective, while if you do with a wider angle it normally makes the foreground actor look too big and a longer make them look too close (no surprises there). But sometimes I find myself cheating or rather trying to cheat not to make the talking actor too small and the foreground one too big even when using a 50mm. This means that sometimes the distances may look artificial or off. When they are standing right in front of each other is not a problem. It will normally look right and natural of the bat with a 50mm. But when they are standing far apart, the talking actor usually looks small and the foreground one way too big. How import it it in your opinion?

It all depends on how much it matters to you. I try to not get too mechanical about these choices, what matters more is the feeling of the shot. Yes, I also tend to use the 50mm for OTS shots.

Sometimes if things start to get confusing, just stick to the actual distances between the actors rather than cheat them too much, because it can affect their performances -- it makes a difference whether you are standing 2 feet from another actor or 4 feet in terms of the emotional connections so you want to minimize cheating too far.

[ORBITLUSTER]

It all depends on how much it matters to you. I try to not get too mechanical about these choices, what matters more is the feeling of the shot. Yes, I also tend to use the 50mm for OTS shots.

Sometimes if things start to get confusing, just stick to the actual distances between the actors rather than cheat them too much, because it can affect their performances -- it makes a difference whether you are standing 2 feet from another actor or 4 feet in terms of the emotional connections so you want to minimize cheating too far.


Yes, I'm just afraid of how much the impression can change the shot. Similarly to how much camera height can impact the meaning of a shot in OTS when shooting actors of different heights. Even though the shorter one should be naturally looking up to the taller one on the OTS I don't want to have too much of that and change the meaning of the shot and undermine the shorter actor, you know what I mean?

[Shawn Nelson]

David,
Can you articulate what you like about this new 129 gel? How do you prefer it over 216 or Opal? In what situations and with what type of fixtures are you inclined to use it?

I've never used it, but just judging by the description it's maybe 50% more intense of a diffuse than 216 (which I already thought intense) so it'll just produce super soft light, which will take a ton of juice, so I guess I'm not sure why it's better than 216.

[David Mullen ASC]

It's just a heavier diffusion, closer to Full Grid Cloth than to 216 in density. I like the softness compared to 216, so if I have enough light, why not use it?

[Nicholas Shields]

David:

I'm about to pick up a silk to diffuse light during outdoor shoots. I'm attempting to get my mind around how much diffusion I will need. Is 1/4 stop enough to take the edge off direct sunlight? What about size? Is 8' x 8' large enough? Any advise would be appreciated. Thanks for this forum. I've learned a great deal.

Nick.

[David Mullen ASC]

If you just want to take off the edge, I'd use Half Soft Frost. For much softer light, a normal Silk.

You only lose a half-stop under a Half Soft Frost, whereas you lose about a stop under a Silk.

How big just depends on how much area you need to cover plus allow some movement on your actors, and how many actors need to stand under it, etc. An 8'x8' is fine for diffusing the sun on a close-up to waist-up shot, but for a head to toe shot, a 12'x12' would be better.

[BASSAM MSSALATIE]

David hi this is the first time i will ask you . i always read this thread it is
Like An Academy

my question is about camera shutter speed :
SHUTTER speed QUESTION please


i am having some scaning waves across the screen of (LCD ,Hdmi, R3D FILES) Something is moving from up to down or via reverse

I tried changing shutter speed from 1/48 to 1/50 . afterthat those lines went out.

The other day and with different color temprature i had them again even
with 1/50 shutter I change it to 1/32 . and it went out again , i tried 1/48 or 1/50 linesshowed up again

MY question is : IS the shutter speed related to :
1- focal lenght of the used lens ? ( when changing lenses did shutter
Supposed to be changed)
2-f stoops
3-color temprature

3-Lighting (frequency of the electric were used )

Do i suppose every time in every location , and with every used lens check for that lines or change my shutter speed ?

[boss]

I'm sorry if this has been asked in the thread before, but I have a small 'film school' level question.

Re: The directors relationship with the DP.

I have an average technical knowledge, in regards to the camera/lenses/lighting package etc, and I've directed a couple of small indie-music videos with different student/semi-pro DP's.

When I'm describing the shot I want, I tend to know the composition/framing that I want but not so much the lighting. I tend to say things like "need to emphasize lonliness." or "the shot needs more texture to it. Play with the shutter speed. Make it like a dream."

This has resulted in two of the DP's (older than me by about a decade) rolling their eyes.

My question: Do DP's prefer it if a director simply says "Frame it this way and shoot it with lens X"? Is superb technical knowledge the key to being a good DP's director?

I'd love your professional perspective on this.

[David Mullen ASC]

You probably should work with DP's who show more respect to their director...

It's not that DP's want to be told what focal length to use, it's just that they also don't want extremely vague poetic descriptions -- a middle ground is nice. Talk to them about practical ways of achieving the mood you desire.

It's OK to start with generalities, but immediately after that, the two of you quickly have to break it down into specific things like color, direction and quality of light, light sources, timing of camera movements, how the scene will be cut, etc. It's a collaboration, a dialogue, between the two of you where you bounce ideas off of each other.

Trouble with only using vague poetic descriptions is that no two people will have the same interpretation of some of these concepts, so DP might wait until the director gives them a more specific direction. Even saying "I want this to look dark" is open for a lot of discussion, dark as in shadowy, dark as in murky, subject dark or background dark, high-contrast hard lighting, soft but dim lighting, etc.

[arkham]

MY question is : IS the shutter speed related to :
1- focal lenght of the used lens ? ( when changing lenses did shutter
Supposed to be changed)
2-f stoops
3-color temprature

4-Lighting (frequency of the electric were used )

Forgive me if I answer your question instead of David. First of all, I believe you should learn as much as possible about the basics of a camera, because you don't seem yet to understand very well what a shutter is...

To answer your questions: the shutter has nothing to do with the focal lenght, the iris (f-stop) or the color temp. In some cases, you might indeed have to change the shutter speed in order to synchronize it (the shutter speed) to the flickering of the lights which is related indeed to the frequency of the electric current on your location. But that's all...

Your problem description ("something is moving up or down") seems to indicate something else is happening. It might be a technical issue with your own camera. I would recommend you to try to reproduce the problem, capture it, send it (as a jpeg or a quicktime movie for instance) to the Red technical assistance team: they will let you know if there is something wrong or not...

[BASSAM MSSALATIE]

THANKS Arkham ,no problem
i think you didn't understand me very well .
i am wondering why is that happened becuase it happened while i were changing my location and lenses .
i will try to check it again

[arkham]

i think you didn't understand me very well .

That's always a possibility :)

i am wondering why is that happened becuase it happened while i were changing my location and lenses .

You should NOT have to change your shutter speed because you changed your lens. Therefore, I maintain there is probably something wrong happening...

[BASSAM MSSALATIE]

That's always a possibility :)



You should NOT have to change your shutter speed because you changed your lens. Therefore, I maintain there is probably something wrong happening...

when i change my shooting situation , (lens ,iris, light), i didn't change my framerate
those waves show's up , that is what force me to change the shutter speed.
to get rid of them .
IS it because i was using normal light (sun light + neon lamps)
ARE neon lamps wave lenght will change during frequency change caused
those waves (difference in HZ frequency, or something)

[arkham]

ARE neon lamps wave lenght will change during frequency change caused those waves

If I'm decrypting this sentence correctly, you still are not convinced of what I answered you 2 times already... Yes "neon lamps" do flicker! No: this should not _force_ you to change the shutter speed every-time you change your lens or your iris!

If you want to keep talking about this issue, maybe you should consider opening your own discussion because this one is already very long on its own and it is dedicated to David and the questions we could have relating to the field of cinematography, not technical issues like synchronizing shutter speed to flickering fluorescent lights...

[Harry Clark]

Bassam,
I'll jump in here.
The colored bands moving up or down are a result of the Red One's rolling shutter. It's something we all need to be cognizant of.
You may, from time to time, have an issue with the Red One's rolling shutter and discharge lighting (HMI, flouro, neon) Yes, you will have to adjust the shutter. Yes, the bands can be subtle and colored, and move up OR down. You may notice them more depending on the lens (wider lens that renders the wall behind the actors more in focus and thus shows the bands from the HMI outside the window more readily) It's not that a particular lens itself creates the issue, just makes it show up better.
Arkham,
While I agree Bassam might have more appropriately posted a technical question elsewhere, the title of the thread IS "Ask David Mullen Anything" Give him a bit of a break.
David,
Sorry about my hijack. Please continue.
Cheers,
Harry

[arkham]

the title of the thread IS "Ask David Mullen Anything" Give him a bit of a break.

I understand that and would like to apologize if my suggestion was rude, it wasn't meant to be...

The fact of the matter is that I thought I did answer Bassam's questions in my first answer... even though it wasn't as detailed as yours ;) The initial question was a bit puzzling though: how could the focal length or the "f-stop" possibly be related to the "need to change the shutter speed", especially to shutter speed values that are so different from the typical current frequencies?? But now, thanks to your explanations, I understand a little bit better where it came from.

I never faced this issue so far though...

[BASSAM MSSALATIE]

Thanks Harry , now i understand what is happening .and sorry Arkham
If i couldn't explain what i am facing ,sorry again for David . it was mistake posting here .http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/3151_1218903619.gif

[Lena]

Hello David,
I really appreciate all your posts, they have helped me a lot over the years. I work in the seminar and workshop business and have a small studio in which we conduct live seminars and film the lectures (usually one main trainer and a translator). Since a lot of the workshops are very long, we have quite a challenge with the heat that our lights are giving off, so I am thinking of switching to Litepanels.
Since I am not very familiar with Litepanels, I am not sure whether it would be a good idea or not. Do you have any suggestions?
I know that LED's have some downsides, but the fact that they are cool may make up for that.
I have also heard that I can mix Litepanels with Kinoflo's/dedo lights (for background lighting etc.).
Is this a common procedure? I always thought that the color of the lights are pretty different, so I am not sure if it is a good idea. I would appreciate any help on that topic.

After talking to some experts, I came up with the following solution:

4 Litepanels (one key light and one fill light per person)
2 Kinoflo's & 2 Dedo lights (backlights & background lights)

All lights will be daylight. Does this make sense?

Thanks for your help.

[David Mullen ASC]

LED's and daylight fluorescents mix pretty well, though it depends on the particular LED and particular fluorescent tubes as to whether they need some Minus Green correction or not.

[Lena]

Thanks, that is good to know. I am thinking of Litepanels and Kinoflo's. Any suggestions which fluorescent tubes match best with Litepanels (...and don't need a minus green correction)?
If I do need to correct them, how would I do that?

Also, do you have any experience with Litepanels? Would you recommend them or do you think it would be better to only use fluorescent lights?

So far, we have worked with tungsten lighting, but I don't think that it makes sense to use Litepanels for tungsten lighting since that will involve a filter. Do you agree with that?

Thanks for your help.

[David Mullen ASC]

I haven't used anything myself other than the little Litepanel over a camera lens but the color seemed to match HMI's and Kino 55 tubes.

[KLKim]

Hello David,
Thanks again for all your contributions on this and other forums. Always illuminating and instructive. With "Manure" in the can, what are your thoughts on 4K Red as compared to 2 perf 35mm for low budget work? (assuming of course the budget can adequately support either format). I should preface this by mentioning that I do own a full 2 perf package, and that I am also in line to purchase a Red. Our experience with Red feature shoots have not been close to "Manure's", technically speaking. Granted your, and your crews level of experience and preparation make a huge difference. Guerilla style location shooting doesn't help either. This question is geared for the next 12-24 months.
BTW, beautiful work on "Manure."

[David Mullen ASC]

Either 2-perf 35mm or the RED would get you a very nice looking movie. Just depends on the exact look you want. If a certain 35mm filmstock gets you precisely the look you want and you can afford to shoot and post it, then why not use it?

[Impagliazzo]

Hi David, this thread has been really helpful. Specially for me, a newcomer to all of this.

I have a question for you, and it's about lighting already thinking about the color grading that will be done in post.

I'm preparing to shoot a pilot and since who will grade the shots will be myself as well and I'm really close to the director, I can sort things out and plan the whole chain.

I've been checking some Roscolux gels and specially noticed the 30-60-90 ones, that have Pink (Magenta), Red, Green, Blue etc. And noticed that they reduce the transmission of colors in a precise way.

So, if I wanted to push the color of scene to a more greenish tone but still wanting to preserve a natural skin tone (without having to roto), I could light the talent's face with a 30 Magenta, so that way his/her face would have 1 stop less green. Am I following this the right way?

Is this a common practice? Will that work?

:blush:

Thanks in advance!

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, it will work... but how well depends a lot on how much you can separate the magenta key from the rest of the ambient light. Often you get spill from the non-magenta lights on the hair, in the shadows, which will go greenish when you time out the magenta in the face.

[spotshooter]

David, I would be curious to hear your techniques for lighting continuity. Do you relight your close-ups much? Do you keep notes on each set-up or just work from your memory?

I find this a difficult aspect of cinematography.

Chris Bell

[David Mullen ASC]

I work from memory and fill by eye, but then, I'm not shooting complicated efx-driven material...

I try to light the master in such a way that the relighting for a close-up in the same direction will be minimal, the most common thing is that the key light may get softer and come slightly closer to eye level, and then the fill light may be handled better, or I may add an eyelight. A harder edge may become a softer edge, etc. I try to keep color and contrast the same and the angle of the light similar, just cheated to be more flattering or more natural-looking (if the positions in the wide master were not at the best angles because of where I had to hide the lights.)

I'll tell the Gaffer & Key Grip while we are shooting the master as to how I plan on making changes for the close-up so they'll be ready.

[AntonyCASAFilms]

David,

How do you approach lighting bedroom scenes which are set at night?

On the one hand, to be totally realistic, it should be very dark, but in a film you obviously need the audience to be able to see things, so we have to cheat.

What always looks bad in "Hollywood" films is where it is so light that you can't believe they could possibly get to sleep!

The 2 options seem to be:
1. Using "moonlight". But this requires curtains or blinds to be open, which is not normal.
2. Having the hallway light on, and leaving the bedroom door ajar, so a streak of light comes in. (This is the approach I normally take).

What do you think looks best?

[JanneSFE]

Hello, I guess this have been asked many times before, but what 35mm film stock closest match redone?

[David Mullen ASC]

Speed-wise and color-balance-wise, it's close to 250D stock (since there is no 320D stock...)

Grainwise, it's more like a 50D stock.

Otherwise, the RED ONE images look more like good DSLR photography than 35mm color negative, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

[David Mullen ASC]

How you light a scene that takes place in a bedroom where the lights are off partly depends on the dramatic style of the particular project -- you can't be generic about how you approach lighting. If the project calls for a certain Gothic or German Expressionist quality, something more stylized, then shadowy moonlight may be the best approach.

Otherwise, it comes down to this: if you can see what's going on, there must be light... so where could the light be coming from? You can make up almost any source -- a streetlamp outside the window, passing car headlights, a nightlight, light creeping in from under the door, etc.

Unless it is pitch-black where you live, generally there is some light in a room at night, often coming through the windows.

[euredom]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did some simple Day For Night tests using the moonlit stills that David took. Here they are.

I'm hoping to do some actual DFN tests on the red soon. Does anybody have any DFN before-and-afters that they've shot on the Red?

[JanneSFE]

Thank you David.

Cheers

[David Mullen ASC]

I did some simple Day For Night tests using the moonlit stills that David took. Here they are.

I'm hoping to do some actual DFN tests on the red soon. Does anybody have any DFN before-and-afters that they've shot on the Red?

That's kinda funny to call them DFN tests when the original shots were done at night!
:unsure:

[Impagliazzo]

NFN... :)

I wonder if digital sensors are ever going to suck so much light like this in a 1/48th shutter.

Anyway, 20 years from now I may be laughing from this very statement.

[euredom]

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

Aside from the "daylight stars," your 30-second exposure proved that moonlight, when exposed long enough, looks indistinguishable from sunlight. So, I was curious to see if the image would be malleable enough to create an acceptable night-time effect in post. Though it's not "true" day-for-night, I think it completes the experiment you began out in the Mojave.

I'll be out in the open desert later this week shooting some daylight stills and doing more manipulations like this. I'll post them here for comparison when I'm done.

[David Mullen ASC]

Trouble is that the look of night is subjective -- it matters less that you're matching reality as it does that it SEEM real. Even the worst-lit night exterior scenes generally look like they were shot at night, just badly. Mainly because the sky is black, etc. So the audience accepts that it is a night scene.

I find that the main problem with DFN is that is looks the most realistic when it is painfully dark. As soon as it is lightened up for TV or because the director wants to see what's going on in the scene, it looks too bright to be night. And the other problem, again, is getting the sky dark enough.

[Robert Sanders]

Here here. My problem with DFN is that it always looks very uninteresting. Very flat. No contrast. There's no vitality to the image. No separation. Just a big giant under-exposed flat lifeless image.

I think the only time I've seen DFN where I thought it actually pretty good was in Apocalypse Now.

[LilRed]

I think D4N can look excellent with great lighting! (Can't just pick a spot for your camera, expose 2 stops under, and time it bluer later..)

~S

Here here. My problem with DFN is that it always looks very uninteresting. Very flat. No contrast. There's no vitality to the image. No separation. Just a big giant under-exposed flat lifeless image.

I think the only time I've seen DFN where I thought it actually pretty good was in Apocalypse Now.

[David Mullen ASC]

Day-for-night is no more or less contrasty than regular daytime photography. If you shoot on a sunny day in backlight with long shadows, you will get plenty of contrast, three stops or more difference from key to fill, nearly black shadows once underexposed by two stops, let's say, that can easily be made blacker in post. You can create extremely hi-con day-for-night images if you wanted to.

What you can't do is get a black sky, unless you shoot on a sunny day with a clear blue sky on b&w film and turn it black by using a red filter, and then print it blue on color print stock, or do something similar digitally by shooting on color but turning the blues to black, then making the image monochrome, and then adding a blue tint back to it.

[big lebowski]

When you're at high altitude you can use a pol filter to turn the sky very dark.

[Impagliazzo]

Trouble is that the look of night is subjective -- it matters less that you're matching reality as it does that it SEEM real. Even the worst-lit night exterior scenes generally look like they were shot at night, just badly. Mainly because the sky is black, etc. So the audience accepts that it is a night scene.

I find that the main problem with DFN is that is looks the most realistic when it is painfully dark. As soon as it is lightened up for TV or because the director wants to see what's going on in the scene, it looks too bright to be night. And the other problem, again, is getting the sky dark enough.

Would a contrast filter help a DFN in this case making the overall contrast difference a bit less than what's there?

[David Mullen ASC]

Obviously a low-contrast filter would lower the contrast, whether it was a day, night, or day-for-night shot.

But it doesn't help much. Mainly when you shoot DFN and you underexpose, you have to add light to areas you want to pop out after the underexposure, which is why reflectors are handy if it is sunny.

[euredom]

Something else I've learned about D4N is to make sure there's enough ND on the lens to be able to shoot all the way open or close to open. Often, people have an incredible depth of field on D4N shots that is totally unrealistic for that amount of (simulated) night light.

[JanneSFE]

David, what's you favorite camera? :)

[Impagliazzo]

Something else I've learned about D4N is to make sure there's enough ND on the lens to be able to shoot all the way open or close to open. Often, people have an incredible depth of field on D4N shots that is totally unrealistic for that amount of (simulated) night light.

Well observed...
I have problems realizing the obvious, thanks haha.

Obviously a low-contrast filter would lower the contrast, whether it was a day, night, or day-for-night shot.

But it doesn't help much. Mainly when you shoot DFN and you underexpose, you have to add light to areas you want to pop out after the underexposure, which is why reflectors are handy if it is sunny.

How much wattage are we talking here?
Fighting the sun doesn't sound easy for me.

[David Mullen ASC]

Well observed...
How much wattage are we talking here?
Fighting the sun doesn't sound easy for me.

Reflectors don't have wattages...

[Impagliazzo]

Aw, I think the language barrier kicked in David, sorry.

In Portuguese the word reflector is a synonym to light as well.

[euredom]

I tweaked these images a little bit to get them to look better:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7224&d=1220815213

http://www.reduser.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7091&d=1220486641

[Impagliazzo]

While we're at night shots, let me throw something into this thread.

David (and eveyrone who has been helpful on this thread), how would one go about lighting such a large night exterior like this:
http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/6875/vlc2008082113584319ox0.png
?

Lots and lots of big sources, with some light diffusion (or none?) would produce the same result?

And in cases like this, what is preferred? HMI or Tungsten?
Maybe HMI because of lumen per watt efficiency... But I'm not sure.

Thx.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

While we're at night shots, let me throw something into this thread.

David (and eveyrone who has been helpful on this thread), how would one go about lighting such a large night exterior like this:
http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/6875/vlc2008082113584319ox0.png


big ass balloon light

[David Mullen ASC]

The valley in "No Country For Old Men" was lit using three Musco lights on the hilltop, and T/1.3 Zeiss Master Primes wide-open, which gives you an idea of the impossibility of most of us doing the same, and just how much light it takes at a great distance just to get a barely recordable exposure at the camera. Deakins originally hoped he could use one Musco and had to order two more at the last minute to light this valley.

Each Musco has 15 6K HMI globes in it. So it basically took 45 6K HMI's to light this valley to a T/1.3!

In other words, for most of us on a budget, either we shoot that scene day-for-night, or we light a smaller area, or we don't attempt to create an even amount of moonlight over such a wide area, we break it up into smaller areas with natural formations that justify gaps in the light (trees, hills, etc.) so we can use multiple units.

There is nothing harder than lighting a large area with a single source effect. In "From Earth to the Moon", for the moonscape, they did it by using something like a dozen 10K Xenon's pointed into a curved mirror that was water-cooled so it wouldn't shatter from the heat.

So far, the biggest night light I've used has been two 18K HMI's on a single condor, which gave me a T/1.3 (on 500 ASA film) when they were coming from two blocks away. I've also lit about two blocks worth of night with a Dino (24-light) using 1K spot and medium globes. So take that and imagine trying to light something ten blocks wide and deep...

The other problem quickly becomes height... a 125' condor crane that is two blocks away is basically in the master wide shot unless you shoot down from a high angle or use a long lens. At that point, what you really need are construction cranes or a convenient high-rise building or hilltop to get higher.

A balloon light is good for a half-city block's worth of area, no more. And they are hard to get high enough in the air and tend to blow around unless secured. And if you are talking about HMI balloons for the extra output and the blue color, then you have headfeeder cables going up to the balloon to consider.

I'd say this is one of the most common beginner questions: "how do I light a large area at night with no money?" and the answer tends to be "you don't." Lighting large areas at night is always one of the hardest things to do even with a decent budget. There are few tricks other than to NOT attempt to light everything and work with smaller pools of light and a lot of blackness in the background. Which is why when you scout locations, you look for formations that will naturally cut-off some of the area that needs to be lit, like a convenient hillside.

Roger Deakins is one of the best DP's for night scenes and his solutions have been varied. In "Fargo" for example, he knew he couldn't light a roadway at night for the length of a fast car chase scene (too much distance covered), so he opted to have the scene look like it was just lit by headlamps, which he augmented off-camera at times.

[Impagliazzo]

David, thanks for the answer...
That sure sounds tricky and expensive.

I just received my The Art and Technique of Digital Color Correction book and the first page I see when I open has your name on it hehe.

Just in case someone is interested, this book looks really good didatically speaking.

[Robert Sanders]

Wow. Makes you wonder if they wanted an image that underexposed or if they would've preferred a brighter image.

And that makes me think of the second scenario...which is you'd have to shoot all the coverage so that it matches the look of the master (which is a duh, i know), but you have to decide how to go about it. Do you continue to shoot wide open and light accordingly so the lens characteristics match? Do you go back to "normal" exposures and then time it to match so your AC can sleep that night?

[David Mullen ASC]

Wow. Makes you wonder if they wanted an image that underexposed or if they would've preferred a brighter image.

And that makes me think of the second scenario...which is you'd have to shoot all the coverage so that it matches the look of the master (which is a duh, i know), but you have to decide how to go about it. Do you continue to shoot wide open and light accordingly so the lens characteristics match? Do you go back to "normal" exposures and then time it to match so your AC can sleep that night?

Just depends on the background in the shot. An insert of something on the ground or inside a car wouldn't have to be lit to a T/1.3.

I've sometimes lit wide shots to T/1.3 for the Master Prime but lit the close-ups to T/2 or T/2.8 when I can get away with it because of a radical change in shot size or background.

[Benni Diez]

David, can you give a rough estimate how expensive a setup like this is? I mean compared to, let's say, just lighting the fore- and midground. Just curious when to draw the line where vfx/matte painting really start to make sense.

[Tom]

I can't remember from the AC article, but I assume they shot that desert night sequence with a full moon? I remember Deakins saying they had time serious time constraints on that entire sequence, but I don't recall him mentioning the moon.

[Robert Sanders]

Musco's are what, $2500/day. Not including techs. Master Primes are also roughly $2500 a day (for a kit). So you've got $10K in rentals alone (for one shot). On a movie with a budget as big as theirs, I'm sure those expenses are nominal compared to the crew payroll and all of the above-the-line expenses (not that line-producers don't bitch regardless).

To an indie filmmaker making an entire film on a quarter mil, $10K is probably the ENTIRE camera budget for the whole show. LOL!

[Shawn Nelson]

David,
I read articles/posts that break down great portrait photography (which has some really cool stuff sometimes) and almost every shot involves chimera strip banks but yet I've never seen those on movie sets or BTS shots. Why does this tool see so much use in still but not in movie?

[David Mullen ASC]

I use Chimeras all the time... on "Big Love" it was one of those things I inherited from DP Jim Glennon, using Chimeras on almost every light.

It's just that they are not always the best way to soften a light depending on the light, the set-up, etc. If you want the softness of using a 6'x6' frame of diffusion, then a 4'x3' Chimera isn't going to be the same effect.

But recently I have been doing a lot of soft backlights on hair using lights with Chimeras on the front, armed out using a menace-arm rig or rigged to the ceiling. Easier than rigging a diffusion frame and a bunch of flags to cut the spill.

With all of the different sizes of Chimeras and different speed ring adaptors needed for all your lights, it's just hard to have enough of them for all situations. On "Big Love", the previous DP had just insisted they order a lot of Chimeras for all the lights, so I inherited that. But usually I have to limit myself to renting a few sizes for the medium to small lights I am carrying.

However, on "Akeelah and the Bee" I got a huge Chimera for a 10K that I wheeled around for some of the spelling bee events so I would use the stage lighting for the wide shots and roll in the 10K Chimera for the close-ups, essentially letting the big Chimera block out the hard stage lighting while replacing the key with a softer light. It was a fast way of working. But I often find that the large Chimeras make the light SO front-heavy that you are constantly trying to keep the light from tipping down slowly no matter how much you tighten the knob.

[Shawn Nelson]

Thank you, i guess my emphasis was on the strip part (the long skinny chimeras), the basic S-M-L Chimeras I see all the time.

Thats a cool story about the 10k chimera on Akeelah! Do you have a pic?

[David Mullen ASC]

Skinny rectangular diffusion frames produce an odd soft shadow, sort of sharper in one direction, ala Kinoflos. You only tend to use them for space reasons.

Plus unless the long diffusion is in front of a row of light bulbs, it's not a very efficient use of the light or of space -- you've got the length of the Chimera sticking out from a single light, but only a narrow rectangle of diffusion in front.

But some people have designed "bat strips" (batton strips with a row of light bulbs) with diffusion in front, sometimes Chimeras adapted. My Gaffer in Vancouver, John Dekker, built a light he called a "half dome" which was three light bulbs (usually 213's) in a row with a skinny Chimera in front. Similar to a light by Gaffer in New York on two movies (Kevin Janicelli) built originally for "The Sopranos", which was a row of light bulbs in a lightweight aluminum trough with folded sides, with the eggcrate from a 4' 2-bank Kinoflo in front (which gives you a sense of the dimensions, roughly 4' x 2'.) But Kevin's rig did not add a Chimera diffusion in front because you could just add diffusion gel to the front of the metal trough.

My current Gaffer, Keith Morgan, built something similar as the "half dome" using four light bulbs and a Chimera called a "Woodylite" but it is squarish, not rectangular.

Anyway, here is an example of John's half-dome in a set-up I did for "Jennifer's Body" last spring. I needed a soft light above a bed with a low sloping roof, so I cut a strip out of the set (lucky it was a set) and hid the half-dome above the bed. Here is a photo of the stand-ins and a photo of the light above the bed:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/jb13.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/jb14.jpg

Now I could have gotten a similar effect with a 4' 2-bank Kinoflo, but I prefer the color and quality of a tungsten light through diffusion when possible when shooting in rooms lit with tungsten practicals. I'm more prone to use K55 Kinos in daylight situations, or K32's in night tungsten-balanced rooms with some fluorescent sources, or just use K32 Kinos for fill only instead of a key. Or I'll do the whole scene with just Kinos. But I find that a true tungsten key has a unique quality that is hard to match with other types of sources.

[Harry Clark]

David,
I agree about tungsten sources, especially on skin. I use KinoFlos in mixed lighting situations, or when space, power, or heat are a consideration, but nothing beats a tungsten emitter on skin.
Cheers,
Harry

[ORBITLUSTER]

David, would you have any tips to get good results from consumer type fog machines? Thanks.

[Chris Newman]

David, would you have any tips to get good results from consumer type fog machines? Thanks.
From my experience, consumer fog machines work fine, if fog is what you want. If haze is what you really want, I have gotten decent results with fog machines by shooting the output into an electric fan to chop it up, and then fan the air with cards or whatever. I finally shelled out for a haze machine, which is is a lot less hassle, more uniform, and it stays in the air longer, which makes it easier to maintain consistency.

[Mark Crabtree]

Sorry if this has been discussed. What happened to those fabulous smoke cookies used on Blade Runner in the 80's?

[raphavf]

Somewhere Mark...a nice revival by the way

[raphavf]

Nice pics David...a huge chimera
Thanks for the lessons
I revisited since the first page...wow
Fantastic cinematography classes

[David Mullen ASC]

David, would you have any tips to get good results from consumer type fog machines? Thanks.

You have to have a draft-free space, sealed-up somewhat, and let the fogger fill the whole room and then spread evenly. You can't just smoke one part of a space because the smoke wants to move. You spend a lot of time wafting the fog around trying to get it to spread and break up, and then waiting for it to settle. It's a pain, which is why hazemakers are nicer to deal with than foggers, though they are similar.

[Tabula Rasa]

This is more a question about set politics and organization psychology, but the thread's title says "Ask David Mullen ANYTHING".

This is my final year in Film School, and in six weeks I start directing a short film about a girl with leukemia that revisits her life in a dream. I had my first meeting with the DOP yesterday, and is was a very awkward situation. She was seemed more interested in directing the film than shooting it, basically demanding it to be "The Diving Bell and The Butterfly 2", covering everything in avant-garde close-ups. After 15 minutes she straight out said that my choices were wrong, hers were right. I tried politely to say that I am the director and she has to trust me, but it did not seem to have any effect.

Any ideas to have to solve the situation in a diplomatic way?

If anybody else has advice they are more than welcome.

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, normally in the real world, you hire the DP so you wouldn't hire someone who has completely different ideas as to how to make the movie. So I guess in this case, you had someone assigned to you, which is an unreal situation. Normally you'd just replace the DP if they can't collaborate. On the other hand, collaboration is a two-way street, so if you think your job as a director is to simply tell the DP what you want, you'll never get the best work out of a DP because you're asking them not to think.

Part of a director's job is not only telling people what you want, it's convincing people that you know what you are doing -- there is diplomacy involved. And you get the best work out of fellow artists by treating them like fellow artists and respecting their talent. It's in your best interest ultimately to get them to do their best work for you.

But in this case, it sounds like you have a DP who doesn't know what a DP's job is, which is NOT to dictate to the director how to shoot and cover a scene. If the film school DP continues to behave like this, I'd talk to the film school folks.

[Tabula Rasa]

Thanks for the answer. The DP is assigned, so it is an arranged marriage we have to figure out. What you say about a two-way collaboration is something I will keep in mind. How is best to let the DP be part of the collaboration but still be clear on how on you will cover the scene?

[J.R. Hud]

I would suggest diplomatically going to the 'teacher' sinec you are in school and having the roles better explained for each of you. This is a very big deal, especially when you get On Set.

Effin nightmare that anyone on crew wants to argue with the director; pet peeve. :angry03: :angry03: :angry03:

[Sudhir Chaudhary]

Hi !

I have two questions here :

1. How did you find the RED with the tungsten lights. The noise in the blue channel. What were your experiences like. Did you prefer using a 80A filter or balancing the camera to 3200k ?

2. Intercutting between a 4k and 3k shot ? Will there a major jump in image quality ?

Waiting for your feedback.
Thanks.

[David Mullen ASC]

RED was fine in tungsten light as long as you exposed the image fully, didn't start playing with a lot of underexposure. I did have some underexposed (higher ASA) scenes in tungsten light at night which have varying degrees of blue noise in them which I plan on trying to clean up in post.

I didn't use the blue filter because I needed the speed.

I didn't really see much difference in quality between 3K and 4K -- slow-motion shots tend to feel different, unique, anyway, so your eye is less likely to notice a small change in resolution.

[David Mullen ASC]

Here are some tungsten examples. There were from the 4K TIFF's opened up in RedAlert, cropped (not reduced) from 4K to about 1K, so remember that you are only seeing 1/4 of the picture.

320 ASA at 3400K:
http://www.davidmullenasc.com/RED 320T.jpg

500 ASA at 3400K:
http://www.davidmullenasc.com/RED 500T.jpg

640 ASA at 3200K:
http://www.davidmullenasc.com/RED 640T.jpg

You see how much blue noise popped up at 3200K setting in RedAlert at 640 ASA. This is perhaps the noisiest shot I did in the whole movie so I'm a bit loathe to show it uncorrected, but there are ways of reducing this noise. Also, this scene was deliberately underexposed by a stop or so on top of the 640 ASA rating, shot at T/1.3 on the Master Primes, to capture as much background ambience as possible since I didn't light anything other than the car (the lighting in the car was incredibly dim -- I had ND.6 gel on Mini Kinoflos!) The scene is supposed to be set under orange-lit sodium streetlamps, so I have some wiggle room to get rid of the blue.

Here is the whole frame of the last example, roughly color-corrected to reduce the blue noise, for a sodium-lit look:
http://www.davidmullenasc.com/RED 640T2.jpg

[Sudhir Chaudhary]

Thanks [:)]!!
Was just going through your blogs on "Manure". Really great imagery !!!

[David Mullen ASC]

Here are the other two whole frames, not cropped but reduced. I should point out the first one was done on a stage under tungsten light, though it looks like a day scene.

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/RED 320T2.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/RED 500T2.jpg

[BASSAM MSSALATIE]

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


David i read your older posts and i liked this one so much it is like

The first visual rule for me

is there is a way to develop those skill befor going to shoot ?

Is there is out there something to read or watch to learn the important

Relationship between storytelling (script , actors ) and visual stuff

(lights, blocking and stagging ).

[David Mullen ASC]

It's best to start by studying what you like in movies and figure out why you like them and work from there. Reading helps, shooting tests and short films helps, editing some footage helps, etc.

Basically you are constantly balancing the acts of shooting, watching movies, reading about movies, and reflecting and analyzing what you have learned and shot to date -- plus expanding your other interests to make you more well-rounded. Theory and Practice basically.

[rileytaylor]

David, I love how you use perfect grammar in all your posts.

And thank you for this.

Riley

[Shawn Nelson]

David,
What movies are inspiring you as of late?

[David Mullen ASC]

I've been shooting a fairly naturalistic-looking TV series for Showtime lately so I've been rewatching things shot by Roger Deakins and Harris Savides. Also watched some of Storaro's work in "Reds" again.

[Impagliazzo]

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/RED 320T2.jpg

Thanks for the contribution so far David.

I have a beginner question regarding this picture...

Usually when I try to add some backlight to the subject It ends up spilling too much and it doesn't give me the result I originally thought.

What kind of light did you use to make a backlight on this actor?
Small source? Large source? Diffused?
Was it some feet to the back, up, pointing down at him?

I'm sorry if it's too basic but that is the kind of light that I couldn't reproduce so far.

Thanks in advance.

[David Mullen ASC]

It's either a 20K or 10K outside the patio doors in the background.

If you are simulating direct sunlight falling into a room, you want something hot so that you get the natural kickback and bounce into the shadows. But you also want something farther away because of the gradual fall-off and parallel beams of light, as opposed to something close with a fast fall-off and light spreading outwards.

[Impagliazzo]

Now that's something I did not know, about the spread of the beams and all.

Interesting...

And thanks again!

[David Mullen ASC]

Now that's something I did not know, about the spread of the beams and all.

Interesting...

And thanks again!

The lack of spread is why a smaller lamp like a Xenon or an HMI Source-4 (ellipsoidal) tends to simulate sunlight well (assuming it is bright enough) even when it is not backed far away, because the beams are fairly parallel. Trouble then becomes coverage, you don't have a large enough area being lit (like to fill a large picture window) compared to a huge source backed far away. But on a smoked set, I've clustered a bunch of Source-4's to make it look like a single beam of sunlight is being broken up by trees, for example, into separate but parallel beams.

Here is a snapshot I took of a lighting set-up where I had two HMI Source-4's just off-camera on the right, maybe just six feet away from the actors, inside the room (not coming through a window) to simulate sunlight:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/manure32.jpg

[Matthew Rogers]

Here is a snapshot I took of a lighting set-up where I had two HMI Source-4's just off-camera on the right, maybe just six feet away from the actors, inside the room (not coming through a window) to simulate sunlight:


You also had haze in this shot also, correct?

Matthew

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, obviously! :wink:

[Matthew Rogers]

Yes, obviously! :wink:

Yeah, I gotta practice with haze as my indoor shots that have sunlight coming in are good, but not great. I wish there was another better way than getting a hazer. We don't have anyone around here that's got a hazer, just a fogger:(

Matthew

[David Mullen ASC]

Actually, I was dealing with a cheap fogger on that shot I posted, on Day Two of our shoot, on a drafty stage in a set with holes in the ceiling, so the smoke level and evenness was not quite correct.

Smoke has to -- wants to -- fill a space. So even if you are in a small set on a soundstage, you really have to haze the entire soundstage before the smoke stops wanting to drift around to every corner. On this shooting day, I had lots of short scenes in small rooms but the sets were too open-ended for me to contain the smoke, and the soundstage was too large to fill quickly and evenly. Here was another set on the same day -- the smoke is a bit "chunkier" than I'd like, but passable:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/manure29.jpg

[LilRed]

I think that looks wonderful, Mr. Mullen! I notice that your "sunlight" beam in this last shot looks more white perhaps even a hitch blue(on my MacBook Pro anyway..).. was that the look you were going for specifically or did you just let it happen ala HMI-use and knew it would be something like this? With a beam this angled and cool(in color) it feels like a morning scene?

thanks for the visual "goodness" you give us all!
~Sarah :)

[David Mullen ASC]

The RED camera was set to 5600K and the scene was lit with HMI's, but the HMI Source-4 creating the beam was a bit bluer than the rest of my HMI's, that's all. And the room was painted in warm tones in comparison, making the difference more obvious.

[Rowland]

David,

Thanks for everything you do for this forum.

All the best,
Rowland

[shaunt]

I am teaching myself cinematography and from various books or dvds I have seen basically only show how to light using the 3-4 point lighting and usually when it comes to backgrounds they only show someone either putting a cookie on the light for the background or just creating a slash of light on the background.

How do you approach lighting backgrounds? Should background lights be placed in certain positions on your location?

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated,

Shaun

[David Mullen ASC]

It depends on the style chosen for the show and the mood you are trying to create. But since most modern cinematography aims for some degree of naturalism, generally you are trying to recreate a realistic source for the background, whether it is a slash of hot sunlight or soft skylight or the glow from sunlight bouncing off of the ground, etc. For night scenes, it may be the way a streetlamp or moonlight would fall through a window and across the background. Sometimes you add practical sources in the background (lamps, etc.) that do half the lighting work for you.

But it generally would be motivated by the mood you are trying to create.

[Nicholas Shields]

David, I was wondering what your take is on a creative decision regarding close-ups. What is your rationalle for using an over-the-shoulder/dirty c/u's versus clean c/u's? I know this is a personal choice that's is often a product of a discussion between you and the director, but what are the ramifications as you know them to be? Thanks in advance.

Nick.

[David Mullen ASC]

If you are using long lenses, it's hard to get clean of the foreground person's shoulder who is only standing a few feet from the subject. You can step the foreground person back until they are clear of the lens, but it becomes awkward if the camera is far from the subject -- the actors become too far apart to really act and interact with each other. So you tend to live with "dirty" singles instead. The downside there is that with both actors visible in all the coverage of the scene, it's harder to make cuts unless the actors match their movements from take to take. They have to lift that beer bottle at the same point on every angle, every take, etc. With some clean singles, you have more flexibility to make the cut.

On the other hand, overs and dirty singles create a better sense of the spatial relationship between the actors.

[Matthew Greene]

Hi David, thanks for being available for interaction with us mere mortals ;op

Do you still flash film every once in a while or do you find it unnecessary with modern stocks/post?

What's your opinion on the aesthetic benefits/differences of using a large (let's say 12'x12') silk for diffusion versus a smaller one. I know that you'd be able to place it further away and get a similar effect to a smaller one closer to the subject, etc... but please give me some practical example(s) of what a larger diffuser would allow you to achieve (i.e. more natural ambiance fill, etc...)

[Tom]

David, I was watching Boogie Nights recently, and paying strict attention to the opening steadicam shot. It's kind of strange, because the whole shot plays out in real time, starting on a crane, but when the shot finally ends, and the camera lands on Dirk Diggler carrying a dish tray, the scene appears to be overcranked at 48fps or maybe 60fps. Does this mean that the whole sequence was shot overcranked?

I'd love to get my hands on the AC back issue for this movie.

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't recall the shot well-enough to tell you whether or not they did a speed ramp during it to go to slow-motion, but it's possible.

[David Mullen ASC]

Hi David, thanks for being available for interaction with us mere mortals ;op

Do you still flash film every once in a while or do you find it unnecessary with modern stocks/post?

What's your opinion on the aesthetic benefits/differences of using a large (let's say 12'x12') silk for diffusion versus a smaller one. I know that you'd be able to place it further away and get a similar effect to a smaller one closer to the subject, etc... but please give me some practical example(s) of what a larger diffuser would allow you to achieve (i.e. more natural ambiance fill, etc...)

It's become less necessary now with wide latitude stocks combined with D.I. capabilities to alter color and contrast. I'd probably now only use it for something finishing photochemically where I had to bake the look into the original.

Larger diffusers (if you are talking about diffusing the sun overhead) obviously cover more area.

If you are talking about soft lighting techniques involving large frames of diffusion, the size of the diffusion (assuming it is filled evenly from edge to edge with light) plus the distance to the subject -- i.e. the relative size of the diffusion from the perspective of the subject -- determines the softness of the light. Heavier and lighter diffusion just affects your ability to fill the frame evenly or leave some hotter spot in the center, or how they light spreads (silks tend to spread the light in a star-shape.)

So a 4'x4' diffusion up close may produce the same softness of shadow as a 20'x20' diffusion farther back, if to the subject, they both appear to be the same size in the field of view.

But the difference is fall-off -- the diffusion becomes the defacto light source, not the light behind it, and if the subject moves closer or farther to the diffusion frame, they can become much brighter or darker if the diffusion is very close to them. With a large diffusion farther off, the fall-off is more gradual so an actor can move around without getting much brighter or darker. But with less extreme fall-off, it also means that the foreground and background are also getting more of the soft light compared to a smaller frame up close with tends to just light the subject.

When diffusion is very close to the face, you can even see the rapid fall-off on the skin, where the cheek closer to the frame gets hotter compared to the opposite cheek. Sometimes that mentally tells the viewer that the light must be very close, which works if the light is simulating a close lampshade but not so good if the light is simulating a distant soft source like an overcast sky or a large picture window across the room.

[Tom]

I don't recall the shot well-enough to tell you whether or not they did a speed ramp during it to go to slow-motion, but it's possible.

Back when it was shot, where there tricks that could have been used to make 24fps film suddenly ramp and look like 48fps film? Obviously, these days, with digital, that is very simple to do on After Effects or Twixtor with frame interpolation.

[David Mullen ASC]

Back then you would have just ramped the speed of the camera motor and compensated with either an f-stop or shutter angle change to maintain the same exposure. People still do that -- it's hard to beat actually shooting at the correct speeds you want for a motion effect as opposed to doing it in post. The main problem with on-camera speed ramps is the timing of the ramp, getting it to start and stop at the exact moment you want it to, as opposed to picking the moment in post.

Some people nowadays shoot the whole shot slow-motion and correct the speed in post for the normal motion section of the speed ramp, but that tends to look choppy because of the shorter per frame shutter speed. In other words, taking 48 fps footage shot with a 180 degree shutter angle (so 1/96th per frame) and converting it to 24 fps tends to look like you shot at 24 fps with a 90 degree shutter angle (also 1/96th per frame). Unless you apply some post effect to add more motion blur back in.

[Tom]

That's probably how they did it, with an in-camera ramp. That's pretty ballsy, though, because couldn't the ramp cause problems if it wasn't pulled off perfectly? That would really suck to do that entire 5-minute (or whatever) steadicam move from the crane through the entire club with all the actors hitting their marks and then ruin it with a badly shot ramp at the very end.... hehe.

Would the f/stop change on the ramp, for example, be automated, or something the operator was doing manually?

[David Mullen ASC]

Usually you set-up an external motor that automatically adjusts the iris ring to match the speed change, or use a camera with an electronic shutter control that changes the shutter angle to match the frame rate. Just a question of whether the change in depth of field is more distracting than a change in motion blur, plus you are more limited in how far you can compensate exposure by using the shutter angle.

[Ted Chu]

Shot an insert with the Red. Used a tungsten light and a green gel pack on the other tungsten light. Could not get the Red to read the green, kept looking very blue. I know the clients can color correct that easily but you know how commercial clients can be! How could I get the Red to read the tungsten light and the green light? Didn't have any HMI's in my package. Thanks.

[David Mullen ASC]

That's odd... because if anything, the RED is sometimes too sensitive to any green bias or tint in a light, not the other way around. So it seems weird that the green gel would not read. Maybe the TINT setting in the camera was adding a magenta shift that was cancelling the green gel effect. Maybe in your settings for output, the correction for 3200K was adding magenta / reducing green (to reduce yellow). I don't know.

[Ted Chu]

I had the RED set on 3200K and all the color options were on default, 0 or 1.0. I assumed the Red did not like the green or could not resolve the large difference between the 3200K (actually 3150K) light and green. I'll post a JPEG later. Thanks.

[miha]

In ACM October 2008 Lubezki laments when we was given HD Dailies only for "Burn After Reading": In HD you can't... judge focus.
Why does he say that? Do we need 4K now to judge focus?

[LilRed]

Hi miha,
One problem with DVD dailies is the screens(monitors/hdtv's) they are viewed on... some add sharpening to the picture. Also, some don't have the correct contrast and can add an apparant sharpness. (I'm sure Mr. Mullen/others here could write from greater experience but this is what I saw on the recent feature I worked on)
~Sarah

[David Mullen ASC]

In ACM October 2008 Lubezki laments when we was given HD Dailies only for "Burn After Reading": In HD you can't... judge focus.
Why does he say that? Do we need 4K now to judge focus?

He may mean that compared to projected 35mm prints on a screen, it's hard to judge focus in HD dailies viewed on a monitor. 1080P projected on a large screen should be sharp enough to see most problems but even then, some things may be slipping by.

[Michael Lindsay]

Shot an insert with the Red. Used a tungsten light and a green gel pack on the other tungsten light. Could not get the Red to read the green, kept looking very blue. I know the clients can color correct that easily but you know how commercial clients can be! How could I get the Red to read the tungsten light and the green light? Didn't have any HMI's in my package. Thanks.

Despite this seeming impossible with Reds green sensitivity. I've seen this. I suspect Red has an uneven green sensitivity .

Despite having seen a green screen end up with a blue tinge it still keyed a treat (better than anything else I've used).

Michael

[LilRed]

Does this green issue have to do with the in-camera interpretation of the Bayer-Pattern Imaging Sensor?

~Sarah

[Deanan]

Despite this seeming impossible with Reds green sensitivity. I've seen this. I suspect Red has an uneven green sensitivity .

Despite having seen a green screen end up with a blue tinge it still keyed a treat (better than anything else I've used).

Michael

I've seen a couple of cases of customer footage regarding this and in each case it was because WB was set too high or too low. White balancing to something white in the shot fixed the balance.

[Seth Iliff]

Mr. Mullen,
I was reading earlier you're explanation of Roger Deakins' night lighting in No Country. You suggested to just not putting yourself in that situation, but what are you're thoughts on day for night.... the most recent example I can think of being, The Proposition. I really enjoyed those huge nighttime landscapes. Do you like this effect?

[David Mullen ASC]

I grew up in the desert and when you are away from any other light sources, a moonlit landscape can seem like a day-for-night effect in a movie, other than the dark sky and stars. It's just that a lot of viewers don't have that personal experience of seeing large areas of desert illuminated by a full moon.

I posted these before, but here are some real night shots I took with my Nikon under moonlight, shot with a tungsten preset for a blue cast, underexposed by about two or three stops:

http://davidmullenasc.com/moonlit1.jpg

http://davidmullenasc.com/moonlit2.jpg

And this was exposed longer in the same moonlight:

http://davidmullenasc.com/moonlit3.jpg

So you see that daylight and moonlight are rather similar.

The main problem with day-for-night, besides the dark night sky, is if any other light sources appear in the frame, like car headlights, a flashlight, campfire, etc.

[Matthew Greene]

That last one is pretty awesome in making your point.

[Charles Angus]

I have noticed that before myself - odd how our perception of night is so different.

[Joofa]

odd how our perception of night is so different.

Some of the color shift at night happens because of the Purkinje effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purkinje_effect

[Matthew Greene]

Thanks joofa, that's new to me. I've had pretty good results at lighting realistic ext. nights although I've never lit large areas, just small ones. All this info is good to know to have the know how when it comes to making decisions.

[Joofa]

You are welcome Sarmoti.

[Fernando]

Hi Mr Mullen i hope you can help and sorry if someone already asked you this:

during all this time i have been using red for TV commercials and music videos. On the 27th of this month ill be working with red for film outs.
I have a couple of questions about Redcode and other stuff.

What is the real setup for better filmouts?

A. 4k 16:9
B. 4k 2:1

Ive been told different answers to that and some ppl say one or the other.

The next thing is that were going to use drives and cards, im gonna have 5 reddrives cause were going to be downloading every 15 - 20 minutes. Doing breaks cause i recommended not to shot all day long in a drive and find out at the end of the day that something is wrong (you know murphy's law). But also i will have 8 gigs cards.
In this movie will not be any highspeed or hand helds (i've been told that). OK... this is the thing... the days job will be flying to LA from Puerto Rico. It will be a film break as in motion picture working with film and the production want to make sure that the lab has everything there before we format any info on the drives, so i will also have 8 - 10 8G cards in my equipment....
So, i know that Reddrives work in redcode 36, the cards on redcode 28.
For film out... its that a big problem??
This is the list:

we will bw shooting @ 24 frames, 4K (2:1 or 16:9) no high speed, no sudden camera movements (no steadycam, no hand held).

thanks!!!
Fernando

[David Mullen ASC]

If you are composing for 2.40, there shouldn't be any difference between recording 16x9 or 2x1 in 4K mode, since 2.40 lies inside either and uses the same pixels. For 1.85, you'd be trimming the sides slightly if you use 2x1 mode, so I'd recommend 16x9.

As for spotting a difference between Recode 36 vs. 28, compression issues tend to be content related and color-correction decision related, so it just depends. Most of the time, you probably can't spot the differences.

[Fernando]

thank you very much!!!!

[LilRed]

I did a search on the forum on the topic of using filters on the lens for contrast control, especially for digital cinema. There are some posts but they are specific to a shot that was posted. My question is(to Mr. Mullen and anyone else visiting this thread?): have you used soft or low contrast filters such as say.. classic softs and black frost, digi con, etc. and what did you think of them? Do you have a favorite situation(shot or whole project) in which you used one? Is using such filtering preferred by you instead of letting visual fx or the DI doing something along their pipeline?

thanks!
~Sarah

[Evin Grant]

I bought a set of Schneider classic softs (1/8, 1/4, 1/2 & 1) I have to say they are very subtle but effective for cleaning up facial lines and imperfections. I've yet to try the Digi-cons but I hear they do wonders for the F900. Apparently the #1 is best for that camera. It's certainly worth a test.

[David Mullen ASC]

Some of those filters you mentioned are diffusion filters that also lower contrast, as opposed to just contrast-lowering filters. It's a blurry distinction, I know.

I've used light ProMists (regular) or GlimmerGlass diffusion filters because they also lower contrast (compared to the "black" versions of many frost filters that counteract some of the contrast loss by using black dots or specks.) So I get both some softening and some contrast lowering.

I haven't used straight contrast-lowering filters in HD, ones that aren't supposed to also soften detail, like UltraCons or DigiCons.

I like some light lens diffusion because I don't feel like processing every shot in post just to get some mild halation around lights and hot highlights, not when it is so easy to just use a filter when you want that effect.

Right now, I'm using the Schneider Classic Blacks, which are a combination of a 1/8 Black Frost to whatever degree of Classic Soft you pick, so you get a little more halation compared to straight Classic Softs.

[Evin Grant]

David, what grades of the Classic soft filters do you find you use the most with the Red. Do you think the set I mentioned before (1/8-1) is sufficient? I have only used them a few times so I haven't really felt them lacking... yet:)

[LilRed]

This is lovely info, thanks guys! I've enjoyed thinking on it all day. :) I'd imagine that the final effect of any filter(especially contrast-related) would be influenced by the type of camera/lens used and the way the scene is lit. I wonder if you've noticed any significant difference in using such filters under various color temps and light sources(tungsten vs. HMI vs. daylight)? Of course I know, if I ever get around to shooting again I'll have to test a group of filters against the camera and lenses I'll be working with. Your 1/2 might be my 1/4.. kinda thing...

thanks again! I very much enjoy this thread and discussion.

~Sarah

[David Mullen ASC]

I tend to use a diffusion filter that is one grade lighter than the one I think I like, just to play it safe. So if I like the look of the 1/2 Classic Soft, I'll probably opt for the 1/4 Classic Soft, etc.

Anyway, I tend to only use the light grades. In Classic Soft or Classic Black, a 1/2 is the strongest I've ever used, and I'm more likely to just use the 1/8 for medium shots and a 1/4 for close-ups.

I also like the lightest grades of ProMist (1/8), Soft-FX (1/2), and GlimmerGlass (1).

[Nicholas Shields]

David:

What filters do you keep with you on set and why? Is there particular brands that you appreciate more? Thanks in advance.

Nick.

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm not particular to one brand.

There are the basics: ND's, 85's, Polas, plus ND grads, diopters, optical flat...

Then diffusion of some sort, it just depends on the project. I like the new Schneider Classic Blacks a lot, I also like Tiffen GlimmerGlass.

[percy]

Dear David,

Is there anyway with RED ONE that allow us to shoot with a 4K sensor size image, and have a 2K image recorded on the RED DRIVE
Something like what is is called "4K scaled for 2K record"

Our problem is we have a corporate video which may have multi cameras shoot of 50 hours of materials, and they need to post quickly, final release resolution is expected to be 1280x 720 only

Many Thanks
Percy Fung
Digital Magic, Hong Kong
www.digitalmagic.com.hk