Ask David Mullen ANYTHING [Archive]

Tom

06-06-2007, 07:17 PM

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/7497/mullenfn6.jpg

First of all, don't feel like you're harassing David, because I cleared this thread with him in advance. Here is your chance to pick the brain of a top working cinematographer. How many people, in any given line of work, get this opportunity?

No question is too fanboyish, although I do expect a certain level of astuteness here. Don't ask him how to encode mov files on Premiere, but do ask him how to light a complicated scene, or which lens to use in a given situation, or which DP he thinks is the greatest in existence.

So I will start it out:

David, what do you think of Chris Doyle and Mark Lee Ping-bin's work on In The Mood for Love? For me, it's the most beautiful example of how to overcrank.

What do you think of Chris Doyle's work on 2046?

If you had a chance to work with any living director on his next project (and assuming you loved the script and cinematic ideas) which famous director would you most love to work with?

Which scene in any movie in the last few years really blew you away?

thanks so much, David!

Matthew Rogers

06-06-2007, 07:50 PM

Okay, here goes...How do you feel about lighting with china balls? It seems like I saw a thread somewhere where someone mentioned a DP who lights primarily with china balls. I ask because I did a shoot recently for a fast food chain, and we ended up using a bunch of defused 1k's to light the inside. The problem was, we had some hot spots that didn't look so great in the end (watch the spots at http://www.petros.com/). My thought now was that I should have used about 10-15 balls with 200 watt lights, and then some small 250's to add some hairlight and a little fill for when our actor got to his mark. I will probably be doing more spots like this in the future, so I'd like to come up with a better system (and hopefully I will have a grip/gaffer, but I want to know for my own knowledge.)

Thanks,

Matthew

David Mullen ASC

06-06-2007, 08:30 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom

06-06-2007, 08:47 PM

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

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

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

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

Adrian Correia

06-06-2007, 09:15 PM

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

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

Gavin Greenwalt

06-06-2007, 09:21 PM

David Mullen ASC

06-06-2007, 09:31 PM

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

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

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

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

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

David Mullen ASC

06-06-2007, 09:39 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Brook Willard

06-06-2007, 10:42 PM

Will you hire me?
:shifty: :innocent:

[I kid, I kid]

number6

06-06-2007, 10:44 PM

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

edit: meant to say "only" available light.

dalemccready

06-06-2007, 10:49 PM

hi David,

Fun thread...Okay my questions:

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

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

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

Thanks David,

Dale :nerd:

David Mullen ASC

06-07-2007, 01:24 AM

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

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

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

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

David Mullen ASC

06-07-2007, 01:32 AM

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

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

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

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

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

Renew

06-07-2007, 01:43 AM

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

Their cost, though--yikes!

David Mullen ASC

06-07-2007, 01:52 AM

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

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

Ralph Oshiro

06-07-2007, 05:21 AM

Ralph Oshiro

06-07-2007, 05:29 AM

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

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

Ralph Oshiro

06-07-2007, 05:37 AM

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

David:

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

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

Michael Lindsay

06-07-2007, 05:39 AM

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

daylight
dimable without colour temp change
Cool
Battery capable

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

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

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

dalemccready

06-07-2007, 05:41 AM

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

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

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

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

Thanks again for your time.

Clayton Harper

06-07-2007, 05:56 AM

David,

Boxers or Briefs?

Coke or Pepsi?

Union or Confederate?

Dogs or Cats?

Elvis or Beatles?

Honda or Toyota?

Regards,
Clay

David Mullen ASC

06-07-2007, 10:30 AM

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

David Mullen ASC

06-07-2007, 10:34 AM

Just curious, David . . .

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

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

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

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

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

scriptor

06-07-2007, 01:05 PM

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

Clayton Harper

06-07-2007, 01:06 PM

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

Two excellent choices.

David Mullen ASC

06-07-2007, 01:23 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clayton Harper

06-07-2007, 01:37 PM

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

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

Dan Blanchett

06-07-2007, 02:07 PM

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

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

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

Thanks in advance!

David Mullen ASC

06-07-2007, 05:01 PM

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

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

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

johannperry

06-07-2007, 05:02 PM

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

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

Casey Green

06-07-2007, 05:11 PM

Hi David - thanks for the opportunity to learn.

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

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

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

thanks again,

Kevin Halverson

06-07-2007, 05:20 PM

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

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

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

scriptor

06-07-2007, 05:20 PM

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

Dan Blanchett

06-07-2007, 06:52 PM

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

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

ChrisForbes

06-07-2007, 07:14 PM

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

Yash Keough

06-07-2007, 11:39 PM

Hi Mr. Mullen,

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

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

David Mullen ASC

06-08-2007, 12:46 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

___

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

Alexander Nikishin

06-08-2007, 12:49 AM

David, I have a particularly odd question for you.

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

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

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

David Mullen ASC

06-08-2007, 12:57 AM

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

Alexander Nikishin

06-08-2007, 01:07 AM

That's what I was thinking, thanks David!

Casey Green

06-08-2007, 01:08 AM

David Mullen ASC

06-08-2007, 01:20 AM

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

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

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

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

Alexander Nikishin

06-08-2007, 01:27 AM

Now for a normal question....

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

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

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

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

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

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

Casey Green

06-08-2007, 01:37 AM

David Mullen ASC

06-08-2007, 02:20 AM

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

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

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

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

filmmaker's gang

06-08-2007, 02:27 AM

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

at last, there..

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

Costelloe Michael

06-08-2007, 02:34 AM

David,

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

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

Mike Costelloe

Casey Green

06-08-2007, 02:41 AM

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

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

number6

06-08-2007, 07:35 AM

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

Kenn Christenson

06-08-2007, 10:07 AM

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

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

number6

06-08-2007, 11:02 AM

Alexander Nikishin

06-08-2007, 01:28 PM

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

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

wshultz

06-08-2007, 03:11 PM

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

Yash Keough

06-08-2007, 05:05 PM

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

Thanks Mr. Mullen, I really appreciate your help.

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

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

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

Ramesh Jai

06-08-2007, 06:31 PM

Hello David, (or anyone else)

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

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

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

Both the driver and the passenger are dark skinned.

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

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

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

Thanks.

chuck colburn

06-08-2007, 06:47 PM

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

David Mullen ASC

06-08-2007, 11:18 PM

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

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

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

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

David Mullen ASC

06-08-2007, 11:26 PM

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

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

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

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

David Mullen ASC

06-08-2007, 11:36 PM

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

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

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

David Mullen ASC

06-08-2007, 11:50 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Tom

06-09-2007, 12:41 AM

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

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

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

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

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

overlandfilms

06-09-2007, 10:10 AM

David,

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

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

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

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

Thanks again for giving back.

wshultz

06-09-2007, 11:45 AM

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

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

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

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

Tom

06-09-2007, 12:13 PM

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

David Mullen ASC

06-09-2007, 03:06 PM

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

Tom

06-09-2007, 04:05 PM

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

acehole

06-10-2007, 03:12 AM

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

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

David Mullen ASC

06-10-2007, 09:05 AM

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

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

acehole

06-10-2007, 10:06 AM

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

km9000

06-10-2007, 01:20 PM

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

KETCH ROSSI

06-10-2007, 04:32 PM

Hi David,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks in advance for your answer.

Ciao

KETCH ROSSI
www,KETCHFRAME.com

David Mullen ASC

06-10-2007, 05:14 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KETCH ROSSI

06-10-2007, 05:29 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Ciao

KETCH ROSSI
www.KETCHFRAME.com

David Mullen ASC

06-10-2007, 05:41 PM

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

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

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

KETCH ROSSI

06-10-2007, 05:44 PM

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

Ciao

KETCH ROSSI
www.KETCHFRAME.com

Ramesh Jai

06-11-2007, 03:27 AM

Thank you David. Will try back projection and see.

Rob Lohman

06-11-2007, 04:14 AM

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

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

adaml

06-11-2007, 02:27 PM

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

David Mullen ASC

06-11-2007, 02:54 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

number6

06-11-2007, 04:28 PM

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

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

LMG Video

06-11-2007, 07:19 PM

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

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

David Mullen ASC

06-11-2007, 07:51 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Tom

06-11-2007, 08:26 PM

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

David Mullen ASC

06-11-2007, 09:25 PM

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

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

Tom

06-11-2007, 09:29 PM

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

Shawn Nelson

06-12-2007, 09:19 AM

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

Robert Sanders

06-12-2007, 01:54 PM

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

That places kicks ass.

David Mullen ASC

06-12-2007, 10:14 PM

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

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

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

Bruce Allen

06-12-2007, 10:19 PM

Fred 62 (24/7 diner) at 1850 N Vermont Ave is pretty good
That places kicks ass.

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

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

ghostcar

06-12-2007, 11:49 PM

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

Charles Angus

06-13-2007, 12:13 AM

David Mullen ASC

06-13-2007, 12:27 AM

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

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

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

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

David Mullen ASC

06-13-2007, 12:32 AM

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

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

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

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

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

Charles Angus

06-13-2007, 03:48 PM

Thanks for the info.

Charles

Tom

06-13-2007, 05:15 PM

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

David Mullen ASC

06-13-2007, 06:05 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Tom

06-13-2007, 07:06 PM

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

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

David Mullen ASC

06-13-2007, 08:15 PM

Tom

06-13-2007, 10:59 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks a lot, David.

Jim Arthurs

06-14-2007, 09:24 AM

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

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

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

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

Regards,

David Mullen ASC

06-14-2007, 10:28 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rudi Herbert

06-14-2007, 12:31 PM

If I may David,

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

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

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

Thanks much,

Rudi Herbert

donatello

06-14-2007, 01:39 PM

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

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

David Mullen ASC

06-14-2007, 02:00 PM

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

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

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

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

Jim Arthurs

06-14-2007, 02:38 PM

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

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

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

joelnet

06-14-2007, 02:49 PM

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

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

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

Robert Sanders

06-14-2007, 05:11 PM

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

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

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

David Mullen ASC

06-14-2007, 08:40 PM

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

Terry Delahunt

06-14-2007, 09:04 PM

Gavin Greenwalt

06-14-2007, 09:21 PM

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

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

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

People are people.

David Mullen ASC

06-14-2007, 09:35 PM

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

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

Shawn Nelson

06-14-2007, 11:56 PM

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

David Mullen ASC

06-15-2007, 12:02 AM

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

Terry Delahunt

06-15-2007, 05:19 AM

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

Thanks David, I must get some Dulling Spray.

Simes

06-15-2007, 08:53 AM

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

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

David Mullen ASC

06-15-2007, 09:37 AM

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

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

wshultz

06-16-2007, 11:30 AM

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

David Mullen ASC

06-16-2007, 05:07 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom

06-16-2007, 06:09 PM

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

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

Zk2007

06-16-2007, 07:24 PM

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

David Mullen ASC

06-16-2007, 08:26 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom

06-16-2007, 08:29 PM

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

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

Gorgeous.

David Mullen ASC

06-16-2007, 08:37 PM

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

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

Tom

06-16-2007, 08:49 PM

David, do you prefer indoor or outdoor cinematography?

David Mullen ASC

06-16-2007, 08:55 PM

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

Tom

06-16-2007, 09:01 PM

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

David Mullen ASC

06-16-2007, 09:26 PM

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

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

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

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