Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[David Mullen ASC]

There's no single resource for all those old tricks. Some are more special effects-oriented while others are just stylistic effects to create a mood. And some are both, such as the deep-focus tricks in "Citizen Kane", some of which involved effects work such as in-camera double-exposures and post optical printing.

The pre-digital age of visual effects are well-covered in the Cinefex issues of that period, starting in 1979, plus they occasionally ran something on an older movie such as the original "King Kong". "American Cinematographer" is a good resource, interviews with old DP's such as in Maltin's book, and there are some history of visual effects books out there.

"The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography" by Fielding is a good resource:
http://www.amazon.com/Techniques-Spe...399329&sr=1-18

But this is more about visual effects work.

Interviews with old DP's from the studio era can reveal a number of in-camera trick shots since these guys liked to tell stories like that, ingenious solutions they found -- they weren't so comfortable talking about the art aspect of their jobs.

But I learn about these tricks from all over the place. For example, I watched some of the Kodak cinematography videos shot in the Australian film schools and John Seale showed this neat trick to hide a light from the camera lens in a small dorm room set from "Dead Poets Society" where he painted a bit of showcard to match the color of the wall above the window alcove and put it in front of the lens to hid a Tweenie he had mounted just above the window frame. It blended with the background and erased the lamp from the shot, in-camera.

In other interview books Jack Cardiff tells a story about creating a fake low sun and sky for an exterior landscape created on a soundstage (for "War and Peace") -- he spray-painted a sheet of glass in front of the lens to hide the soundstage ceiling with a fake hazy sky above the treeline, and then reflected a lamp in the glass to look like the sun was peaking out through the mist.

Those sorts of stories are scattered throughout dozens of books.

There are lots of tricks involving mirrors and glass, or foreground miniatures, that are fun to read about.

[Charles Angus]

David,

I was wondering if you knew of any resources of places to find tips, tricks, or other suggestions on how to get various in camera effects? One of the things I enjoy about older films is how ingenuitive they were at getting effects in camera. I've picked up things here and there, but there does not seem to be a catalogue or place to find them, it seems to just be a matter of reading and listening to everything possible to glean what I can from others.

And I'm talking about everything from using forced perspective, to coordinating with the sets / props people to get everything in black and gray to get a B&W look with a Pleasantville style in camera ... (Hopefully I am make sense.)

It would be worthwhile digging up some old FX guys, if there are some in your area. I was shooting a short with a lot of practical FX, and we found this great guy in TO that had been doing FX for decades, and had a lot of experience with practical and in-camera FX.

He's in Toronto, but you could look him up anyway:
http://www.keillorfilm.com/

Good guy.

[Vadim H]

Having come accross this:
http://www.arri.de/camera/lenses/35_..._diopters.html

I was wondering if it is really possible to get shallow DOF with wide angle lens using diopters. Would this be the coveted solution for future 2/3'' Scarlet purchasers to get very thin DOF on wide angle (or even maybe fisheye) shots?

[David Mullen ASC]

Diopters allow you to focus closer which then causes DOF to get more shallow, but I don't really see why they'd allow you to shoot wide-angle shots where the focus is set in the distance, but the look is more shallow-focus. I don't think it's as simple as that in terms of reducing depth of field. I could be wrong.

[Vadim H]

O.K. Thanks. I was also sceptical about this myself, it's just that arri seems to advertise that exact property (shallow DOF on wide angle) on every page of their site that features the master diopters.
However, could maybe the fact that you loose infinity focus help reduce DOF with these - or do the diopters only work for focussing very close to the lens?

Alternatively is there any way to get very thin focus on wide shots other than using large format aquisition?
I'm seeking a look where you'd have people or objects basically swim into focus only when at a certain distance from the lens (1 meter or so) and almost immeadiately disappear into oblivion once they get just a tiny bit farther from the lens. Basically a sort of hyper myopic look.
Something similar to some photos here
http://www.flickr.com/groups/wide-angle_bokeh/pool/
but even more extreme.

[Matt W.]

Just to chime in, diopters only let you focus closer to the subject; they don't do anything else (except sometimes introduce chromatic aberration). It's just that when you focus closer, the depth of field decreases incredibly fast.

But a close up shot with a diopter should look identical to a close up shot without one; it's just that with the diopter you can focus on something a few inches away (but not on infinity) and without the diopter you can focus on infinity (but not on something so close). If you want that effect and have nikon lenses a really nice alternative is a macro tube, which you can get on ebay for like $20 and which is optically perfect if irritating to use. But diopters do not alter depth of field at a set focus distance, focal length, and stop.

For the effect you're looking for, there are many options but no one "solution:"

•The easiest option is to green screen it and do it in post. Just bring a huge green screen on location and then shoot the scene, shoot plates out of focus, etc. so everything matches. Then use some basic garbage mattes (or roto if the characters cross path) and a good lens blur effect in your compositor. This is harder if there's camera motion.

•The other option is just to rent the fastest lens you can get and then cheat people a little closer to it, maybe. Most of the shots you posted look like 35mm at f2 or something, which isn't too unusual. I believe Panavision rents a 50mm t1.0, which would give you a great shallow focus look that would definitely stand out for daylight photography (just make sure to rent a lot of good NDs). Telephoto lenses can really give you this effect if you're willing to sacrifice the sensation of depth that wide angle lenses give.

•Get a tilt/shift lens. This is the best solution but you'll need to worry about how things line up both in terms of horizontal and vertical distance from the camera and it may take some experimentation to get a location that doesn't look too weird when shot with a tilt/shift lens (parts of the background may be in focus and parts may be out of focus depending on how you line things up so a busy background may look very weird). People use these (and fast-motion photography) for those cool shots that make everything look miniature, or for buildings shot at an angle, or for dual focus shots.

•Get a lensbaby or a bellows, which are extreme versions of the tilt/shift lens. This gives a really intense and subjective look; I think Kaminski uses it in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly if you want to check it out.

•There are mattebox filters that blur everything outside a small circle. Kind of cheesy and old school, but they work. There are split diopters, too, which were popular a few decades ago for putting two planes of action in focus. But those probably won't give the look you want because they have a pretty obvious split down the middle.

This is the type of thing where there's no easy solution so you need to figure out exactly why you want that look and what aspects of it are most important to the story--and then pick something (like one of the options I listed above) after discussing your choices with your DP. If this is something as simple as your 2/3'' future red camera not promising enough shallow focus, I don't think renting a master prime diopter (which is worth way more than the camera) is a good choice--just rent a fast lens (or a tilt/shift lens) and 35mm body for the day or green screen it.

Edit: Arri may very well be advertising that the quality of glass in their diopters allows you to use them wide open (t1.3), which would definitely provide very shallow focus at close distances, whereas with other diopters maybe you'd have to stop down before getting an acceptable image.

[David Mullen ASC]

I once read an American Cinematographer article about a commercial or short film that made sort of a mega-version of a 35mm groundglass adaptor like a RedRock or something, but this used an 8x10 view camera, and the recording camera rephotographed the image off of the focusing screen of the view camera, so the depth of field was very shallow.

But other than large formats or really, really fast lenses, there is not much help in getting a shallow focus wide-angle wide shot unless you opt for efx tricks such as selective blurring in post.

[Shawn Nelson]

Hey David,
Sorry to ask a gear question again, but I think gear questions can be a good window into the creative process.

You are very far along on the cinematographer journey, but are there any tools (lights, light tools, etc) that you have recently discovered or developed a new affinity for?

[David Mullen ASC]

As a shooter of narrative cinema, I tend to use the meat & potatoes of equipment, the stuff that serves the widest range of shooting scenarios. Specialized tools tend to serve specialized shots, which is more the purview of commercials and music videos.

In other words, I expect to be using 650w Tweenies for a very long time in my career....

New tools... well, the obvious one is the new M-X Red One, which I think has pretty much solidified the camera's position as the best digital cine camera out there in the market, until Red (or someone else...) comes up with something better. Being able to work at 800 ASA as a base without any compromise is amazing, and to be able to not break a sweat and shoot at 2000 ASA is fantastic.

Being able today to use a DSLR for tiny spaces is also an interesting new trend, though I can't wait for the Scarlet and Epic to come along in order to avoid the picture quality issues that these DSLR's have.

Otherwise, my favorite new tools are pretty small-scale... I love the Woodylight, which is sort of like a Lowell Rifa but more flexible. I love the new HO (high output) versions of the Rosco LitePads. I love Source-4's, both the tungsten version and the ones adapted to use a Joker HMI.

[Tim Hole]

Hi David I watched AVATAR in IMAX again tonight as Alice is out tomorrow so we lose it, and it is still striking to me how much of annoyance that stuttery motion blur is. Is this amplified by the stereoscopic filming do you think. To bring up an older question would it have been better to shoot at 48fps.

How would 48fps change that 'film look' with a 180 shutter? I might go and shoot some tests and see the difference in look. Do you think it will be something that the industry will consider - the move to 48fps? Do you think it would not help the initial image of Digital -whilst it is still going through the motions of proving itself as a excellent tool alongside film.

Shooting at 48fps is a favourable thing to do when a lot of effects are in play to decrease motion blur obviously helping with the post.

Also do you think it would make it easier on peoples eyes watchin Stereo at 48fps?

What is your take on it all?