Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[Eren Ozkural]

Hi David,

I'm directing/DP'ing a feature film in May and planning to shoot spherical lenses, 4K 16:9 in order to crop to 2.40:1 in post but protect the 16:9 frame should it be necessary in the future.

I know a lot of people still refer to it as 2.35:1 but that's actually an outdated term since the 1970's. I also know that the correct ratio is either rounded down to 2.39:1 or rounded up to 2.40:1 these days.

Our planned output is a 2K DCP and a 1080p copy on HDCAM SR for home video. I was wondering if there were any commercial/technical issues relating to finishing the film in either 2.35:1, 2.39:1 or 2.40:1 aspect ratios. For example, assuming the theatrical version would be digitally projected without an anamorphic lens unsqueezing the image, would cropping to any one of the mentioned aspect ratios have favourable/negative effects?

The last thing I would want is for all the hard work and money going into the film to be for nothing at the last second because a distributor says "we need it in 2.39:1 not 2.35:1" forcing us to go back to the post house and pay for another cropped version.

Thank you for taking the time to answer all of our questions on Reduser. The third edition of the Cinematography book you co-authored has been invaluable to me over the past few months.

[David Mullen ASC]

The 2K DCP and the 1080P versions should just be deliverables made from either a 2K or 4K RGB master (16x9, if that's what you shot). And if you follow the DCI rules for a 2.39 version when making the DCP, you shouldn't have any problems later regarding the aspect ratio.

Making multiple deliverables is just a fact of life today. Don't be surprised if you have to go back to the master and make another type of deliverable at some point.

[Eren Ozkural]

Thanks a lot David.

Just out of curiosity, which 'scope ratio is your personal artistic preference?

[David Mullen ASC]

There is only one current scope ratio, so I can't have a favorite, there's no choice, though I think 2.35 is better than 2.40 being a bit less wide... I like the 65mm 2.20 : 1 ratio for that reason, it's a bit more natural to compose in.

[Rob Ruffo]

I don't think I'd even try to fill a large area from a distance, I'd rely on the film stock or digital camera to hold enough dynamic range... it's not like the old days of 1960's color television productions where you'd see dozens of shiny boards being used to fill a wide shot outside, mainly to compensate for the harshness of film chain transfers from prints. So yes, I'd worry more about when the actors got closer to the lens when I needed to see their eyes better.

But if I had to throw a fill light quite a distance, then I'd need something pretty bright like reflectors or an 18K HMI, etc. Sometimes you can use silver lame on a 12'x12' or 20'x20' frame.

As for dolly moves or Steadicam shots, it's generally easier to just walk the fill light, so I might have the grips walk a 4'x4' beadboard with the actors, or even a larger 6'x6' or 8'x8' Ultrabounce or muslin... or walk a light, like a 1200w HMI PAR with a Chimera on it. Or a 800w HMI Joker. I might even have a little LED light on the camera, but that wouldn't do much in bright daylight, but it can help in a daytime hallway or something during a move.

Or maybe you can set-up a long row of bounces from farther back, like a couple of 12'x20' Ultrabounces in a row. Sometimes you can throw some white bedsheets or muslin on the ground.

These days, with the wide dynamic range of film stock, or some modern digital cameras, it's better to not go overboard with the fill light unless it is for a special look (like an overlit musical) or to balance against something very hot in the background, like the sun glaring off of the ocean.

Walking lights is an interesting suggestion. Were there no visible problems with "shifty-bouncing" of the light source? Did you put the light on a rail?

[Shawn Nelson]

David, thanks again for your previous replies. I really appreciate it every time!
Two part question if I may!
1. How often are you choosing a focal length vs the director?

2. I'm starting to notice that DPs tend to either prefer staying wide (say, 14mm-40mm) or staying long (say 40mm to 100mm and beyond) as an aesthetic preference. Which is yours?

[David Mullen ASC]

Walking lights is an interesting suggestion. Were there no visible problems with "shifty-bouncing" of the light source? Did you put the light on a rail?

Generally when you are talking about a fill light, especially if it is soft, no one is going to notice a slight jiggle. It would be much harder to get away with walking a key light though I've done it, but again, it's easier when it's a soft light like a Kino. Sometimes with the motion of the actors and the camera, it's hard to tell when the shifting shadows are caused by a moving light or the movement of the actors.

[David Mullen ASC]

David, thanks again for your previous replies. I really appreciate it every time!
Two part question if I may!
1. How often are you choosing a focal length vs the director?

2. I'm starting to notice that DPs tend to either prefer staying wide (say, 14mm-40mm) or staying long (say 40mm to 100mm and beyond) as an aesthetic preference. Which is yours?

The ground rules for what focal lengths to choose are generally set in prep or in the early days of the shoot, but generally I discuss with the director whether I think this would be better with a wide, medium, or tight lens, and I put a lens on a finder and the director and I look at some stand-ins with the lens and decide. I don't pick a lens, set-up the shot, light it, etc. and then show the director the results because what if he wants something different? Then I've wasted a lot of time. But on the other hand, I've rarely had a director tell me the focal length; we discuss it and come to a consensus. The discussion may be as short as one or the other saying "I was thinking of doing the steadicam move on a 25mm for a waist-up shot".... "that's what I was thinking too..."

Now sometimes the director will say that they want a particularly wide-angle or telephoto effect and ask me to set-up the shot with that in mind, so again, I'll put a lens on a finder and work it out with the director with a stand-in.

I'll also look at a director's earlier works to see if I see a certain preference for certain focal lengths, though sometimes I'll find out that that was more due to the DP's influence.

I don't have a lens preference, it depends on the project... but unless the piece is supposed to be stylized, I'll opt for focal lengths that don't distort the natural view of the scene, focal lengths that don't stick out and call attention to themselves. You can fall into a certain tackiness with wide-angle lenses if you aren't careful, and the problem with telephoto lenses and shallow depth of field is that sometimes you lose all sense of geography and sense of place, plus it can force you into a cutty style to tell the story.

[John Miguel King]

Hi David,

First of all, thanks for being such a cool dude, so keen to share all your knowledge!

I've just one question. I am bouncing lights more often nowadays. I am truly fascinated with the quality of light that can be achieved, the simplicity of the technique and how it can reduce the budget. I was also blown away by Christian Berger's work in 'The White Ribbon'.

There is, however, one shortcoming I have with this approach, and it is that I am lost as to how to calculate light levels. This is not being too much of a hassle, though, as I rarely have the opportunity of playing with anything stronger than a blonde, so there's not much I need to calculate!

Still, is there any rule of thumb you use in these calculations? It wouldn't be too hard to come up with a formula, but maybe it's been done?

Also, looking at reflective materials, I've found that mylar is also sold with a diamond pattern that promises to diffuse the incident light. Any experience with this?

Many thanks,

John Miguel King

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't know of any formula to calculate light loss from bouncing, there are too many variables. It's just an experience thing.

Bouncing into mylar, patterns or not, wouldn't be very soft but it may create some interesting effects I guess. I generally avoid bouncing into very "kicky" and reflective things because any wind or movement will cause some visible change in the light, unless that's what you want. "Blade Runner" had that scene in the Tyrell Corp. temple lit by bouncing light off of sheets of gel being moved for a rippling effect.