Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[David Mullen ASC]

The windows were smaller than you think -- one parcan per window was enough (I believe they were actually 1.2K "firestarter" VSNP globes actually.)

Being on a low stand and bouncing up into a mirror on the ceiling and back down through the windows was enough spread to fill the window.

The bounce back from the backlight onto her face wasn't from a mirror, but a white card, whatever was small enough to hide behind the locker door (I think it was 2'x3'). For the close-ups, I swapped it to a 4'x4' card.

[Imran Farouk]

Hi David,

I've been handed a few scripts, I'm new to this whole film/cinematography thing and would like for when everything goes into production for the principle photography to run smoothly...

These are very basic questions, only two, both based on conversation, I was wondering when shooting with one camera, how would you go about shooting two people or more having a conversation, as in do you shoot mid/long shot for the whole scene then go back and do it with close ups on specific points or vice versa, and would you do it any differently with two cameras?

The second question is based on vehicles, I've noticed when shooting vehicle conversations it tends to seem like its done with a green screen and the only real shots are those when leaving and arriving on location, is this true?

Thanks a lot for your time and knowledge, :)

[David Mullen ASC]

You would tend to shoot your widest shots first in order to establish the lighting of the scene, then move into closer on the general same angle/direction (more or less) if necessary or desired (there's no law saying you have to cover a scene conventionally, I'm just talking about lighting and camera).

Generally you always move in from wider shots to closer shots in the same general angle in order to avoid changing the lighting too much (as opposed to returning to the same direction after clearing out the lighting to do a reverse angle.) You're trying to be efficient.

You would therefore generally light and shoot the "master" angle and then the close-up that would naturally be the closest to being from the master direction. Though there are exceptions, for really emotional scenes, you have to decide when you want to get into shooting the close-ups if the actors are going to cry, etc. Some actors may want to "warm up" by doing the wider coverage first, some may want to start with the close-up and get it done first, though that's the least efficient way in terms of lighting and equipment.

Most car driving scenes are still done with car rigs (mounts, trailers, tow rigs, etc.) and moving vehicles, not process photography and post effects. Or sometimes are done "poor man's process" against black with moving lights for night driving down some deserted road.

[Shawn Nelson]

The windows were smaller than you think -- one parcan per window was enough (I believe they were actually 1.2K "firestarter" VSNP globes actually.)

Being on a low stand and bouncing up into a mirror on the ceiling and back down through the windows was enough spread to fill the window.

The bounce back from the backlight onto her face wasn't from a mirror, but a white card, whatever was small enough to hide behind the locker door (I think it was 2'x3'). For the close-ups, I swapped it to a 4'x4' card.

Oh, I get it, I was mis-reading your original post thinking the mirror card for her. Now it makes sense. So what was the purpose of bouncing the Parcans through the windows instead of just directly shining them? The beams seem pretty sharp, so I can only think the purpose would be to get the angle and intensity right (otherwise you'd have to have the Parcans up high and far away)

[Michael Epple]

He said earlier that it was because there wasn't enough height in the other room to fit the par cans in at the right angle. Bouncing through a mirror also gives you a sharper edge, at least if you fill the mirror.

[Shawn Nelson]

He said earlier that it was because there wasn't enough height in the other room to fit the par cans in at the right angle. Bouncing through a mirror also gives you a sharper edge, at least if you fill the mirror.

d'oh! now I see it, makes sense. Thanks Michael.

And thanks David for the thorough description of the scene, it'd be amazing if you did this sometime for a DVD special feature

[Eric S.]

Back to the screen grabs Shawn posted, how did you accomplish the faint glints of light off of Megan Fox's lower lip in the first grab (her face is against the doorway)? I thought it could be your Kamio-6 eyelight, but then noticed the three lights on the left are in a straight line, the three on the right in a triangle formation. Is this just from Megan turning her head in the scene?

However you managed it, I thought it really made the scene pop. Even in the trailer, where the glints weren't as noticeable as a still shot, it still heightened the tone tremendously.

Also, I agree with the other posters here that you deserve a DVD commentary opportunity. You give so much advice freely, but you really deserve to receive some sort of recompense for your knowledge. Perhaps we could send a few messages via snail mail and e-mail to someone in order demonstrate how valued your commentary track would be?

[David Mullen ASC]

As I said, the light was pretty frontal in that shot -- a hard frontal key through a pattern to break it up and texture it, and the Kamio fill/eye light. So it's not surprising that the wet lips picked up some light. She buries her head in Needy's neck for a moment, so I wanted to make sure that her teeth caught some light even with all of that blockage of hair, shoulders, etc. In post, I had to create a little Power Window on the mouth to see that action, brighten that area up a little.

[Roberto Lequeux]

David, how often do you operate yourself?

[Mithun DSouza]

David, where do you think one should draw the line when critiquing a film that they watch in the theaters? How much of it is the DoP and how much of it is credit to the colorist?

I mean, i think the two are inseparable. A good DP stuck with a bad colorist can end up with a pretty ordinary looking film and visa versa. You need well exposed images to start grading and you can drive them pretty far in collaboration with the DPs and their vision and the colorists creativity.

I have full respect for all the DP's out there who do some incredible work, but i also feel that without a colorist in this day and age, their images end up looking pretty ordinary and not as polished as they do now a days.

Having said that, why arent colorists awarded things at the Oscars or other major awards then and recognized for their work?

Probably one of the more odd questions you've been asked in this thread, but would love to hear your views.

Thanks!