Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[Andrew Rieger]

Some plays use stages that angle upwards slightly towards the backdrop (hanging at a 90 degree angle) in order to create the illusion of more depth. Not sure if they employed this technique but its is cool nonetheless.

[David Mullen ASC]

"Manure" used Build 15.

[David Mullen ASC]

Regarding those production stills from Manure: I noticed that the backdrops hang straight down. Wouldn't it aid the viewer's perspective and nullify cast shadows to hang the backdrop at an angle(for example 45 degrees as opposed to 90) to the ground and print it anamorphically so that the perspective matches? Are there some barriers that I'm not aware of that inhibit this approach? I'm pretty ignorant of the "outdoor soundstage" style of shooting, so I'd appreciate your wisdom on this.

Thanks.

The only backdrops were the sky, the receding ground was part of the stage floor and had a small ramp along the sides tilting the last 6' upwards, right up against the bottom of the sky backdrop.

The backdrop was painted canvas. It covered 3 and 2/3's of the four sides of the rectangular stage, with curved corners. It would have been impossible to hang canvas at an angle, not to mention that at an angle, it would have made the available floor space smaller since our set extended up to the fire lanes on all sides (the lane was behind the hanging canvas.) It would have had to been a solid angled set wall in order to be rigid and smooth, and curve around all four corners of the stage -- WAY out of our budget, not to mention, again, it would have cut into the floor space.

Generally backings are not angled on stages, again, mainly because they are hung from rails or pipe, they are not rigid unless stretched onto a frame.

Besides, since the backing was just of sky & clouds, it did not would not really have benefitted, perspective-wise, from being tilted away from the lens.

If you look at this frame, keep in mind that one-quarter inside from the right edge of frame is the corner of the soundstage, so that "sky" and ground on the last quarter are bending at a 90 degree angle towards the camera. One of the side effects of the rectangular shape of the stage was that I had to keep the camera at horizon level or lower -- too high and I saw the "V" shape of the corner of the stage instead of a straight horizon. Too low and the "V" shape was at the top of the sky backing where two stage walls met, but that was always cropped out, i.e. kept above the frameline:



Here's a photo of us setting up the shot:


Here's a shot of another set-up for another scene, the crew members show you the scale of the set:


This was the final shot:

[Andrew Wilding]

This was the final shot:

Amazing!

[Kim Frank]

That's just awesome how you faked the sunset!
Recently I shot a 360 move around a performing Band. The whole clip had pure white backround so we hang a circle off the rig but with all the light the inside of the circle heated up an it began to shrink.
Do you know what your crew did to really fix the backdrop properly?

[David Mullen ASC]

It was heavy painted canvas -- it was hung very well by the construction crew, but it still had a few wrinkles in it and the grips sometimes spent time tugging at the base in different directions trying to get the wrinkles out.

That fake sunset shot required that we pull back the base of the canvas to create a small gap between the backing and the edge of the set so I could hide a light stand to mount that 5K on the top of the horizon. Then I had to wash out the shadow of the 5K fixture off of the backing it was nearly touching, try to get the wrinkles out of the backing created by pulling it away, and then hope that the light flared and burned out enough to hide the yoke of the fixture.

[Andrew Rieger]

Wow, those canvas backdrops are stunning. I see this as a great example of how old school techniques can be brought into 21st century digital cinema. You would expect them to film in front of a green screen and then digitally create the background but there is something fascinating about the painted background. As a painter myself, I can really appreciate the technical artistic skill it took to create these backdrops and the seamless integration of the floor into these backgrounds. Simply amazing. It reminds me a little of 300 but cooler because it is not digital.

[XiaoSu Han]

A rather un-artistic question,

David, how do you handle posting stills from running productions? I've seen before that you posted actual RED frames from "Manure", did you clear that with production or did your good relationship with the directors enable you to do that? I've also seen that you used to post stills which were snaps of your own camera featuring stand-ins, that's probably on bigger budget studio features? If you are not allowed to publish anything do you get told explicately? Or do all your contracts have that within them?

I've read before that the cinematographer as the creator of those images is allowed to use still frames for his own benefit, but can't use moving footage.

Thanks for any information, you're really one of the few DPs who let people see their work in progress and that's priceless!

[David Mullen ASC]

I depend on the goodwill of the director and producers. I try to avoid using stills with the lead actors in them unless they are fairly small in frame.

I can tell you it's getting harder and harder to openly discuss one of my productions due to all the confidentiality agreements you have to sign up front before you begin every movie. I feel a bit freer on independent films where promotion is part of the game, so generally any internet buzz that can be generated is OK. Especially since often when you are shooting the indie, there's no studio involved, no distributor in place. So it's really just a matter of getting permission from the producers.

I generally mention it to them up front "hey, I write a blog about the technical issues I encounter when shooting, with some photos of the lighting set-ups" and they are OK with it.

But since "United States of Tara" was a Dreamworks/Showtime production, I didn't post much about it.

For "Jennifer's Body", I tried to stick to non-controversial technical issues and only show photos of stand-ins.

But as I said, it's been getting harder to get away with these production journals.

Basically I believe in the value of educating people by giving them an accurate picture of what's involved in making a movie, though I have to leave out some of the personal politics. But too often in articles on movies, everything seems too easy, problems never seem to arise. I don't feel that is accurate or informative.

[christopher witzke]

David,

Just want to let you know how much I appreciate you continuing to share your knowledge and experience with us! Thanks!

I broke my heart when Roger Deakins had to take down his site.... some people just got mean and nasty and Roger got fed up with it.