Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[Aaron Champion]

Not sure if I have any good advice -- when I was making my own movies here in Los Angeles, I couldn't figure out how to break in either, other than some low-budget music video / karaoke work. So I went to film school here and after graduation, started getting work thru fellow graduates. But I'm not sure that's helpful.

You pretty much have to be willing to go out and shoot anything for awhile, just to build up the contacts.

The reel is good but I'd say you could shorten it down to 2 minutes and it would become stronger just by trimming the less interesting shots.

Thank you, yeah that's pretty much what I expected I'd have to do, just get to LA and hustle! Thank you so much for watching my reel. It means so much! One last question....What would you say were the un-interesting shots... I'll cut them now! haha. Thank you again so much! Your work is awesome!

[AnthonyFlores]

Hi David,

I have a quick question ... I recently began shooting with the Red One
and was surprised at difference in field of view when you scale down
from 4k to 2k. I was using a Red Pro Zoom and even at 18mm, there
seemed to be no chance of wide shots when shooting at 2k.

Anyway, my question is:

If you have two sensors that are close in size -- approx S35 -- for
example the new Epic sensor is 27.65mm x 14.58mm and the Canon 1d
Mark iV, which is 27.9mm x 15.7mm. As you know, the Epic is a 5k
sensor and the Canon is a 2k sensor.

If you have the same lenses/focal length and you're shooting both at the
highest possible resolution -- is the field of view roughly the same?

I guess I'm just a little confused also because it seems as though you could
have lens sets designed to fully cover S35 -- yet not enough to cover the
Epic sensor.

I know the Epic is not out yet, but thinking this whole issue is more about
understanding the science behind all this ... and if anyone would know that
here it would be you.

Thanks in advance for your response.

Anthony

[David Mullen ASC]

4K 2:1 on the Red One is 22.12mm x 11.06mm -- the reason that 2K has a narrower view is that it is achieved by cropping the sensor down to 11.06mm x 5.53mm. The resolution isn't the issue per se, it's the size of the sensor area being used for the image which determines the field of view of a particular focal length.

So if the recorded sensor area of both the Epic and the Canon is 27mm-ish wide, then yes, the field of view would be similar.

And the Canon sensor isn't 2K, it's 4896 x 3264 and thus similar to the Epic. The difference is that with the Epic, you record the RAW sensor output, whereas with the Canon, the sensor output is essentially decimated through various schemes (pixel binning, maybe line-skipping, etc.) down to 1920 x 1080. But they don't get down to 1920 x 1080 by simply cropping the 4896 x 3264 sensor, unlike how the Red One goes from 4K to 2K.

As for "Super-35", that's been a term thrown around loosely. In 35mm movie terms, the Super-35 negative area is 24mm wide, so the size of the Epic M-X sensor and the Canon 1D Mark IV sensor is slightly bigger than that. However, most Super-35 cine lenses project a large-enough image to cover the diagonal of these sensors, the only exceptions may be some of the shorter focal lengths.

[Glenn Dreher]

Hi David,

I've got an upcoming shoot that is a little different than I'm used to. The end user will be projecting the finished project on a screen that measures approximately 198" wide by 62" tall. Screen resolution is 3453 x 1080 but maximum input of the Vista Systems Spyder video processor is 2048 x 1200. Some shots will fill the screen, while others will be part of split screen effects in one form or another.

My questions are:
Do you have any advice on the best way to tackle what is essentially a double 16:9 aspect ratio?

What considerations should I be aware of when shooting?

Assuming I have frame guides that represent my finished aspect ratio, is there anything else I need to concern myself with at the time of shooting?

I am prepared to crop the top and bottom of the frame in post but would appreciate any insights in addition to how to handle that part.

Finally, is anamorphic a smart option? Does anamorphic get me anything more, or less? And what if any considerations ned to be considered if I go this route?

Thanks for your time.
Glenn

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, anamorphic would gain you a bit more camera resolution compared to cropping to 3.19:1 essentially (or 3.55:1 if you want to double 16x9 horizontally.)

But it doesn't help much if the projector is limited to 2048 x 1200 unless you have the option of somehow fitting a 1.3X anamorphic projector lens on the camera and a 1.3X Hawk anamorphic lens on the camera, keep the same squeeze ratio through post.

Otherwise, you might as well limit the amount of cropping of the projector to 3.19 : 1 -- do you really mean inches instead of feet, that the screen will only be 16.5' x 5.16'? If so, a 2K projector will be fine.

In that case, just crop the Red 4K 2:1 image to 3.19 : 1 and downsample in post to 2K -- how does this projector deal with a non-standard format like this? The image would be 2048 x 642 pixels. Or doe it require an HD 1920 x 1080 signal that is just letterboxed to 3.19 : 1?

[Glenn Dreher]

Well, anamorphic would gain you a bit more camera resolution compared to cropping to 3.19:1 essentially (or 3.55:1 if you want to double 16x9 horizontally.)

But it doesn't help much if the projector is limited to 2048 x 1200 unless you have the option of somehow fitting a 1.3X anamorphic projector lens on the camera and a 1.3X Hawk anamorphic lens on the camera, keep the same squeeze ratio through post.

Otherwise, you might as well limit the amount of cropping of the projector to 3.19 : 1 -- do you really mean inches instead of feet, that the screen will only be 16.5' x 5.16'? If so, a 2K projector will be fine.



In that case, just crop the Red 4K 2:1 image to 3.19 : 1 and downsample in post to 2K -- how does this projector deal with a non-standard format like this? The image would be 2048 x 642 pixels. Or doe it require an HD 1920 x 1080 signal that is just letterboxed to 3.19 : 1?

The screen dimensions are correctly stated in inches. They are approximate at this point because the screening room is in the construction phase, but I've been told they are pretty accurate.


Would 4.5k widescreen be a good or better choice than 4k 2:1? I would have let to crop top and bottom that way.

[David Mullen ASC]

Would 4.5k widescreen be a good or better choice than 4k 2:1? I would have let to crop top and bottom that way.

Isn't 4.5K also 2:1? You'd have the same amount of cropping if so, just more overall resolution to start with. But if the projected image is only 16.5' wide and the projector is limited to 2K, I don't think it makes much difference if you shoot in 4K or 4.5K.

[Chuck Z]

David,

Where do you think Kodak should be focusing its film R&D efforts? Should they try to develop a low contrast, but wide latitude film stock for the DI process or shoot for a lower contrast, more "filmic" looking negative, for lack of a better term?

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't know what Kodak should do -- their Vision-3 stocks are low-contrast enough for most folks, I don't see a big demand for even flatter stocks just because they make the D.I. easier. Some people have gone the other way now and prefer the higher-contrast Fuji Vivid stocks.

There really isn't anything "missing" in the current line-up of stocks short of lower-usage "designer" stocks, like a negative version of Kodachrome / Velvia for people who want that look. But I don't see that happening, it's not cost-efficient in terms of manufacturing and warehousing.

Personally, I just wish Kodak would sell Vision Premier print stock at the same price as regular Vision -- most film-outs look better printed onto Premier, but most opt for regular Vision because of the cost difference, especially when you are talking about thousands of release prints.

I think the one thing that would be a best-seller would be a 1000 ASA negative stock, if it were as fine-grained as the current 500 ASA stock.

Fuji's line-up is good too, the only thing missing are some really slow fine-grained stocks. They dropped 125T, their 64D is a bit older in look, the 160T is a bit grainy, and the Eterna line-up otherwise starts at the 250 ASA stocks. They need to revamp the 64D stock or lower the grain of the 160T or come out with an Eterna 125T stock or something. Kodak has their Vision-3 50D stock, and a new fine-grained Vision-3 200T stock.

[Chuck Z]

Kodak has their Vision-3 50D stock, and a new fine-grained Vision-3 200T stock.

Should that read Vision-3 250D or Vision-2 50D?