Click here to go to the first RED TEAM post in this thread.   Thread: Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

Reply to Thread
Page 501 of 573 FirstFirst ... 401451491497498499500501502503504505511551 ... LastLast
Results 5,001 to 5,010 of 5728
  1. #5001  
    Senior Member Alexey Milokost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Kiev, Ukraine
    Posts
    236
    Thanks a lot!


    Quote Originally Posted by David Mullen ASC View Post
    Avoid the sky by shooting against a hillside or something. If not, use a Pola + ND grad to darken the sky and/or plan on replacing it in post.

    Shoot in backlight or side light, something that creates shadows, underexpose, perhaps go for a blue-ish tint.

    Shoot at a wide aperture to avoid too much depth of field.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #5002  
    Moderator Tom Lowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    8,514
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    Post #5000 in this thread. I think I speak for everybody here. Thank you for knowledge and continued generosity David.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #5003  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    9,648
    And over a million views no less. Style points indeed.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    RED Weapon 8K VV Dragon "Orochi"
    RED Weapon 8K VV Monstro "Skully"

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #5004  
    Maybe this has been asked before and if so sorry...BUT David what do you think of anamorphic in the digital age? I see a small resurgence of anamorphic in both film and digital (film wise maybe its Directors and DP's emptying out all the nostalgia before film is gone if I had to guess!). I personally love anamorphic, I love every "artifact" of it but I'm curious on a digital sensor does it do more harm than good? I'm guessing anamorphic lenses don't give the massive resolution increase on digital like it does on film. Are their any issues using anamorphic on digital that were not issues with film? I asked you about Hawk V-lites 1.33x on 4-perf film to shoot 1.85:1 on another forum and got to see an example (Promised Land, I think it looked great BTW) but I'm more interested in anamorphic as a whole. Do you see it going away? Will we ever see crazy wide aspect ratios from the likes of Ben-Hur and its massive beautiful 70mm anamorphic 2.76:1 picture? I simply loved the look of Ben-Hur and would love to see something like that in digital in the future (I imagine you could achieve a similar look hopefully with an Epic Dragon using Hawk V-Lite 1.33x's while shooting at a 2:1 aspect ratio). Movies like Elysium and the new Transformers movie along with Epic Dragon in general are reminding me of 70mm and its exciting!

    Sorry sort of went on a ramble, some of this stuff is hard to find documented or in common usage via Google. If anyone else wants to chime in on parts of my post I'm all ears. Thanks!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5005  
    Well, most 65mm movies were actually spherical -- "Lawrence of Arabia", "2001", "Patton", etc. -- there were only four or five movies made in anamorphic 65mm (MGM Camera 65 / Ultra Panavision). The wider-than-2.40 aspect ratio only worked for Cinerama screens, so once Cinerama died, the need to shoot 2.66 : 1 or 2.70 : 1 movies started to die with it. So I don't associate anamorphic with a 70mm look generally.

    Anamorphic lenses still yield improved vertical resolution when the sensor is 4x3-ish, but of course, that also depends on the total resolution of the sensor itself, there are DV cameras with 4x3 sensors after all...

    The main advantage anamorphic had for 35mm was decreased grain because of the larger negative area used compared to cropping Super-35. Since digital does not have grain, that is less of a reason to use anamorphic. And since most sensors are 16x9-ish, you don't get the improvement in vertical resolution. And if you don't get to use a larger sensor area for anamorphic, then you notice that most spherical lenses are sharper than anamorphic lenses once you start shooting near wide-open.

    So today, the main reason to shoot anamorphic on digital is the anamorphic look and feel, which is still popular.
    David Mullen, ASC
    Los Angeles
    http://www.davidmullenasc.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5006  
    Quote Originally Posted by David Mullen ASC View Post
    Well, most 65mm movies were actually spherical -- "Lawrence of Arabia", "2001", "Patton", etc. -- there were only four or five movies made in anamorphic 65mm (MGM Camera 65 / Ultra Panavision). The wider-than-2.40 aspect ratio only worked for Cinerama screens, so once Cinerama died, the need to shoot 2.66 : 1 or 2.70 : 1 movies started to die with it. So I don't associate anamorphic with a 70mm look generally.

    Anamorphic lenses still yield improved vertical resolution when the sensor is 4x3-ish, but of course, that also depends on the total resolution of the sensor itself, there are DV cameras with 4x3 sensors after all...

    The main advantage anamorphic had for 35mm was decreased grain because of the larger negative area used compared to cropping Super-35. Since digital does not have grain, that is less of a reason to use anamorphic. And since most sensors are 16x9-ish, you don't get the improvement in vertical resolution. And if you don't get to use a larger sensor area for anamorphic, then you notice that most spherical lenses are sharper than anamorphic lenses once you start shooting near wide-open.

    So today, the main reason to shoot anamorphic on digital is the anamorphic look and feel, which is still popular.
    Thanks David. I realize most 70mm was spherical, I just sort of loved the few movies that used the Ultra Panavision 1.25x anamorphics, wish there were more but its probably easier to shoot spherical for the reasons you listed. Maybe with Arri's approach with 4x3 sensors I'll see more anamorphic. I can't say however that wider sensors is bad, I like how RED goes the 1.89 - 2:1 ~ aspect ratio, I always found Super 35 to be a tad too grainy for some movies, although with nice film stock allot of that goes unnoticed but allot of 90s movies in Super 35 I noticed were very very grainy, I'm guessing the digital intermediate process kept the grain down later on though? So I take it you largely prefer just staying spherical over anamorphic if possible?

    A side note I remember their was a Panasonic DV camera that had a 4x3 sensor and Panasonic introduced the AG7200 anamorphic adapter to bring it to 16x9, heh glad to be out of the DV era.
    Canon Glass: EF 35mm /2.0, EF 50mm /1.8, EF 85mm /1.8, EF 135mm /2.0L
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #5007  
    I love anamorphic, especially in 35mm film compared to Super-35, I'm just saying that increased resolution is no longer the main reason to shoot in anamorphic if you are shooting in digital. If you just want a sharp 2.40 digital movie, just use the sharpest spherical lenses you can find. Shoot anamorphic when you want those anamorphic lens artifacts.

    I'd love to find another project to use anamorphic lenses on.
    David Mullen, ASC
    Los Angeles
    http://www.davidmullenasc.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #5008  
    Originally Posted by Paulian A. Morris
    David I have a job coming up this weekend for The Kennedy Space Center shooting Astronaut Heroes of the past. We are thinking of doing a dramatic shot with a astronaut with and helmet on or even holding a helmet. I would like to use a projection to get the reflection of earth in the shield of the helmet. How big of a screen do you think i might need? So I don't have to work the screen in to close to the subject. My goal is to not see anything in the helmet shield but the POV of the earth from space. Also what kind of output would such a screen need to have do you think? We are shooting with The RED Epic & Canon 5D's. Don't want to work higher than 800 ISO 1200 max. What ideas might you have on how to approach this?

    Your advice was

    "The problem is that the helmet glass is almost like a fisheye lens in terms of its view of its surroundings, so even if you parked a 20'x20' translight in front of the astronaut, it wouldn't fill the helmet reflection. That might be OK in an all-black soundstage with a black image with the whole Earth in the center of it, but most astronauts do not see the Earth from that far away, it would look like they were halfway to the Moon once reflected in the helmet. You're better off putting the reflection in post."


    David thank you so much for your advice on this Astronaut effect we wanted to do. We went the way you suggested and put it in as a tracking motion effect and will have an example of what it's beginning to look like being we are now in post. And are planning to shoot more for the project soon. Thanks again so much we will be giving you a special thanks credit when the film is done my friend
    Last edited by Paulian A. Morris; 12-03-2013 at 02:05 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #5009  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Toronto & Vancouver
    Posts
    3,320
    Hey David, I like the Big Sur's colour palette and mix of modern/vintage look (older style, but clean). I was wondering if that was done in post or more so with filtration. If filtration, could you discuss the predominant filter choices (I tried searching, but "Big" and "Sur" are only three letters long and don't register in the search).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #5010  
    I had an idea to just diffuse the blacks, which is something that you can only do digitally (or when doing a telecine transfer with diffusion in the telecine while it is running negative film in it) -- optical diffusion filters only work on spreading highlights. So the movie was mostly shot clean (other than using smoke on many interiors and even exteriors) and Light Iron did the diffusion effect. I had one shot where I used a 1/8 Black Frost on the camera to make sure a light I had outside of a window meant to look like the sun was glowing enough to hide the yoke of the lamp, and I did a dream sequence with fog filters, but that was it.
    David Mullen, ASC
    Los Angeles
    http://www.davidmullenasc.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts