charles g clark Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 Wow David, I love the look you've created- if you ever update the book please reference this film and the techniques used! Do you have any idea when us Brits might get to see it? Would obviously love to see a print but will probably have to accept digital!
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted March 3, 2016 Author Premium Member Posted March 3, 2016 It's playing at some festivals, was just at Rotterdam. Don't know if it's found a distributor.
cole t parzenn Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 Here's hoping it does. Did post go smoothly? Any new thoughts on the pros and cons of photochemical coloring, now that it's fresh in your memory again?
charles g clark Posted March 3, 2016 Posted March 3, 2016 I'll keep a look out for it! With a photochemical finish these days, roughly how many stops over and above transfer into the finished print?
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted April 1, 2016 Author Premium Member Posted April 1, 2016 The trailer was cut together from the ProRes LT dailies and is a bit flatter compared to the print.
Patrick Cooper Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 Beautiful! Those colours really pop, especially the reds. I keep having to remind myself that this is a contemporary movie and not a film shot in the sixties.
Premium Member Bill DiPietra Posted April 1, 2016 Premium Member Posted April 1, 2016 Those extreme close-ups of her eyes reminded me of a few shots from Dario Argento's Suspiria (1977.) 1
Premium Member Satsuki Murashige Posted April 1, 2016 Premium Member Posted April 1, 2016 Looks great David! The trailer reminds me a bit of Frankenheimer's 'Seconds' in tone. It's surreal to see something with this 1950s period studio aesthetic appear so clean and sharp, even though intellectually I know there were plenty of clean, sharp movies back then.
Premium Member Jay Young Posted April 1, 2016 Premium Member Posted April 1, 2016 Love the strong red party backlighting! Gonna have to steal that.
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted April 2, 2016 Author Premium Member Posted April 2, 2016 It's interesting that you think of it as clean and sharp considering I shot most of the movie through nets. It just shows how contrast and hard lighting can counteract a lot of the softening from heavy diffusion filters. Someone once said (maybe it was Nestor Almendros) that the difference between old and modern movies was that old movies had hard lighting on soft lenses, whereas modern movies have soft lighting on sharp lenses. Another friend of mine, thinking of some 1970's movies, observed that some of these movies look over-lit but under-exposed, whereas modern movies looked under-lit but over-exposed (some of that is just due to the faster speeds of modern stocks). 1
Freya Black Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 I really want to see this movie do well. That house in the trailer reminds me of the one in Ti Wests "House of the devil".
Premium Member Satsuki Murashige Posted April 2, 2016 Premium Member Posted April 2, 2016 It's interesting that you think of it as clean and sharp considering I shot most of the movie through nets. It just shows how contrast and hard lighting can counteract a lot of the softening from heavy diffusion filters. Someone once said (maybe it was Nestor Almendros) that the difference between old and modern movies was that old movies had hard lighting on soft lenses, whereas modern movies have soft lighting on sharp lenses. Another friend of mine, thinking of some 1970's movies, observed that some of these movies look over-lit but under-exposed, whereas modern movies looked under-lit but over-exposed (some of that is just due to the faster speeds of modern stocks). I was also watching the trailer on my 15" laptop screen, so I'm sure the effect will be quite different projected on the big screen. Hope I get to see a print here in SF! I think more and more modern movies have soft lighting and soft lenses on sharp sensors! I agree with your friend, 'Escape From New York' (1981) jumps immediately to my mind. I also think the growing acceptance of log-encoded (or slightly corrected log) images as a final look contributes to the feel of 'under-lit and over-exposed.' You just don't see much high contrast or deep shadow in our images anymore.
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted May 18, 2016 Author Premium Member Posted May 18, 2016 http://www.indiewire.com/article/oscilloscope-laboratories-anna-biller-the-love-witch-bam-cinemafest?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed So much for the "it's impossible for an indie movie with no name actors to get distribution" argument...
Kenny N Suleimanagich Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 Well done! I look forward to seeing the 35mm print at BAM, which is a 15 minute walk from where I live. Will that print be a show print or a release print? How many release prints are being struck by Oscilloscope?
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted May 18, 2016 Author Premium Member Posted May 18, 2016 No idea...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted May 18, 2016 Premium Member Posted May 18, 2016 Very exciting David! I think this is another case of something unique, well shot on film, getting some love it really deserves. I just hope the prints aren't trashed by the projectionists. :(
Abe Greenhouse Posted July 7, 2016 Posted July 7, 2016 Hi David, I spotted this thread and learned of the existence of the project just a few days too late to catch the NYC premiere. This is truly amazing, inspiring work, and it's incredibly heartening to see how freely and extensively you share you vast knowledge. I'm working on what's effectively a music video, for which I hope to achieve a similar effect on a (much) smaller budget. Specifically, we're hoping to emulate the look of 'Rebel Without a Cause', so a somewhat more limited palette than those Hitchcock films. The piece will be composed almost entirely of very short shots, so I can reduce the cost of film stock by relying on shortends, and since I don't need sync sound, I'm fine with an MOS camera. This will be my first significant film project, although my co-director has done a few indie features, and we plan on enlisting at least a semi-professional DP. What might you recommend for achieving something like this on a micro budget? Are there any cheaper cameras you think would be up to the task? How about lenses? I read a message thread on a different site in which you said you didn't think 16mm could work for what you were trying to do, but do you think there's any way to make it work for this? Would 16mm still be better than shooting digital and trying to achieve more of the effect in post? We clearly won't be making any final decisions just yet, but I'm looking to gather some ideas to posit to DPs we're considering to see what they think. I'll be grateful for any advice you can provide. Thank you in advance! Congratulations again, and I can't wait to see the film as soon as it's back in NYC!
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 7, 2016 Author Premium Member Posted July 7, 2016 16mm would work fine for a 1950's Eastmancolor look, especially for a music video. One question is how much you want to match the CinemaScope look of "Rebel Without a Cause", meaning do you want to deal with anamorphic lenses. I assume that's out of your budget though. Recreating that look is mainly going to be about production design, costumes, and hair, followed by lighting, lighting, lighting. Grab some frames from the movie as reference. All of that hard lighting with multiple fresnel units, even though tungsten is cheap to rent, takes some power (and generates some heat, and it's summer now). Hopefully you have the budget for a generator.
Abe Greenhouse Posted July 7, 2016 Posted July 7, 2016 Thanks, David -- that's very encouraging! Anything you'd do differently in terms of the film stock or lighting for 16 or S16? Would you still recommend Vision-3 200T at 100 ASA / Vision-3 250D at 125 ASA with 650W / 1K / 2K lights?
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 7, 2016 Author Premium Member Posted July 7, 2016 For telecine transfer or scanning, there is less reason to overexpose a full stop compared to making a print... You could rate 200T at 160 or 125 ASA if you wanted a little more density and could afford to light for that speed.
cole t parzenn Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 Is there less gained from scanning a dense negative than printing it or are you recommending they get the look in post?
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 8, 2016 Author Premium Member Posted July 8, 2016 Colorists always like a well-exposed negative but go too far and you can sometimes have issues with electronic noise in the highlights from all that density. I think 2/3-stop over is enough.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now