Gabriel Devereux

Deakins uses it quite often. From what I've seen mostly in cu's/mids sometimes to wides, mid wides etc. It's quite an elegant way of wrapping light around the subject. All it is, in theory, is a series of frames (or he recommends a curved piece of pipe etc) in a third or about semi-circle around the subject with multiple lights hitting the bounce or diffusion sometimes at different intensities. The front frame or 'segment' acting as a 3/4 frontal, often at the lowest intensity wrapping light around the face. The next segment acting as a side light often a little more powerful, not by much. Then the final segment acting as a reverse key or incredibly soft edge often at the highest intensity. He often uses tungsten as he likes the fall-off to gradually get warmer and/or colder depending on the scene etc. As said above unbleached muslin frames (or on a curved pipe) with fresnels of varying intensity (as stated above) bouncing into them is the technique I've seen used most. It's elegant, beautiful. Does require a fair bit of space to set-up but it's often worth it.

The fixture itself is relatively interchangeable for the desired outcome. For example, if you desire more control you might want to use fresnel fixtures. If you don't mind spill you could get away with an LED panel. An example, Roger once suggested Skypanels. You may want to consider using tungsten fixtures. They are easily dimmable which is quite important when trying to achieve the infamous Roger Deakins cove bounce. As far as im aware Deakins usually dims the fixtures as they go around the cove. The one closest to a 3/4 frontal of the subject dimmed the lowest also giving a slightly warmer tone. As the fixtures go around they gradually increase in intensity. Also tungsten fixtures are inexpensive. As said above fixtures, size, practically everything is a variable depending on practicality and look etc. The only constant of a cove bounce is that the bounce should well... be a cove. Preferably around your subject.

This webinar by the founder of Kino Flo from what I've read will answer the majority of your questions. There are definite benefits of gelling a white light emitting LED fixture over it attempting to replicate a colour and vis'a versa. I won't say more as I'm no engineer or colour scientist and the above explains it all, in my opinion, so well.

Sir, Is it possible to see an example of this formula used in a practical location? This interests me greatly however cannot find useful education resources on the topic. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place.

Sir, May I ask how you lit the first scene? The moonlight is stunning. It looks like a relatively harsh source but the colour temp and possible gel used looks great!

Out of curiosity why would the truss system cost so much? One could easily rig a 3x3m (sorry I'm Australian) box goal post for less than a couple of hundred. You could attach the lights to the top rail as you could possibly go for less and have 2x 3m box pieces and speed rail in-between. Then attach a few outriggers further down the post with a couple of swivel clamps to give a bit more width to tie off your frame from there... That's what I did in a similar circumstance. It came to about $250 Australian for a 2 day rental.

Thank you for the replies! Thank you Mr Mullen! Yes sorry I used the wrong terminology. So basically if my shooting stop is a T2.8 at 400 ASA 180 degree so on I need 50fc for a stop over key. So I can move the sources back further if I in a sense combine them. Therefore creating a lesser/smoother fall off. I really used the incorrect terms. The idea was if I bounced multiple sources into a singular bounce I could potentially move the bounce further back getting a lesser fall-off. Re-diagram read from top to bottom. The top two triangles are the lights and so on. With the distance marker I meant double the distance from the bounce as the bounce becomes the source. So the overall idea is if I bounced several sources into a singular small frame the light which is additive (thanks everyone!). Would in a sense combine creating a more powerful soft source which I can therefore move further away creating a smoother fall-off.

Dear All, I have been wondering and testing how light stacks and its correlation to light fall off. The term 'stack' is most likely wrong, what I mean by it is when two beams of light overlap does the luminance value say foot candles in this instance add up? It makes sense as for example a maxi brute or other Fays that have several lower wattage lamps such as 1k's or 650's add up to produce a larger output. So for instance if I had several Par64 cans and rigged them in an array in which the distance between fixtures was minimal the total output would be the addition of all the outputs of the par cans combined? However I question this further (reference diagram bellow) in which then if you bounced several sources into the same area of say a frame of ultrabounce. If the beams overlapped would they add together create a more powerful source with therefore less fall off. Putting terms into words is not my strong suit so I have drawn a crude diagram bellow. The tests I have created had mixed results and while practical is good and something I shall test further for a future rig the theory behind it interests me greatly! Please do note nothing on this diagram is accurate from the refraction etc to anything. Just a crude idea.

Sir, With painting walls for a scene such as this do you have a recommendation on what paint you should use? Something such as a middle grey or a little darker?

A number of questions. I believe I’ve seen this post on Roger Deakins forums and you wanted it to be similar to The Goldfinch? Anyways. To bounce the light (Jokers) the way you said requires the lights to be higher than said wall. That wall is as high as the ceiling so I am very much confused. Maybe I’m looking at the wrong wall? Either way I have no clue what your shooting stop is or how high you can rate your camera. If you want to get the Goldfinch look without rigging to the roof you could use balloon lights... as I imagine sky panels are out of the question. However those are expensive. Through the top windows the skylights seem to be the obvious choice but I remember for some reason you can’t use those. For a far more educated and informed suggestion we need much more information. However a way that sprung to mind is you could have light coming from one of the door ways and go from there. If you do a reverse key or something to in a sense and cheat it. Who knows.

I'm sorry if I seemed aggressive. I just feel that making a statement such as that over a suspicion probably isn't the best idea. I'm not sure how things work in other cultures entirely but I know in mine if one where to be endorsed by a company or brand monetarily and continuously recommend them WHILE being considered one of the BEST in the field without disclosing said deal would be incredibly poor form and even possibly illegal? Theres nothing wrong with an artist taking a pay check, the more the better! However something of this nature is something I at least frown upon and wouldn't be too thrilled about if true. Maybe the man just prefers the Alexa? By all means the film vs digital debate is interesting! I jump from side to side daily, each day very firm on my outlook however by tomorrow it will be different! That's the nature of the beast and it's fun to discuss! However I dislike to see casual defamation of character with no supporting evidence! Other than a video of Roger liking the camera. Which I can pull a Christopher Nolan, Linus Sandgren, Damien Chazelle etc video, interview etc of them saying the same thing about Kodak so on. I hope we are artists and scientists on this forum, not conspiracy theorists!

Without evidence or proof your basically talking out of your arse. No offence intended. Would an artist, a wanky word but a word that describes someone such as Roger Deakins take a pay check to shoot on an ALEXA? Would Christoper Nolan take a pay check from Kodak and IMAX to shoot on film? The latter is far more likely seeing how far film has fallen. Will digital be able to ‘beat’ film? Yes. People are looking at digital like it’s a medium, it’s not. It’s just a series of switches that are getting smaller and smaller and faster and faster. People seem to look at digital in a way that it lacks art. It doesn’t look ‘good’. Well that’s entirely the persons fault. Unlike film which is a negative that has been designed by someone else a digital file entirely comprised of 1’s and 0’s that are entirely up to your interpretation to present in whatever form you wish. Nowadays the 1 and the 0 can be the same at the same time. Yet people still feel like they are stuck with a ‘bad’ digital image. The truth is we are just all too lazy to learn how to fix it.

Sean Bobbit Camera Image: This is a good video showing some preventative measures you can take to stop irreparable damage to yourself. Operating a camera on a shoulder has to be one of the funniest feelings however it is always much much more comfortable with back support. Lifting things as a grip, spark etc. Follow basic workplace safety such as 'lifting with your legs, not your back' (something I'm sure we've all heard before). Workout routine wise look for one aimed at fitness and core strength. A lot of workouts are designed to improve the 'look' of ones body not its capability. As far as I'm aware there a very few downsides to a good well rounded workout. For me personally lifting items such as larger fixture or being on my feet for 12 hours is not as detrimental to my health as a camera on my shoulder. The spine and the body is designed pretty well putting a 5kg brick on one half is well...

Some times I think cinematography has a likeness to Formula 1 racing (except cinematography is much more exciting). Part of it is the driving, the race. Watching and feeling the excitement of the race, the turns and the incredible amount of skill it takes from the drivers. I imagine that’s why most people watch it. But the cars are pretty cool too. Anyways the video is definitely interesting... all from such a small camera.

While where at it I’ll celebrate I’m not there as well!

Thank you for the reply! I was thinking of possibly layering black sheet with small holes, assortment of gels and then white diff. Re- photoshop and projector. Projecting onto a black sheet? I was thinking of doing that a while back but never thought it would work with the lack of reflectance. I imagine duvetyne would be too dark and matted for it. Would you by any chance know a good material?

Dear All, I recently came across the concept of having a series of small holes covered with different coloured gel on a roll or a series of large cards for bokeh in poor mans process (Poorly drawn diagram attached bellow). I have a number of questions and am looking for tips if anyone has attempted or tried and tested this method. I imagine you'd need to use quite a low powered fixture and the sheet itself would need to be quite far away from the cars back window? For white light I imagine you'd attach 216 or equivalent over one of the holes? Thanks Gabe

Not to relight this fire but... This is a painting. I knew this painter quite well and was always taken aback by the detail. It looked real, like someone had printed a photograph. I one day asked 'Why don't you just take a photo' (I was very young), he responded 'Because people can feel the difference'. Now by know means am I comparing the amount of work it takes to paint this work of art (which I may add the painter very much disliked and was pretty much forced to sign) to the amount of work it takes to shoot film. However film does take more work than digital and for that reason alone I think people can feel a difference. Now that may of been THE most wankiest pretentious statement I have ever made. Do note that I pretty much only shoot digital. One could argue the years of hard work Yedlin has put it in to make a digital negative look could be the same? Who knows.

"need to output at least 100 foot candles at 2ft, to be useable in any interviewing set up." I'd recommend something a little higher. With your Nikon be sure to test! I say this as when I owned (now) relatively old DSLR's anything over 200 ISO I considered too noisy. Do some tests rating your camera at different ISO's and choose one you consider acceptable. If you where to shoot at 400ASA 5.6 you would at least 200 for caucasian skin. So test and it's always a good idea to go with more than less. It's always easier to cut a stop than to add one.

Hey all, I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on this new camera https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicursaminipro. I am a previous owner of the Ursa Mini Pro which was a decent camera however a little unreliable. The timing on this for me couldn’t be more perfect for me as I just finished rewatching Yedlin’s resolution Demo when they announced it. Would such high resolution at this point make any difference other than compromising the latitude and quality of said pixels? Their latitude going from 15 stops (already through my tests some pretty generous advertising) to advertised 14 stops. But still 12k resolution 12,228 x 6480. The numbers impressive at least. Gabe

Hey Larry, if im correct your diffusion panel emitting 510fc at 2ft with a -1 or 2 stop diffusion would be quite a fair bit below what your after. Even your 1058fc panel (does that output include the light cut from the diffusion. I would hope so? If not that means it’ll only output 250 fc at 2ft with it?) may be a little weak. Keep in mind 400 is for zone 5 (middle gray) if your exposing for Caucasian skin I imagine you’d want to go a stop over so that’s 800fc. That’s with the light being 2ft away from the persons face. Could you rate the camera a little higher than 100ASA? As at 400 ASA at 5.6 you only need 100FC or 200 for Caucasian skin (stop over) which is a fair bit easier to achieve. You’d have the ability to place the panel a little further away and even with the diffusion cut of 2 stops (if that isn’t included in the original output) your still safe. I hope this is helpful and I haven’t just barked up the wrong tree.

If I may chime in as an innocent bystander with pretty much no agenda or bias. I believe the Hitler and Austria comment was a joke. At least to me it was. The way you wish to interpret the joke is up to you! However to quote our past Golden Globes host "If you can't joke about the more horrendous things in the world, what's the point of jokes? Whats the point in having humour? Humour is to get us over terrible things.". Please do take what was said as light heartedly as you can! There is no point getting frustrated over something so insignificant. This forum has endless information to offer! To talk and discuss among some of the greatest cinematographers. It seems a waste to throw it all away over a joke. However that is up to you! About the criticism aspect. "The pleasure of criticising takes away from us the pleasure of being moved by some very fine things.". What strikes me as odd is you criticise something you haven't even watched. I believe we can all take criticism here, I believe it's part of our job. But even you have to admit if someone came up to you with issues with say your new film that they haven't even seen... you'd take what they say with a little less value. But what truly made me write this is. Do keep in mind David (or Mr Mullen as I call him), has taken time out of his day to help and teach other people. Answering rather advanced questions to basic ones that he answers almost weekly. Something he does continuously and something I personally have benefited and benefit from! His point of moving you to a separate thread was just so if a young aspiring cinematographer like myself where to read his thread they wouldn't have to skip over 2 or more pages of a person complaining about a tiny part of something they have not even seen.

I think it's commonly known. It's quite easy to see and feel. I remember watching a behind the scenes interview of Roger Deakins explaining why he sometimes shoots mid-close ups on a wider lens with the Coen brothers. He explained the same premise as what David said, you have a sense of presence. For an example when I look through a telescope or binoculars at a passing ship or plane I don't feel as if I am closer to it by doing so, I feel as if I'm observing it. Even though it is enlarged it doesn't feel closer so to speak. Compare that to shots in the Revenant where Leonardo DiCaprio is cm's away from the lens, it's the exact opposite. Those are extreme examples, you can gain the same effect by shooting on a 28 instead of a 35 or the reverse for the opposite effect!

First thing that jumps into mind is La La land colour pull. Not sure if this was applicable back then. If you gel your key +Green or 1/2 Green or (however not in this instance) 1/2 CTO or Full CTO you can pull it to get the desired background colour. I'll add an example I shot recently on a beach. I was camping and I saw I had a 'locations' gel pack in the car. I took a camping light wrapped it in +CTO and +Green and shot some video with a DSLR. Pulled it in post, no LUT, no fancy grade. Just pulled magenta. So this is blue hour + magenta pull. I believe this is your desired effect.

This is a very touchy topic. However one I have encountered before. I am copying this message written by a forum member 'Wooter'. He's rather masterful with words and I do believe he sums up what I and others think on this matter. Some of the message might not be entirely relevant especially the first part as we discussed the rather touchy word 'Pretentious', further down I find it a little more relevant to this conversation. ‘I used to get the meaning of the word "pretentious" wrong. I thought it meant something like holding oneself in a higher regard than others. But that's not really the correct definition as it turns out. It literally means what it says: "to pretend". In other another word: dishonesty. When dealing with art, truth is probably one of those words that should be at the top of the list but isn't often so. Of course, it's hard to point it out, especially publicly. But in a way, I think that's a shame. It shows how careful one has be these days because everyone gets offended so easily. If my work is pretentious, I would like people to tell me. I don't believe we're always very accurate about our own motivations, we're too close to it. So that's why it's beneficial that others tell you their truth/opinion. I find these days almost everything has some level of pretentiousness to it. But you can't really rationally explain it.. I mean, we're talking about other people's personal experiences. And to rationally invalidate them would be kind of... wrong. It's a personal experience, not facts. But there's a definite feeling that some stuff just screams dishonesty. It doesn't feel quite right. I don't think it's always with dishonest intention and I do think most folks do it unconsciously. They are buying into a fake reality and unwittingly contribute to its expansion. People describe me as a leftist and a progressive but I think the Hollywood woke culture is getting out of hand. I watch some bits of the oscars (until Roger came on stage and then turned it off) because I felt that it was no longer worth watching this bad piece of theater. It humoured me for a while but at some point it was enough. Honest to God, Roger's speech (and that audio guy who won) were the only two honest, real speeches. No politics, no bullshit, no pretending, just real gratitude and team spirit. That was fresh. The contrast with the other speeches was so stark that it was almost comical. All of Hollywood is playing this role "let's give the minorities a voice". But meanwhile they just keep draping themselves in all the attention. Getting richer on selling other people fake dreams. That's a bunch of pretentiousness right there. And a lot of the films are made by those people. I hold nothing against them, it's a free world. But it's a little bit distasteful. And it doesn't help the world one bit. It only helps themselves. Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes says it all. But remember: they allowed him to say it. And that's very meaningful. Reverse psychology marketing? is. So if you're not sure about seeing pretentiousness, well, it's really rather hard to avoid. Especially these days. I have a Mubi subscription so I get to see a lot of old, mostly European films. And what strikes me the most is sheer realness of it all. Of course, I'm watching a curated selection of the best, timeless works so I'm not seeing everything. Probably in those days there was a lot of pretentiousness as well. In the longer run, nostalgia isn't really a healthy way to cope with the dishonesty. It's not just in these times, it's from the beginning of humanity. Art is a lie. And it's not ill intended. But it is a lie. It is a reflection of reality. But the medium that reflects it, can't help but to attribute some of its characteristics to the reflection. So the reflections is not longer absolutely true. But any sincere artist understands that art is not about dazzling the senses. No, it is about a sincere effort toward exploring the truth about who we are and what it could possibly all mean, even if it's ultimately meaningless. And the artist knows that there is no answer, and there never will be. But still, something inside is burning, thrusting the artist forward into the unknown, willingly sacrificing himself every living moment. But with a smile, nonetheless. We all die. That's a fact. But how you go about doing it, that's up to you. Everyone is an artist, every life a masterpiece in the making. Even the ugly ones are beautiful in their own right. Thank you for indulging my nonsensical blabber. ’ I do think what you take from this is rather up to you. However I do find it relevant.