M. David Mullen & The Astronaut Farmer in AC

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Since this is a cinematography forum: I think that Randy Quaid played LBJ in a t.v. movie

or miniseries in the past 10-15 years or so. Didn't see it though.

 

Though in a Frankenheimer HBO movie and in "The Right Stuff' he's played by British actors.

[Max Jacoby]

Yeah, in the Frankenheimer film he is shown calling one of his aides into the bathroom while he is sitting on the toilet, and starts dictating while eh, having a bowel movement shall we say... LBJ actually did that, and I was surprised they did put it in the film, since it is quite unreal.

[Matthew Buick]

I usually try and alternate on every show between Kodak and Fuji, just depends on a lot of factors. I've been shooting miles of Kodak everyday on "Big Love" (although I did not make the original decision on that) and I shot "Akeelah and the Bee" on Kodak.

 

One reason I sometimes choose Fuji is that most people choose Kodak -- not because I'm a contrarian, but it's just that I feel that the subtle difference in look might set my photography apart from the majority of features shot these days on 5218 mostly. But it's a really subtle distinction these days and a D.I. will do more to affect the look than the difference between Eterna 500T and Kodak '18 naturally have.

 

But if I'm shooting for direct print, I'd make the choice partly on the degree of saturation/contrast/grain I want to achieve. But if I'm shooting a project where it matters less, the difference in look between Fuji Eterna and Kodak Vision-2, then I might tell the production to see who has to better deal if it helps me shift some of the budget over to other cinematography items.

 

Tony Brown, I remember how much you complained about the look of the new Kodak Vision-2 stocks... you said you couldn't get them to look contrasty enough in a transfer.

 

Thank you Mr. Mullen.

 

You are always such a brilliant repository of knowledge, even outside the realms of this very brilliant artform.

 

WHich reminds me, would you view cinematography as an artform or a craft, I read this question on some webpage interview of another renowned cinematographer, and thought it woud be good to ask your opinion and anyone elses.

[Max Jacoby]

WHich reminds me, would you view cinematography as an artform or a craft, I read this question on some webpage interview of another renowned cinematographer, and thought it woud be good to ask your opinion and anyone elses.

I think the really good cinematographer's take it to the level of an art.

[Matthew Buick]

Indeed. :)

 

Cinematography is artform in itself, you get people like news cameraman, then it is a craft. But when you see fluid camera angles designed with the exact purpose of conveying the storyline in a new and exciting way, combined with lighting that matches the real life lighting scenarieo...

 

...THAT, my friend, is art.

[Max Jacoby]

in a new and exciting way,

I don't think to create art one necessarily has to do something no one has ever done before, nor does it have to be exciting, at least not in an obvious, eye-catching sense.

 

The best definition of art I have ever heard is that it is something which is both daring and honest.

 

On a related note, Matthew, it's nearly midnight, don't you have any school tomorrow? ;)

[Matthew Buick]

I see your point.

 

I guess I'm a bit of a budding trendsetter. :D

 

On a related note, Matthew, it's nearly midnight, don't you have any school tomorrow? ;)

 

I've got a test coming up soon, and I'm currently off revising, I also currently have the flu, and didn't wake up till 1 pm, I won't be asleep for some time. :(

Edited March 5, 2007 by Matthew Buick

[David Mullen ASC]

In some ways, I feel that art is a label that someone else applies to one's work -- that what you have to concentrate on is the mastery of your craft, not just technically, but aesthetically. That's sort of the Gordon Willis philosophy, that art is derived from craft. I don't think art is about innovation necessarily, otherwise doing something new for the sake of being new would be the only valid art. Art sort of evolves from the thorough exploration of the chosen medium as a tool of presenting a concept or feeling that the artist wants to communicate.

[Sam Kim]

Does David Mullen see himself as an artist?

[Hal Smith]

Does David Mullen see himself as an artist?

I'll say this about David's Cinematography. I've seen three of his movies in theatres on big screens. In every one of them there a dozens (hundreds?) of shots that you could blow up as a still and have a very nice art print to frame and hang on your wall. His landscape photography is breathtaking - right up there with the great still photographers like Ansel Adams.

[Paul Bruening]

Hello Gang,

 

I learned in art school that ART has the moment of beauty in it. That means that the viewer feels beautiful when looking at art. Whereas, CRAFT has the moment of respect in it. In Mr. Mullen's case, I think his work has a great many moments of both.

[Matthew Buick]

The brilliant thing about 'art and craft' is how flexible and hollistic they both are, we all have different points of view on what art and craft really are, and so far I wouldn't say that any I have seen are actually wrong. :)

 

Yet that is only my point of view, there are probably about 50 people on this site alone who will contradict my view. :D

Edited March 7, 2007 by Matthew Buick

[Daniel Smith]

Admittedly I'm more a fan of cinematography that sticks out and grabs you. Eye candy. Perhaps my views will change... but at the moment I'm more or less concentrated on getting my films to look like Hollywood cinema.

 

But, there's certainly nothing wrong with either view.

 

No offence to David Mullen, but I wasn't so keen on the cinematography in 'Northfork'. But, that's probably because it did its job, it told its story. I got the feeling of an old town dying, a sort of depressing feeling. However, give it a few more years when I'm sick to death of mainstream cinema and I'll appreciate it a whole lot more.

Edited March 7, 2007 by Daniel Ashley-Smith

[Michael Collier]

Indeed. :)

 

Cinematography is artform in itself, you get people like news cameraman, then it is a craft. But when you see fluid camera angles designed with the exact purpose of conveying the storyline in a new and exciting way, combined with lighting that matches the real life lighting scenarieo...

 

...THAT, my friend, is art.

 

 

Now I gotta take issue with you buick, as my day job is a news PHOTOJOURNALIST (not cameraman) thank you. There are craftsman and artist in that feild too. I know many people who take great care with their news images and it becomes an artform. I see others who are very mechanical in their methods and they are more in the craftsman area. Some just have their heads up their a$$ and don't know a diopter from a dicroic. I personally like to think of my news photography as art (sometimes, depends on the shoot....pressers not so much) You can make anything into art. Everyday I have the most random unplanned shoots that I have to work within (sometimes that includes making art, while 20 feet from an armed hostage situation). Looking at the world through a 12 year old betacam and using every trick I can to set my photography apart from the other two stations shooting the exact same thing....thats art. The goal is to make the 45 second of images each story gets more impactful than whatever the reporter is babbling about.

 

One more thing....if you've never been party to a flashbang go off...its a hell of a time. There was an armed hostage situation I was at once and they threw a flashbang into the room it made a HUGE sound and light and seconds later the swat team was rushing out a very hysteric hostage to saftey. maybe that wasn't high art, but it was thrilling.

 

Ok, my time is done...back to astronaught farmer (great flick. I am surprised it made it up here, if a film isn't on at least 3000 screens it doesn't make it up here)

[Hal Smith]

David,

 

A comment came up on a forum specializing in home 35mm projection that, in that person's opinion, all anamorphic movies are now shot protecting 1.85 for action. Is that your experience, both personally and of other Cinematographers shooting 2.40?

[Hal Smith]

.............. There are craftsman and artist in that feild too. I know many people who take great care with their news images and it becomes an artform.....................you can make anything into art............. Everyday I have the most random unplanned shoots that I have to work within (sometimes that includes making art, while 20 feet from an armed hostage situation). Looking at the world through a 12 year old betacam and using every trick I can to set my photography apart from the other two stations shooting the exact same thing....thats art.

 

Michael,

 

How true. I went out to the christening of the new B2 stealth bomber "Spirit of Oklahoma" at Tinker Air Force Base a few years back. I had my still camera with me and took some shots and ran into a somewhat acquaintance who shoots news for one of the local stations. There was a rolling maintenance ladder out in front of the B2 with a tape across the bottom. He said to me "give me your camera" and proceeded to move the ladder around about a bit and with his official station betacam (call letters, network affliation, etc.) on his shoulder removed the tape, shinnyed up the ladder, shot some video and then took one shot with my Pentax. The pictures I took were "okay". The one shot he took with my camera looked like something out of a defense contractor's high dollar portfolio - an absolutely perfect picture of a B2 head-on and slightly above to give a little depth. His video looked pretty good that night on the ten-o-clock news too! I guess quality photographers are in the same category as convicted criminals, they both have "motive, opportunity, and means". :)

[David Mullen ASC]

David,

 

A comment came up on a forum specializing in home 35mm projection that, in that person's opinion, all anamorphic movies are now shot protecting 1.85 for action. Is that your experience, both personally and of other Cinematographers shooting 2.40?

 

No. I don't know anyone who bothers to shoot anamorphic who doesn't want to use the whole frame. I once asked Stephem Burum about this, doing a 4x3 TV transfer, since he had done some tricky split-diopter shots in "Mission to Mars" in 2.40 and he said "I figure that the worse the pan & scan job looks, the better I must have composed it for scope." I think that's a good attitude actually -- maximize your use of the format, don't water it down by trying to do two things at once.

 

Even for Super-35 movies, James Cameron dismissed the notion in an interview that he's trying to compose the TV version at the same time. Basically he said "never done it" -- he composes for the theatrical version and figures that he'll be able to use the larger area later for the TV version. At the most, you just protect more of the outside area when shooting in Super-35.

 

Now when I shot 3-perf for "Solstice" I used a semi-common top approach so that the 2.40 version would have the same headroom as the 16x9 version, but beyond that, I just composed for 2.40 and kept the rest of the 3-perf negative area clear of junk.

 

But definitely in anamorphic, I know some of my best compositions will not work when panned & scanned, but frankly, since people who care will see later it on DVD in the theatrical ratio, I don't really care too much about the pan & scan version.

 

There is the fact though that the majority of movies are edited in an over-the-shoulder and close-up manner, which tends to work fine with cropping & panning & scanning, hence maybe why someone thinks that they actually compose for 1.85 within 2.40.

[Max Jacoby]

With the advent of 16x9 Televisions and HDTV, is Pan& Scan still a common practice? I don't watch any films on television broadcasts, but on dvds it seems to mee that there are hardly any full frame films out there? Can't remember the last time I picked up a full frame film, although there are some where you have both verisons (I think Harry Potter does).

[Hal Smith]

But definitely in anamorphic, I know some of my best compositions will not work when panned & scanned, but frankly, since people who care will see later it on DVD in the theatrical ratio, I don't really care too much about the pan & scan version.

 

I posted your answer over there, the reply was "interesting comment". Relaying a reply post from an ASC who has an anamorphic movie playing right now in wide release reminded me of this scene. :)

 

 

Thank YOU!

[Jay Kelley]

David I have not yet seen your movie, but since you've been kind enough to respond to so many of my more "unpopular" posts with a fair hand, I am motivated to get out in the next couple of days and check it out.

 

An old friend of mine, a DP by the name of Bryan England used to tell me when geling lights or putting on filters, find the minimum look you like, then the maxium and shoot for the middle.

 

Do you agree with this when setting a color tone or any other modification when shooting? Or do you just "go for it"

 

Due to the budgets of my clients, I have never been lucky enough to use larger equipment or film. A new camera coming out soon may FINALLY allow me more control over color and better use of depth of field.. Two things I have dearly missed in my shooting.

 

Nevertheless, decisions on how far to push the color pallette when shooting has always been the subject of great debate

 

Jay

[David Mullen ASC]

Max, a 4x3 full-frame (pan & scan) is still a delivery requirement. Unfortunately if the movie ever appears on a regular TV/cable channel like USA Network, Lifetime, etc. odds are high that it will be 4x3 full-frame. It's only on some of the artier movie channels like TCM that you can get away with letterboxing. Plus there are still oddball distribution areas like for inflight entertainment on an airplane.

 

We're not as close to all-16x9 broadcasting as the U.K. is.

 

The new twist is the 16x9 pan & scan version for scope movies, since 16x9 movie channels like HBO HDTV are still loathe to use letterboxing for 2.35 movies. At least it's less of a travesty than a 4x3 pan & scan.

 

As far as color pallette... I'm not sure exactly what the question is, but if it's about the degree of warmth or coldness in an image, it just depends on what's efficient.

 

For example, if I need to have a full orange streak of sunset light falling into a room lit softly with cyan-blue fill, then that's how I'll gel it because I need to get the balance, the color temp difference, correct between the colors. Going for a half-orange gel when I want a full-orange gel won't work because if I try to add more warmth later in post, I'll slide all the cool fill over to the warm end. So I have to get that difference right if I want to see it.

 

But for an overall bias towards the warm or cold...

 

Well, again, if I'm mixing movie lights with warm practicals, I need to gel the movie lights to match the warmth of the practicals, like with 1/4 CTO, otherwise I've got that color temp difference embedded in the negative (unless I want it.)

 

But as for adding warming filters like Corals or 81EF's, etc. I tend to follow two approaches:

 

One, it's so easy to add that warmth in color-correction later that half the time, if I had used a filter, they time it out of my dailies, plus usually they time it out in the first pass of the answer printing, so I spend a certain amount of time trying to recreate it anyway. So I don't bother with the extra glass of a pale warming filter when I can just shoot a grey scale with a pale blue filter on the lens or light hitting the chart and get warm dailies back.

 

Two, if I did use a warming filter, or the opposite, was shooting day-for-night for a blue look, then I'm of the attitude that I can always add more orange or blue in post, so I only need to get halfway there on the negative (or video recording.) So I'll be a little conservative about color filtering assuming I can get the same look in post color-correction.

 

I think the key is to know just how close you need to get your original recording or negative to the point where you can work with it in post. That's not the same thing as saying you should shoot a neutral negative for post because I don't believe in not deciding what you want until later -- I believe you have to have a strong idea of the look when you shoot it. But just that sometimes the best way to get that look is later in post; sometimes not. People always say "oh, just add digital diffusion later, don't use a diffusion filter on the camera" but the truth is that optical diffusion looks different, for one thing, and second is that your post color-correction system may not have a decent method of creating diffusion, or maybe everyone will chicken out by that point and still not want to use diffusion because they've gotten used to these sharp dailies.

 

Too often a colorist thinks defocusing an image is the same thing as diffusing an image. Diffusion is the layering of an unsharp image over a sharp image. That's how the filters work and that's how it should be done in post.

 

But assuming that digital diffusion becomes better and more commonplace, then like warming up or cooling off an image, I may chose to use half the amount of lens diffusion, or none, and adjust it in post later. Just depends on the situation. If I've got producers judging my work based on dailies and the actress has to look beautiful, I'm not going to deliver something too sharp and unattractive and tell them "remember, we were going to fix it in post later". I'll try to get it right in the dailies so they don't get worried.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

With the advent of 16x9 Televisions and HDTV, is Pan& Scan still a common practice? I don't watch any films on television broadcasts, but on dvds it seems to mee that there are hardly any full frame films out there? Can't remember the last time I picked up a full frame film, although there are some where you have both verisons (I think Harry Potter does).

 

It seems that a lot of films on DVD have wide screen and full screen versions, some on double sided discs,

but more in seperate packages. Too often only the full screen version shows up in bargain bins.

 

I've run into people who claim the full screen version is better, it fills the whole screen.

They don't care or notice that the compositions are off.

Edited March 24, 2007 by Leo Anthony Vale

[Hal Smith]

Max, a 4x3 full-frame (pan & scan) is still a delivery requirement. Unfortunately if the movie ever appears on a regular TV/cable channel like USA Network, Lifetime, etc. odds are high that it will be 4x3 full-frame. It's only on some of the artier movie channels like TCM that you can get away with letterboxing.

I purchased a full 35mm "TV" print of "Bull Durham" that was sold real cheap because it was an undesirable TV print. It's ex-ABC, complete with the ABC logo on leaders. It came in made up rather strange, around 3,000' rolls on core alternating with 2,000' or less ones, the reels are each labelled for one or two "acts". I have no idea what it was produced for, it's unmatted 1.85 full Academy frame and projects beautifully - I don't have a 1.85 gate for my projector so it's has the occasional mike hanging in frame and in a couple of interiors there's a spike or two showing on the floor. In one of the bright sun baseball scenes one can see an infocus mattebox eyebrow hanging down in the frame. Most of the dirty words seem to be there, but there are short segments of annoying darkened scenes with low frequency automation burps. I really wonder what ABC used it for? It can't have been for playing on an over the air network but I don't think ABC has a cable movie outlet (???). A mystery - but it's nice to have a pretty clean print with 98% of one of my all time favorite movies!

[Jay Kelley]

Thanks David,

 

Actually this is a Massive Help to me.. I think I have been traveling in those lines, but your note put a couple of things in focus.

 

One of the main ones was the producers judging your dailies.. Boy this really hit me hard.

 

Thanks again

 

Jay

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Max, a 4x3 full-frame (pan & scan) is still a delivery requirement. Unfortunately if the movie ever appears on a regular TV/cable channel like USA Network, Lifetime, etc. odds are high that it will be 4x3 full-frame. It's only on some of the artier movie channels like TCM that you can get away with letterboxing. Plus there are still oddball distribution areas like for inflight entertainment on an airplane.

 

Lately TCM has been showing Panavision Columbia movies from the 60s in pan'n'scan versions.