Kaminski's diffusion

[Brant Collins]

Thanks David. I will give it a try

[Rodrigo Llano]

sorry guys..

i didn't read the forums for a month.. and is good to find this kind of discussion on it..

i'll try to be more active in the future..

 

thanks

 

rodrigo

[Matt Frank]

Thanks for all the info in this post. David you, as always, have been extremely helpful. This is stuff I have been curious about for a while.

[Cole Webley]

I am shooting two shorts next month on S16mm...because 16mm is inherently softer overall, is there anyway to get a similar look like Kaminski's using a Classic Soft and by creating a great enough exposure ratio or would the overall image result in becoming too soft? I will be shooting on an Arri SR2 w/ Zeiss Primes and a Canon Zoom with Kodak Vision2 7218

 

 

-Cole

[David Mullen ASC]

Shoot a test.

 

Since diffusion tends to exaggerate grain and make the image softer, you can compensate somewhat by using slower film and more contrasty lighting, and then timing the image for more contrast. Contrast does a lot to give the impression of greater sharpness while also making the grain harder to see (grain being most visible in midtones.)

[Cole Webley]

Thanks David. We'll give it a try.

 

Cole

[Michael Totten]

I would guess that he was using the #1/2, maybe also the #1 Classic Soft. I tested the #1/2 and got similar effects around bright points of light, but the #1/4 was too subtle to see much of that.

 

 

Hey David- I'm wondering if I can send you an email? I've got a question I'd like to ask you.

Thank you!

 

If you choose, you can send me your email @: michaeltotten@mac.com

 

Cheers-

 

Michael

[David Mullen ASC]

You can send messages or emails using this site, or send me something directly at:

davidm2@earthlink.net

 

Just click on my name in the column on the left here.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I'm sitting here watching Minority Report as I type, and... I find it a bit slack and obvious. Putting all this diffusion on it and turning into a monochrome bluescale is fine, very pretty, but it doesn't feel particularly "Wow, this guy is an expert." Actually it feels like the kind of thing a cheap hack like me would do to mitigate bad video.

 

Who, in this world, is the arbiter of what's "Woah, amazing, Hollywood!" and what's "Cheap hack"?

 

Phil

[Tenolian Bell]

Its not only the heavy diffusion, Kaminski has a great deal of control over the films contrast and texture.

 

This is all done photochemically he does not use a DI.

 

I'm interested to read about what tricks he used to give Munich such a 70's feel.

[David Mullen ASC]

Considering the complex, wide-angle camera moves, I'm amazed at how well lit the movie is. I don't think it looks cheap or hack-like at all. It certainly doesn't look commercial-slick and conventional though. It doesn't really matter whether it has the same technical standards of other big-budget films as long as the images are evocative.

 

I look at some of those camera moves done with wide-angles and I wonder if I could pull those off. I was watching the behind-the-scenes stuff for "War of the Worlds" and watch Spielberg describe some incredibly tough semi-circular moves in tiny spaces and all you ever hear is Kaminski say "OK, no problem."

 

I do sometimes wish they would go back now & then to something more like what they did on "Amistad", which was very painterly.

[Clive Sacke]

I have recently joined this site. I feel fairly confident in replying to this post. My early years as a loader and focus puller were littered with Nets. I joined the industry around the time of Barry Lyndon. John Alcott shot a few commercials in South Africa around that time. We started out with black or white nets on the front - though black was the most popular. The problem with nets on the front is 1) Light hitting the nets would make the effect uneven

2) Wide angle was a problem as you saw the net.

3) The effect is more noticeable on the front.

We changed to the back.

The main problem is if it slips you might not see it. So when checking the gate also check the net.

 

We bought various stockings from women's stores. The best is to try various options

 

Clive Sacke SASC

[Stephen Alexander Griebel]

From a while back, but hey:

 

I suspect that the same piece of net material behaves more uniformly in strength if stretched over the back of a series of lenses rather than stretched on a frame in front of the lenses, where the apparent strength would be more affected by focal length & f-stop & distance focused. Also, the net would be less prone to veiling from stray light compared to a front-mounted net. Most people use the nets behind the lens these days (I don't know if Kaminski is using them in front of or behind the lens.)

 

Just like you said about the light, Mr. Mullen. I'm no DP, but I have done a ton of research on most aspects of diffusion (especially stuff in my budget like pantyhose). You get a much more consistant image with silk diffusers in the back of the lens as they are not effected by light. Alton also explains this in his Painting with Light, even shows you how to make one, albeit a generic version, as he closely guarded his homemade diffusers, no doubt.

Edited March 10, 2006 by stephen griebel

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

this year i attended a masterclass with dop willy Kurant and asked him about nets behind the lens .

he told us about the old Dior pantyhose that had a structure comparable to the iris design. the old Dior does and the new dior doesn't so for what i understood, when you look for a net try to find one with the form of the iris of your lens.

[Luke Prendergast]

much more consistant image with silk diffusers in the back of the lens as they are not effected by light.

 

I take it you mean not affected by ambient light falling directly onto the diffuser?

[Stephen Alexander Griebel]

Yep. At least that's what I've read-- makes sense anyway. I'd sure love to try it out on some nice silks...

 

Oh well, guess it's Calvin Klein nylons for now.

[Andy Yeomans]

Mr. Mullen,

 

Do you have any particular scenes in mind? (refering to the wide angle camera moves)

 

Yeomans

Edited March 11, 2006 by andyyeomans

[Chris Clarke]

I heard from a friend of a friend who focus pulled a few days on Munich that Kaminski used as much as a #1 and a #2 Classic Softs at the same time for some shots! Explains some of that extreme blooming on the point sources.

Chris

[Max Jacoby]

There is a picture in ICG magazine with an exterior setup that has 3 filters on the camera, one of whom is a No.2 Classic Soft.

[Stephen Alexander Griebel]

There is a picture in ICG magazine with an exterior setup that has 3 filters on the camera, one of whom is a No.2 Classic Soft.

 

Do all you guys refer to filters as people? It's kinda funny to me, but then again, it's early...

Edited March 12, 2006 by stephen griebel

[chris schaller]

think of the way lenses work.

the image is spread consistently to a 35mm negative behind the lens.

in front of the lens, the angle of coverage changes due to the lens angle of view.

so... if you use the same net filter in front of various lenses, you are photographing through a different amount of thread strands.

amistad was photographed using behind the lens netting. all the others were in front. watch the films and you can easily see the differences if you study the different lens sizes and on picture flare sources.