Jarin Blaschke

Thanks. Without divulging much of the film or its aesthetic techniques, I’ll probably post my findings within the next week regarding the portfolio of Kodak film stocks, how I rated them, etc, within the next week or so. jarin

We wrap principal photography tomorrow! For a 87 day shoot, only two days were lost due to false positives in our testing regimen, otherwise no covid hiccups. I was tested three times per week. Rob has a very long post production process ahead! J

Yeah, right nowI'm doing exterior moonlit nights now with only 1 1/2 stops difference between the "moonlight" and the ambient "starlight." I also get costumes and sets to make nothing lighter in tone than the average skintone of the actors. Otherwise, you can't set your fill to anything consistent. You really have to compress tones for night work! J

Yeah, I also light these with the same basic technique as day interiors, but with a little cyan+desaturation and a much lower fill/key ratio. On film, I'll put the fill light at -4.5 while the direct moonlight plays between -2.5 and -3. It looks terrible to the eye on set but falls into place on the film. You can put things further down the scale on the Alexa, the equivalent of -4.5 is probably -5 to -5.5 on the Alexa. There's a new additional trick I came up with for moonlight. If it's any success I can share next year.

Thanks! We've been very fortunate to not shut down from COVID (knock, knock). A couple more months to go.... Jarin

Well, since film naturally sees blue more readily, you could argue that a tungsten stock is a more “native” stock: the longer the wavelength, the more sensitization you need. I would hypothesize that a daylight stock needs extra sensitization for red, and to a lesser extent, green, rather than the other way around. In this theory, a tungsten stock naturally “sees” more blue than a daylight stock, and overexposes blue in daylight conditions. A daylight stock has to work harder To boost red and green to balance the color for a given speed. The fact that 5207 (250D) is a grainier a

Sorry - how do murder rates relate to Gone With the Wind? J

The question is completely contingent on the style of the film. There is no right answer. But for me anyway, the more I do this, the more I feel that the audience's understanding of specific 3-dimentional geography is overrated, even utterly unnecessary. That said, I tend to establish important spaces fully at the beginning of a movie to get it out of the way, but by having a character lead us through the space so it's "organic" and part of the storytelling. It can have intention rather than water the scene down. After that's done, we feel very comfortable in shooting the rest of the

Hi: I can't be of much help as far as history, but I have experience with some of the optics mentioned and can share. Some of what I state the below contradicts what others have said above in this thread, but what can I say, my eyes are clearly seeing otherwise. I have a variety of my comparison tests pulled up on my screen now. Color bias is all relative, but I find the oldest lenses (Cooke s1 and original Baltars) to be overall cooler in color than anything made later. When I was devising the "ortho" look for "The Lighthouse," Dan Sasaki once mentioned something about the glass types o

No! Ignoramus! I’ll look for it. I shoot 8x10” film almost exclusively myself, including family photos, so it’s all a serious downgrade when I shoot a movie. Those 18x22” contact prints Carleton Watkins made are something else. The more difficult the medium makes the photograph, the easier it makes the print. I’m astounded at the lengths Watkins, O’Sullivan and others had to take to make a mammoth plate photograph in wet collodion in their conditions. A photograph, on fragile glass, on an emulsion that becomes insensitive a few minutes after it is mixed from scratch... mixed in

One of these days I'll ask Fotokem whether their B&W machine could handle 65mm. A recurring fantasy of mine. 65mm Tri-X would be the ultimate medium. If one could make it work with finicky pyrogallol developer, the perfect moving monochrome image.

Nah, panoramic molton bounce for me 🙂

Well a slower film is always going to "outperform" a faster one. 250D is certainly cleaner and sharper than 500T. I aim to shoot night exteriors on our next film on 200T and 250D, but we're aiming for a "toothy" sharp film.

Mr. T was probably in an off mood or has spent too much time in too many interviews over the last 10 years arguing some point about shooting film, maybe he lost track of the argument he's trying to make. There are countless examples of how ASA 800 or 1600 has made certain DPs lazy or lack expression and intention in their "lighting." Look around at current trends. However, that particular day, chose the worst possible example: Roger bloody Deakins??? We all say silly things from time to time. - I think it's very reasonable to expect a professional cinematographer to work within 15 st

Ha - yes, Lawrence in Arabia probably has the same grain as a film shot on 35mm today. I once heard a Kodak rep claim that 35mm 5298 has the same grain as 16mm 5219 - that seemed a stretch, but who knows. Recently I found that the real difference is sharpness of the presentation format - Fotokem states that even though 35mm negative is about a 4k format, a 35mm contact print brings it down to 2k. My recent tests of print vs DI confirmed this subjectively - it was obvious although I wasn't counting lines. After a few years away, it was almost shocking how soft a 35mm print looks to our 2020 eye