Jarin Blaschke

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 and softer stock than 5213 (200T) might be evidence of this. ? jarin

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 movie however we want. Caleb leads us through the house in "The Witch" and Ephraim leads us through the lodgings at the beginning of "The Lighthouse." The cable-up shot up the interior lighthouse tower does it too, but justified differently: we are drawn up toward the light by some sort of "other-ly" power. When I'm part of the design, I like to approach the "wide master" the same way as an "insert": with extreme discretion. To varying degree, they take you out of the scene, so I often try to include these images as part of a multi-stage mies-en-scene. Otherwise, at the very least, I aim them toward the beginning or end of the scene. They can be effective "buttons" for closing emphasis but feel clunky in the middle of scenes... but if placed well, that hard "clunk" can be effective too.

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 of the era passing more short-spectrum light, i.e.: UV and blue. (Original) Baltars: "The Lighthouse" "Enclosure" I like these a lot - the contrast is soft, subtle and open without looking flat. A very beautiful, delicate palate with a subtly cool color, but I wouldn't call it "biased". Smooth, silky skin tones - a hell of a portrait lens. You have to control flares though - I was constantly spot metering bright windows on The Lighthouse - there is a sweet spot where they halate nicely but beyond that they wash out the image. I set my highest limit at +6 reflected for Double-X film. The image circle is relatively large, the 25mm very nearly covers open gate...techically. However, there is a long transition zone before the image edge where the definition falls apart, so "useable image area" is certainly gray and subjective. The museum-commissioned "Enclosure" used full gate Alexa, which I now consider a mistake. I now would not use them beyond Super35. They have a curved field and pronounced cat's eye/football bokeh. I believe them to be single coated, contrary to someone's uncoated claim above. I've rented them from Panavision and TCS in New York. It is true that as-is, Baltars cannot be used with a reflex film camera. HOWEVER, Sasaki worked magic and optically spaced our "Lighthouse" lenses to be used for film. They are probably still kept that way (dual-format) - so there's a little secret for you. Cooke Series 1: "Back Roads" (certain sequences), tested on multiple occasions, used once on a fantasy Claritin commercial! These were a close second place for "The Lighthouse." I have them earmarked for a certain, future Eggers film for sure. They have a very similar look to the original Baltars, with a natural palette, and the swirly bokeh is almost a perfect match. The contrast is little higher, though, and the color is very slightly warmer, probably a proper "neutral' but everything is relative. Soft flare control is better. Out of focus backgrounds are a bit more "globular" looking, if that makes sense. The biggest difference, though is that the image circle for the 25 and 28mm is smaller than any other lens type I know, so forget about open-gate. So they are basically an enhanced-contrast, marginally warmer Baltar with an added soft vignette in Super35. I've only used them digitally, and would have to ask about adapting for use for film, a la "Lighthouse." Super Baltars: "Brothers", extensively tested. These are a very different look than the original Baltars. The contrast is much higher like a contemporary lens and the color much, much warmer - enough that overall I would call it a "warm bias." Maybe this is inherent to the design, but I have a suspicion that it could be from the deterioration of Thorium that was widely used in optics of the 50s and 60s. So maybe they were not always this warm - but this is pure speculation. Despite the contrast, this "macro contrast" does not translate into "microconrast" and skin tones are still very silky and flattering. Still a truly great portrait lens. "Cat's eye" bokeh is very subtle, but is still there, apparent when you compare to Panavision SS and more modern lenses. Just a hint of chromatic aberration, but only when compared to Cooke S2s. Much less than Panavision SS, or Cooke S4s for that matter. My only complaint is that the aperture blades are not truly round, so bokeh is a little geometric. Perhaps this can be fixed for a long project. Cooke S2 (and s3): "The Witch," "Back Roads" I picked these for "The Witch" because of the weird, globular, cat's-eye bokeh, before the series1s were rehoused at Panavision. At the time, the "crystal ball" effect on the backgrounds felt "alien" and unsettling to me somehow. This semi-petzval bokeh effect is more pronounced than a Super Baltar, but certainly less pronounced than a Series 1 or Baltar. Among 1960+ lenses, the color is very slightly cool- very different than its contemporary, Super Baltar. This was a subtle aid for our gloomy look. They have visibly less contrast than a Super Baltar too, also good for that low-contrast movie. Aperture blades are beautifully round, and most impressively, ZERO chromatic aberration- my least favorite aberration. Plenty of other aberrations though! For me, skin texture don't quite have the same "shimmer" and magic of a Baltar or Super Baltar though. But this is my personal ju-ju and and hearsay. Please test yourself. Kowas: Tested only, except for 1/2 of one commercial. These are an odd duck. They almost behave like lenses that are much older: very cool color, very low contrast and they flare very easily, even more than a 1939 original Baltar, so if you have a moderately bright window in frame, your shadows are significantly lifted all over the image. Despite these traits, they lack the special bokeh of older lenses - focus fall-off is slow, and it looks like you are you using a deeper stop than you really are: the resolution of a 2.8 with the depth of field of a 4 1/2. Because of these things, I kind of consider them the worst of both worlds. I would even call the contrast "flat." The weird thing is that, while the color is inherently very cool, the ever-present washout-flares are very warm, so you get a color-crossover effect from shadows to highlights. Good luck with the grade! This is a drab, very broken down look - I haven't found a project that calls for them yet, especially as I am moving away from the lo-con "Witch" look in general. But maybe one day a match will present itself. The one plus is that the aperture blades are very round, unlike a Baltar. Panavision SP: Tested once I consider this the midway point between truly "Vintage" and "Modern" look, but didn't see anything special about them in my limited "Witch" test. They are comparable to Panavision SS lenses, likewise have some chromatic aberration, but instead are slower, flare more and have very geometric aperture blades, unlike the round SS. I'd rather go one way or the other, decisively toward the Super Baltar or the other way with an SS. Other menu selections I have tried: Leica R (like), K35 (don't like) Other interesting off-menu things I have used: Panavision Petzvals (35mm, 58mm, 85mm), a 50mm uncoated triplet.

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 total darkness, in a makeshift tent in absolute wilderness, all 22 inches of image without dust or irregularity of coating. Processing is conducted in haste but perfectly in wilderness. Then the fragile glass image travels on wooden wheels over wilderness for months without breaking or becoming clouded in dust. The Ether and other exotic, volatile chemicals travel similarly for months without fire, explosion or suffocation of the proprietor.... THAT’S PHOTOGRAPHY. j

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 stops of latitude, and place 9 stops of tones within a finished frame. How much do you need? - I personally like both Blade Runners. - My kooky stab at why tungsten stocks tend to be sharper than daylight stocks is that silver halides inherently only see blue light; they need sensitizers to record green, and even more to record red. At least in black and white, at a given speed, an ortho film is sharper than a pan film, and to take it further, an infrared film is softest and grainiest of all. Tungsten stocks are more sensitive to blue light, which may have something to do with needing to "stretch" their capabilities. But color negative film is above my pay grade - any and all are welcome to shoot down such gibberish theories. -Jarin

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 eyes. However, while much softer, the print has a tonal depth that puts digital projection to shame - DCP looked like bath water by comparison. Albeit sharp bath water. The best of both was a 70mm print, of course. Boy oh boy. Sharp and smooth and rich all at the same time: you could fall right into it. So that's where watching Lawrence of Arabia as a 70mm print really pays off. According to Fotokem, a 70mm print from modern 65mm is about 5k, although the subjective result transcends numbers. My experience seems to validate 35mm to 70mm blow-ups; I previously didn't understand the point. Aaaanyway: I'm sure the effort to make a modern stock truly look like a 1960s stock would take some gymnastics: underexposure, pushing, flashing red into the shadows, maybe an expensive round of IP/IN to reduce latitude and sharpness. The biggest period effect is brought from what you guys focused on: production design, costume, make up and lighting style. The published MTFs show 50D as a less sharp stock than 200T. My tests subjectively back that up when I look at two extracted TIFFs side by side. Now we really digress.... 🙂 Jarin

Yes, 5248 was a pretty one. More recently, aren't the early and mid PT Anderson films all on slow stocks as well? After shooting a whole movie at ei50 and 80, shooting night work at 125 doesn't seem so ridiculous anymore - that's the aim for the next movie. Shooting at that speed will also retain more color when shooting fire. Did you not shoot 50D for your day work? There is a clear difference in grain, but interestingly I find the '13 to be sharper. J

So that's why - I've gradually noticed that film stocks have become more "natural" looking over time, most rapidly since the EXR 90s. I thought it was a softer palate in general but perhaps it's particularly the endless highlights that make it look more lifelike. It has been very interesting to come back to film after a long absence, and to now shoot comprehensive tests that I was utterly unable to do in my indie days. I learned a lot about Double X on the Lighthouse and I've gone in depth with the color stocks on The Northman. It was no surprise that Double X (1959 technology) has a lot less shadow latitude than Alexa, even shocking in its limitations. However, I expected a Vision 3 to behave radically different. In the end, from strictly a shadow latitude standpoint, the difference is less than I expected. It certainly has more shadow detail than Double-X, but so far looks like less than what I was used to with Alexa. Indeed, David, where film truly shines (aside from the overall subjective beauty) is in the highlights. This bounty of highlight information makes me inclined to shoot 5219 at ei250 and 5213 at ei100 or 125 to shift some of that extra latitude down the scale. I've come to like lighting for a less sensitive medium with a narrower sweet spot. It's partially a reaction against the no-light grunge aesthetic that's been going on for a while, but most of all I enjoy working a little harder to develop my craft - to force me to bring more intention to each shot. . Aaanyway... I digress! It's funny how film loves light , craves it- the more the better, while digital cameras are a bit like vampires and can't handle a sunny day. J

With grade applied, I find -4 1/2 gives texture on ECN film for sure (200T)- it's my night exterior fill level. It's gone by -5 though. Double-X peters out at -4 with my exposure, processing and grade regimen. I do underrate my color film by 2/3 to 1 stop though. Your results may vary.

Willis Toland Deakins Chivo Storaro Savides

I will always use lanterns, regardless of budget. They are omnidirectional, which is a fundamental property you can't fake - at least in the way I like to use them. It's not a substitute for bounce light and bounce light is not a substitute for a ball. They have very different properties. The only exception is if you had a ball at a distance and bounced a light into it! Bounce light is usually softer than lantern light and still puts light in one general direction. An omnidirectional source looks sourcy, and that is it's strength. Coming up through indie film, a sourcy, implied lamp around the corner was a trick to give a crappy white wall some interest. It at least had a gradient to look at and lead your eye somewhere. I put them very close to the wall and play with the distance from the surface in tandem with the dimmer to get the fall-off and reach just right. Even now when I usually have good walls I still just like sourcy interest. Personally I definitely would use, and have used a 500W in a lantern - you then get to use the thickest, most luscious fabric you can: the thickest, fluffiest, twill molton fabric, or go warm and unbleached with irregular tea stains. Or you have the latitude to go warm via dimming. It's also nice to use a 500W lantern as an omnidirectional "streetlamp" for night exteriors. I like to go to fabric stores in the fashion district and pick out fabrics I'm not normally offered in the film industry. One of my quirks. For fill light, a lantern or ball would not be my choice - it's just too much of a distinct source. That's where bounce light wins. J