Jarin Blaschke

Agreed. By using the tungsten stock uncorrected, you are underexposing the layers of film used to render orange, which can desaturate and slightly darken the dress. The best method is probably a middle ground, with some to all of the usual filter 'correction' (81EF or an 85) and then with a full-information negative, use the telecine to give you the cool look while selectively saturating the oranges.

Did you end up focusing by eye or by lens markings. Also - was this school equipment? The lens may not be calibrated to the markings or there may be something wrong with the lens mount. Did both lenses come out soft?

Wow. That would be great. Thanks.

I'm considering the Panavision superspeed anamorphics for an upcoming shoot and before I'm able to conduct real tests, I watched "Escape From New York", after learning that the film was shot with these lenses. Were any other series of lenses used? It seemed that in some shots, flames flared differently than others. Was the lens ever truly wide open? How was the film exposed and processed? I would assume they shot 5247 - or was the higher speed stock (5294?)available at that time? Also, does anyone know of other films that made heavy use of these lenses? Thanks - my internet search has so far revealed very little.

I saw this title card at the end of a film. What is it?

What I think is odd is that anamorphic prime lenses are about as fast as sphericals - most open up to a T2 and the fastest i know of is a T1.1. There seems to be a misconception out there that these lenses require more light when in fact they really don't. To me, the appeal of anamorphic is in what is inherent to the format, ie: shallow depth of field, some distortion, etc.

Hmm, which lenses in particular render these squares? So the smallest passage for light through the lens is actually square?

The latitude is technically the same between the two formats, but one could argue that 35 sees more into the shadows since there is more resolution there.

Perhaps "Lost it" was much too strong a term. I was just used to seeing such spectacular things from him and was surprised to see something seemingly mediocre. Of course, these two films are far too little evidence to conclude that he no longer can do great work - Rabbit Proof Fence just looked very "lit" (like he just turned on a baby baby and aimed it down at Brannaugh) in some scenes and milky/grainy in bright day exteriors and left me confused. Like he phoned it in as opposed to making 'wrong' decisions - I'm not sure that there are such things as 'wrong' decisions in the creative process. I suppose it's like seeing the lighting of A Few Good Men, knowing that Richardson just came off of JFK and the Doors. Of course he continued on to do some of his best work in the years to come. I also will keep rumor to myself in the future. Apologies to Chris Doyle, wherever you are.

It's sad that one can't be a photographer anymore without also being an electronics tech.

This has to be the most bizarre thread I 've ever bothered to follow. What the heck are you talking about?

I saw 'Rabbit Proof Fence' last night and when Doyle's card came up at the end, I was quite surprised. Throughout the movie I was thinking "What hack shot this? What just plain bad lighting this is." I also recall my same reaction to seeing "Made," especially after a very underexposed/printed up day exterior scene (I believe at a zoo or aquarium - it's been a few years). With such an amazing portfolio behind him, what happened to this guy? I heard he has some worsening alcohol/drug problems but that may just be gossip. Does anyone else have any more info/ opinions on this icon of innovative photography?

Do anamorphic lenses with the 'squeezing' element placed in the back have the same 'ovular' distortion of background elements as a lens with the element in front? For example, using a rear-mounted anamorphic lens with a night exterior, would the lights in the background appear as circles (like a spherical lens) or vertical ovals, (like an anamorphic lens with the anamorphic element placed in front)? If there is such a visual difference according to where the anamorphic element is placed, it seems that a set of anamorphic primes (front) may have problems truly matching the zoom (rear), even if the two are colorand performance matched. -Jarin

Could someone give a primer on the grades of nets and stockings and what to look for when buying them? I've never had a use for them but want to explore my options for an upcoming music video. Thanks. -Jarin

I'm shooting some night scenes using a lot of unaltered location light. I like a hearty negative for good contrast, rich blacks and saturation. To get the stop I need (anamorphic), I figured I should rate either 5218 or 5229 at ei 640 and push one stop. Which stock would be advisable for this sort thing? I imagine '18 will keep better grain but '29 will hold more shadow detail and ease the contrast gained from the push. I may not be able to test on location. Any opinions out there? Thanks. Jarin

I had another thought - I prefer a good healthy negative so naturally I thought to shoot 5218 at ei320, but instead, perhaps I could rate 5229 at ei 500 or 640 and push a stop to compensate for the flatter stock and enjoy the speed increase, still with a hearty negative. Any thoughts on grain issues/ loss of shadow detail? Highlights should still hold, right?

Thanks, everyone. Do the superspeeds veil much - flares I can go with, but a wash over the image would be decidedly bad. How about the other lenses in this regard? Is this even an issue with night stuff? Also - how's the minimum focus on the Hawks? I think I might go rent "Escape From New York" now. -Jarin

I know that the "35mm Only" forum sometimes reads like the "Anamorphic Only" forum, but here goes: A short I will be shooting involves a lot of night exteriors/interiors with a good deal of uncontrolled 'atmospheric' location light playing in the scene - namely in and around truck stops and casinos. I'm shooting '18 at my preferred rating of 320, but from cursory scouts with a meter, I've found that I will still have to use an aperture of about a T2 to *maybe* an occasional 2.8. The director wants 2.35 and I'd love for it to be an anamorphic shoot if possible (for a number of reasons). The questions: In people's experience, which series of anamorphic lenses performs best wide open? Any notes on the Panavision superspeeds (T1.4)? Do the Primos tend to crush the dark areas - spaces miles away in the background that I can't light? I realize that spherical lenses (super35) are much sharper at the open end than anamorphics, but I'm going for eliptical lights in the background and a shallow-focus look, even in the wide shots. We'd also like to simplify the option of making a print someday, however unlikely. Thanks folks. -Jarin

I attended the launch in New York where the projection was embarassingly dim, particularly toward the top of the screen; a Kodak rep eventually admitted that the illuminance was only 6 lamperts. It seemed strange to me that Kodak would go through the trouble of securing an IMAX theatre to screen a critical comparison of the new stocks and then neglect to screen it properly. For grain comparisons, I constantly had to look for bright, smooth areas toward the bottom of the image. It was impossible to really compare how the stocks treat areas of skintone, since faces were even darker toward the top of the screen. Thought I'd rant in case someone from kodak might be reading... Despite these conditions, one difference I could see between the '48 and the new stocks was in saturation. The '48 just looked punchier- it draws you in more, particularly in areas of flat lighting. The grain difference seemed minimal, but again the viewing conditions made it difficult to really tell. It seems sad that the only options for future film stocks will be low contrast and very low contrast. For projects going to print, I'll probably have to get in the habit of force processing everything atleast half a stop.

I'm based in New York and am shooting my first piece out west, using Los Angeles equipment and facilities for the first time. Over the phone, I've found lab prices to be much lower (35%!) and people to be much friendlier and helpful than out here in New York(surprise!). Anyway, I've come down to two labs: CFI and Deluxe. They both basically offer about the same price - within a couple hundred bucks for 20,000 feet. Both reps are very accomidating. What are peoples' experiences with these labs, especially regarding cleanliness of the processed film. This project will be shot on 35 to finish on video. Thanks. -Jarin

Anyone have any information as to how these telecine machines compare, especially as image noise is concerned . I have usually worked on a Spirit but am involved with choosing a telecine house for the transfer. The project is being funded out-of-pocket, so price is certainly a major concern, but quality is more so. Is the Rank that much worse than a Spirit to cost $60 less per hour? How do these machines stack up against each other? We would be transfering to DigiBeta from an anamorphic negative. Thanks. -Jarin

Does anyone have any experience with this filter? I've only read brief bits about it. Apparently it's a yellow-green color and when combined with color timing, desaturates the image. Does anyone know: how much light loss? Does it desaturate some colors more than others? Does it create color-crossover problems from highlights to shadows? Do any other manufacturers make this filter? Thanks, Jarin

Someone please advise as to what Ultra16 is. Thanks.

Thanks, Mitch - have you had any experience with the superspeeds?

A couple weeks ago, I saw Jim Henson's "Emmet Otter's Jug Band Christmas" (or similar title, sorry) for the fist time on DVD. I thought the look was remarkable, especially considering that it seemed to be shot on video in the 1970s. I could tell they needed to use a lot of fill light and sparks and fire looked very 'video' but overall it was very sharp, clean with a distinctive, dry, desaturated look. Does anyone know what format this was captured on? I'm very intrigued. Thanks. -Jarin