Jarin Blaschke

I just wondered if it was Zeiss, since it was a German movie. Probably around the time of Series 0 Panchros and before the (original) Baltars? M is one point of reference for a film I'm about to start. The optical effects are quite beautiful in the film, and for homework I just wonder what lenses made the images, although now it seems Sasaki may deliver something very very close for us. I'm excited. What is that Russian film? It looks like another 1.2:1 aspect ratio movie (Like M) from before standardized sound. Looks like that Tessar is from a view camera. A 4.5 aperture is a pretty fast lens for a 21cm lens, but Tessars have a reputation for being great portrait lenses (In the large format world). J

Hello: Can anyone identify the lenses used, or likely used for the production of Fritz Lang's "M" (1931)? Presumably something from Zeiss? Old Tessars? Any film technology historians out there? David? Thanks! -Jarin

Well, my interest is in trying Tri-X as a negative before reaching for a somewhat obscure film. We will need 350,000 feet, which would be another issue. No anecdotes of TriX as a negative, eh?

I'm about to test this in a couple weeks, but in the meantime, does anyone have any anecdotes (or images!) regarding how, when processed as a negative, Tri-X 7266 looks compared to Double-X? I'm desperately grasping for a way to shoot true black and white film, while avoiding the mush that is Double-X. Thanks. -Jarin

Right, Super Baltars are not T1.4. They are indeed T2.3. . . Except for a very rare, extremely limited production 35mm lens that Dan Sasaki put in our hands- a Super Baltar 1.4. Dan is impossibly busy and sent the lens without much explanation. The rehousing was similar to a Panavision SS lens and seemingly no one else at Panavision knew what it was. Our other high speed lens was a detuned super speed 50mm and we had an other unknown vintage lens curated by Dan as a zoom for a few zoom shots. It was a one-off and the 40 year old motor could not properly function while lightly tilted up or down. Otherwise, the Cooke Series 2 32mm shot about 80% of the movie, the 25mm shot maybe 10% and the 40mm shot 5- 10%. There are two or three shots made on the Cooke S2 50mm. J

I agree with satsuki. Going forward, one of the key inputs of a cinematographer is during scouting, and finding the right locations for the scenes to happen. But building depth and altleast simple dimension within a frame should be possible within all but the tiniest locations. Otherwise you can shoot somewhere else, if even the adjacent room. Conversely, the photography and location should always work in tandem. I just shot a key scene to a film in a windowless, pasty, tiny, beige interrogation room with the door closed. I decided to only further emphasize what it already was. The shots are flat and monotone. I decided this tells a stronger story than fighting the room and ending up with something here nor there. There are many other scenes in the film that are very dark and/or deep and rich and the contrast between scenes will work to our advantage in this case. For example, Deakins does effective pedestrian flatness mixed with rich contrast very well in Prisoners and Sicario, two films I couldn't help but think about when prepping this film. (Also, Willis and All the President's Men). J

For me, maybe because I'm a little precious with composition, a finder that takes the camera lenses is *essential* for marking the position of virtually every shot in the film. I also use the dolly a lot, and not using the finder to mark 1,2, 3, etc. position before laying track would be a giant mistake. I think most people are much less rigid in their approach, but this is what works for me!

It is low contrast from a grading point of view, but the blah-ness is primarily from the flat, shallow, evenly background and not building contrast in blocking, lacking layers of light and dark. It is teated as all one layer and without dimension. The wall is close, without texture, a similar tone to your subject and lit flatly. One option would be to nearly eliminate light from the wall and light subtly from behind the blinds. Another would be to still cut or reduce our character's light from the wall, and then put a light source near the wall to introduce fast fall-off and a range of tones across its surface. J

In my tests I've found very visible squeeze differences between a primo anamorphic and an E Series anamorphic lens. The E Series definitely rendered the face wider in a medium shot. With such differences between lenses of the same manufacturer between the 80s and 90s, visible in a medium shot, imagine differences between different manufacturers 30 years prior when comparing close-ups. J

Miguel: As to the scenes you posted, yes, they were all shot exclusively by some sort of flame. Triple-wick candles, supplemented by a cluster of tea-lights can serve you as wide as a medium shot, if you are fine with a -1 1/2 stop to -2 exposure, which felt right for our dim interiors. Such is the case with the medium shot in "Scene 4." Sneaking the source right up to the edge of frame, there was actually enough light to use our usual lens, the T2.3 Cooke Speed Pancho, and not the rare 35mm T1.4 Baltar used for other wider candle-lit shots such as in "Scene 1." That shot of the kids around the candle in the garrett may be my favorite in the film. I'm a fan of omnidirectional, fast fall-off light sources and will use bare bulbs in contemporary pieces for the same effect. The campfire in the woods is an effects department gas flame. The flame was ridiculously high to light the scope of the shot, so I had to put William in front of it. A long gas flame slinky lit the hearth in scenes 2 and 4. Seeing the shot of the twins here, it shocks me how I screwed that up. Why did I hide the extra tea lights off frame right? They all belong behind that block of wood in the center of frame. Instead, Mercy's light is pasty and flat. I'm shooting a 1.85 film right now, reiterating how perfect I find the 32mm focal length... I almost need a special reason not to use it... -Jarin

For me, it's nearly any Tarkovsky movie and Woody Allen's "Manhattan."

I'm strangely pleased that the look of the film is as divisive as the rest of it. Rob wanted the film to feel visually oppressive, and we were constantly chasing the weather to keep the exteriors gloomy. There is less done in the grade than you think- that is real gloom. However, the cyan color and "under exposure" startles even me when I see it on a computer out of context, as opposed to settling in to the world in a theatre where you mentally recalibrate to what you're looking at over the 90 minutes. Another circumstance to remember is that of the wild variation in projection quality across a wide release. Sadly our darker scenes must surely be scarcely visible when projected from ill maintained projectors. It will be even worse across TV screens and computers which are "calibrated" all over the place. There is great pressure to grade things safely in the middle of the tonal range for this reason, and the lack of standardization in presentation is severely limiting the expression of craftspeople who do what we do. Nonetheless I took a little bit of a risk in sticking to my guns rather than play it safely toward the middle, where it wouldn't look like our movie. As far as 1.66, we just find it more pleasing and harmonious to compose, as well as more timeless. I consider 1.85 as a frame a very contemporary arrival to the arts in general, and always gives a tinge of the contemporary when you look at an image within that frame. So 1.66 was not supposed to evoke another kind of cinema, quite the contrary- we hoped to help move an audience to a time before cinema in a subtle way. And it was a pleasure to compose, too. J

As I am working with someone with the same award, I have to inform you that it's not really a $15,000 award per se, it's for a specific basic package with a GII and a set of lenses, rentable up to a certain limit of time, perhaps a few weeks. If your shoot is only a weekend, you can't upgrade in order to rent $15,000 of equipment in that time. I'm not really sure if Panavision would appreciate or even allow a back door sale of the award anyway. Jarin

My best friend is looking into making an extremely low-budget feature for which super-8 negative may provide the perfect look. The only issue is location sound, which is a must. Are there cameras out there quiet enough (and synch) to run dual-system sound in medium-small rooms at reasonable distances? The style would dictate that the camera is 'present' and not across the space with a longer lens. Thanks, Jarin

If you want saturated colors, bleach bypass is really the last thing you should do. If you still want saturation and cotrast, expose the film at box speed and push the film 1 1/2 or 2 to really give a rich negative and print down.

Generally, I don't think you'll be able to tell the difference in stocks online - there are too many steps and variables between the emulsion and your computer screen. I've shot many things on '79 since it came out (1997 I believe?)and was recently sad to see it go. The difference isn't only in grain, but in contrast and color saturation, which constitutes the majority of its look in my opinion. 5279 is notably more saturated than Vision 2/3 stocks, and this difference will become even more prominent when you push the film. If a saturated and contrasty look also suits the look of the film, great. If not, I think you'd be better off using a newer low-contast stock like 5229 and underexposing and pushing that. Low contrast stocks tend to be a bit grainier than usual anyway, as it needs bigger, more sensitive grain to add more detail to/soften the shadow areas. If you then rate 5229 at 1000 or 1200 and push +1 or +1 1/2, you'll get plenty of grain.

I also noticed the fake bits at the oil explosion scene. Still Anderson kept CGI bits restricted to where they were absolutely necessary. Apparently, a crucial, extended, dramatic scene where the tonality and textural quality was altered was unacceptable to PTA.

Hello, Elswitt worked with us at the Sundance Director's Lab this summer and screened "Punch Drunk" one night. I will try and relay what I remember in regards to this film, however some small details may be slightly inaccurate. The optics used were definitely Primo anamorphics, which are high-contrast lenses. Anderson insists on the slowest film possible and anamorphic photography, as he has an obsession with very clean imagery. Fuji 125T was used throughout, even night exteriors. It was chosen for its very clean grain, strong contrast and especially the color rendering/saturation of Sandler's blue coat and other colors in the production design as decided in testing. The production design was also very saturated and stark, with no 'teching down' of the white walls. The soft overhead lighting in the warehouse and in the apartment was created by large bounced HMIs. Often he had to string heavy diffusion (gridcloth and/or muslin?) over the dressed "fluorescent banks" or unseen ceiling and just nail it directly and evenly with 6ks or 12ks to get a decent anamorphic stop with the slower film stock and 85 filter. An apartment was found that was actually an open-ceiling, 2-floor loft, so they could work above the shooting area. As far as flares, hot spots and reflections were created by very large HMIs in choice positions. You can sometimes see the lamps themselves reflected in windows in the film. I seriously doubt Anderson and Elswitt used any CG or trick filters in the film. Anderson is quite the purist, denying Elswit DI correction for the climactic father/son scene in "There Will Be Blood." Elswitt stated that he "seriously screwed up the lighting levels between the windows and the interior," and thus scanned the scene in to brighten and properly colorize the window areas. Anderson never placed the "fixed" footage in, stating in reference to the minimal digital artifacts: "I could never do that to Daniel's performance."

My main concern would be the rain passing between the camera and the subject. You can't close the window, because that would obscure them more, and if you put up a clear barrier between the camera and the side of the car, you have a sound issue. If you use something soft, like fabric for this barrier, it alters the lighting since it's opaque. Perhaps the lesser evil, though.

Good call. Reviewing my info, I believe my numbers for the full silent gate (.98"x.735") probably came from figures for the very extremities of the gate, and my numbers for anamorphic (.825"x.69")came from an area that would practically make it to the screen, hence the discrepancy. Of course anamorphic is the most efficient 35mm route to 2.40, especially compared to 4-perf Super35. My bad. I should probably switch to metric too.

Agreed, and I've been there as well, trying to cheat in a little contrast and visual interest. However, a couple very respectable contemporary DPs don't seem to worry much about it all the time. The best example I think is Harris Savides. Look at "Margot at the Wedding" with Kidman and her son in the guest room one night. No real shape to the light, just an even murkiness. The same a few times in "The Yards" - one scene that comes to mind is when the thug comes into Wahlberg's mother's house with a gun. Come to think of it, he does this somewhat often: Last Days, Birth, etc. Lance Acord is another DP often going for a realistic ambiance over well-shaped light on the faces. Just another school of thought, also dependent on what's appropriate for the piece of course.

How can a simple nerdy "shop" conversation devolve into this? I'm sorry for your apparently horrible day/life and to those around you. Are you sure you work in this industry? How? I'll give it a go at remaining civil and adult. So... the topic at hand. I'm not going to claim on-set expertise with either format, so my arguments are focused on simple math, areas relevant to other areas/formats in cinematography I have practical working knowledge of, as well as some research (no, not hearsay or Wikipedia). -Vistavision full-frame has an inherent aspect ratio of 1.5:1, the same as a still camera. Of course you can shoot it composed for 1.85 but by cropping I meant that there is a notable amount of film space running through the camera that is never used. Likewise, there is also side-cropping involved in 5perf 65mm to get 1.85 but the width of negative used is still greater (1.61" vs. 1.485"). In this case, vistavision is also slightly more wasteful than 5p/65mm (19% vs 16% waste). Still, in comparison, Anamorphic 35mm wastes 21% of film due to the soundtrack area. Would the trained eye be able to spot the 18% bigger 65mm negative over VV in a finished 1.85 product? I would guess probably not. My argument is primarily in regards to 2.40:1 photography, where the negative area actually used is 65% times bigger in 5p/65mm than it is with 8p/35mm Vistavision. More importantly, VV is wasting 37% of its film in that case. 65mm wastes about 8% going from 2.2:1 to 2.4:1 - pretty damn good. All I'm saying is that if you're going to pay for the extra costs of either format, you're getting more for your money with 65mm. -VistaVision does have an array of special lenses - it's built for plates. My argument is that the lenses were designed to looser resolution standards, as they were adapted from cheaper still lenses, which are intended to make prints that are of reasonable size, not to be projected upon a huge screen. Perhaps more importantly, modern 65mm lenses are built as part of a larger motion picture system with robust housings and standardized gearing. Still, a T/2 for a System 65 lens isn't bad. -You can't deny that getting another 3 minutes out of a 1000' magazine has serious benefits, while capturing a 65% larger image in 2.40:1 (since we were initially comparing to anamorphic). -The camera still looks like a lopsided ergonomic mess to me. I'm really very curious as to which camera you used, and at what capacity. Again, I'm not arrogant enough to claim that I have hands-on experience but from what I can see, it appears rather awkward for some spaces, the AC and some aspects of shot operation. Anyone can feel free to set me straight here. -You can show a 70mm contact print with sound in some (however few) public theaters. VistaVision is not currently a practical exhibition format, thus degradation through scanning and reducing is always necessary. Unless you want to hold screenings at the lab. I hope you're feeling better, Glen. I just don't see VistaVision as a practical acquisition format for anything but plate photography. -Jarin

That's one thing about Primos or E-series is the lack of a 60mm, which would be a great focal length as I really like the 40mm focal length in standard 1.85 spherical photography. With Panavision, there's a 60mm available via the C-series and G-series lenses, but nothing as fast as T/2 like the Primos or Es. The sharpest E-series I had was the 75mm, which also had the least yellow cast. It became my workhorse. It also (good or bad)had the most dramatic flaring if you nailed it with a light. I had a shot with headlights striking the lens and in addition to the bright horizontal stripes, it created bright rainbows arcing out in ovals from each of the lamps. None of the other lenses did this. It was also prone to a strange barrel-flare, which would fog the bottom two corners if there was an unflagged light just out of the top of frame, or vice-versa.

I suppose if you have the actors hold the candles close to their faces, things get much easier, although the 2.8 aperture still surprises me a bit. Would still love to see images from that! Here is a shot: http://www.telltaleheartfilm.com/images/highrez/attic.jpg Behind the pillar is my tray of fire - 4 double-wicked candles and an array of tea lights for good measure. On the wall behind him I had to cheat with a small array of bulbs, individually flickering. As you can see from the softness of the image, I was shooting near wide-open, maybe 1.4 1/2. Upon review, I could have gone a bit darker though, especially since he's wearing white. Standard 16mm to attain 1.33:1 AR, 7218 rated at 500. It seems to me that the degree of barrel distortion is pretty subjective. I generally find that I try to avoid anything wider than 50mm in anamorphic. I'll try and dig up a still of the salt flats shot.

Hmm. I haven't had the fortune of shooting either, but the advantages seem to sway in favor of 65mm over VistaVision. -A 65mm camera has much better ergonomics without large magazines mounted out to the sides, well compensating for disadvantage of size (if any). -A better image, as well as more efficient use of film for a 2.4:1 aspect ratio. 65mm has an inherent AR of 2.2:1 as opposed to 1.5:1 in VistaVision, which needs significant cropping(waste) to attain 2.4:1. Even for 1.85:1 photography, a side cropped, 5-perf 65mm frame still has more surface area than the top/bottom cropped VistaVision frame while shooting less film. -Much more running time on the mag, passing 5 perfs instead of 8 perfs per frame. 8 minutes versus 5 minutes with a 1000-foot mag. -Optics. 65mm lenses designed by Zeiss/Arri or Panavision, as opposed to adapted still camera lenses designed to looser tolerances. -Modern cameras and contemporary accessories built by leaders in the industry. -Sound - few VV cameras are suitable for studio sound production. -Contact printing for an even better image. 65mm projectors are far from prolific, but it could at least screen somewhere as a beautiful contact print. Scanning or opticals are not absolutely necessary in all cases. Anyway, getting well off-topic...