Jarin Blaschke

-Interesting - I haven't shot with the Hawks, just Primos and E-Series. I found the Primos to bend more than the E-series, actually but I suppose the priority of design there was sharpness. The Primo 75mm actually does have a little bit of barreling still. They as a set also breathe more than the Es. The 40mm in both cases is quite bendy - I shot on the salt flats in Utah with the 40mm and the horizon curves quite noticeably. This is one area where anamorphic may not aways be the best option for landscapes, even though it subjectively feels 'bigger' as a format. -I'd love to see that fire/candle footage - you must use some decently large flames. With candlelight scenes, I've so far found myself at 1.4 (spherical of course), rating the stock at 500. In those cases, I've used a tray of grouped (at least 4 to 5) double to triple wicked candles just out of frame, 2 feet from the subject. Wide shots require cheating. -As a side note, I like the elliptical bokeh of anamorphic - it's sort of magical and to me, one of the great reasons to shoot the format. Rapid focus pulls can be jarring though, especially with lenses that breathe more, ie: Primos. -For a decently-sized production, I wouldn't call twice the amount of film stock "insanely" more expensive if it gets you to 65mm. 5-perf 65mm is much more efficient than most of the 35mm formats, which nearly all throw away negative area to soundtrack space or widescreen cropping, unless you're shooting 'big TV'. The sprocket-holes are even the same size in both gauges, so eat up proportionally less film for the width in 65mm. Overall, the 5/65mm format gets you more image quality for the buck.

Hi there, A few responses that should be cleared up: -You don't have to shoot wider than 40mm to create serious barrel distortion; this happens with most 50mm anamorphic lenses and can even be observed with some 75mm lenses, depending on the set and if there are many architectural lines in your frame. -Of course Anamorphic surpasses the quality of HDTV. As far as resolution, it can compete with 4k capture and has far and away much more tonal and color information than any digital format. -Anamorphic lenses do cost more than equivalent lenses of their generation, but can be cheaper than many modern lenses. An E-Series anamorphic lens is much cheaper than a Master Prime, for example. -The format can require more light than spherical photography, but this is due to the established conventions in how it is shot. Many DPs are more comfortable shooting anamorphic at a deeper stop to combat the inherently thin depth of field (since the negative is bigger) and to tame some of the lenses' wilder attributes, like flare, softness at the top and bottom of the frame, general softness, distortion, etc. That said, I have shot a 20 minute film of night exteriors with anamorphic lenses at T/2. - There is less information horizontally than vertically, but the horizontal information is no less than Standard 35mm 1.85:1 spherical photography. I like to think of it as having double the vertical resolution.

Some associates and myself tested these lenses together a while back, as well as other popular modern PL lenses. At most stops , the two are probably similar sharpness-wise at the center of the image, but the performance of the superspeeds falls off dramatically once you move outward toward the edge, especially wide open. Among contemporary glass, the S4s had the most consistent sharpness throughout the image area, even against the Master primes and UltraPrimes which were again sharper in the center at the expense of even performance, but of course were still much better than the superspeeds in the corner regions. Interestingly, Master Primes and Superspeeds performed nearly identically at the very center of the image at T2. Personally, one large deterrent for me, however, is the shape of Cooke's aperture blades, which turns out of focus lights into distracting multi-pointed stars, even wide open slightly since the blades never completely open to the full width of the barrel. This can often be seen even with a tree in the background, as evidenced by points of the sky peeking through the leaves. Superspeeds have less blades, 6 or 7 if I recall, but at least make a less jarring, non-pointed hexagon. At T1.3 lights become circles near the center, and increasingly narrow "footballs" near the edge, due to vignetting at wide stops. That, with the astigmatism, the SSs can produce an interesting, round, often pretty swirly soft focus look wide open if that's ever what you're going for. The newer lenses are more corrected and 'neutral,' but lose some of the personality and magic of what wide-open photography can be. -Jarin

I have a Cinemeter II that I've used exclusively since 1998. It has finally started to stray from my gaffer's meter (and others) by about 1/3 to 2/3 stops, sometimes more and it is finally time to get it calibrated. I've called both Spectra and Quality Light Metric and neither are willing to take a crack at it. Apparently the inside is just too difficult to service (and thus the outside is so easy and neat), and worse, the company who made it no longer exists, so there are no parts if they are needed. I am wondering if there are any other companies to approach, as I really don't want to get another meter - this design is brilliantly straightforward, simple to use and yet comprehensive for any situation. There really is nothing else like it made now, that I know of.

Older Panavision lenses, such as the US and SS MkIIs, and if memory serves - the Panavision Zeiss Ultraspeeds (USZs) have a large number of concave blades that create a very round aperture opening throughout the stop range. This is not the case with the many-bladed but odd-shaped iris openings of Primos and Cooke S4s (multi-pointed star bokeh) or the triangular, hexagontal or septangular openings of the generations of superspeeds. 48 hours probably used the older MKII lenses with their very round iris openings.

Actually, the effect you show here is simply vignetting. Light arriving from the corners (edges of the image circle)isn't coming from a circular opening at that angle, but from a football shaped hole, which is clearly illustrated when points of light are photographed out of focus. Vignetting (and thus 'football' points of light) is most pronounced wide open and tends to disappear a couple stops into the lens, when the widest opening for arriving light isn't the lens barrel itself but the aperture blades (soft points of light then assume the shape of the aperture blades). Also, newer lenses with a larger opening at the front of the lens have less vignetting - Master Primes being the best example, which have very little of the effect but are much bigger lenses. Smaller high-speed lenses, such as superspeeds, old Panavision SS lenses and C series anamorphics have much greater vignetting wide open due to their small size and high speed. In the case with these lenses, you're really only getting your true wide-open T stop in the center of the image, with fast light fall-off toward the edges.

'48 is/was a wonderful stock, with a beautiful color palette, dimensional and solid contrast not since matched by newer stocks in my opinion. It is unmistakably film, with a nice subtle grain texture by today's standards. Quantifiably you could call it inferior to contemporary films, but subjectively, wins hands-down for my tastes. I think it has been discontinued for a few years; hopefully your supply has been well stored. You might want to rate it at 64, just to print through any slight base fog it might have acquired over the years. Rating as such when it was new gave great results. -Jarin

Hello all, Does anyone know where one can get E-6 processing for 35mm or 16mm motion picture film on the east coast? Also, does anyone know if putting ECN-2 films through an E-6 bath will ruin the soup? Putting C-41 films through E-6 has had no problems, but I am unsure of the MP negative films. Thanks. Jarin

The last I asked about the new 1.4 anamorphics, I was told that they are "out all the time" and were pretty unobtainable. Is it true that Dan Sazaki no longer works there? If so, who is now the go-to lens expert to ask about anamorphic optics and my options?

From what I understand, the Panavision high speed anamorphics are made from their old SS and US spherical glass, which should not be as sharp as converted Zeiss superspeeds. Is this a safe assumption?

Does anyone know where to obtain these converted lenses in the US, ideally in LA? Anyone have any experience with them in the T1.4-T2 range? I thought that I heard that Joe Dunton carries them, but they are not on his website - only the JDC cookes. Thanks

Thanks. Does anyone know when the Panavision US and SS lenses came out?

Is there a reference any where (print or electronic) of the history and release dates of lenses through the years? I'm shooting a period piece in the 70s and am looking for information on lenses frequently used during that time. I presume that in the mid/late 70s that Panavision had their SS and US lenses, but am not sure that my search ends there. What other lenses did they offer at that time? Also, which lenses were used with Arri cameras? Looking at Taxi Driver, for example, it seems that 3-bladed superspeeds were used, but I am not sure. When were superspeeds introduced? Were there only 3 bladed designs, or did they make 6-blades superspeeds then as well? Thanks everybody. Jarin

Hi all: Are the Super Baltars only available in the Mitchell (BNCR) mount? Would Panavision have these? - mountable in a PV mount? Also, what speed are they and are they compadible with a modern follow focus? Does anyone rent these in New York, or is it just Alan Gordon in LA? Thanks! -Jarin

Is the rumor true that Harris Savides put film in the oven for limited intervals for "The Yards?" Does anyone have a link to an article discussing the process?

Hasn't 5293 been discontinued for some years now? Wouldn't all '93 out in the world beofficially outdated?

Not to get picky ... Are you saying the only way to do it is to line up a bunch of 18K's and 12'x20' muslins on the fill side? For a contrasty format like HD or reversal film or cross-process reversal, something much simpler but similar, probably. If I had sidewalk room, a walking 6x6 or 8x8 might have worked reasonably well. A format with a more workable contrast, such as film negative or a raw digital format probably could have been shot under the raw conditions. Even if the highlights topped-out in places with film, it would have been much more pleasing than a video highlight clip.

We have a 20" tented CRT monitor and waveform. The subtle dawn contrast was off the charts, even in "hyper gamma." For the 3/4 backlit walking dolly shot we wanted to do in the sun, we could have had a walking bounce, but a 4x4 bead was no competition for the sun from behind, and anything shinier looks very artificial as a fill source in my opinion. Even bead board has a sheen to it that can look sourcy at times, and 4x4 really isn't that soft when lighting a medium wide walking 2-shot. Unfortunately there was no room for two grips to walk with an 8x8. My bounce is routinely a white surface (bead, ultrabounce) covered in muslin to kill all specularity. A contrasty format also makes soft sources appear harder than they really are, compressing the fall off, so anything remotely sourcy looks even more lit.

Actually, in that shot I wouldn't have bounced light into the dappled shadows because it was still early and hazy enough for film to read the warm highlights and the cool dappled shadows playing across the actors. If it was an hour or two later, it would have been harsher light with more contrast between sunlight and shadow, and indeed any format would have need the fill light. It was just one more example in which a more practical working contrast would have helped immensely, and would have kept the nice character of the natural light. We also could have played our walk-and-talk dolly on the sunny side of the street with the attractive light, as we had no budget to fill light into 80 feet of space. Instead the scene needed to be shot in drab shadow to appease the contrast curve of the camera. I find a director's finder crucial to a quick pace and full creative freedom on set and am quite surprised that none has been devised for the 2/3" format. That is not the fault of F-900 but is presently one more thing about the 2/3 format that slows the process down by a good deal. There are even finders available for 16mm now, when putting a lens on a handheld SR3 to find a shot isn't really that bad. Anyway, in HD, the fact that I need a camera body and a battery to just walk around to find the right shot is just a bit silly. I'm also less apt to find the best camera placement with more of a burden on my shoulder. I learned how important a finder is after my first 35mm shoot without one. The biggest problem with HD for me is being a slave to a powered camera in place, hooked up to a reliable and calibrated monitor/ waveform to know what I'm getting. With film I find the shot quickly with a lightweight director's finder and can begin lighting by eye before a camera is even put on the mark and leveled by the AC, nevermind the additional time needed to hook up, power and shade a workable video village. I can have camera and lighting departments working simultaneously, rather than toggling between one and the other, wasting time. I'm excited to work with whatever raw digital capture that comes our way, as it seems to make a lot more sense. I look forward to emerging from the "digital dark age." More about the actual motion picture to come, we just finished week one. Once dailies are down-ressed, perhaps some stills can come too.

I don't think that printing onto 16mm will help you much in producing grain - print and intermediate stocks are very fine grained; they should be - they roughly have an ISO of 1 to 3. I shot a short called "Bomb" a couple years ago that needed very visible grain but also very shallow depth of field. I had to beat up the stock a bit, but it worked. We used 5277 just as it was discontinued, and pushed it a stop and a half. The exposure was a bit meager - I rated it at about ei 1000-1200, which gave thin blacks but added to the grainy, degraded texture. The majority of the film is day exterior, and I was shooting through a bulletproof amount of ND filtration in the sun to reach a T/1.4-T/2. I had to give my eye about 20 seconds to adjust to the very dim viewfinder before we could roll, so I could scarcely compose an image. This is where a Panaflex would have helped, so I could put a ND 1.2 behind the lens to reduce the density imposed in the viewing system. I've found that underexposure makes the image go grainy faster than pushing, but then you have to assess how much shadow detail you're willing to lose, and how weak the blacks can be. The lows can be stepped on in telecine, which adds to the noise but can begin to look artificial at a point. Shadow detail can also become precious in dark scenes like night exteriors, so testing is a must to see how far you can go. It is a fine line that you can suddenly fall off of. To do a similar look today, I'd pick a low-con stock like '29 or Fuji 400T and push it 1 1/2 or maybe 2 stops. Rate it a 1/3 or 2/3 higher after that ('29, +1 1/2 stops rated ei 1600 or 2000). The low-con stocks are a bit grainier than the standard ones, and help make up for the contrast gained by pushing.

Day One (of 20), New York: After a week and a half of postponement, we finally started rolling today. We had 6 pages planned, but with our shooting style, that only amounted to 8 shots today. We ended an hour early. We were in a park where the attendant never arrived, and so at deparment eventually arrived with a cutter after half an hour to saw off the chain and lock. All scenes were day exterior, which keenly reinforced my ill-sentiment toward conventional HD as a working method. We had wonderful shapely light and nice dappling from the trees, but I had to relentlessly bounce fill light into the shot. One time, the natural daylight was gorgeous for a walk and talk on one side of the street, but we had to set the dolly on the shaded side in order to have a workable contrast ratio. I had no means of providing a suitable moving fill light. I also find it frustrating and slow to not have a director's finder, and even if I opt to use the F-900 as a huge clumsy finder, I have to always have a battery attached, and I can only find compositions in black and white. Perhaps I've been spoiled primarily shooting film the last several years, but I find working with HD to be very inefficeient, cumbersome and slow, with greatly inferior results after all the extra work. Especially with day exteriors today, my job seemed more 'damage control' than rewarding cinematography. Today was a first day, and everyone is feeling out the film and their working methods, but so far, everything is taking twice as long as it should. Of course I expect this to tighten up soon once everyone and everything settles in. This was the first day after all. We did get a few good compositions and camera moves today, despite the contrast battle. We also did our few but effective shots and covered 6 pages in 11 hours. Tomorrow I happily take lights out of the truck and take much greater control of the image. I'll put up stills when/if possible, as we go along. My gaffer built/designed some modified covered wagons that we may get to play with for some scenes. -Jarin www.jarinblaschke.com

Shooting in a townhouse (albeit beautiful) within a New York City hot zone, where no lighting or staging can be done out the front windows. I get to do this in 3 weeks!

Pulling seems like a great idea - the negative will still be very contrasty and dense, retaining the full bleach-bypass look, with just a more workable negative. The contrast and density loss of a 1-stop pull can't compare to the counter-effect of the B.B.

Oh yes- It's a 20 day schedule. The camera side is pretty decent for HD: one body but 5-6 digiprimes and a real 20" monitor. My crew is great (my preferred team) but there are too few of them - ONE AC and a 2 + 2 +1 grip/electric department. Whenever I ask for realistic gear or (wo/)manpower, I'm apparently not a "team player" in making this low budget film work. Amazing. I am determined to prevail however. Some how, some way....

I'm not a fan of kinos at all, so I'm not too worried. They're kind of a necessary evil in my mind. If I have the choice, I'll use a soft box or a covered wagon we built instead. We're just using them for occasions where the ceiling is very low, or for our office scenes, where we're switching out all the indigenous bulbs, or any time we need to get a fluorescent color. That, and you have to appreciate the satisfaction of building the perfect light to your specifications for the scene/film. Production is a week away, and I'm worried about days where we have to day play, as their budget just covers our basic day-to-day package that we were miraculously able to get at an 85% discount because my gaffer has thrown the rental house some pretty good jobs in the past. The producers continue to be totally unrealistic and still totally inflexible with their impossible numbers. Any DP/gaffer team worth their salt would laugh at what we're supposed to work with - an $80,000 movie with 3 locations, sure, but we're at least approaching a respectable indie budget here. We have one night exterior where the director wants a pretty wide shot of a city street (the shot size and time of night is integral to the story)- I made concessions as far as accepting a do-able angle and not requesting what would normally be matter-of-course, even for a film of this size: I didn't ask for a single lift or any unusual roof access. And then I get I get questions like "how come you can't use what we have already?" (1x2k, 2x1ks and a handfull of 650s and 300s), or how come I can't get our HMI to match the existing light (sodium vapor!), or do we really need a second team to prelight night exterior as we're shooting the other 7 pages for the day? I could go on and on but I'm really dumbfounded at this point. Hopefully things will be fine once we settle in for the actual shoot.