Jarin Blaschke

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 Wouldn't all '93 out in the world beofficially outdated?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.

Well, the shoot has gone HD after all. It will be a bit cumbersome with 6 page days, but what can you do? Production and I came to a stalemate today about lighting budget, as they want to spend 14,000 on electric, grip AND expendables for THE WHOLE SHOW. Tops. I've been asking for a very basic tungsten package (up to 2k), 3 frames and a handfull of rags, 1 x 4ks HMI, 2x 1200s, 1 x 575, 1 each 2x4' and 4x4' kinos, and a basic array of grip gear to handle small scale New York locations. That's kind of it, save for enough expendables to build one soft box and 3 modular covered wagons. An additional HMI will have to day play for an interior day house scene where we see deeper into the house. A larger tungsten package will have to day play for our one night exterior. The last few weeks, I feel like I've slowly been trimming away at the package without any concessions from the production end. The feature is apparently 400k, but feels much smaller on my end - I'm kind of working with a student budget to make a real film. It's becoming apparent that they made up a number long before I came on board and are sticking to it, regardless of the information coming in. I've never fought so hard to get the most basic gear. The one saving grace is an amazing relationship my gaffer has established with a rental house, which may be cutting us an uncanny deal to make the G&E order work. We shall soon find out.

Take the 50D and pull it a stop. For really tight grain, pull it a stop and rate it at e.i. 16.

This is leaving the topic, but Hasselblad's lenses for the last few years (H1 era) have actually been made by Fuji.

Agreed, Eric. I'd rather have the proper lighting package and an adequate and happy crew than shoot 16 if it really came down to it. I was just told that money might be found if the talent they were able to attach made the investment worthwhile. My inquiry also seemed reasonable given that we are low budget, but still within the range of typical Super16 productions.

The idea is to preserve the script AND make it visual. I'm not signing off on my job just because it has many dialog scenes.

In a few weeks I will begin my first feature, "Calling It Quits," shooting in and around New York City. It follows the personal crisis of a humorous and sarcastic lead character after he quits his job. It is low budget (somewhere 350-450k), and amazingly the format is still up for grabs two weeks before our start, which is somewhat my fault. The producers were preparing for HD (F-900) and I started to make the case for Super16 when I became involved, especially in regards to some flashbacks we have that take place in the 70s. I've personally never really believed period photography shot on a video format. I also feel that film (especially 16)is easier to light, faster to work with and gives you a better result. Anyway, I've been persuasive enough to the director that they are now waiting to see what talent signs on to see if they should invest the extra money (however relatively small) in Super16. I'm told the talent question will be answered Wednesday (tomorrow). One intermediate solution discussed would be to shoot the bulk of the movie on HD and then the flashbacks on 16. Stylistically, we are loosely inspired by some of the Gordon Willis/Woody Allen work of the late 70s/early 80s, particularly "Manhattan," in the way they covered scenes. Our script is dialog heavy and we are trying to devise interesting ways to cover what could be a tiring routine of talking heads and two-shots. So far, we're finding that many scenes can really be done in one shot that evolves throughout it's duration, through either subtle camera movement, actor movement/blocking or both. For others, a carefully composed wide works most appropiately. We are also careful not to get too distant or "Artsy" (for lack of a better term) all of the time, and are trying to strike a rhythm through the scenes between our unconventional approach and more traditional coverage, as to preserve the impact of our more creative shots. The key is finding which approach fits which scene.

Well, if you want a clean, sharp, modern black and white look, and are going to vieo only, I would say shoot a medium to low speed modern color stock and crank the contrast in telecine. In telecine, I would tweak the color channels to go for an orange filter look - boosting the red channel, and to a lesser degree the green channel while pushing down the blue. This is probably preferable to using and orange or orange-red filter to expose color stock. I'd be curious to hear other's opinions on this. What may also look nice and slick is soft lighting on set that is crunched in telecine, versus hard light and high contrast that is simply transferred straight.

Modern color stocks will afford you more control in the telecine suite due to their notably greater latitute, but for that intangibly authentic black and white look, nothing beats the real thing. Having recently shot a 35mm B/W piece, I've found plus-X to be far preferable to Double-X in it's contrast and grain. Double -X can often look flat, murky and mottled in comparison, even after tweaks in telecine. In general, I wouldn't recomend the conventional use of a polarizer in black and white, as it can reduce the sheen on skin and thus often the contrast. Use of color filters can be great, once you've chosen which colors to darken and which to lighten, and which filter will do what you want.

I signed my own first feature deal memo today. One part in the contract states that my credit onscreen is of the same size and duration as the writer's, and I also get credited in the billing block whenever the writer does - on the DVD case, posters, ads, etc. My contract also specifies when overtime applies and requires that I be present for all correction sessions with the film.

Thanks, all. All material was 35mm - the last segment was a 435. Girl and boy at the table was in fact the Arri bellows system. I kind of wanted it 'off,' without too blatant and typical an effect. The band was shot in reverse at 96 to 140 fps for the smashing shots. The black and white was Plus-x and Double-x 35mm. Mostly Panaflex GII with a Panastar for a shot or two. Trying to secure my first feature this week (for later in the spring) and have another short shooting this summer in Utah. Really hope that Panavision can open up a set of E-series for us... thanks again, Jarin

Well, you virtually never get a 'normal' contrast transfer in dailies - they always give you low contrast in a one-light. I was just thinking, if you light for more contrast, they'll probably lift the blacks anyway. You should just ask for a snappy transfer.

What the heck - I finally got a basic site started. Feedback is always good. Thanks. www.jarinblaschke.com

If you got video dailies, it's quite common for the transfer to be safe and flat for a one-light. You can simply ask for more contrast. If it's film dailies you're responding to, give the film more exposure - rate it at 250 or 320 or for even more contrast, rate it at 500 or 640 and push it a stop. This will bring some more grain, though. The most effective thing to do, though, would be to put more contrast in the lighting.