Jarin Blaschke

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.

'79 is a good stock with some personality and snap, unlike the sanitized Vision2 stocks. Good blacks and saturation, at least when I exposed it at ei 320, back before it was discontinued. At that rating, shadows should have a good deal of information, sinking back to a good solid black. Technically not as much latitude as '18, but looks stronger as a film print to my tastes.

I think so, I'd have to talk to my other collaborators in the test.

I know most of the Master Primes are available at TCS in New York, as some friends and myself just tested them there for three days versus Superspeeds, Ultra Primes and Cooke S4s. The results have yet to come in, as some tests need to be enlarged into C-prints and the resolution tests need to be spliced out and put under a microscope to count chart line-pairs. We tested the 25mm, 50mm and 100mm from each of the four sets on a resolution chart at every stop from wide-open to T11 (ran out of film after that). We also tested the 12 lenses for color characteristics and contrast, breathing, focus fall-off, bokeh, flare and veiling. We shot Big-TV to get an idea of true Super35 coverage. We might organize a public/invitation screening once this is all finished. I can only comment on what was visible in the finder during the tests. The superspeeds were the only lenses that were visibly softer than the others through the zoom finder. Any fair distinction among the others will have to be analysed. The Master Primes breathed the least - the MP 100mm and MP 50mm still breathed some, although less than the other sets tested. The breathing with the MP 25mm was virtually zero. Flare was apparently significanly improved, but this is difficult to quantify through a viewfinder. Bokeh was tested by several planes of christmas lights. It was indeed neutral with the MPs, although I found the superpeeds the most "magical" wide open, with nice football-shaped globs of light near the corners, making a nice circular 'swirl' background to the image, especially at 50mm. For my tastes, the Cookes had the ugliest bokeh at 2.8 with their S-shaped iris blads, rendering out-of-focus points of light as harsh, pointy, octagonal stars. After 4 1/2 to 5.6, they become "stop signs." Even at wide open the S4s don't fully open their iris blades, and the opening is still not really round (with tiny points still). In general, the Master Primes were generally wide for their focal length, the Ultra Primes were tightest and the S4s and the Superspeeds fell in the middle. The Master Primes are also quite large, the size of some anamorphics - the superspeeds look like toys in comparison. I would imagine that handheld work with the Master primes could be cumbersome in some cases. I should note that by comparison to contemporary lenses, the superspeeds appeared the softest, but they were the standard for Arriflex for a long time and much fine cinemagraphy was created with them. I have shot with them wide open many times and they looked quite adequate projected. For something that will end up as standard definition video, at least in the field of shapness, the difference is probably negligible. Breathing with a locked frame and flare, however are something else.

Certainly a test should be shot, but the usual exposure for cross processing is a stop faster than factory speed in regular chemistry, sometimes more, so in this case, ei. 200. Negative developer is much more active than reversal. What I like to do is rate it normally and pull one stop to keep the distinct cross-process look, but to just slightly curb some of the runaway contrast. I would imagine that if you rate '85 at ei 50 and cross process, you might have an excessively dense negative - highlights would become irretreivable.

My gut reaction would be that Skip Bleach will add far too much contrast to an available light environment that is probably already very high in contrast, without any fill at your disposal.

I also agree that the look of the example (from what I can tell) is too subtle to be cross processed. To do it photochemically, I'd test pushing 1 1/2 or 2 stops, with a thick negative. 5217 rated at 400 with +2 processing for example, printed down of course.

A foggy day outside would create very soft, cool light. If it was me, I'd probably opt for tungsten stock and bounce some 9 lights into large frames of bleached muslin over grif or ultrabounce. Use large frames, and fill them fully and evenly. A 9-light will fill a frame much more evenly than an HMI, and has a much better color spectrum. Make sure that the frames are large and plentiful enough to bring light into the set from as many angles as possible from outside the window in a wide arc configuration of frames. Ideally, the encircling soft source would be as far from the window as possible so there isn't huge light drop-off from one end of the room to the other. As far as the 'cool' color of a foggy morn, blue gels eat a lot of light, so perhaps use only 1/4 CTB and cool the rest in timing later. For the TV effect, I prefer putting a light with 1/2 CTB into a diffusion frame that is the size of the implied television screen - around the size of a 2x3 frame usually. I would use very heavy diffusion, so the 'box' of light is as evenly lit as possible - perhaps a couple layers of 216 or 129. I find that slow dimming effects or quick but lingering lighting changes are much more realistic than the spastic 'flicker' we see so often. Another idea is to have 2 or more lights that are gelled slightly differently going into the diffusion frame, riding each of the dimmers independently, so both the brightness and the color change as the imaginary tv show goes from scene to scene. Unless this TV effect is front-lighting your shot, you'll need some 'room tone' fill. I prefer fill light as a very broad bounce from above. Others like it coming from camera angle. If the fill is very soft and very dim (like -3 1/2 stops incident or less for a mid tone set), you won't 'feel' it so much.

If the strobe(s) was the only source of illumination, could you somehow remove the shutter from the film camera? Also - how would you synchronise a strobe to a camera - or at least make it fire exactly every 1/24th of a second?

It depends on the lab, but I know most do - at least in 35mm.

So I shot my first firearm scene a few weeks ago - simple: Medium long shot of a man firing a bolt-action rifle (blanks, naturally) just off camera. It's a short 35mm film, and save for the last scene, the whole film is handheld at a 90 degree shutter, including the shot of the man firing the rifle. On set, the rifle gave a nice big flash that I saw clearly. However, when we got dailies, none of that flash ended up on film - in any of the 5 takes! In retrospect it all makes sense - the flash is more brief that I realised (less time than one pass of the shutter), and using a 90-degree shutter only gave me a 25% chance of recording it each time he fired the gun. But for future shoots, how can I assuredly photograph the flashing of a gun? I can't conceive of how the firing of a gun could synchronize to a camera, and yet we see it all the time in films - even in those that clearly use a narrow shutter. Any insight?? Thanks. -Jarin

I have a shoot in a couple months with Panavision gear where we need to do an in-camera iris effect - that is, in the tradition of silent film, have black circular borders grow until the circular image shrinks to nothing. Apparently, Panavision no longer has this item which attatched to their rods, and those working there can't provide any insight as to where we could get this item. Does anyone out there know of where I can obtain this item? Any independent comanies in LA that would rent, rather than sell this item? Any home made contraptions recomended? This transition is for one shot. Thanks.

Given no real means of metering fireworks, what's a good starting point for shooting a wide-ish shot of fireworks at 24fps with 500 speed film? Thanks all.