Max Jacoby

I too prefer anamorphic over Super35. A Super35 frame looks wide, but flat. To me it doesn't have any real character. Anamorphic feels much more 3 dimensional, it makes you feel more part of the action. I supppose the improved grain and sharpness help as well. On 'Girl with a Perarl Earring', which was shot on Super35, the printed rushes looked incredibly nice, but when I saw the film in a theatre, I was a bit disappointed, because there is a noticeable quality drop-off due to the blow-up. Of course setting up shots is completely different depending on which format you use. I think Michael Mann is one of the few people who really exploits the possibilites of Super35 framing. He does things that you just couldn't do with anamorphic.

Well there is this 'Mini Crystal Set' that he has on his website which appeared only recently, in addition to the Millenium Set (adapted Cooke S3s) and Speedstar Set (adapted Superspeeds). I have no idea what those lenses are, I heard rumors a couple of years ago that he was adapting Cooke S4s, but never had any confirmation. An Arricam LT with Hawks V-Series is going to be frontheavy and definitely uncomfortable to operate in handheld mode.

I think in Tarkovsky's 'Nostalghia' this was applied as well

You're right David, it isn't. As Frederick Elmes says in the July 2003 AC article: "Our tests told us that the digital-intermediate process isn't completely transparent yet. The work done at ILM is very good and I have complete confidence in them, but we didn't want to add this additional layer over the rest of the film as well"

'Passion' was one of the worst DIs I have seen recently. Especially when faces were lit with two sources of different color temperatures. The way these different lights touch each other on skin, how they smear into each other, it just looks plain wrong. And that was done by E-Film, one of the best respected DI places in LA... I don't mind the grain of an optical Super35 blowup. Since grain isn't the same thing as sharpness, I'd rather have a bit of grain, but a sharp film where the colors are nice and there is a a pleasant texture, instead of something which looks like a Dvd. I think the concept of DIs itself is great, but unfortunately in my opinion it just isn't ready yet. When I colortimed a film I made recently, I spoke to the people at the lab and they feel the same way. I realize that many Dops whose work I respect are using DIs. But if someone like Steven Poster tells me over at CML that often he can't tell wether a film is DI or not, than I find that worrying.

Is he hoping to get his 10 % share of the rental as well? :D

I don't think you are sounding old fashioned. Personally I absolutely loathe the look of DIs. It seems to suck the three-dimensionality out of faces, making them look flat and plasticky. Also the blacks become kind of muddy, there is no real snap in the print anymore, even if printed on Vision Premier. I can always spot a DI and I have yet to see one that I think even looks halfway decent. Of course most people don't share this opinion, just read any American Cinematographer Magazine, with seemingly every Dop raving about DIs. Which actually is kind of worrying I must say, since it appears that they themselves don't seem to be aware how it alters the look of their film...

Will you be able to pick among several lenses of the same focal lenght the one you like best? As you well know, the quality of the C-Series various greatly from lens to lens. I once compared two 40mm C-Series on a projector and while one was really bad, the other was an absolute great lens, nearly as sharp as a Primo.

David What C-Series and E-Series lenses are you using? An educated guess would be a 50mm and 75mm C-Series (for steadicam), certainly the E-Series 180mm, and maybe the 135mm (since the Primos only go up to 100mm). What lenses did Joe offer you? The Milleniums (adapted Cooke S3) or the Speedstars (adapted SuperSpeeds)? I noticed on his website that he has a new set, called 'Mini Crystal', but I don't know if that is a new set of lenses he developed or something that he just put together from existing anamorphics.

The 50mm Primo is about 7 kilos. That's basically like shooting with a zoom up front <_< The 50mm Hawk V-Series is definitely lighter than that, around 4 kilos 'only'.

I really don't care for the 40mm, way too much distortion. I think the 50mm is acceptable, also because the distortion doesn't look half as bad once you project the film as opposed to looking through the viewfinder. But my lens of choice is still the 75mm. This is V-Series I am speaking of here, which are of course better than the earlier C-Series. Weight certainly is a problem, since a lightweight camera tends to be very frontheavy.

In the June 2002 issue

Which Hawk lenses did you try and what didn't you like about them? I am waiting for Arri Munich to get the Elites, I'd love to try those.

Does it really? Who says? The manufacturer?

That depends on the reflectance of your subject. At the same incident reading, let's say 4 stops under, a dark object will not show up anymore, but a brighter one will. The only guide I could give you is that on the 5218 500T a caucasian face at 4 1/2 stops under is still barely visible. At 5 stops under it is pretty much gone. That is for a print of course, if you only go to telecine, then you can always crush the blacks later.

The Moviecam Compact is certainly the most recent camera of all those. Also the lightest one and best balanced for handheld.

I can't comment on the price of the VPs, but their optical performance is top notch. I once tested them against Cooke S4s and Zeiss UltraPrimes and the VPs were sharper than both these prime lenses. Their stop of T2.2 means you can use them just where'd use primes, although they are a bit heavy.

It was. It was shot in Luxembourg, not that that has anything to do with it though.

This is taken from the book 'Le guide Image de la prise de vues cinéma' by François Reumont, which is a great ressource on cameras, lenses, etc... Much better layout than the AC manual, with tons of color pictures: Spherical Lenses: Primos 'Classic' : 2000 Primos 'Close Focus: 1995 Primos : 1988 Ultra Speed 'Z': 1985 Anamorphic Lenses: Primos 'Close Focus': 1998 E Series: 1990 USG: 1985 N.B.: It doesn't say if these are the year these lenses first came out or when they first became available in France.

Oh I am not talking about about Arricams or Milleniums here. Especially Panavision's Arri equipment is in appaling shape. I just got off a shoot with a Moviecam Compact from Panavision UK and if I compare that to the 535B from Arri Munich I used on a short 2 months ago, there just isn't any contest. The Moviecam broke down and we had to get a new body, the pentafinder they gave us was loose and the batteries were huge and heavy and didn't have a saftey catch to keep the cable in! I am sure Panavision LA is great, but if you expect the same service over here in Europe, don't go to Panavision, go to Arri. Arri Munich is the best rental house I have ever worked with.

Absolutely gorgeous film, although the story is kinda daft. But the visuals are stunning and Zhang Ziyi, the most beautiful woman in the world is in it too.

Well if they looked after their gear better, then people would rent it as well... For Arri and Moviecam stuff, there really is no reason to rent from Panavision.

My favourite cameras are definitely the Arricams. Both ST and LT are great cameras, very modular, you can adapt mags, viewfinder systems, accessories... to fit both cameras. Most shoots I do carry both an ST and an LT, and that's a killer combinaiton, you are covered for every possible situation. Another big plus is the Lens Data System (LDS) in these cameras, that gives you real time readouts of focus distance, depth of field and stop for LDS Lenses. Also the people at Arri are so helpful, whether you do a big budget feaure or a short film, you get the same support. Their gear is in great condition, unlike Panavision's, which unfortunately here in Europe are not half as good as their American counterparts.

Besides Primos you have two PV-mount options: Ultra Speeds and Super Speeds. Both are Zeiss glass and the Ultras are a bit faster (1.4 as oposed to 1.9) As for cameras, the Platinum and G2 are pretty much the same weight, they are tad lighter than a 535B, around the weight of a Moviecam Compact. I am 2nd AC at the moment on a project where the gear comes from Panavision London. They gave the production a good deal, we have a Moviecam Compact and Cooke S4s, as well as Cooke S3s. I am sure if they are not too busy and have a Panavision camera available, they will be able to accomodate you.

Milleniums are adapted Cooke S3s. They come in 25mm, 32mm, 40mm, 50mm, 75mm and 100mm. All T2.3, except the 100mm, which is T2.8