Freya Black

PRICE: £800

Collection in East London.

More details...

2X 400 ft mags

Angeniux Zoom lens 12-120

2 X 100ft spools

Flight Case

Formerly owned by cinematographer Dick Pope B.S.C. / Solos Productions!!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Pope_(cinematographer)

16mm Eclair ACL for sale in London...

Anyone interested...???

Good history/Mojo... :)

Freya

That brings me to ProRes RAW. To have the work ability of ProRes and the flexibility of RAW is huge to someone like me. BUT WAIT!! It's only on final cut... so I'm not going to use it. What's the point of all that power in post when you are only able to work with it in FCP? snore. If they open it up to the other NLEs I expect huge adaptation.

What NLE are you using Matt?

I'm writing an article for Broadcast Tech on Apples new ProRes Raw technology and was wondering if anyone had any opinions or ideas about the technology and how it might affect aquisition or post production. Do you think it will be a popular technology or do you think that Red already has this part of the market sewn up with red .r3d's?

How do you think it will affect the future of cinematography or do you think it might not.

I'm looking for quotes for my article so let me know if I can quote you on it!

Freya

I'd happily accept payment in Bitcoins Adrian! :)

You have any leads on this? ;).

Freya

I think you need to look at the script and locations and work out if there are locations and situations that look different anyway that could be shot digitally.

For instance in might be possible to shoot all the night scenes on digital or alternatively to shoot scenes in some other context digitally.

You want to make sure that you don't end up directly intercutting the film and digital footage, so make sure that the digital footage is in new scenes. Even better if you can cut to black inbetween.

If you are lucky you might even be able to make the changes in look motivated in some way, for instance if there are flashbacks in the movie then the flashbacks could be shot on digital or visa versa.

If there are scenes that require more footage and they are already shot then it would be best if those scenes continued to be shot on film so that it is consistent and you aren't trying to match film and digital shots in the same scene which makes things even harder.

Good luck.

Freya

I really like the thought put into the framing and editing in this video.

Could you tell me how you are doing the crane shots though? I thought those look a bit interesting and quirky.

Freya

 

So you'd avoid watching a film that doesn't have flashy cinematography? It's a great show. Lynch is pushing the envelope massively.

That's a bit of a wild assumption as I really like "Inland Empire" a lot and have watched it many times. Having said that I didn't think it worked well on the big screen but there we are. I also really like the cinematography in Inland Empire but I don't think anyone would describe that as flashy.

I don't have to do much to avoid watching films either at the moment as I have very poor access to the internet.

I'm interested in anything that David Lynch does and if I get the opportunity some time I am sure I will see it.

I'm probably just not going to seek it out right now.

Freya

 

I'msoftness and over-grittiness of 16mm, and it seems this often happens when pushing the stock too far with underexposure.

 

How should I treat exposure with film to get the most "grainless" image?

If you are planning on shooting Vision colour negative then you want to try and OVERexpose the negative by approx 2/3 stop.

Hope that helps.

Freya

It looks like it could possibly be OCT-18 to me.

A bit of a weird idea for a Baltar lens though but the tab thing is a characteristic of OCT-18 as are the mickey mouse ears. I can't tell if that is the case though as one of the big differences is the diameter of the mount but Arri Standard and OCT-18/OST-18 look very similar.

The focus dial doesn't move as the entire lens is supposed to roatate in the mount.

That's what the tab thing is about too.

IIf I had to guess I would say that it was Eyemo Eyemax mount especially given that it is a Baltar lens.

I can't tell the size/scale from the photos though.

Freya

"Star Trek 3: The Search of Spock"

 

It's "The Search for Spock" isn't it David?

Sorry couldn't resist.

Anyway what do you think is going on in that Gone With the wind still?

I like it but I was wondering if they were trying to make him look a bit demonic or if it's just supposed to be something about red hot passion?

Freya

Sans Soliel by Chris Marker... Oh and La Jetee... In fact anything by Chris Marker.

Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome by Kenneth Anger

If you can get to see anything by Gregory Markopoulos then you should but his work isn't that easy to get to see.

Speaking of things that are hard to get to see "Man with a mirror" by Guy Sherwin is incredible if you are at all interested in expanded cinema but it's worth checking out stuff by Guy Sherwin in general actually.

Films by Tony Conrad.

Stuff by Ken Jakobs

The films of Jem Cohen

Freya

pushed the dates twice to help you or just in general?

Once you have made your decision about which to go with I would still urge you to try and reschedule dates on the other, or at least to try and see if something can be sorted. Maybe there is still a way to have your cake and eat it somehow because it sounds like both of them are really important but do be careful not to upset BOTH parties somehow.

In short:

Work out which is the one to go with and keep talking with the other.

Maybe there will be a way to make it happen somehow.

Freya

Shame nobody told Ken Russel about that..

Or George Lucas for the matter! ;)

Once Star Wars is done, The Nutcracker movie is suppose to get them. So who knows if Vox Lux will give up and shoot 35 at this point. When there are only two sync sound 5/65 cameras in the world, they are in high demand!

Is that true? I mean Arri have the 765 and Panavision have System 65.

They surely can't have one camera each?

Freya

YES!

That's a great point Adrian.

I probably am putting down to luck the work of a lot of people to make a film succesful

.

I've been chewed out a little lately too for putting down some things I even did as luck whereas maybe I did actually do things that made those things work. I'm starting to see that a little.

I dunno though. I feel like I could do with some luck right now! ;)

Freya

When the camera is being used handheld and the actors are also moving fairly freely and you are shooting on a huge film negative, I imagine it's a bit of a miracle to keep the focus spot on all the time and personally I quite like the effect of someone walking into or out of focus... I would kind of consider that a creative choice in a way but I havn't seen the movie so...

 

 

Focus pulling on 65mm handheld cameras!

Hmm that makes it sound like they had special handheld cameras but you all know what I mean....

Focus pulling on cameras handheld on 65mm film... or something...

The parts on 35 you talk about were simply scenes pulled from Fire Walk With Me or the original Twin Peaks. Other than that, it does look very flat like you say, I'm not sure many people will comment here, there's not much to say imo.

 

Twin Peaks to me, watching it for the first time on Netflix, has a lovely look and it is jarring to switch to digital, but Twin Peaks The Return looks fairly pedestrian, seeing a lot of the stuff on Netflix right now like Dear White People, or Glow (especially with the 2:00 AR), or other shows like The Leftovers or Fargo, I'd say it's one of the least cinematic shows around, I'd argue that actually it very much looks like some of the middle of the road stuff we otherwise see on TV.

 

It's probably sounding like I'm ripping into it, but imo The Return is the best Twin Peaks has ever been, and I don't think the visuals matter much here. I'm bummed Lynch didn't go for film, he said he would for this, had a change of heart.

That's a shame. I was sort of looking forward to seeing it and I'm not sure I'm as interested anymore.

It's funny I quite liked the idea of seeing Dunkirk too but I don't think I will see that either now.

Ah well.

Freya

IMAX 70mm (or 65mm 15 perf) has such a shallow DOF that it's a bitch to focus. There are a handful of out of focus shots here & there, but surprisingly little, praise the focus puller & operators.

Focus pulling on 65mm handheld cameras!

. I've told dozens of people about this movie and NOBODY knew about the Dunkirk invasion of WWII. This film's whole purpose is to educate the masses, that's the only reason Nolan made it.

 

So if it were rated R, it wouldn't have as great of a mass appeal, thus common people who may know nothing, may have not gone out to see it, which is a real shame.

 

I think Nolan did the right thing as documentary wouldn't have nearly as many eyes on it.

I've been thinking the same thing as I've watched people give long interviews about their relatives who were at Dunkirk and how they wouldn't have recognised the movie etc.

Also many articles explaining about Dunkirk or even articles talking about the Ealing Studio film about the subject.

Now there are even actual photos from Dunkirk being dug up and there is a lot of argument and discussion about Dunkirk. To be honest even if it was a sci-fi version of Dunkirk in space I think it would be a positive thing.

There is now a lot of interest and discussion about a subject that wasn't even close to being on a lot of peoples radar.

Freya

I was purposely making an extreme point. Throwing Roger Deakins name around with the "lucky" ones really diminishes how good that guy is. Of course there are all sorts of factors that lead to a successful career.

No it doesn't. You can be talented AND get lucky or very talented and you might not get lucky.

I can tell you are still having trouble with this idea.

It isn't that people get lucky because they aren't talented. The getting lucky thing is unrelated to the talent.

It's really good if you get lucky and happen to be talented because something more might happen.

You are thinking that lucky is the opposite of talented and it is strange because usually the people who have less ability or are less talented... whatever... have less need to get lucky anyway, at least that is the way it tends to work in the UK.

Freya

Sorry everyone. That set me off on one a bit.

Here is something that is actually quantifiable however.

Follow this link:

https://bscine.com/bsc-members

It's a list of all the Fully accredited members of the British Society of Cinematographers.

It is basically a list of the leading cinematographers in the country.

You can argue that there might be some big name cinematographers who aren't on that list but on the flip side there are an awful lot of fully accredited members who aren't even strictly British.

In any case it is a total of 96 people. Less that 100 people.

Now of these people you will notice that many of them have not worked on major Hollywood movies which are the only kind that tend to get made in the UK now.

So there really aren't that many people who get to work on that stuff. Even quite famous UK DP's may not get to work on stuff like that. I noticed that Nic Knowland BSC who I thought was quite well known and has worked on a lot of films I like (probably a bad sign) hasn't worked on big Hollywood movies at all.

I think by looking at this list you can see it might not be that easy for the 96 people on this list to even get work on big Hollywood movies which might put things into perspective a bit.

Freya