Jump to content

Adam Frisch FSF

Sustaining Member
  • Content Count

    2079
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Adam Frisch FSF last won the day on August 18

Adam Frisch FSF had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

104 Excellent

About Adam Frisch FSF

  • Rank

  • Birthday 07/24/1971

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  • Location
    Los Angeles, USA
  • Specialties
    Swedish cinematographer now in Los Angeles.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.adamfrisch.com

Recent Profile Visitors

18474 profile views
  1. Trailer looks amazing, Jarin. What a dream project for a cinematographer! On the Arris (and I think Panavisions), you can order them with a special black pressure plate. Because of the weak backing on B&W film, what happens when you have bright objects in image, is that the light actually goes through the film, bounces in the chrome plated pressure plate and then re-enters back into film, creating a weird halation and greatly reduces contrast. It's a classic problem when you shoot into light sources. With a black pressure plate this problem is greatly reduced, if not eliminated.
  2. No, I'm not a wide lens lover. They pull me out of a film - too freakish. For me the sweet range is mids - 25, 27, 32, 35, 40mm. That's where it's at for me. I could do an entire movie with just those. But there are times when you must use wider lenses. But I never carry wider than 18mm on a regular job. And I almost never have to break it out.
  3. Yes you can. One of my old Swedish gaffers used to use a C-stand with a flag arm at 45 degrees (and clamped in middle). At the knuckle end he put a 4x4 bounce card, at the pointy, other end of flag arm, he put a little Redhead light bouncing into the card. It was a single stand, moveable soft unit, almost like an umbrella light. Worked well. Today with LED soft units, it's less need for it, but good trick to know.
  4. $500 is way too low, but I've had offers for low budget features in that region. I earned $1200/week for my $2M horror feature Don't Knock Twice, so that's kind of the realistic range we're looking at. More than $2K/week for a low budget non-union film is probably rare.
  5. Huge Netflix show with a major star in it paid $6K/week for the DP. He later moved to an even bigger show, also for same network, and it bumped to $8K/week. I'd expect that is as much as you'll ever earn doing TV. Big features with a big time DP might pay a little more, but we're talking the top 20 guys here. Us mere mortals, on a $1-5 million movie, probably looking at anywhere from $500-3000/week. Which might sound like a good living, but if you're in LA or NY and have a family, really isn't.
  6. I can only say that editing is one of the most important tools in the making of a film. It is by far one of the most creative crafts in the arts. You can completely change the tone of any piece in editing, based on the exact same footage the director shot. It can take a film from bad to good all by itself, and vice versa, of course. So whenever I see it getting pooh-poohed, and treated as merely assembly that anyone can do with the right software, well, I just very strongly disagree. It is highly creative and very few people are good at it. But most think they are.
  7. Greg - saw it at the BAFTA screening. Manu - you'll just have to see if it feels that way like it did for me. Yes, John Wick 3 kills a lot more people, Expendables etc, it's not about the actual body count or violence per se, just the intersection between the emotional impact, in conjunction with the times, and this being a character that attracts a lot of followers that are already turned away socially. In many ways it is like Taxi Driver, but there weren't any 'incels' back then that went home and stocked up on assault rifles.
  8. Great movie very nicely shot by Lawrence Sher, ASC. A performance of a lifetime from Joaquin. He simply will win Oscar for it, there is no other option. Film is uncomfortable, very angst-ridden and full of impending doom and dread. Not necessarily a pleasant watch, but engaging and very well made. It's a character piece rather than an action movie. I have to be honest, I am a little worried in these strange times what it might motivate in the disenfranchised young (mostly) males. There was a Q&A after film with director Todd Phillips and a woman raised this very question. He kind of did what all us filmmakers do, and that is to say it's not up to us to filter, shy away from violence or not show mental illness, we can only ask questions, yada yadda etc. And normally I would agree with him, but like I said, I can't but help share that woman's fears, slightly. Seen by someone removed from good human interactions, perhaps with some confidence issues or mental problems, it could inspire the wrong thing. It is a powerful film that doesn't necessarily condemn it. First time I've ever felt that we as filmmakers actually do have a responsibility. Or maybe I'm just getting older. Nevertheless, a very powerful movie. It feels a little bit like it will create debate like Fight Club did 20 years ago.
  9. New bigger sensor, which is welcome. Not sure how they can call a 23x13mm sensor Super35 in size - it's nowhere near that. But hey, I'll take any sensor enlargement they got!
  10. So where are we a year later? Well, the LF cameras have not completely replaced the 35mm frame size quite yet as I predicted. My rental house friends say the Mini/Dragon still stands for the majority of the rentals. It is shifting, though. And I get the sense that the lenses was what was holding LF back. Or lack of, rather. Now with Cooke releasing 1.8x anamorphic to cover FF, Thalia's and lots of little smaller producers releasing interesting lenses, like Bardford Young ASC's company, Tribe7/Blackwing7, there will be interesting times ahead. The Sony Venice has made big inroads, and the new Mini LF is sure to be a hit. Will see where we are in another years time, but I think with anamorphic being more accessible in LF, it will start to win some hearts and minds.
  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisch's_Law_of_Photography
  12. House renovation and life costs forces me to sell my recently rehoused vintage (spherical) LOMO lens set. This is a gorgeous set with an amazing vintage look without being unusably soft like some other classics. Gorgeous spherical "spinning top" flares and a perfect balance of old world organic charm and usability. Reminding me of vintage Cooke S2's and Schneider Xenon's of that era. Professionally rehoused at GL Optics and kept as my personal set at Camtec rentals in Los Angeles and well kept after. They all cover Super35 and most of them cover up to full 8K on the Red. On the Alexa Mini they all cover the full format except the 28mm where there's the slightest vignette and you have to drop to 2.8K or crop in about 10% in edit. 22mm T2.2 (covers to 7K) 28mm T2.8 (covers 6K fully or 7K HD with the slightest vignette) 35mm T2.2 (covers to 7K) 40mm T2.6 (covers 8k) 50mm T2.2 (covers 8K) 75mm T2.2 (covers 8K) 135mm T4.2 (covers 8K) Set comes in a professional custom case and includes the very rare 40mm focal length as well. Few spherical vintage LOMO sets around and certainly almost none with the 40mm in it. All iris is multi-blade to ensure perfectly round bokeh even stopped down. The 75mm has a slight nick on front element, but I did extensive testing with it before I even sent it off for conversion and it had no effect. Very easy to replace that element with one from Ebay, should you absolutely want to. Anyone is welcome to come have a look at them or test them at Camtec in Burbank. They're ready to shoot. I also have more photos of them if anyone wants. I have testes showing exactly what each lens covers. Here are some very short examples of how they look from a commercial: Here are some flare tests I did last year: Looking to get $19500 for the entire set, give or take. Please DM me for contact details!
  13. Obviously the democratization of technology and the cheap technology/low barriers to entry to film these days will result in more content. But probably not better content. I think we'll find that there will be roughly the same amount of awarded films today (when everyone can do it), as it were back in the days when the barrier was huge. Excellence finds a way through all the obstacles. It's just like music - Beatles had 4 audio channels to record on and extremely archaic mixers and equipment. Today you can have unlimited channels, layer all sorts of sounds, instruments, process it, mix it on a laptop, make people who can't sing sing in tune, etc. Is the music measurably better? There's more of it, that's for sure, but truly better? I'm not so sure. Technology is both very important and not at all important. Human thinking and creativity is important. And sometimes technology can enable that initially, or make new creative avenues possible, but in the end, it comes back to what humans do with it, not the other way around.
×
×
  • Create New...