Jump to content

Adam Frisch FSF

Premium Member
  • Posts

    2,101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Adam Frisch FSF

  1. Haven't really shot with them yet, just tested them. But I love the lenses - they have a look that reminds me of the old 60's Schneider Xenons, which I love. Yes, they would be able to fix that and rehouse it. Iris's are pretty easy to free up.
  2. "There is only one correct place to put the camera for any given scene" BS. There are literally thousands for any given scene.
  3. I loved the 535. It was a heavy beast, and not ideal for and kind of Steadi or handheld, but as long as it sat on a tripod or a dolly it was great.
  4. TLS as mentioned are the gold standard. They make wonderful conversions. But it takes years to get it done with them and it costs a fortune, so not for those who are in a hurry or light of wallet. Also, for one-off lenses that have not been done before, the engineering costs here in the West are just not competitive. You'll pay way much more for a conversion that for buying a brand new lens, in many cases. But, if you want to go down that route, then your best option is Nan at GL Optics in China. They'll convert anything and do one-offs. I just had my set of vintage 60's Lomo sphericals (don't think a set has been converted before) done by GL Optics and they did a great job on them. Had to send the 28mm back to get it re-engineered as it vignetted a bit, but other than that very happy with the workmanship. Just to give you an idea, it's about $2.5-$3K/lens to convert an old set in China. You can triple that cost at least if you want to do it here in the West. There's a new player that converts here in Los Angeles called Zero Optik. Their conversions look great, but not sure of the cost.
  5. Plus the breaks in the range were always around that spot where you needed them. Always had to switch from VP1 to VP2, back and forth. At which point you just go - why not just stay on a prime? Did I mention how heavy they are?
  6. This is all new mechanics and the lenses were completely stripped down to their block elements and then re-engineered into new housing. So they focus much closer than they did originally. Cost was about $2500/lens for conversion.
  7. I had these lenses for years. They were in the old Oct-18 mount and although I had an adapter, never really used them professionally much as they didn't have focus rings etc. But I always loved the way they looked - classic vintage look, great organic flares and very good multi-blade iris's. They feel a lot like the old Schneider Xenon's pr Panchro's in that regard. Lenses are mainly from the 60's, but some of the widest focal lengths are from the 80's. Conversion was done by Nan at GL Optics in China. They do a great job. Sure, it could have been done here in the west, but the cost and time to convert would have gone up exponentially. This took 8 months as it was. What I was adamant about is that all the lenses should have great Close Focus, so a lot of effort went into that. They all focus very close. They all share 95mm front diameter. Yet to try them on a production, but look forward to it! If you're interested to test them or rent them in the LA area down the road, they'll be living at Camtec in Burbank. This is probably the only set of converted first generation spherical Lomo's in the world, but I could be wrong. Focal lengths as of now: 22, 28, 35, 50, 75, 135mm. In the future we'll also add an 18mm - it's being built right now. The lenses cover Super 35 and from 50mm and up they also cover full frame.
  8. I pick based on lots of factors. 1. Is it supposed to be an Movi-rigg or flown by a drone? Or handhel all day? Then lightweight lenses like the Zeiss T2.0's High Speeds are a good choice. 2. They want a high tech, crisp look? Master Primes. 3. They want a shallow DoF look with it being organic and not too crips? Leica or Cooke S5's. 4. You come to a smaller market with less equipped rental houses? They'll always have a set of Cooke S4's. 5. Director wants a vintage look? Or flares? Then you can get the old Kinoptik's, Panchro's and Xenon's out. Every job has its own needs.
  9. What you don't want to do is take old film stock onto night shoots etc. Or even very contrasty exteriors. Overcast days in combination with slight overexposure is probably the way to get the best results from old stock.
  10. I grew up with comics in the continental European tradition, like Tintin, Asterix & Obelix, Lucky Luke and Spirou etc, so for me DC and Marvel never meant anything. And in today's tentpole cinema there is almost nothing but that, so for me the last years have been challenging. I'm just not that interested in Ant-Man or Avengers etc - I have no relationship to them. Dressing up in a suit and being invincible just doesn't carry a lot of dramatic conflict for me. I also became a father 2 years ago and between family life and work, it's very hard to get away to the cinema these days. I think I've been twice last year, which is shockingly bad for a cinephile. I have huge gaps in my film watching from the last 5 years, which didn't use to be the way. In any case, I do see a slight return of the more drama-oriented movies like The Post, Spotlight etc, so there seems to be interesting work happening besides all the superhero stuff. For awhile it just felt like cinema was the same as big tentpole Marvel stuff. I'm glad there seems to room for other stuff still.
  11. Jo is super talented and a very nice guy, too. He shot a gorgeous Apple commercial a few years ago on the Alexa 65 in really low light levels (some shots were done at 25000ASA) that really inspired me. https://vimeo.com/183414271
  12. Nobody has been more deserving of an Oscar except maybe Ennio Morricone! Roger should have won at least 2-3 times earlier. Congrats to him!
  13. Couldn't agree more, David. The time I find it really pretty is on wides that have fall-off. Too much gets distracting on CU's. It's easy to overdo. I seem to use mainly lenses in the 27, 32, 40 and maybe 50mm range, so tend not to get so long that it becomes a problem, but I've certainly been guilty of it in the past. Longer I do this, the more I subscribe to JJ Annauds idea of doing your wides on longer lenses and backing off, to get that tableau, painterly feeling, and doing the close-ups with wider lenses, closer, nearer. That close work seems to mimic the human eye better. But to get back on topic about softness in wides: there was the IMAX shot of the Joker after the robbery, that was essentially a full body shot where the background got soft. It was a very impressive shot when viewed on a big screen. To me, that felt cinematic. Although I totally appreciate the super sharp, deep focus work of photographers like Crewdson etc. But they have the luxury of having a set that's 100% controlled and designed. We rarely get that as DP's and on the wides it's where you need the ability to draw the eye with focus the most. Here's a cropped pic of that. On the IMAX he was full body.
  14. Honestly, we needed a new large format lens mount. I'd always thought Arri would re-use the old Maxi PL they developed for the 765. But instead they developed the LPL. Whatever it is, I just hope we can all rally around a single format so we can exchange lenses. If some go down the Nikon route, others Canon, Arri sticks with the LPL - we could have huge mess on our hands. I'm hoping LPL becomes the format - it's sturdy and easily reverse compatible to PL with the adapter.
  15. Just a little bet: Watch and see how Monstro VV sensor and new Alexa LF cameras will rule everything in less than a year. Nobody will be shooting standard 35mm format video in a years time professionally. The Alexa Mini's will be sitting on the shelf. Frisch's Law of Photography is always in effect. ;)
  16. I am totally with you on the overuse of the CU. Look at the masters of cinema, and you'll see it used quite sparingly. Not only that, it's used only when necessary - to emphasize drama or a turning in the story. Not like now, where a whole show can cut from one CU to the next without ever showing the geography and the blocking. It's lazy filmmaking and lacks craft. However, I can't agree with shallow DoF. This world is so ugly in most public spaces it's an assault on your senses; architecture, ugly signs, ugly colors, dayglo high viz vests, traffic cones, road works, cracked asphalt, bushy brushes etc. Very very rarely do you find a location, exterior or interior, where everything looks good or it has a restrained palette. And with budgets these days, you can't change poop. You might be able to stick a desk lamp into the ugly interior location, a chair, some plants, but thats about it. It's still the same ugly interior. 99 times out of a 100, the wall on location will be white. How on earth do you create magic when the subject you're about to shoot is 4ft away from a white wall? I've asked "can we repaint the walls darker?" on every job since 2008, still hasn't happened. "We can't afford to, because then we need to rent location for 2 extra days and pay scenics or PA's". So that's the reality of todays shooting, even on supposedly big commercials. Building on set - yes, it happens sometimes for very special things or riggy stuff, but never for just a basic interior. Too expensive. In those scenarios, stuck in reality, shallow DoF is your only friend. It's a way of pushing all the detritus and crap out of sight. This is why Frisch's Law of Photography will always be in effect: "Any cinematographer/photographer will inherently seek out the format with the least apparent depth of field as his preferred choice." http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=75036&hl=%2Bfrisch%26%2339%3Bs+%2Blaw Watch and see now with Monstro VV sensor and new Alexa LF cameras - they will rule everything in less than a year. Nobody will be shooting standard 35mm format video in a years time professionally. Nobody.
  17. Greg, without going into personal specifics, a DP who shoots a Netflix show earns maybe $6-8K/week. I know this firsthand as a friend of mine shot House of Cards and they paid exactly $6K/week. I can do same money on a union commercial in fewer days. But I don't work as much as they do - maybe nothing in a month, maybe 2 days - if it's a great month maybe 10 days of shooting. So for an average month, let's say 8 days of shooting, I contribute roughly the same amount of money to their fund as a Netflix show DP does, but get nothing in return. I don't think that's fair. It should be tiered system, so that those who contribute most get the free health care, but those who fall below a certain amount might have to chip in a little to get the benefits. Now you can be 1 hr short of your 400hrs and the whole things goes away. It's either on or off. That's no way to raise a family, never really knowing if you got insurance (unless you check in daily to see how many hours you have in a qualifying period).
  18. I never qualify for the union insurance because it's geared towards long form. I contribute the same, or more money than a feature or TV drama DP per year, but because I don't work 400hrs each qualifying 6 month period, I don't qualify. To me, that's wrong. But hey, it is what it is. In 8 years in the union, I've qualified one time.
  19. I wouldn't say the unions are the main reason for the higher costs (in fact, the US crew day rate is on par with most of Europe), but certainly having to have a Teamster drive out the truck to set and then just sit for 10hrs until it's time to drive it back, isn't the most cost effective way. More culpable are the SAG costs for talent. Friend once shot a thing in Cape Town just because it was cheaper to do a whole new commercial then renew and re-up with residuals on the one they'd already shot in LA... Shouldn't be that way. I shoot all over the world. And crews are great everywhere. But LA just has that little extra when it comes to them. As much as unions drive me crazy at times, I will give them that; there is a barrier and minimal skill level and experience that they protect. And when you're on set in LA, you can count on the people that are there to know their job and be professional. Professionalism doesn't manifest itself in big things. It's the small stuff. A monitor goes up and just like that, so does a courtesy flag to block the sun. That's stuff you have to ask for everywhere else. Lights have scrims on them on the stands, so that you can quickly change intensity. That's normally something they'll have to go get from the truck, if they even have it, when you ask in other places. Frames are made and skinned already, so you don't have to wait for 3 sparks to put some 1/4 CTO on a frame whilst you're losing the sun. Furney pads are always standby and ready to be slipped under when you're handheld in case you drop on to your knees. The police officers you hire actually help you make your shots by blocking traffic and facilitating, not the opposite. Etc etc. LA is a "company town". It grew up with film, it's made from film. And sometimes LA forgets who built that town. Every location and every permit is more expensive than it needs to be. Everyone got used to seeing the film business as a cash cow. I hope we can change that and bring even more film back.
  20. LA for commercials keeps a pretty steady pace and always have. Yes, most of my work is travel, but when it's US based it's often LA, sometimes NY. Love shooting in LA, the crews and the support is second to none.
  21. Sorry to dredge, but David - are the Double Fog's combination of Fog and Low Con? I'm rekindling my interest filtering after a decade of naturalism and sharp and realistic imagery. I've been using GlimmerGlass on a few projects, but really want to move towards light Fog filtering. Saw some nice tests shot with Double Fog recently and it made me excited again. HAs anyone got any recent projects using light Double Fog?
  22. Look at Night of the Hunter for some really amazing hard light work by Stanley Cortez, ASC. It's noir lighting, but expertly done. Also, in beauty-lighting, hard light is common. The trick is to keep it very close to camera and shape a shadow that compliments the features (normally light ends up above camera). It's when hard sources move towards being side or top-lights that they get much harder to do well. Here's an example hard light for beauty that's been cut/gobo-ed/charlie-bar'd to create interest. When I used to do beauty work (I don't get those kind of jobs very often anymore), I often hung a Big Eye 10K right above lens. The Mole Big Eye 10K's were old units that had a huge fresnel front lens, they worked really well for beauty. They can be hard to find at rental houses (as I don't think they're produced anymore), but the good ones hang on to the old ones. They're hard enough to shape a shadow, but big enough to be a little pleasing to the eye when you go off axis. They create a nice round shape in the eye reflection. And they're pretty inefficient, so won't blind the talent too much. Here's one I used years ago:
  23. Hyams is a solid DP, in my opinion. 2010 looks great, with lots of big smoky single source lighting in the earth part. Outland also looks good as do most of his work: Running Scared (great buddy cop movie), Narrow Margin, The Presidio, The Musketeer etc.
  24. 1-1.5 stop per decade is my rule. But since film can take overexposure quite well, never hurts to err on the side of that.
×
×
  • Create New...