Adam Frisch FSF

Goya/Arri X-lights give very sharp shadows. Even sharper if you get the black reflector.

When you don't have a lot of lights of firepower, this is an approach I've used many times: use the few lights you have as direct low hits instead. Ignore the face, cut these lights so that they hit somewhere below the face (torso, midriff, or just legs). If you're lucky, sometime just the spill from the floor or furniture is enough to bounce up into the faces a little. OF not, use a little soft push or "room tone" to suggest some indirect cool daylight has bounced around ion there. Also - spread out the sources, so that one might be doing your subject, another one a background or a foreground. Sun rays are parallel in nature, so by spreading your harder sources out, they'll look more realistic. If they're all in the same spot just pointing in different directions, it looks less believable. I always carry PARcans on every shoot I do just for this purpose. They're great for sneaking a little direct sunlight hit into a set beneath softer key, or something else.

Very kind of you. I think it all sucks, but maybe I'm too close to it? :)

Many, many commercial directors have "treatment writers". In fact, I know three people who do that job full time, more or less. That doesn't mean they do all the work and the director just comes in gets the big bucks, it's a collaboration. They email and talk on the phone about the tone, the ideas and what needs to be achieved. Many directors are simply too busy to spend a few days on a treatment when they're shooting. Agencies often want it presented within a short period, and that's where these writers come in and can work in the background. Also, many bigger production companies have researchers that can dig up reference images and mood boards to include in treatment. Not all directors work with treatment writers - some want to be the full author of their work - but quite a few do.

I know it's not always the appropriate and I am also pretty sick of the DSRL shallow depth look. But that said, I'll bet anyone here that in 2 years time when all the full frame Arri's, Red's and Panavision's are out and working, nobody will touch anything else. It's like the 2K Arri Alexas today - they can't give them away. My prediction for future is FF and even shallower DOF across the board. An AC friend of mine who's already seen the writing on the wall is selling his full set of Leica Summilux T1.4's (that are not FF), knowing that in 2 years time he won't be able to get half as much for them.

But you would, if there was interpretative and creative auto focus built in, right Phil? ;) I think my law still stands. :D

I posted in the Dunkirk Soft Focus thread and the future of focus pulling and the new full frame formats, but think it needs it's own thread. My rampant hubris has prompted me to name a natural photographic law after myself.. ;) Frisch's Law of Photography = Any cinematographer/photographer will inherently seek out the format with the least apparent depth of field as his preferred choice.

Focus pulling is all going to get much, much harder in the foreseeable future. I have on good authority that Arri will be releasing a full size chip camera in the vein of the Panavision DXL and Red Weapon VistaVision camera next year. The future will move to these formats very quick, just watch. Cinematographers seek out the format that has the least inherent DOF, that's just a natural law. Call it Frisch's Law. ;) And with that move will come more compounded focus requirements and mistakes. Not only that, this move will favor established and experienced focus pullers, making it harder for newbie's to get in. On another note, if you're sitting on lenses that do not cover FF, you should think about selling them sooner rather than later as their value will decrease significantly in the near future.

Like you said, it's perhaps the most important job on set. And it's a really hard job to do well. I can tell within about 10 mins of meeting an AD if they're going to be good at it. It's a very fine balance between being a General, a psychologist and being a loner. In my opinion, I think the best ones are the ones who take charge and treat it as being a General. But not a screaming general, just an inner force that comes out without you ever having to raise your voice. And like any good leader, you'll respect your men and not be afraid to change tactics if a better one gets suggested. Once in an interview with John Milieus he said: "I see myself as a General, but that means I'll wait until the back of the line until everyone has eaten before I eat". That kind of sums the approach for a good leader (not that you have to do that, but it's a good analogy). And also my reference to being a loner - you're not supposed to be overly chummy with everyone, just enough humanity so that they know you're looking out for them and everybody on set. Overly chatty and friendly AD's I rarely find that good. There needs to be a respect there. Good luck.

Well, he's the true pioneer in many ways, he shot Hamlet in 5/70 20 years ago when nobody would touch 70mm, so he's no stranger to the format.

He got it back because Blumhouse Productions has a great business idea: They make genre film up to 5 million in budget, no middlemen, no studio interference, no external financiers etc. The director gets total creative freedom and they actively seek out experienced directors that might have fallen between the cracks previously, or had a flop, in the studio system. They're not interested in first time directors - they want people with experience and a vision. The studio system has become the opposite of that - they take in first time directors for really big tent pole or Marvel superhero movies, that they know are grateful for the shot and therefore easy to control and do as they're told. Then it's sink or swim. If the film works, they'll get another job. If not, they're out and the studios move on to the next hot first time director. Long term directing careers like Spielbergs, Sidney Lumet, Sydney Pollack are no longer supported or made by studios. The business has changed completely.

Depth of field remains the same regardless of focal length as long as the aperture and image size stay the same. Longer lenses do not shorten it, it just appears so because the background gets more magnified.

...that it breeds bad discipline. Yesterday I shot a commercial where we racked up 8.5hrs of footage in one day. On a 12hr shooting day! Two cameras, and it was with kids, but still. Both were just rolling, all the time, indiscriminately. They never cut, prefer to walk into the scene and give direction, adjust wardrobe and makeup etc whilst cameras were rolling. Only time we had to break was for reloads. I just find it sloppy. How is the editor going to find the nuggets and little nuances in 8.5hrs of material? He won't. He'll just find the "printed" takes from the script girls notes, and won't even look at all the other stuff, because he can't, thereby missing many nuances or other performances that might have been even better. I heard the other day about a longform production with similar approach where the editor had come back asking for a CU of a dialogue scene. Cinematographer and director said they know they shot it, but since it's buried in 150hrs of footage that no editor can ever sift through, and the script notes were not referencing it, it just becomes easier to do a pickup shot of that on set rather than trying to find it. Such a f-ing waste. And such a f-ing sloppy way to make film. Infuriates me.

Yep, I've cut in Inspire 2 footage in 5K with lots of Alexa and Red jobs. Last was for a car commercial. Works like a charm.

Agreed with Stuart, seems like VistatVision of just plain old stills format/full size size is now considered 'medium format'. Nah. It also seems this is new standard in many ways - Red's new VV 8K, Panavisions DXL and I've heard rumors of an Arri system coming end of the year too. Me, I'll keep waiting for the full 65mm experience...

Carl - you'll end up cropping the S16 neg on the sides just as much as you would if you did a spherical 2.40:1 extraction from it, almost. A 2x anamorphic squeeze on the 1.66:1 neg will make it 3.32:1 wide. That a serious letterboxing. So you'll have to chop off the sides a lot getting to 2.40:1 (throwing away more than a third of the negative), further exasperating the problem that you're already not going to be very wide with anamoprhics. I've done it back in the days, but it was not something that lends itself to anything on a tight location etc. For big exterior vistas it can work, where you can move back. But in a tight bedroom, you're looking a very tight field of view.

In the future, all this will become a floating point. You have 1.3x anamorphics, the 2x anamoprhics, but you also have the 1.25x Panavision anamoprhics for the DXL (they're developing new set of Ultra Panavision lenses) and there are also some older Bolex 1.5x anamorphics floating around.

Yeah, I use the term naturalism a little loosely here. It was an emulated naturalism, but in reality quite lit. Big soft single source pushes, atmosphere and also longer lenses. Reason I call it naturalistic is that it very often lacked backlight as part of the standard setup. Sure there could be very backlit scenes (just look at 9,5 Weeks), but they were often found on their own, just silhouetted. But the lenses are also a big thing - longer lenses. Today, cinematography tends to shoot much wider lenses. Not necessary framing wider, but just wider focal lengths. I'm looking at a few shows right now on TV, and I'm always struck by how ugly their lens choices are. Bowing, extreme wides, weird compositions, converging lines. Puts me right out of it, if I'm honest. It's as if the drone aesthetic has morphed into cinematography. I'm not saying the way I do it is better, but it looks more pleasing to my eye: very rarely do I shoot anything wider than 25mm. Seems like my normal range is around 30-40mm.

Just re-watched parts of this for a last minute job interview. And again I got reminded of how fantastic the cinematography is in it by Kimball. I've always enjoyed his cinematography, and this and Revenge is some of his best work. I miss that heightened, smoky 'Brit revolution' naturalism that was ushered in by the likes of the Scott brothers etc then. Even though we are deep into a new wave of naturalism right now, trend-wise, it looked so much different then on film. Doesn't look nearly as good these days.

I was just looking at a few clips from Jacob's Ladder (shot by the great Jeffrey L Kimball, ASC) in preparation for a job interview. And it struck me that that 80's and 90's 'Brit revolution' look could probably not be achieved today digitally. Just something with how the low's and darks respond to atmosphere and underexposure. I really miss that smoky 'heightened' naturalism from DP's like Kimball, Biziou, Goldblatt, Seresin, Biddle, Cronenweth.

They're confused - there's nothing mutually exclusive by shooting on film and delivering in 4K. Or 6k or 8k... :angry:

There's a good chapter dedicated to it in the old ASC Manual. Get an older one on Ebay, and you'll have plenty of info there. But in general, yes, your'e on the right track. Greater depth of field will sell the illusion. If it's a static set, then no need to over crank, but if you have any moving elements, like snow, water, fire, you need to. There's a formula for that in the manual, too. With water and fire, the bigger the scale, the more convincing it will be.

I did speak to the Panavision rep and he said they're developing new set of 1.25x anamorphics for the DXL. That will be interesting to see.

Just put a deposit on the Atlas Orion initial set (40, 65, 100mm). Saw them at CineGear and was impressed. At that price point, they're a no-brainer, almost. Cheaper getting these new lenses than buying a beat up old set of Lomo's on Ebay for almost twice as much.

I put a deposit on the Atlas Orion anamorphic lens set, a 40, 65, 100mm (pretty much all you really need for 90% of shooting). Expect delivery early 2018. I was impressed with them for that price. Finally the prices of anamorphics are starting to come down. I've regretted selling my Lomo's and thought I'd buy a set of used anamoprhics again. But at this price point, I can get a completely new anamorphic set for less than a beat up old set of Lomo's. A no brainer. https://atlaslensco.com