Adam Frisch FSF

Might I suggest a DIY way? Get a film frame, preferrably of a mesh or lines or something "busy" (ideally a start lead from a lab or a good quality chart), cut it out and tape it to the gate of your camera snugly (make sure it's flat - I stuck the film frame to one of those little glass squares labs use in microscopes) use and stick a powerful light (Mag Lite usually adequate) behind it. Turn the lights out and focus the lens on the wall and your camera will now be a projector. Change lenses and subjectively compare sharpness, color rendition, contrast and so on at the same aperture. Surprisingly simple and surprisingly useful. And exactly how the "big boys" do it, albeit with more snazzy gear, on their MTF benches.

Hi. I've used nets behind the lens on a couple of occasions. It's a nice way to bring some softness to it. But unless you have a lot of bright spots or lights in frame, it's not that visible on 35mm. On one shoot I had some HMI's pumping into the lens, which created this multicolored mesh-flare that was rather nice. But on another one mainly front-lit, you couldn't really tell. I imagine you could probably easylier see it if it was intended for the big screen. The quite shitty, but nicely shot film From Hell has some nice nets effects. Check it out. On 16mm on the other hand, it becomes very visible. A little bit too visible for my taste - it makes it look very soft.

Good cinematography is 50% good production design. White walls and cramped, unstyled, small confined rooms never look nice, really. They can look "ugly" nice, if you know what I mean, but rarely beautiful.

It's a headache (not that I've ever needed it for dailies) not being able to see how the neg looks "straight out of the box". Many times I've wanted to see how a particular film stock looks "bare" (especially when you're trying out unusual processes or stocks) before they start tweaking, only to see the colorist scratching his head. There's no zero setting on these machines unfortunately so there's no comparison or a constant to compare to. I can't seem to understand why, 'cause it'd be a piece of cake to agree on a setting that would constitute the "norm", wouldn't it?

They are zooms, though. Whatever Zeiss wants to call them.

Well, I'm a devoted Arri man myself. But I've shot nothing else so I'd like to try something new. Not for any particular reason other than working with something I haven't worked with before.

Kodak had its 5347 which was a real workhorse. Think it was 100T or 125T in speed. To replicate that look, you should stay away from the new Vision2 stocks. They're way to slick. I'd go for Fuji - they have a color rendition that just feels a bit more dated. Perhaps try the 400T or the harsher 125T and 64D. Or try the Kodak 320T (which also is a low con stock) or the EXR100T (5248). The exteriors on 80's films I always remember as quite harsh. The interiors as well - lot's of hard light still around - kind of the last days of the old studio pro DP's still doing their 3-point lighting. Preferrably blue....:-)

It might even be an advantage: you'll mix colors like no one else! I can hear them now: "He's so creative with colors that DP!"

Ok, thanks. But what you're basically saying is that ALL the older lenses are, in fact, Zeiss? So if I wanted something else than Zeiss, my only choice would be Primos, right? The MKII sound kinda good, David. You know what kind of Zeiss glass's in them?

Congrats, guys! I've yet to meet my future wife. Or future daughter...

Need some advice. I'm about to shoot a commercial here in London and would like to try Panavision for a change. It's what they call a "viral", which means a film made for the internet, so the budget is limited. I mainly need some advice on lenses. It's a spherical shoot and I'm going for full aperture super-35. It's a very post-heavy spot, so I'll need some lenses that don't distort or bend too much. On the other hand, I don't mind if they're less contrasty - that'll just enhance the look we're going for. It also involves a lot of handheld, so they must be light. I'm thinking the equivalent to Zeiss's brilliant older T2.1 series. What lenses would you recommend for that? Also, I'd like to get the oldest camera possible to save money, but at the same time have a camera that is manageable when handheld. Would an old GII or Gold do the trick, or is anything but an XL murder on the back? Thanks a bunch.

Conan the Barbarian was shot on them. Impossible to tell on a DVD really, but it looks quite alright.

Oh, man! Congrats!!!! I said you'd be in the ASC in no time, didn't I! So great!

It's been alright. I've done one promo here and have a couple of commercials coming up, probably. I say probably, because this spring I've been up for I don't know how many jobs that have for various reasons never materialised. So I'll tick them off when I'm standing there beside the camera, not before. How you doin' there in Chelmsford?

The Quadra is the forerunner to the Spirit. For it's time it was a very sharp telecine that often outperformed any CRT based telecine. If I had to choose between the two on 16mm, I'd probably go for the Quadra over an older CRT. The Turbo however is newer, but CCD's are better at 16mm generally.

Another trick is to breath through a hose or snorkel - it's your exhaust breath that fogs the viewfinder.

I've shot Techniscope! It's not dead. But almost... Might get a bit of revival in these DI days, though.......

Alex Barber is one of the busiest DP's here in London. He's very, very good.

I don't want to discourage you, but this is a really cut-throat business and not for the faint of heart. I've been working since 1996 and I still am not making a decent living off it. It's very competitive and very dishearting at times - out of every 10 projects your up for, perhaps 1 gets made. At best. Yet you still have to plan as if all are going to happen. So stamina just isn't what's required. You need to love it, otherwise you'll never last the course. I can not do anything else, this is my passion, so I'm sticking with it. But it's a poor career choice if you're in it for a quick buck. But if you love it, go for it.

I sound like a broken record, but Klute shot by Willis is lightyears ahead of its time and probably one of the best shot thrillers, if not films, of all time. Just check where Willis puts the camera on that last helicopter shot! Brilliant!

I think I've told you about this earlier. One of the gaffers I work with made a mini-jumbo or micro-Dinolight by placing 20 MR16 50W PAR narrow spots in a frame. They're all 12V, so they were connected in serial like a christmas light (for the US, 10 would be the maximum). Had a massive punch and reach! I kid you not, very powerful light. I don't know about the US, but here these MR16 halogen PAR's are rather cheap. He never could get them certified due to the serial wiring, though. Or otherwise I think he would have started to manufacture them, being so good. Was called the Lind-o-light after his last name, Lindblad. Now you can get MR16 pars with a regular screw in socket and for 240V, which makes it possible to make this light the correct "safe" way with paralell wiring. Unfortunately, these MR16's with sockets cost 10 times more a piece....

Search the forum - this topic has been discussed at lenght. I used to own one, but sold it since todays production needs ask for a more modern camera. Videotap is a must these days. I did love it, though. And it was very reliable and sturdy.

It's even simpler than that: the film Klute is good cinematography, everything else is bad. :D

I used to spurt filmschool-isms like "you shouldn't move the camera unless it's motivated", and so on. It was a good rule, I thought. I even think I tried to convince someone much more experienced than myself that anything else was wrong. I'd like to apologise for that here and now. Because, who says you can't move the camera unless it's motivated? BTW, what exactly IS a motivated camera move? It's a load of croc. You can move the camera any way you want in any given situation for no apparent reason whatsoever. It's all up to you (and the director, of course). Most films today have completely random camera movements that don't follow any "grand thought". Michael Bay, Martin Scorsese and John Woo have built entire careers doing just that. I like a static camera as much as the next guy, in fact I love it. But I also love a crazy moving camera at times. There's no right and wrong. I completely agree with the one who talked about the gut-feeling. Do what your gut says. Then ignore the head:-)

With the risk of sounding luck a stuck record: No film, whatever gauge, will disappear as long as there's a visual difference between it and its so called replacement. HD is just a new format, not a replacement for anything that was there before.