Adam Frisch FSF

What you're looking at is not a collimating lens, but an anamorphic front element for projection. This lens can not focus image on its own. It has no huge value for cinematography as it needs to be experimentally paired with a focusing lens. And because it's small and has narrow diameter, the field of view will be limiting and it will probably only accept pairing with a telephoto lens. And then the two units need to be focused in unison, which will be almost impossible to do in a shooting environment. Ebay is full of front elements you can buy. Schneider made some of the best.

You have a very good reel and great action stuff, but I think the problem might be here: "I've been in the film industry for 15+ years as DOP and director" Unfortunately, directors do not like to hire other directors as DP's. I can't tell you how many DP's I know that have gone over from very successful DP careers to directing and struggled. That leaves the niche of Director/DP market - and it's a pretty substantial market - but it doesn't always transform well into narrative stuff. Most of that work is visual and action driven. If you could re-brand yourself as one or the other, I think you might open up some options. But you're stuff is good, so in long run I'm not terribly worried about it - you'll do fine! :)

Elephant Man.

Saw an early screening of this and I have to say that Adam Arkapaw did an excellent job on it. It's obviously shot with some sort of older, or perhaps even coating-stripped anamorphics. Sometimes when people sit in front of window or bright background, they almost disappear in the veiling glare they produce. An interesting look that works well if you don't mind losing your subject in the glare at times. Very naturally lit (as is the trend at the moment), but with enough flourishes and nuances to make it interesting and not full documentary. Tasteful and skillful. There is particularly a shot that I love, where Fassbender's character, holed up in the lighthouse, is composed so as his face and body covers the lantern lighting the room behind him. Very impressionistic. I absolutely love when the source of a light is somehow obscured in frame, ideally by the actor. It's much more interesting than having a source in shot I find many times. In fact, I've recently become allergic to having practicals on. It became such a trope that every single practical has to be on, no matter if it's day or night. It's been done to death. I'd rather have the shape of the lights or shades, but not have them on. There's also a night storm sequence when his wife is trying to reach the lighthouse that is very well done and lit. You can tell they had to light from the ground here and probably weren't able to light from high above to emulate moon, but the DP turns it into an asset and makes the scene much more dramatic because of it. Beautiful work. Film is overall excellent as well. A sure Oscar contender. Only complaint I had with visual approach is that it was a mix between static/tracking shots and very handheld stuff. Never really understood why.

Exactly the same has happened to Darius Khondji. Skills etc are not enough to keep a successful career going, you also have to play the game (if that's what you want to do). When you move back to Europe and do smaller films, you fall of the radar for big stuff. Probably by choice.

It is, but that's the great test. Quality control is the most important thing for a reel and a career.

Where to even begin on this topic? Only in hindsight will you be able to tell where the forks in the roads were. Either to success or failure. For me, one of them was a clear notion in 2005 when I knew I could survive doing this. That was a personal relief and realisation. Before that, it had been in the balance. And only with hindsight do I see where the small breaks were. It wasn't one huge thing, but multiple smaller things. That said, I'm reasonably successful in commercials now (and that provides a good living), but I want to do long form. An area where I'm not very known or get many offers. So in a way, one is never happy or where one wants to be. I'll just keep working away at it. Sooner or later I'll get there, just like I did with music videos and commercials. But I have one piece of advice - don't do everything. It's very important to be able to say no, even if you're hurting financially. Nobody wants a DP that's a trash can. Jack of all trades, master of none and all that.

It looked great. Sometimes the diffusion they used on interiors is a little heavy for modern taste, but it's a gorgeous film. Not only the the famous candlelight stuff (still almost unsurpassed in painterliness), but also the naturalistic daylight interiors. This is the original gangster when it comes to naturalism. But much more than that, it's just a great film - and very funny at times with the laconic VO.

I've used old Scoop lights covered with diffusion to achieve this. I've also done round cutouts for LED bicolor panels. Round looks better in eyes. But the Rifa also works.

So, I have this new to me Aaton 35-III cam and it uses 12V onboards with XLR connectors. Can't really find the original charger for these, so I thought I'd perhaps adapt my own. Camera takes 10-14V, so I'm assuming the best would be to find a 14V charger to charge the batteries with, right? I'm a bit clueless when it comes to electrical stuff, but I seem to recall from my science classes that to charge something to 12V, the charger needs to be more than that. So, here are some questions: 1. For a 12V battery, would 14v charger be best? 2. Would it charger quicker with a higher voltage, i.e. a 16V charger? Would I risk blowing something? 3. What would a good amp be for the charger, so I don't blow them up? They're probably around 20-40Wh these batteries. What's a good rule of thumb here? Appreciate any insights.

Thanks Robino! I just emailed Oppenheimer to see if they have anything left they'd like to sell.

Don't see this myself. I think today's cinematography is a lot less beautiful than it was in the 70's, 80's and 90's. Today realism is celebrated at the cost of beauty. The documentary style over elaborate blocking and lighting.

Found three onboard batteries online for $180. Probably need to re-cell them, but that's not too bad. Just need to find a charger for them. A 12v block battery for stationary shoots is easy to find. Might just get an Anton Bauer block - they're kind of industry standard here.

Thanks Miguel! I've emailed them. See what happens. Yes, I did te old two-finger-loop when I loaded them, but it was a long time ago.. :)

Alan Gordon here in LA sold out some old rentals (this one was ex-Panavision) and I picked one up for a song and a dance. I shot with them a bit early in my career and always liked them. Slightly painful to load the mags, but once you got a hold of it it wasn't that bad. Very quiet, very light and nimble little 35mm camera. Perfect for handheld or run and gun shooting. In the kit I got 3x Mags, 4-perf, Color Video assist and the ubiquitous wooden handgrip. Seems to be working fine. Unfortunately didn't come with any batteries, but managed to locate three online. However, I would eventually like to locate a few things: 1. Anamorphic viewfinder? Does anyone know if they made one for the 35-III? 2. Full frame (big TV) groundglass. I know they made this, but does anyone know where I could find one? 3. Aaton Cha-3 charger. It's the one where you can charge the onboard batteries. Anyone know where I could get one? 4. Loop tool. There's a distance tool that makes the loop the correct size - anyone know where one could be found?

Alan - agreed on the practicals. These days I almost make a point of turning practicals off instead. So sick of the fact they always have to be on. I much prefer the shape of the lamp shade, than the light from it. But otherwise I'm not sure I agree. Today we have naturalism taken to an extreme level. Look at Jason Bourne etc and you'll see big night exteriors mainly lit by what's there - streetlights, cars etc. They might augment a little here and there - put a bulb on a doorway, throw a wash on a facade etc, but there are no giant Bebe-lights or big moon boxes hanging down over the set. In effect, they eschew beauty for realism. Very often I see quite ugly uncontrolled light on faces etc. I suppose you can call it real and it goes with the aesthetic of todays trends. I just prefer the look we had two trend generations back, where we emulated naturalism, but "helped" it along (I say we, as in the collective we, not myself). Slightly augmented it to make it more magical. I'm not looking for the Technicolor high key days back, or even the 70's style. But the "Brit Revolution" look that started in the 80's was firmly planted in naturalism (look at The Duellists, Alien, Flashdance, The Verdict, Angel Heart etc etc), but had that little extra push into the magical. For my taste, that is the look I've always been closest to. Then with the advent of Jan de Bont etc in the late 80's and early 90's, the style started changing towards the more outrageous, fantastical and slick which is till evident today in Michael Bay's work etc. Teal and orange and all that. Completely aside, Mississippi Burning was on TV yesterday and what a beautiful film that is. Completely different from the style today, yet still very naturalistic. Very "Brit revolution". Peter Biziou BSC one of the most underrated DP's. I miss those looks. One of my favorite scenes ever: https://youtu.be/UlzaBi_QxPw

Barry Lyndon is perhaps my favorite Kubrick film, along Paths of Glory. Do not miss it on the big screen if it comes to a town near you. I saw it in a 4K DCP at Arclight over 4 years ago, so not sure exactly what difference this copy is.

I don't have a problem with Matt's point of view in the video at all. The bottom line is this - film business is seen as sexy and there are a lot of people drawn to it each year. Many, many more than the industry could ever sustain. We can't all survive doing this, so right or wrong, the film business thins the heard by having a high barrier for entry and sustainability. And many of the entry barriers are - just like an apprentice studying under a master in the Renaissance painting era - that you have to prove yourself, your talent, your people skills (perhaps the least understood part of a successful film career) without the skewing carrot of remuneration. The film business demands purity of interest. The ones who come to it from other reasons than financial, normally have tenacity and an interest and will eventually make a living in this business. The ones who came for some other reason, will probably not. If it were easy, literally everyone would be in film. It's not supposed to be easy.

Love it too. I also love how he lit the front of the train engine as it chases the car down the tracks.

Now that Cimino just died, I wanted to give a little link to the end scene of Year Of The Dragon. This is one of Cimino's underrated post-meltdown-Heaven's-Gate films and it's a very good movie. It has excellent cinematography by late Alex Thomson, BSC. Sure, it's a little more sourcy and noir-ish than what's the trend today, but I find the final scenes on the bridge at night to be absolutely stunningly shot. I wish films looked like this today.

Not that I know of, just mingling. It was pretty laid back with BBQ and drinks.

He was at the ASC open house the other night as well. Saw him enter just before me, but then didn't see him much in the evening. I'm sure he was surrounded by fans and other DP's. Daniel Pearl, Dean Cundey, Richard Crudo, Steven Poster etc were also there. And I'm sure some other ones I missed.

Geoffrey!

Not as easy effect to achieve. We tried it with just a little bulb right above lens and it was hit and miss. Maybe the half mirror Jordan used works better.

I would say 32mm and 40mm in first, 28mm and 50mm in second, but a complete guess. Yes, big soft sources, flagged and controlled so they don't spill everywhere is time consuming and fund intensive to do. Not to mention finding an excellent location like this. Half the battle with good cinematography is good locations/sets... :)