Jump to content

‘The Lighthouse’ (2019) trailer


Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
14 hours ago, Jarin Blaschke said:

Indeed, the reason was primarily for altered skin tones/texture and exterior atmosphere/sky effects.

 

Most people will just look at it and see a very historical-looking image. For anyone who's into this stuff, it very clearly look like early monochrome photography, exactly as you'd expect. The thumbnail they're using for a lot of the YouTube stuff reminds me of the early photos you see of engineering types standing proudly in front of huge bits of stuff they've built.

16-9

Only, you know. Sharper!

P

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

Most people will just look at it and see a very historical-looking image. For anyone who's into this stuff, it very clearly look like early monochrome photography, exactly as you'd expect. The thumbnail they're using for a lot of the YouTube stuff reminds me of the early photos you see of engineering types standing proudly in front of huge bits of stuff they've built.

16-9

Only, you know. Sharper!

P

 

 

 

Well, except for the corners of the image, those mid to late 19th century photographs are actually incredibly, incredibly sharp. They were recorded onto full plate (6.5x8.5 inch) or larger glass negatives. Group photos were often made with 7x17, 8x20 or 12x20 inch “banquet” cameras. Carleton Watkins shot thousands of custom “mammoth plates” of 18x22 inches and contact printed onto sharp, glossy albumen-coated paper.

 

Our film feels much more early 20th century to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
22 hours ago, Jarin Blaschke said:

Schneider custom made it to my specs, and was able to make it within a month. Panavision owns them now. It’s over 95 percent transmittance for wavelengths shorter than 570nm and then on a dime plummets to zero for everything longer.

It has a hot mirror baked in so can be used digitally too.

You should ask Schneider to make them and sell them as ‘Blaschkes’. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, Jarin Blaschke said:

Well Panavision has all of them now. At least four 6x6s and four 4x5.6 filters, enough to outfit a movie.

I'm sure they'll end up being referred to as "Blaschke filters".. when not rented out they'll sit on the shelf next to the 500mm David Lean lens, the Pfister Imax lenses and the Mindel Retro C series. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
On 11/17/2019 at 10:32 PM, Jarin Blaschke said:

Well Panavision has all of them now. At least four 6x6s and four 4x5.6 filters, enough to outfit a movie.

 

j

I've been tracking THE LIGHTHOUSE since I heard of it (I've even downloaded the posters from A24 website haha) and lo and behold the person who shot it is in here!! chapeau....I'm totally inspired by the look of this film and I bought another 900ft of Double X in 16mm format for my next project because of it!!!! It will be a personal piece of my father who's been an athlete all his life - he's still out there running at 81 years of age. It's a self indulgent, visual heirloom for the family....no more no less!
Jarin, I heard your podcast on 'Go Creative' show number 193 and as a Hasselblad stills shooter myself I totally get what you said about composing in the format....hence why I've kept my Aaton at standard 16mm.....having shot Hasselblad since the early 90s I think square....I'm conditioned by it.....the dogs seem irrelevant to me when I shoot people.....know what I mean....

.....another thing you said that struck a chord was the lack of latitude you felt Double X has.....I totally agree...it really IS a hard film to shoot in that sense and your metering has to be spot on.....presumptuous of me to say to YOU haha but hey film is film....I find you cant be more than 1 stop out.....half a stop even.....esp out in bright sun I would rate at 250 asa box speed....inside with lights 1/2 to 1 stop over max.....

this is my (humble) experience with Double X.....best at 2K res. on Vimeo....would welcome any more feedback on the stock to help with the piece I want to do on my father???

 

Edited by Stephen Perera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Stephen Perera said:

I've been tracking THE LIGHTHOUSE since I heard of it (I've even downloaded the posters from A24 website haha) and lo and behold the person who shot it is in here!! chapeau....I'm totally inspired by the look of this film and I bought another 900ft of Double X in 16mm format for my next project because of it!!!! It will be a personal piece of my father who's been an athlete all his life - he's still out there running at 81 years of age. It's a self indulgent, visual heirloom for the family....no more no less!
Jarin, I heard your podcast on 'Go Creative' show number 193 and as a Hasselblad stills shooter myself I totally get what you said about composing in the format....hence why I've kept my Aaton at standard 16mm.....having shot Hasselblad since the early 90s I think square....I'm conditioned by it.....the dogs seem irrelevant to me when I shoot people.....know what I mean....

.....another thing you said that struck a chord was the lack of latitude you felt Double X has.....I totally agree...it really IS a hard film to shoot in that sense and your metering has to be spot on.....presumptuous of me to say to YOU haha but hey film is film....I find you cant be more than 1 stop out.....half a stop even.....esp out in bright sun I would rate at 250 asa box speed....inside with lights 1/2 to 1 stop over max.....

this is my (humble) experience with Double X.....best at 2K res. on Vimeo....would welcome any more feedback on the stock to help with the piece I want to do on my father???

 

Thanks for saying so! If you're shooting 16mm, I'd highly suggest Tri-X instead of Double X, which was sloppy and soft by comparison in 16mm. Rate it at 100, develop as a negative, and give it softer development . At "Normal", double-X seems to have a gigantic shoulder and does a poor job separating highlights from midtones, which your video reinforces. Better to develop less and then "print" with higher contrast. The shorter development time will straighten the characteristic curve. Or, again, just use Tri-X and develop as a negative.

Edited by Jarin Blaschke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
On 11/20/2019 at 10:06 PM, Jarin Blaschke said:

Thanks for saying so! If you're shooting 16mm, I'd highly suggest Tri-X instead of Double X, which was sloppy and soft by comparison in 16mm. Rate it at 100, develop as a negative, and give it softer development . At "Normal", double-X seems to have a gigantic shoulder and does a poor job separating highlights from midtones, which your video reinforces. Better to develop less and then "print" with higher contrast. The shorter development time will straighten the characteristic curve. Or, again, just use Tri-X and develop as a negative.

Jarin, Appreciate you taking the time to give me advice....you have articulated what I suspected of the film albeit I still appreciate the beauty of the stock in that sort of metallic tonality it has in the grey scale.....I’m looking into Tri-X as advised..... I’m asking Cinelab London if they would process it for me as a BW negative. They soup Double X in D96 I’m pretty sure so I’m wondering what they would do with Tri-x as D76 is the classic for that film.....I mean I have a Lomo tank but I daren't do 100ft of 16mm Myself haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Yes absolutely congrats.......

On 11/20/2019 at 10:06 PM, Jarin Blaschke said:

Thanks for saying so! If you're shooting 16mm, I'd highly suggest Tri-X instead of Double X, which was sloppy and soft by comparison in 16mm. Rate it at 100, develop as a negative, and give it softer development . At "Normal", double-X seems to have a gigantic shoulder and does a poor job separating highlights from midtones, which your video reinforces. Better to develop less and then "print" with higher contrast. The shorter development time will straighten the characteristic curve. Or, again, just use Tri-X and develop as a negative.

Yes, absolutely congrats.......I was at home and it came to mind that the look of the characters has that BW stock metallic beauty of Yousuf KARSH's portraits.....did you reference his work for this film? the obvious shot that comes to mind is his 1957 Hemingway portrait. I have book of his at home I bought like 25 years ago and the link came to mind......if not Karsh, what did you reference for the film?

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1986.1098.12/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Stephen Perera said:

Yes absolutely congrats.......

Yes, absolutely congrats.......I was at home and it came to mind that the look of the characters has that BW stock metallic beauty of Yousuf KARSH's portraits.....did you reference his work for this film? the obvious shot that comes to mind is his 1957 Hemingway portrait. I have book of his at home I bought like 25 years ago and the link came to mind......if not Karsh, what did you reference for the film?

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1986.1098.12/

Ha - yes! During prep, I passed around the Hemingway photo (and a couple others) to show people what our custom filter would do to skin tones before it was made.

 

The Hemingway photo was made with real orthochromatic film, back when it was still popular for photographing certain male subjects. It would have been a much sharper than Double-X, even if it wasn't an 8x10 or 11x14" negative. 

 

Ilford (and Adox and Rollei, I think) still makes true orthochromatic film, but only in sheet sizes on a polyester base. It's very high contrast, so I find I have to rate it at ei16 and give very gentle  development.

 

Thanks for the positivity!

-Jarin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
10 hours ago, Jarin Blaschke said:

Ha - yes! During prep, I passed around the Hemingway photo (and a couple others) to show people what our custom filter would do to skin tones before it was made.

 

The Hemingway photo was made with real orthochromatic film, back when it was still popular for photographing certain male subjects. It would have been a much sharper than Double-X, even if it wasn't an 8x10 or 11x14" negative. 

 

Ilford (and Adox and Rollei, I think) still makes true orthochromatic film, but only in sheet sizes on a polyester base. It's very high contrast, so I find I have to rate it at ei16 and give very gentle  development.

 

Thanks for the positivity!

-Jarin

thanks for the feedback Jarin, really appreciate it......the Karsh link was very apparent to me and you have absolutely nailed the look with the filter and your skills, chapeau

BTW Ilford have recently released the orthochromatic ORTHO PLUS which according to them should be rated at 80asa for daylight, natural light shooting and 40asa for tungsten light....perhaps you know about it already but others in here won't....its available in 35mm, 120mm and sheets.
I'm also wondering whether you had John Ford's 'The Fugitive' lighting and compositional masterpiece (in my eyes) shot by the masterful Gabriel Figueroa and to a lesser extent, due to the nautical theme, Luc Besson's 'The Big Blue' from 1988 (shot on Double X in 35mm I believe) in your radar or even 'Let's Get Lost 'the Chet Baker film by Bruce Weber in 16mm (dont know the stock used but I imagine Double X too) also from 1988, two films from when I was in my last year in art school doing my Degree in Graphic Design that we were raving about at the time when we saw these films......if you have not seen these I think you would enjoy them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2019 at 9:14 AM, Stephen Perera said:

thanks for the feedback Jarin, really appreciate it......the Karsh link was very apparent to me and you have absolutely nailed the look with the filter and your skills, chapeau

BTW Ilford have recently released the orthochromatic ORTHO PLUS which according to them should be rated at 80asa for daylight, natural light shooting and 40asa for tungsten light....perhaps you know about it already but others in here won't....its available in 35mm, 120mm and sheets.
I'm also wondering whether you had John Ford's 'The Fugitive' lighting and compositional masterpiece (in my eyes) shot by the masterful Gabriel Figueroa and to a lesser extent, due to the nautical theme, Luc Besson's 'The Big Blue' from 1988 (shot on Double X in 35mm I believe) in your radar or even 'Let's Get Lost 'the Chet Baker film by Bruce Weber in 16mm (dont know the stock used but I imagine Double X too) also from 1988, two films from when I was in my last year in art school doing my Degree in Graphic Design that we were raving about at the time when we saw these films......if you have not seen these I think you would enjoy them.

 

Wow - I didn't know they released it in rolls! I've only used it in 4x5 and 8x10. 

For Ortho+ to match the base shadow detail (the true measure of film speed) of FP4 in my preferred developer (WD2D+), it needs to be rated at ei16. I rate my FP4 at 80 or 64 though. I tend to like a full-range negative paired with a punchier, richer paper. I found that ei80 gives overly high contrast results with thin shadows under normal conditions. It's probably nice and rich for overcast days and front lighting though. 

 

This ignoramus hasn't seen any of those films.

Edited by Jarin Blaschke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
13 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

I heard that "Let's Get Lost" was shot on Tri-X Reversal developed normally, not cross-processed.

Thanks for this David.....I could not find what stock they used for 'Let's Get Lost' on IMBD etc. I imagine it was the same stock he used for 'Broken Noses' the year before....

I remember us art school types thinking we were so cool back in the 80s going to the cinema to see this Chet Baker B/W jazz film....we were all into Bruce Weber's work back in the day...and Ronnie Scott's (Brits will know what Im saying here). Our 'group' that day was a mix of designers, fashion students, etc. 

Tri-X developed as a negative is exactly what Jarin is recommending I shoot on 16mm instead of Double X as its a bit 'grungy' in his opinion and one I share for anything thats not close-ups I've found in my (limited) experience. Problem is my lab of choice, Cinelab London won't do Tri-X at the moment.

...and what about Coppola's masterpiece:

Rumblefish (1983)......shot in 35mm with Arriflex 35 BL3, Zeiss Super Speed and Kinoptik Tégéa (never herd of them!!!!!) Lenses using Eastman Double-X 5222, Plus-X 5231 (yes Im good at copy paste from IMDB hahaha)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Finally got to see it, astounding work Jarin. This has gotta be one of the most original, striking films that's out there. Seriously, this is like finding a relic from an unknown time and place. I'm usually not into B&W at all but this begged for it, every single shot is super interesting to look at, moody (love the contrast, the blacks), atmospheric, so authentic, so deliciously grainy. This is real B&W, the aspect ratio makes total sense as well. Stunning. P.S: Excellent work on Servant as well @Jarin Blaschke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...