Jump to content

Kahleem Poole

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kahleem Poole

  1. Not sure how he would have a point necessarily. How would shooting on film be beneficial special effects wise? Especially considering the amount of clean up needed from celluloid scanning for proper compositing.
  2. Couldn't agree with Adrian more, pick up some issues of AC magazine. It's an invaluable resource. A few things to take into account though: 1. The technical things you can absorb constantly. From tutorial videos, to getting to assist on larger sets. Learning Cinematography on a technical level can be learned fairly quickly. So research, research, research and make yourself stronger in that way. 2. This is the part where none of us can help you: what is your vision and how do you train your eye ARTISTICALLY? Are you fond of soft light, or hard pools like Alton? Are you more of an empty space photographer or do you enjoy dirtying up the frame to make things interesting in a different way? How do you communicate with a Director who is bossy vs a Director who is very laid back? What about actor's who may be really finicky about their skin against certain types of lighting? It'll take years to find your way creatively, but the more honest you are with yourself and the more risks you take, the more you'll learn as a photographer. And, THAT is when you'll more than likely understand when you are a Cinematographer or not. Unlike #1, this is a never-ending form of self discovery.
  3. I'm surprised that this conversation continues to exist. With respect to Mr Mullen (with whom I am a big fan), we are at a point where we have more tools to work with, more options as a Cinematographer and even more so, the ability to control our image as best we want and can. I even make sure that I'm involved in the post DI to maintain the image's integrity. If you want your image to look akin to "film", you're more than likely speaking on the color, roll off and grain. That's really about it at this point. They both have advantages and disadvantages and it's your duty as an artist and as a technician to not only understand this, but to manipulate it. Not compare by downplaying the tools. What's with this Sega vs Nintendo argument, guys? The brushes continue to be there, whether you like them or not. Either you paint on the canvas or simply move along while another talented, hard worker will instead.
  4. Love this. Just shared it too. Much appreciated for this production and definitely educational for those interested in filmmaking.
  5. That's a great condescending attempt, but it doesn't help. We all shoot what we can, when we can and why we can depending on the artistic POV or for budgetary reasons. Be it digital RAW, video, or celluloid. All of which I do on my own for a variety of reasons, as I'm sure others here have and still do as well.
  6. This is essentially part of my point too; thanks, Dave. The film look that a lot of people chase (including myself) are really about texture, highlight roll off, highlight blooming, color and latitude. However, the texture aspects are cleaned up so much in many modern celluloid productions these days, people tend to forget that "film" doesn't necessarily equate to that aspect all the time. For instance, Transformers was shot on film, but the grain is so cleaned up, it might as well have been shot digitally on the Red for a comparison. I think that if more people were able to define in the most literal manner what makes film look like "film", in the same way they do [with disdain] toward digital, then we'd have a better grasp on things.
  7. For Blue Valentine that was the idea. The flashback sequences on film were meant to be warm and inviting, even by the wider lens choices. The modern scenes: all shot digitally in a clinical way and long lenses to make things claustrophobic. It was the primary intention I believe.
  8. Yeah, that wasn't really my point but....ah well, never mind.
  9. I didn't ask you to compare every camera on the planet. Only if you were knowledgeable of the ones I mentioned and their comparisons to film. Had you been, then you would've understood WHY I mentioned those specifically: in the near future film won't be the gold standard for reference for very much longer, but more of an aesthetic choice (that is easily emulated, I should mention). If we're talking latitude (14.5 stops), it's been equaled (F65, F5, F55, Alexa, Red Dragon) If we're talking resolution [of 35mm], it's been widely stated that it tops out at around 4-5k before a point of diminishing returns (F65, F55, Red Dragon) If we're talking color space, it's been surpassed (as stated by Claudio Miranda, ASC in regards to the F65) Factually, the last advantage celluloid film brings to the table are the options of medium format (65mm and Imax w/ a proposed resolution of 12k) and archival. Safe to say, most of us in this thread haven't shot with 65mm film beyond the still photography category O_o So to be honest, at this point we're talking straight subjective OPINION, which I get. Me personally, I'm still in love with Super 16mm film and the personality it delivers. I even make it a mission to deliberately go to see every Super 16 film released on premiere week (latest being Fruitevale Station). So that's a unique quality that I can't find in digital 35mm right now (unless you're talking ML DNG Raw on the 60D captured at 720x480, then upscaled to 1920x1080). It's all a purely aesthetic choice for the story. However, to say "better" really is subjective and if you had to break it down beyond technical information, it's really just a taste factor. Don't you think?
  10. When you make statements like "FAR" superior, can you give specifics as to what that actually means? I mean, an actual technical breakdown of what "FAR" superior is in comparison to digital cinema cameras, such as the F5, F65, Red (MX or Dragon), BMCC and Alexa (ARRIRAW).
  11. G'morning ladies and gents. Just wrapped up my cinematography reel from 2012, so feedback is most definitely welcome! https://vimeo.com/57107763
  12. https://vimeo.com/56763193 This was one of several scenes we shot for a comedy feature film where I was brought on as the Cinematographer. Unfortunately we weren’t able to finish the project, but I got the chance to work with a great AD in the process and meet a few good friends whom I still work with today. BOUNCE- Chicken Spot Scene ASSISTANT DIRECTOR- Edmar Flores DIRECTOR OF PHOTOGRAPHY- Kahleem Poole-Tejada 1st AC- Robert Billings
  13. This is an old spot I did several months ago. Part of a 3-part ad series for a local fight-themed fitness gym. Very cool guys here. Always open to feedback, so FIRE AWAY! https://vimeo.com/56674499
  14. Regarding the "good is subjective" notion, I just had this conversation with someone the other day. Up to a certain point, things are objective, such as technical know how (framing, basic lighting, continuity, etc.) and past that point, things can become subjective (being polarizing artistic). It seems the language gets confused and from there, then abused with people who claim that technically bad photography is a "style" and "subjective" when it actually isn't. It's just flat out, plain as day, bad. It's fairly easy to know the difference, but in this day and age where people are so passive aggressive in the "my truth isn't your truth" rhetoric, things get muddied up on a daily basis and lose true definition. No one wants to be confrontational for fear of hurting feelings and the self indulgent egotistical mindsets of today's generation. So now we have these obtuse "definitions" that consist of misconstrued ideas.
  15. Yes. Or a rich daddy and mommy. Which is usually the case, especially in art schools.
  16. This is somewhat understandable. It's still quite unfair to judge that way based on financial commitment. Especially considering that not everyone can afford to shoot on celluloid. Some people cannot even afford to shoot on higher end digital cinema cameras. However considering the ratio of film being the lowest on the entire budgetary scale for a film's production, it's pretty iffy either way. Though that's another conversation... That's much clearer. Helps if making a statement like that to be more specific rather than sweeping one, such as... Whether an individual was able to foot the bill for film instead of being on a Canon CMOS sensor makes no difference with a schmuck-ridden project that involves a bunch of friends sitting around a table, talking about high society and calling it a movie. Most likely it was an awful idea despite the amount of money put into it and being from opening credits to rolling credits. More cash running at the time doesn't make the idea, the people or the project any better.
  17. If this is your logic, then most if not ALL artists are schmucks. Most painters, pencilers, inkers, song writers, novelists, musicians, etc. have a habit of creating hordes unfinished work. A rough estimate, only about 20% of an artist's work that you see on display is finished while tons are WIP or tossed aside for one reason or another (inspiration burned out, bad idea or hit a blockage). This isn't a fair assessment and I would say pretty inaccurate as well. Growing up in the art field with cartoonists, comic artists, fashion designers, photographers and filmmakers, you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of the work complete. But by your words, I guess we're all "schmucks" then. Correct? This isn't true. And, again, there are tons of films out there WAY BEFORE the DSLR boom hit, shot on s16 and 35 that were unfinished. It's just not as publicized as it is today. Before getting into cinematography, I had experience on several low budget martial arts film sets that never saw the light of day. This was back in 2001, mind you. No DSLR filmmakers back then.
  18. No, they would not. A schmuck is a schmuck, whether he/she shoots on film or a DSLR, it won't make any difference. Bad films were around WAY BEFORE 1's and 0's as "emulsion" became a norm.
  19. This was a spot I did for NY Fashion Week during the Sept 2012 season. It's essentially a highlight consisting of a number of runway shows and BTS points from various shows all over the city. I had a ton of fun with this spot, as it paved the way for me to jump into fashion filmmaking alongside other bodies of work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGiBAMtE8uk Additionally, this was another fashion spot for a small urban clothing line. Sort of chimes in on the previous work a bit... ESEF NY Fall Delivery 2012: https://vimeo.com/47217443
  20. Not a problem dude. No harm, no foul. And most definitely, film isn't an outdated medium. If your tool gets the job done and helps you express your work effectively, "outdated" doesn't apply.
  21. This was a spot done for our showing at the Bohemian Beer Garden in Astoria, Queens, NY: And finally, the 30sec TV spot: Of course, I'm open to critiques, questions, chocolate ice cream treats, etc. ^__^
  22. So there seems to be some interest in this doc we've done awhile ago. FINALLY though we're getting to distribute it very soon, so now everyone can see it. Until then, here are the trailers and promos that I produced at the time to help promote the film :)
×
×
  • Create New...