Kahleem Poole
-
Posts
55 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Kahleem Poole
-
-
Please don't take this the wrong way but, there isn't anything particularly different about photographing flowers and plants. That's not to say that they don't have beauty unto themselves. Just take note of that for your next piece though. The web is chock full of videos with peoples' cameras and their dogs, cats, flowers, plants and trees.
-
Was this a camera test? I'm unsure of what the point or theme of this is...
-
Kahleem,
Oh ok, yeah I agree with you then. Btw, this whole film versus digital debates remind me of childish my truck is bigger than your truck fights haha.By the way, I sawbyour videos in critique my work section. Those are pretty cool, reminds me of the movie the Wrestler.
Thanks, man; I really appreciate that. That's my super 16 influence carrying with me ;-)
And I agree with you as well on the debate. Why can't people just choose the tools that best suit the story and their specialties instead of bashing one another? It's ridiculous.
-
Kahleem,
I don't agree with what you mentioned as to digital being more accurate and precise. I think it is just a matter of being used to a particular system. For example, I know what results I will be getting when I shoot film under different light set ups, etc. Then again, nowadays, many digi cinematographers don't even know how to use light meters, and evaluate their lighting accordingly. For those film may be really mysterious, because of lack of monitors and gadgets tell them what to do.. Also, I don't agree with film shooters being vintage obsessed hipsters. Do you think Mr. Nolan and many other major filmmakers try to be vintage obsessed hipsters when they shoot movies like Dark Night series, Dark Shadows, Bourne movies, etc? Anyways, good luck.
Under film's conditions, so do I, but that's not necessarily what I mean.
Digital tends to be "accurate" based purely each sensor. And the parameters never change. Ever. So what it sees is what it will see exactly 100% of the time each time.
With film, even the same emulsion may see something slightly differently per frame. And, I personally find that to be its own unique beauty.
Anyhow, with the "hipster" comment, I'm most definitely NOT specifying them or people like them. It's more of the folks who can't see past digital's negative sides and remain in the "film or die" manner of thinking. It doesn't really help anyone and if someone makes gorgeous art with digital, it's still art. The tool of choice isn't the make or break factor.
That's what I meant.
-
Kahleem,
I prefer film over digital for sure, but don't see the point of bashing on digital. As for cost of digital versus film, I think they cost about the same, of course I'm talking about Red or Alexa type of cameras. With film, you have initial costs such as film, dailies, etc; however, post production for those high end cameras are rather time consuming and costly. So in the end, the cost is about the same. Also, film costs makes up about 1/1000th of budget in major movies; most of the money is spent on lights, crew, actors and actresses. The supposed cost savings of digital over film may not be life altering. As for the quality, personnally, digital cameras look like video to me in comparison to film. If I have to have black and white approach, digital is video, film is film; therefore, I don't see the point of emulating an already existing film technology. People who prefer digital should just make the most of video, instead of trying to make it look like film. Also, how about never ending changes in digital? How many Red and other sensors has the industry been through within a decade? Amazing image quality with these digital cameras may be kind of obsolete in 2 years..Then again, cinematography is a form art, and the artists are free to convey their creativity in digital or film. So, I don't think judging anyone on the basis of preferred tool of craft is necessary. I shoot on film, and have no desire to move to digital; you shoot on digital I guess, well, so be it.. I can learn certain things from you, and you can learn from me, etc. Anyways, good luck with your art.
Agreed.
I find flaws in digital filmmaking as well compared to film and vice versa. Digital is much more precise, accurate and somewhat clinical. So you have to go through certain post workflows to remedy this. I admittedly use effects to emulate my favorite emulsions and sometimes I'll leave it more "clean" depending on the subject matter (Vision 3 500T is my favorite of all time).
I find some cameras look more videoy and some more filmic. Panasonics definitely look like video to my eye and depending on the picture style and in-camera options, some DSLRs do. Then there are those that look so much like film it's hard to tell the difference beyond grain or color, such as the Alexa, BMCC and Aaton Penelope.
It's not an us vs them problem, despite how some people try to make it. This all totally depends on your choice of canvas, brushes, paints and subject matter. That's it.
The rest, to me anyway, tends to fall purely on preference or hipster vintage obsessed mindsets.
-
With all due respect, Kahleem, this statement is bullsh!t ...
Yeah, maybe you should quit while you're ahead.
You're not looking for a discussion. Just for an outlet for your pseudo-elitist, pompous attitude. Good day.
-
1
-
-
Kahleem, can you at least admit that digital, if properly done, does not usually have a cost savings advantage? Case in point...the "getting it right" you speak of in terms of exposure and look (by having instant feedback via being able to see it on set) can only be obtained with properly calibrated monitors.
Unfortunately that's a blanket statement that doesn't have a simple yes or no to it.
This totally depends on the camera in question. Are we talking about the Digital Bolex, Black Magic CC, Canon DSLRs, Alexa, Red Epic? For the most part these cameras come with their own monitors that are more than capable of handling exposure and color according to the sensor's inherent capabilities. It's only when deciding to purchase a secondary monitor does the calibration issue come into mind. Additionally, is the monitor for the DP or for the Director to simple "see" what's going on and not judge what the DP has to?
For my own workflow, I prefer a viewfinder or EVF because I like to personally connect with my shots and think on how I expose and compose. I personally find a monitor intrusive as everyone is now looking over your shoulder and their opinions tend to dilute or interfere with what I'm trying to do. Usually the viewfinder is default but an EVF is simple research on what is best for your color choices.
You can quickly go out and shoot a movie of some sort just with the default body with many of these cameras, or you can build them up for bigger budget use.
These things are not cheap if you're shooting HD and it gets more expensive shooting 2k/4k. Do you agree that shooting digital ultra low budget (aka without a quality monitor) it not much better than say shooting film with a video tap in terms of instant feedback?Untrue. A video tap is a reference for the Director or maybe even the AC, as I mentioned before with my own use for monitors.
The camera's default LCD/Monitor is already calibrated [usually] to the sensor's capabilities for color and exposure for the DP. They aren't one in the same.
It's really when other factors come into play that seem to add cost when they really don't. Film DPs complain about DITs when they're there in the film shoots as well. They just don't have as strong of a role. I personally don't use DITs, instead I educate myself on the process and so do other DPs who shoot digitally as well (see Shane Hurlbut). The complaints are also on monitors when they're there on films shoots too. The same monitors, the same video villages, there isn't much of a difference with that accessibility. And I would have to say that for the most part 2k/4k monitors aren't important right now because the higher resolutions are more relevant in post work, not for the video village on set.
Digital does in fact have cost savings advantages at the ultra low levels that couldn't be done with film.
My first documentary feature was started with little more than a Canon T2i, an LCDVF, my laptop and an army of ext. harddrives, all out of pocket on a $0 budget from any investors. I couldn't have done that on film because I just couldn't afford to.
-
..and this was the actual even highlight from November...
-
So I've been posting quite a bit here and just wanted to share some of my work.
This was a series of promos set up for a Madison Square Garden combat sport based event called "Muay Thai At The Mecca II".
I was brought on as the DP/Director of a second time and produced several spots for the promotion this previous November.
I'd love to hear you guys feedback on everything :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLKrQGncq0g
-
The shame is that the majority of these new directors and "directors of photography" just don't know the bear essentials of photography. Can't remember the last time I saw a DP with a light meter or an AC measuring distance for focus marks. What ever happened to measuring your Key Light, Fill Light and Back Light? Everything is a given on digital. Nothing is earned. There is no evolutionary process.
Is it fair to say that these people aren't DPs simply because their tools are different or the workflow isn't recognizable?
Granted that the whole sloppy rush-rush attitude is widespread (more due to this generation rather than the tools), but just because the guesstimation aspect of photography is gone doesn't yield better or worse results. Being able to see your image WHILE shooting proves to me more of an advantage and not the other way around.
Maybe I think of photography from an illustrator's perspective, where I see my canvas and refine and refine as I go along (with time allowed on set). So while I completely understand the ideas and functionality of light metering, for my own workflow it's too much of a guessing game; leading to sleepless nights wondering if the shot worked, will it look like crap, etc etc. I'd rather paint on set, refine, edit, etc. until I get a great image under the limitations given to me :)
That doesn't mean it's cheap or a haphazard attitude either, because it simply isn't.
-
@ Marcus.
Honestly, your analogy about Skyfall (yes, i realized that I brought it up) is still not an indicator of what to expect from future digital DPs who "knew not film" so to speak. We see some decent looking imagery coming from the Alexa in the hands of veterans who learned their craft on film. What is not so clear or proven is whether we will see great things from "digital only" DPs who never learned the path of film. I'm not the first one to discuss how important it is to learn on film even if your intended result is digital. We dont know how Deakins, Mullin, and people of that variety that we hold so highly now would have been if they were out of the time that they were and put fresh faced 10 years into the future to learn a craft in a digital only workflow and time.
I still stand by the fact that when you treat impatience, conveniences, and bargain chasing as your main virtues, I dont see how good can come of that. And let's face it...that IS what this is about. Money, speed, and perceived ease of workflow. If Kodak magically came out with a product that looked as good as film but could self-process like a polaroid as well as having inexpensive telecine units that could be connected to your firewire or USB port to scan footage quick and easy with no one else in the chain and said film was as cheap as HDCAM tapestock, my God, people would be all over it. I know I would.
Being able to light well technically and creatively is of importance. Not whether something is shot on film or digital. The value is understandable, however after awhile it becomes grossly exaggerated. Especially when film is becoming more and more technically outdated and is primarily an aesthetic at this point.
The impatience factors are more of a current generational thing though. The need for instant gratification is all over the place.
-
Kahleem, would you take work from a director who wanted to shoot on film?
Of course, why wouldn't I? Just the same as I would with a Director who wants to shoot digitally.
What's important to me is the story and how I can realize it visually; how to paint the picture as beautiful as I can. If their story doesn't appeal to me, shooting on film is irrelevant. In fact I've turned down a Panavision 35mm shoot months ago because I didn't believe in the work.
Depending on the vision he/she has, that's how I choose my tools. Nowadays more things are done digitally, but it's my job as a cinematographer to educate myself and test the different sensors for their pros and cons and choose accordingly. The exact same way tests are done on different film stocks available.
-
I guess that means that my point remains valid. :)
If you need to be right, then you're right. Hope that helps you.
-
I dont deny that I thought the color in the old epics was gorgeous. Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, The Ten Commandments, etc. Perhaps I am romanticizing the old days OR maybe Im just speaking the truth as my eyes see it? I, of all people, would love to be egotistical about my generation and brag to the old timers "see, our time has prettier pictures than your time because we have digital!" But I would get laughed at and be embarassed within myself because I know it isnt true.
Kahleem, my case rest with you on this point...if your digital technology were as great (or on par with film) as you say, why is every single website related to the matter of making cinematic images filled with posts of different digital shooters discussing methods, software, curves, and other ways in which digitally acquired images can be made to look more like film? And please dont deny that this is a top topic of interest among digital shooters because we all know better.
Since when has a superior format attempted to so passionately emulate a lesser format? Unless it wasnt a superior format to begin with.
"My" digital technology? I'm a photographer, simple as that. Whether it's film or digital is irrelevant to me and I'm not a part of a specific clique or camp when it comes to it.
Maybe that's just the problem. An "us vs them" mentality, or superior vs inferior when it's not even the subject point.
No one said digital was superior in this conversation. It's just different; a different tool to learn and understand the art and science of, much like what's been done w/ film.
People crave to emulate the look of film with digital technology because of several reasons. For one, digital tech is more flexible to even consider such a direction in the first place. Secondly, film stock (the most popular being Kodak of course) has a specific aesthetic look. There's nothing wrong with wanting that look the same as there isn't anything wrong w/ a bleach bypass look that we now associate with being "blown out" akin to video.
Digital workflows of today are superior to that of film, I would say. There are so many to choose from. However film vs digital is just goofy and silly for the most part. It gets us nowhere, nothing advances and the inevitable will occur regardless of how much people resist.
I love film as much as the next person, but there seems to be this crazy notion that back in the pre-digital days everything produced was just super :huh:
The 'crap to good' ratio is probably just about the same as it ever was: there was crap music being made before the invention of Pro Tools and there were crap movies being made long before digital video came on the scene.
the only thing I think that has significantly changed is the way in which everything is now distributed. In the past you'd actively have to go out of your way to consume entertainment/art/whatever; these days everything's on tap and we are constantly bombarded with media that 9 times out of 10 we have little or no interest in; and yes it sometimes feels a bit overwhelming
+1
Gone with the Wind was made in 1939. It was shot on 35mm, not 65mm, with a 1.37:1 aspect ratio.
Sorry, I misread that. My brain read "The Sound Of Music", which was what I was referring to. My mistake :)
-
Kahleem, of course its subjective. There is no such thing as "objective cinematography." But its kindof like beauty. We say it is in the eye of the beholder but why do so many people agree on what's attractive and what isnt?
Because the commonality in beauty is facial "symmetry". It's what humans can universally agree on even without being able to describe it accurately. This point has nothing to do with the conversation and is totally different subject matter.
As far as what Deakins would think on the subject; how can you speak for him?I didn't "speak" for him. Apparently by your standards, his work is now sub par in comparison to others before him (or possibly his own older work) just because he shot digitally for Skyfall. Your notions, not mine.
But until you show us any digital acquired work of art that can compare, you are frankly talking out your rear and have fell short of the benchmark. Perhaps what I am getting at is not that every movie shot on film is better than any movie shot digitally but rather that digital is currently incapable of matching the best film has to offer. I stand by this and if you choose to debate this with anything other than rhetoric or conjecture, than I would love to hear it. But you cant because there is currently no such basis to debate it.You're going to pick at anything anyone gives you regarding digital cinema purely because you have a distaste for it, regardless of how illogical it may seem.
Carry on. Your bottom line: all celluloid shot cinema is automatically better than digital cinema purely because it's been captured on the "magic" medium that is film. Which is all you'll accept or hear.
However, art isn't completely objective, which is what we agree on.
If this is so, then why the complaining or comparing?
-
Kahleem, I am just curious...do you disagree then that major motion picture films have lowered in quality throughout the years? Do you think that...say...Skyfall is shot as well as Gone with the Wind or Citizen Kane? Im just curious as to your thoughts on the matter.
For one thing your question is both vague and subjective.
Subjective mostly because the examples you gave are of the highest caliber of their time periods (with the advantage of hindsight to help). Which where also at the time, surrounded by tons of lower quality films (mostly exploitative films, to start). What you're suffering from is "yesteryear was better" syndrome; pure nostalgia, not fact. Especially when considering that the films were more than likely produced before you were even born, disconnecting you from their context in time altogether.
Secondly, Skyfall is an action film, not a musical or a pillar in cinematic innovation. They're totally different comparisons that have little to do with one another. One is an epic 65mm musical and another is a "filmed play" style classic. Why don't you compare Skyfall to another older film of its genre, not a musical or a drama (both of which thrive on strong visuals even more so than action films do). Furthermore, cinematography, when skillfully shot, is of subjective taste like any art form. It's not a matter of "which is better", but of which do you prefer?
With all due respect, your comparisons don't make much sense. And, I doubt Deakins ASC would think so as well.
-
Yes Kahleem, but thankfully film kept many hacks away because they werent willing to shell out so much of their own dough for their filmmaking desires. Many would give up after figuring out what it would cost them. Thank God for those days.
Like any serious venture, these people end up quitting after some time of stagnation or sheer frustration to stick it out and learn and earn. There will be other "sky is falling in film" sentiments soon after this passes. Trust me.
-
Kahleem, I appreciate your dissention to inspire debate but your implication of my hyperbole is unfounded. Experience has taught me that you are wrong on most everything you have said. But you are entitled to your opinion. For a straight year I was volunteering free sound work for anyone who wanted it. This lead to a lot of interest I might add. And every production I was on was ran the same way, only the faces of the directors were different. DSLR shoots, the lot of them. Not lit correctly, bad exposure, blown out highlights, evidence of rolling shutters by cheap filmmakers who wanted to emulate pros but with inferior equipment.
Im sorry that you will never even realize what you dont know and what youre missing. But at least you believe you are part of the same quality of yesteryear. As they say "ignorance is bliss."
I think you're mistaken. I never said that I haven't shot on film. I've shot on Fuji Velvia super 16 and still shoot on Kodak 200 and 400 film in my SLR today.
There are always more people who don't know what they're doing than those who do. It has nothing to do with film vs digital. It's the difference between those who are great (being minimal) and those who are not (being the majority).
Had these kids learned proper photographic technique, then you wouldn't be making the statements you are making, but apparently it wasn't the case.
Lastly, the flaws you've pointed out (with the exception of rolling shutter) are also evident in low budget films, shot on film as well and have been for years. It isn't a "digital" thing. It's a "low quality" thing. The equipment has the smallest role in it all.
-
Discipline, patience and vision have little to do with digital or celluloid capture. It's a mindset and either you have it or you don't, point blank.
This notion of digital movie making perpetuating impatience is silly and a bit tired. Especially since there are strong examples of the opposite everywhere, including those on this forum.
What Cinematographers from this generation need to do is to learn from the previous generation by example, practice and research. If the older generation wants to mentor the new breed, then so be it and it is much MUCH appreciated (and needed). However, claiming that film as an art form is dead or dying just because a classical capture medium has run its course is just silly and an overblown exaggeration.
I myself began as a comic book illustrator with pencils, India ink, t-squares, exacto knives, water color, screen tones from Japan and 11x14 bristol board paper. However with illustrators now digital painting almost exclusively in Photoshop and Corel Draw, the medium hasn't died even if the bar of entry has lowered. In fact, the expectations have risen; just the opposite of the fear mongering going on years ago, similar to this.
It's the same with filmmaking and I am from this new breed generation of digital filmmakers. Though my work doesn't suffer from any form of ADD setbacks or lack of patience. I light and shoot the way I draw and paint. I research dozens of books from ASC masters, watch tons of lectures and documentaries and pick the brains of those that I admire as much as I can, when I can. My choice of canvas shouldn't determine whether an entire art form lives or dies and it won't either. Had it not been for DSLRs and other video cameras to give me entry, I wouldn't have realized my calling as an artist professionally.
This incessant fear mongering and whining has gone on for awhile now and will disappear in 5yrs.
Either you're an artist or you aren't. The expensive, technical medium can't mask this for long and if that's what you fear, then maybe you were on borrowed time to begin with.
-
Very nice, man! Any chance you have this in an HD or 2k film scan? I'd have loved to see the full personality of the film show through :)
-
*1080p please make FULL SCREEN (unfortunately if viewed in windowed mode, there will be a TON of moire)
We just finished this thirty second spec ad for the Metropolitan Museum in New York City. Most of it was shot completely guerrilla, so I stuck to wide angle lenses (Nikkor AI/AI-S 28mm and 35mm). It definitely wasn't easy trying not to attract attention from the security detail moving about. But, we got some great shots out of it all.
MUSIC: Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.
-
This is a tale of two days, nearing the tail-end timeframe of the Occupy Wall Street movement in Liberty Square, NYC.
From my experience, I wanted to show this in a raw form. A form that displays the people in their most honest manners, without dramatic poses, sound bites or anything fancy to show off in a marketable manner. Essentially, it’s broken. Much like the people, the movement, the situation and the state of the economy as it is today. In that of itself, it has its own particular organized chaotic beauty.
The OWS movement to me appears to be a collective that sings in unison without being in in harmony. It's why they appear to have different agendas and different goals looking from the outside in. However, moving past my ignorance, and looking on the inside myself, it’s very different than expected. So many textures of faces, experiences and stories. And, amazement in how everyone seemingly works together to create a small pocket society in the corner of New York City.
-
I definitely loved its look. The muted tones, sharp grain and every angle was beautifully shot.
But, as mentioned above, I fell asleep several times. Just couldn't get myself to remain interested beyond the visuals, as much as I try.
I am a big fan of the Bourne series though!
-
Yes that is partially true, but you want to do the story or subject justice in picking a format that not only suits what you're saying, but technically holds up enough to just subconsciously work for the bigger picture. If it's a budget matter, then that's an entirely different limitation, you just have to work with what you can get. But I certainly don't think film is dead just yet, it is still an incredible format and the fix it in post has very little to do with digital. They've been shooting film for perhaps 10 years and heavily fixing everything in post, to the extent on big pictures where so much of the photographic work is done in plates and second unit which in my opinion can be quite unfulfilling. It's the whole shoot now, decide later thing.
I watched that clip and I didn't really get it, not sure how this competition expects to judge makeup over images that can never be exactly true to the eye. Cinestyle certainly doesn't look like reality either. I think they should keep the makeup judging to in person if they want it untouched.
I agree with you completely that the story and vision beforehand should judge the filming medium. 100%. It just seems difficult for people to understand the difference between photography being what it is regardless of the changing times. I've heard a lot of horror stories of entire photography businesses dying off due to things going digital. It always made me wonder, were they really based around the artform itself, or just the tech behind it all? I would think that had it been the former, adaptation would've come along and the businesses may have thrived instead of fallen by the wayside. But, what do I know :-/
As far as the Cinestyle, I stuck to that keep all of the detail in check, which I feel I was successful in [mostly]. I exposed everything according to the room and light's actual color (I think I rarely stopped down beyond f/2.8 and remained at 640iso all the way through), keeping the white balanced matched to the room's own temperature with practicals and setup lighting. So from what we have, it was indeed close to the reality of those moments.
And, I agree with the makeup notion as well. But, they're the judges, so I'm hoping they have better judgment in that area than I normally would.
Film vs Digital. Impact on Art, Culture, Experience.
in General Discussion
Posted
Thanks, man. I'll start off a new thread in the Critique section to show off the other trailers for those interested :)