Jump to content

Frank Poole

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Frank Poole

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Student
  • Location
    MA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @Timothy SpencerThanks for sharing!! If there's any confusion for anyone reading, the long post was made by someone else in the group, in response to my saying that Aliens was shot with K35 glass, based on what I've read everywhere. @Tyler PurcellVery interesting. So strange how this type of minutia can be lost and become misrepresented this way. It's also said an Arri 3 was used but I've only seen still featuring the Moviecam
  2. Anywhere you look online, it is stated that Canon K35 lenses were used for Aliens, but I recently had a back and forth with someone in the "Anamorphic Shooters" facebook group that piqued my curiosity. I haven't seen any mention of this in the forums, so I'm interested in what info anyone might have aside from this seemingly sensible hearsay: (names removed) "Aliens was shot on Panavision lenses, most likely rehoused Zeiss HS optics. The K35s story is an internet myth, one that is repeated as gospel by most rehousing and hire companies. The K35s were used simply on the b-camer
  3. @Satsuki Murashige @Phil Rhodes @Joseph Tese Thank you all for your responses!
  4. So, I am still learning by reading and watching films and behind the scenes material and I am getting a more innate sense of quality of light, direction and diffusion, but sometimes I am still a bit baffled. Could anyone wager their best guess as to what these flags are accomplishing for this BTS shot from Casino? I know they're there to reduce the hard light from the ceiling, but their placement isn't clicking for me. Especially because it looks like a walk-and-talk scene. Thanks!
  5. @Stuart Brereton That makes a lot of sense. Now I'm thinking "well, duh!" Haha, thank you
  6. I am curious what this actually looks like on film, Wondering if anyone could point to a specific moment in a film when this technique was used? I imagine this is sometimes done to compensate when panning/tilting/etc to a brighter area?
  7. @Webster C Thank you for sharing!! great stuff
  8. Sorry if this has been asked before, I searched around and can't find an answer. I have a Bolex H16 and some film I am excited to shoot! I have a selenium incident meter that I understand how to use, but I also have a pair of reliable reflective spot meters in my 35mm SLRs (canon & pentax), that I think would come in handy to double check against the incident meter and more importantly meter walls or objects far off in the background. The idea here would be to match my ISO and shooting aperture on the SLR to the Bolex, and then set the shutter speed to...? 60? Should I just use an iPh
  9. @David Mullen ASC Your story about the foamcore shapes is amazing! I love that, very inspiring. I did not know about the brilliant Terminator gag either. I do know about many of the brilliant tricks Cameron would use next on "Aliens" that were similarly economic, reinforcing your point about making the magic inside the frame, to the extent of set walls only extending a few inches outside the frame etc. I am still chewing on that idea of exclusion and its effect on the audience. I guess it's really dependent on the story and scene
  10. this question is part-philosophy, part-technique, like all of cinematography i guess. It's been said many times that "what's outside of the frame is just as important as what's inside of the frame". I think I understand this in my own way, but what does this statement mean to you? How do we keep this in our minds when composing to better serve our storytelling? To me, this question is indicative of the link between cinematography and editorial. thanks !!
  11. @Doug Palmer thanks Doug!! Could you share a link for those examples? Would love to see.
  12. Hey peoples, I have a Bolex H16, and i'm contemplating converting it to Super or Ultra 16. I adore 4:3 and may just leave it as is, but the ability to get more out of the film is very attractive. Super 16 is taller but just a tad less wide than Ultra. Some say Ultra is the most versatile because you can get the widest image and crop if you're so inclined, but it's not as tall, so I think the same could be said of Super, essentially. I have full frame lenses with an adapter that I would be using so vignetting won't be a problem Any opinions on the matter? Thank you!
  13. Just looking at the wikipedia page for films shot in Techniscope, and I am really struck by how about two thirds of the films shot in this format were in the 1960s. The past 40 years have seen very very few in comparison, and in the past 20 the only filmmaker who seems to have a preference for it is David O. Russell. Are there disadvantages to shooting 2-perf?
  14. @David Mullen ASC Thanks David, you're very generous with your knowledge! I see you're active on the Deakins forums as well answering questions. Having a "no secrets" attitude when it comes to the creative process is, from what I see, the mark of those who aren't afraid that they could somehow be outpaced by others using the same methods, because it isn't about the methods in the end, but the philosophy and perpetual learning and growth. I'm really a beginner so forgive me here, I understand running an under and over test, but how do I interpret what the grey card is telling me? Should it
  15. @David Mullen ASC Thank you so much for your thoughtful response and offering your expertise!! Do you think you would do it differently with 16mm color negative or reversal?
×
×
  • Create New...