Jump to content

Frank Poole

Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. @David Mullen ASC Thanks so much for your reply! That makes a lot of sense. Seems obvious now, haha
  2. Alien is a great go-to when talking about effective handheld work, but it really uses about every technique you can think of, brilliantly, I might add. I recently read Derek Vanlint's ASC magazine article about shooting the film and he mentioned they were offered a Panaglide, but refused because he and Ridley wanted to be the sole operators and couldn't learn the rig in time. Upon watching it the other night for the billionth time, I noticed I never gave much thought to one of the first shots. In the opening sequence, when the Nostromo receives its special order, and the camera is giving us an ominous tour of the ship's interior, it's all dolly work, of course, until the final slow push through the white hallway, settling on the door that opens to reveal the cryopods, before we push all the way to the threshold of that room. Was the camera underslung on some rig? Maybe a crane? the crane seems hard to fathom with the cramped four wall sets
  3. I've asked around, read the manual, read online, called techs, and still can't get a straight answer on this one. I have an Eclair NPR with the Beala (Beauviala) crystal motor .. the manual states if the light goes on, sync is achieved and if the light is off, sync cannot be guaranteed. Elsewhere I see the exact opposite, and that the light is a warning that sync has been lost. I know this is because of the other motors that were made afterwards having different specs, but can anyone please tell me what the truth is on this one? Thank you!!
  4. I’d just get one of those angenieux lenses with the viewfinder attached to it. But to Robert’s point, I have a non-working REX-0 like he’s describing I can contribute if you wanna go that route.
  5. @Uli Meyer looks damn good to me! Thank you for sharing!
  6. I have had an Eclair NPR for one or two weeks, and I’ve been getting familiar with it. it seemed solid until yesterday, now I can hardly get a roll of film through it. I think it’s a problem with the magazine. I am on the east coast, so I was thinking Du-All would be my best bet, but I’ve also heard great things about Visual Products. Any recommendations or info in general are so appreciated!!
  7. @Heikki RepoThanks so much for posting your results!! Never would have known my beloved little Switar 16mm 1.4 was f'ing radioactive 😅
  8. @Dom JaegerThanks Dom! That looks right. much appreciated
  9. Can anyone tell me what type of lens this port takes? https://ibb.co/4dfmp5B thanks all
  10. Thank you @aapo lettinen and @Dom Jaeger !!! So very helpful!
  11. @aapo lettinenThanks so much for your response and the extra info. That all makes a lot of sense. I'm pretty sure I loaded the film the "right" way, so the spool was EOA and I didn't notice? Which is odd because the other two rolls are EIB. I guess anything's possible. But how do you make the Bolex feed turn counterclockwise?
  12. Hi all, I'm a beginner and I am scratching my head at this. genuinely cannot figure it out. So the story goes, I had a 400' roll of old double perf 16mm film I sent it to a lab to break it down to 100' daylight spools I get them back and shoot two rolls in my Bolex H16 The scan comes back completely red with little to no exposure The lab includes a note that the film was loaded into the camera backwards and the light was hitting the remjet instead of the emulsion. I cannot understand this for a few reasons 1. If it was the lab's goof and they sent me the spools wound incorrectly, it wouldn't matter because its double perf 2. I cannot figure out how I could have even loaded the film backwards? I just grabbed another one of the rolls and tried to load the camera wrong and couldn't see how it was possible. What am I missing??
  13. @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
  14. 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-camera for cutaways." Me - "Really? I can’t find any source that says that, how do you know?" "A guy I know worked with Adrian Biddle on a commercial project before his death. K35s were not highly regarded lenses until 10 years ago... no one wanted them and there is no way 20th Century Fox would ever let an entire blockbuster with a budget of 18 million be shot on them. Adrian Biddle replaced veteran Dick Bush who was fired by James Cameron. Bush was a very old school DP and there's no way on earth he'd not used Panavison lenses. Aliens was Biddles first movie as a DP and he'd never have been able to send back a full Panavision lens set and replace them with K35s. They had a short schedule and since no one wanted the K35s Biddles was able to get them cheap and have them used on the B-camera for additional coverage. The internet and especially rental houses listings are full of half truths... and myths ... the reality is... a huge number of movies simply used Panavision glass. Panavision were rehousing lenses since the 1950s and still are... and in that time have used Bausch & Lomb, Nikon, Leica and especially Zeiss optics as the basis for their lenses. If you believe the internet: Hitchcocks, "The Birds" was shot on SuperBaltars... even though the movie came out in 1962 and the lenses were released in 1966/67. The Godfather was shot on SuperBaltars... even though a good portion of the lens was shot on Gordon Willis' custom made Panavision 40mm. American Hustle was shot on K35s... well half true, the original casings were so useless they were quickly replaced by Zeiss Superspeeds. Kubrick used K35 on Barry Lyndon... not true... he used an early Canon FD specially rehoused. Aliens being shot on the K35s is yet another one of those myths. In their original unrehoused form they were a pain and in fact 10 years ago a case of lenses would cost you about 5k. ...the K35s are very popular now... but never were at the time... even though they did win an Oscar. All but the 18 and 35mm are basically rehoused FDs (with some improvements to the coatings) which is why they cover a LF sensor. The truth about lens choices pre digital... often it was a lot less sexy and complicated than we think... it was what was there, what worked and what gave the sharpest image on 35mm film. Plus the most reliable mechanics... and that was part of the K35s downfall... and their uneven focus throws. you might find this piece worth a read. Gregory Irwin who worked on American Hustle also AC'd on Joker, Interstellar... his credits list is huge."
  • Create New...