Jump to content

Frank Poole

Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Frank Poole

  1. 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!!
  2. @Heikki RepoThanks so much for posting your results!! Never would have known my beloved little Switar 16mm 1.4 was f'ing radioactive 😅
  3. @Dom JaegerThanks Dom! That looks right. much appreciated
  4. Can anyone tell me what type of lens this port takes? https://ibb.co/4dfmp5B thanks all
  5. Thank you @aapo lettinen and @Dom Jaeger !!! So very helpful!
  6. @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?
  7. 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??
  8. @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
  9. 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."
  10. @Satsuki Murashige @Phil Rhodes @Joseph Tese Thank you all for your responses!
  11. 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!
  12. @Stuart Brereton That makes a lot of sense. Now I'm thinking "well, duh!" Haha, thank you
  13. 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?
  14. @Webster C Thank you for sharing!! great stuff
  15. 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 iPhone app? Thanks so much
  16. @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
  17. 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 !!
  18. @Doug Palmer thanks Doug!! Could you share a link for those examples? Would love to see.
  19. 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!
  20. 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?
  21. @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 just be anywhere in the frame or back near where I'm looking to get those faint details, or taking up most of the frame?
  22. @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?
  23. So this one is very specific. I was very taken by this shot i saw in someone's old 16mm student film. I am wondering if you all think a bounce card or something was used for the shadow side of her face? The rim light seems very hard, naturally, and I'm wondering if it may have wrapped around or created the ambient light to achieve these details in the shadow? Your guess is better than mine! More importantly: if you wanted to achieve this shot, how would you go about metering/exposing it on film? (p.s. tried to reach out and couldn't get a response, haha) Also i appreciate the faint highlights in the background, it all seems so dark I can't imagine getting a reading on my little selenium Sekonic!
  24. It's said that filmmaking and directing in particular are about "managing chaos" or "orchestrating accidents". What are the things that simply can't be planned or counted on? Do you have a story to share that is indicative of this aspect of filmmaking?
  • Create New...