Camera Op / DP straw poll

[Cail Young]

If given the option, would you prefer to use view-finder type LCD to monitor your RED shoot, or the larger LCD? Bear in mind that there's no optical VF, I find it hard to see any benefit for a view-finder style LCD except in bright daylight - so what am I missing, working professionals?

[Evin Grant]

depends on the shooting situation. All shoulder mount and daylight outdoor shooting will be better served by the EVF. The LCD will be better for most tripod, dolly and other stable or stationary shooting platforms.

[Charles Papert]

Assuming that both types of viewing are relatively equal in terms of resolution (i.e. one does not represent a significant compromise against the other), my breakdown would be a little more complicated as it depends on the situation.

Handheld: generally the viewfinder, but if I am in a situation where I need to be more "heads-up" due to negotiating challenging topography or need flexibility in positioning of the camera during a shot, I will mount the LCD just to the left of the mattebox, or on top if I need to work with the camera cradled in my arms. Incidentally the fantastic handheld sequence towards the end of "Children of Men" was operated in the latter fashion.

Dolly: generally again a viewfinder, mounted rear left side with a leveling arm. It allows me to be more "connected" to the performance. However if a dolly move requires a lot of contortion to stay in the viewfinder, such as a 180 degree pan, using the full range of the boom arm (which often requires an adjustment to the length of the leveler during the shot) I may opt for the LCD to make things easier. Sometimes during a long day I will switch modes simply to ease the eyestrain of the viewfinder.

Usually daylight exterior work will require the viewfinder, but given the above exceptions, even a somewhat washed-out LCD may still improve the results. I'll try to do some rehearsals with the viewfinder to make sure that the shot is free of issues before going to the LCD which will just deliver framing information.

So much of this has to do with the image quality of the respective displays. The reason that optical viewfinders have been favored for so long is that they deliver much more information than a small LCD, allowing one to detect boom shadows, errant light stands, flares, etc more easily; not to mention judging critical focus, very important to be able to give feedback to the focus puller. I have yet to see an electronic viewfinder that can rival the clarity of the best optical viewfinders (hoping that RED's will be the one!) so when operating HD shows, for instance with the Panavision Genesis, I am more likely to use the LCD as I get at least as much and generally more information out of that. As I said originally, much of this depends on the monitor and viewfinder in question.

[Jaime Vallés]

Given that the LCD is included in the price, that's what I'll be using for the forseeable future. I made it work with my DVX, I'll make it work with RED.

[Don Woods]

I agree with Evin it just depends on what I'm shooting. I think I will use the EFV more but I do see my self using the LCD allot also.

[donatello b]

in general ... 75% view finder ... 25% LCD ..

[Andreas Fernbrant]

Viewfinder all the way for me.
If I direct I would use the monitor to view the performance.

[Finner]

EVF will be usable in pretty much every shooting situation. LCD will be difficult outside.

I am buying both but if I could only get one it would be EVF hands down.

[Steve Gibby]

I'll use both the EVF and LCD regularly. Use will depend on the style and location of shooting.

Both the EVF and LCD are projected to be 720p, and RED has stated that their focus assist will be very effective. Given that info, and assuming that the focus assist is effective, here's my thoughts:

Tripod
There are situations where tripod is pedded up high or low where the LCD will come in handy. For chest level to head level shooting I'll use the EVF quite a bit.

Stabilizer
I'll use the LCD for this because spatial orientation while walking or running with a camera is essential. Tripping over cables and other obstacles is a real concern, thus peripheral vision is needed.

Hand held
When the camera is held low to the ground or at arms reach high, I'll use the LCD because there is usually no way to get my eye up to an EVF. I walk and even run smoothly with cameras up to 30 lbs held at arms length, so the LCD will be used for that.

Shoulder mount
I'll mostly use the EVF for this, but generally with my off-EVF eye open to see what's happening around me and outside the frame. I shoot in dangerous locations where things are moving (sports, etc.), so knowing what is going on around me, and coming at me is critical. There may be shoulder held situations where I use the LCD because I'm a little more stationary, it's a longer shot, and my face doesn't need to be against the EVF cup.

For all outdoor shooting with the LCD I'll use an LCD hood to control ambient light on the LCD face. Lots of companies offer them, made of nylon, and attachable with velcro or snaps. For some indoor shooting with the LCD I'll also use an LCD hood if stray light may be an issue.

I'm not concerned with the OVF vs. EVF issue. RED can be accessorized and lensed for cine style and EFP style use, and I'll use it for both. An OVF would be overkill and heavier for mobile EFP work. RED has stated that the LCD will be high-res (720p), the focus assist will be effective, that we'll be able to see outside the framed area when using the EVF, and that framing lines can be generated for the LCD and EVF. I’ll be happy to have a good EVF with those features.

[Dominic Jones]

For all outdoor shooting with the LCD I'll use an LCD hood to control ambient light on the LCD face.
As will most of us, I imagine - any chance that RED could include a hood option, similar to Marshall monitors, for instance?

I'd much prefer a hard (lightweight metal or ABS) shade over the Hoodman type (which I currently use on smaller monitors)...

[Steve Gibby]

As will most of us, I imagine - any chance that RED could include a hood option, similar to Marshall monitors, for instance?

I'd much prefer a hard (lightweight metal or ABS) shade over the Hoodman type (which I currently use on smaller monitors)...

Don't know if RED will include an LCD hood or have it available as an option. I see from RED team members posts that they are quite aware of the LCD glare issues. My guess is that they will have a good non-glare coating on the LCD panel, and it is possible that they may offer a RED Hood for the LCD. If they don't, a 3rd party will.

[Jared VanLeuven]

Has anyone heard whether the EVF will be monochrome? Actually, it would be very sweet if the EVF and LCD could be switched monochrome/color. That would help focusing even more. Not sure if LCD tech permits this to fully realize the benefit for that particular use.

[SF Geek]

I would most likely use both, the viewfinder for me and the screen for my first. I hope everyone understands how important focus is going to be and how crucial a good first is. Even the best focus assist cannot come close to comparing.

[Steve Gibby]

I would most likely use both, the viewfinder for me and the screen for my first. I hope everyone understands how important focus is going to be and how crucial a good first is. Even the best focus assist cannot come close to comparing.

A lot of experienced shooters will be using RED One alone for mobile cine style and EFP style, using S35, 35mm still, S16, and B4 lenses. If RED's high-res LCD and EVF dance well with their focus assist, in all but the shallowest DOF shots, they should be able to do their own focusing if necessary or desired. In mobile EFP work, where DOF is generally deeper, a first isn't normally used. DOF is deeper using S16 in 2K and B4 2/3" in 1080p, making a first unnecessary.

Those who are used to working in a large crew, S35mm cine-style field workflow will undoubtedly use a first. I think it's important to remember that RED One, having a wide range of lens and format options, is not locked into the big crew, cine-style scenario, in fact, experienced shooters will readily be able to shoot alone with RED One, in both cine style and EFP style.

RED One will be what you want or need it to be...

[SF Geek]

It's not the experienced people I'm worried about Gibby. Although you made me think about the RED camera. Is it really all that well suited for ENG, EFP? Is a Bayer pattern CMOS chip windowed down to 1/4 its original size going to produce as good an image as a good 3 chip CCD at the same size? Is RED really the best choice for that style of shooting?

[Steve Gibby]

Is it really all that well suited for ENG, EFP? Is a Bayer pattern CMOS chip windowed down to 1/4 its original size going to produce as good an image as a good 3 chip CCD at the same size? Is RED really the best choice for that style of shooting?

Sure, RED One can be very well suited for non-hardlined EFP, with the EVF, RED 18-85 zoom or S16 zoom or B4 2/3" HD zoom, shoulder brace, and RED Flash or RED Drive. Electronic news gathering specifically? No, for various post workflow reasons. I believe Graeme Nattress mentioned he felt a windowed RED One 1080p image could potentially look better than a 1080p image from a 3 chip CCD camera. Yeah, I think with the right accessories and lenses, RED One can be the best choice for EFP shooting - not the only choice.

Huge numbers of shooters now shoot in cine style and EFP style for professional and fiscal reasons. Being able to quickly re-accessorize and re-lens the same camera for both styles is basic to the concept of RED One. This concept has been discussed by RED since RED was formed, was covered by Jim Jannard in my published interview with him almost a year ago, and has been confirmed by Stuart English and multiple RED team members repeatedly over the past year. RED One is a digital cinema camera that also has been designed to be used effectively for EFP production. Utility and flexibility, not just a narrow use range, has been stated by RED from the very beginning.

[tj williams]

1.most LCD imagers get better rez as they get bigger. thus a lot of small lcds accept the HD input but put out 480I type rez. IE the small Marshall HD monitor! a small lcd used in s viewfinder therefore may be expected to have less resolution that the lcd.

Most electronic viewfinders have used tubes in the past will the red use a tube?

I've always used the viewfinder in film, started using monitors mounted on the camera a few years ago and shot some recent tv stuff overseas with ziU cameras and really started to like the tilt out monitor (which is very bright) except out on the glaciers where there were problems seeing clearly.

So the Questions RED guys before we know what to use"

1. which will have more resolution the viewfinder or the lcd?

2. How daylite viewable will the lcd actually be?

3. Will either the lcd or the viewfinder allow overdriving the edge inhancement to more clearly see where you are in focus like the Sony or Panasonic broadcast viewfinders do?

[Brook Willard]

3. Will either the lcd or the viewfinder allow overdriving the edge inhancement to more clearly see where you are in focus like the Sony or Panasonic broadcast viewfinders do?

Apparently the RED ONE's focus assist goes well beyond this...

[Mike the beginner]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote by SF Geek
It's not the experienced people I'm worried about Gibby. Although you made me think about the RED camera. Is it really all that well suited for ENG, EFP? Is a Bayer pattern CMOS chip windowed down to 1/4 its original size going to produce as good an image as a good 3 chip CCD at the same size? Is RED really the best choice for that style of shooting?


I suppose we will have to wait and see just how good the resolution will be on the red compared to top quality 3 CCD cameras in windowed mode 2k.

There are certain advantages with red having larger individual pixels than a comparable 3ccd camera. This could well be significant in situations of low light which should give red a clear advantage.

I think i remember Graeme mentioning other advantages due to the larger pixels of the red one.

Michael

[Steve Gibby]

1. which will have more resolution the viewfinder or the lcd?

RED has stated their intentions to make both the EVF and LCD the same high resolution - 720p


2. How daylite viewable will the lcd actually be?

Stuart English just mentioned on another thread on REDUser that RED is aware of potential problems with glare when using the LCD. In combination with an anti -glare coating on the LCD screen, the use of an LCD hood should eliminate most problems with glare.

[Brook Willard]

Anybody who has used an LCD on set knows what it will be like. Even LCDs designed to be used in sunlight will look better under some sort of shade. While a hood will do some of the trick, bright day exteriors can be a wash. I often find myself draping some duvatine over my head to shade the monitor. For long shows where I'm working as an AC, I'll build a little duvatine tent that I can fit under. It covers the monitor, my side of the lens, my follow focus and leaves a large enough window on the subject side that I can still properly judge focus distance. A sweatshirt works as well.

[Charles Papert]

I think TJ is getting at something here in that a 2.5" wide viewfinder display will tend to not appear as sharp as a 7" LCD panel even if they both have the same stated resolution. I know that the Sony C30 viewfinder which is in use on the Genesis has a 960x540 resolution, which is less than 720p (1280x720, right?) but it's pretty far from being able to deliver critical focus, more so than these numbers should dictate.

As several have pointed out here, when you have a focus puller it's nice for them to have an onboard monitor to be able to see the framing (knowing when someone is entering the frame really helps with the timing of a rack) and the highly-anticipated focus assist feature can be activated on this monitor, leaving the viewfinder unencumbered for the operator. This will be especially helpful for those who are acting as operator and DP as they will be likely be seeing a less distracting image. I've even worked with two LCD's onboard; one for the assistant, and another for the director.

[Steve Gibby]

Since RED One will have an HDMI tap, and all taps will be hot, perhaps a wireless HDMI transmission to the focus puller's monitor (a separate monitor from the RED monitor), would free up the RED monitor for auxiliary use by the shooter, even if the shooter is primarily using the EVF or another LCD. There are now wireless HDMI units for under $400 with a 300' range. If they are reliable, and the transmitted resolution is good, and the RED One is equipped with a lens that can recieve remote instructions from the AC, it may open up some interesting focus pulling and monitoring possibilities.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Feel free to reel me in here but I have been wondering if it would be possible to pull focus remotely using a wireless FIZ controller and wireless HDMI driven big monitor (23"+)?

I realize that antenna helpers may be required but that tech is well established. In some set-ups you could hardwire the HDMI without bumming out the operator. You could also hardwire an antenna extension cable to a point near the rig to ensure reliable operation of the FIZ controller if range is an issue.

I am so nuts I am even planning to put a projector in the camera support van so I can pull focus looking at a 60" screen while sitting in a captains chair next to the Espresso machine :D . 1st AC could be the best job on the crew ;)

[Charles Papert]

You guys are indeed barking up the right tree. On the two Genesis jobs I did last year (I single these out from any F900 or Varicam jobs I've done, because the S35 sensor on the Genesis makes it much more comparable to RED when it comes to these issues), my camera assistant pulled focus fulltime with a remote system (Panavision's RDC on one, and the Preston FIZ on another). He would triangulate a position between the camera and the actors and use a 15" Astro monitor on a stand for reference, which was generally in magnify mode and with the detail cranked up to create "sparklies", like a focus assist feature. Baird also used a Panatape with remote readout mounted on the hand controller, and would also use a tape measure and drop marks as needed. A number of other A-list assistants are using a similar approach; on film jobs they don't use the monitor but they do pull from off to the side.

Being too far off set (i.e. video village) means that the assistant loses the ability to take visual cues from the actual actors and whatever reference marks they may have laid down. By simply using the monitor alone (and, I suppose, the remote focus readout if equipped and not out of range), the AC is deprived of much of their toolset and thus can only pull focus in a reactive state, which will likely be less successful (harder to anticipate exactly how much an actor lurches forward unexpectedly if you can't see their feet).

HDMI is an interesting option. The question is, is there a delay in transmission? If so, this will also make things complicated for the assistant as they will be reacting to two different sets of timing. I'm also curious at just how reliable the transmission is--it would be devasting for the AC if there was a hit in the picture right at a critical point.

Both of my Genesis shows required the camera to be always hardwired back to the engineering tent, where we had a 24" Sony HD monitor and a 23" Cinema display, so the DP could watch the pristine image at all times. this was inconvenient at best for dolly shots; annoying for handheld, and downright painful for Steadicam, but it was mandated and there it was. Obviously for lower-budget shoots where the DP is operating, a hardline cable may not be necessary, but I personally would always want to be able to jump up and check out a large monitor under a controlled environment to double check exposure etc. All of HD shooting experience has involved a lot of running back and forth to the camera, actually! The only exception was on a feature when I used a remote system to operate the camera while watching the HD display on the engineering cart, which allowed me to keep a good eye on the lighting at all times.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Humans, probably because our ancestors had to have superior spatial recognition skills in order to consistantly hunt successfully and survive battle, can indeed triangulate amazingly well - especially with drop markers, tapes and a well chosen position on set relative to the camera and the action. Moving the focus puller off set, even with the advantage of a large image to see critical focus on, may give away too much of the innate spatial sense. Still...

If the actors hit their marks (yes, but some are great at it) and the pace of the movements are not too quick the "reactive" focus racks should look pretty damn good. If the HDMI outs include the focus assist tech that Red has been dropping hints about it might be even more viable. I wonder if the tap for the Red LCD can drive a wireless transmitter or long cable? It might be limited to 720 by 1280 but if the focus assist is good enough it might be worth the step down from 1080 by 1920.

As far as I know there should be less than one frame of delay in the HDMI wireless so I don't think that will hurt my fiendish plan. I am wondering about putting an HVX on set in a wide, high angle lock off as a spy cam hardwired to a LCD monitor that sits adjacent to the projected image to provide perspective and make it easier to anticipate entrances and exits. I also would want to walk around the set with a tape and draw a map on graph paper like in high school drafting class to use as a reference if there are a lot of racks and/or the stop is under 2.8.

I have heard great things about the Preston FIZ and I believe that CVB is developing a remote FIZ at a very attractive price point that will allow buying rather than renting.

Yes, this seems like a lot of gyrations but it sure is attractive to be able to pull focus looking at a 60" image. You may be a half a beat late sometimes but when you do find focus it will be dead on. Generally the nightmare is when its just a bit off and no one knows until after the strike.

[Steve Gibby]

That's some excellent input Charles and Blair...

Its going to be interesting to test out the monitoring and focusing options when using RED One. If the latency of HDMI wireless is miniscule, and units are dependable, it may open up some cool options that free up the operator to move, especially with stabilizer sequences, POV shots, etc. Perhaps the focus puller will never get as far away as video village, but to just get him/her far enough away from the operator to free up the operators movements, yet close enough to get operator cues and see actors mark accuracy, would be an improvement on the set.

I’m real interested to check out the remote focus unit that Curt (CVB) has developed.

I keep thinking about using twin Segway electric carts on the set - one for the operator, and one for the focus puller. Steadicams are used on Segways, with smooth, quiet results. If a Steadicam-rigged Segway was used by the operator (shooter), and a second Segway was used by the focus puller, and the focus puller was very clear on the shooter's movements and actor's marks for each shot, the shooter and focus puller could dance their Segways in unison, with the focus puller using an HDMI-remoted tap from the shooter's RED One, a monitor mounted on his/her Segway, and a FIZ/CVB/? unit for relaying focusing to the RED One. The creative possibilities with this type setup would be amazing. If there are a lot of cables and floor-level obstacles in the travel path, Segways couldn't be used. For single-shooter EFP use with deeper DOF shots, a Segway would open up a lot of POV, side-by follow, etc. shot possibilities. Few people are going to own one unless they could keep it busy, but you could just rent them when you needed them.

For those not familiar with Segway, they are 2-wheel electric carts that drivers steer by slight pressure with your feet. Link: http://segwayofusa.com/

[Charles Papert]

Definitely there would be an advantage when everyone lands at a stop, so that you can see critical focus. It feels like a disadvantage every other time. Imagine a shot where the camera is pushing past a series of staggered actors at a fairly good clip. You need to draw the focus closer as you approach one actor, then throw it deep to the next and immediately reverse direction and start drawing them in closer, and so on...doing this via visual feedback will almost certainly result in being ahead or behind the timing, always playing catchup. Being able to distinguish if one is slightly shallow or slightly deep can be very hard if you aren't on set personally able to witness the positions of camera and actor, and searching around to find focus is simply not an option. And remember that focus assist can only tell you when you are in focus, not where you will need to be in the future to stay in focus!

It's worth a try, Blair, but my intuition is that it will be problematic. Not to mention that focus pulling combined with the DIT job is a LOT of work--you'll be running back and forth from the camera to your monitor all day long.

Probably my reservations come from the fact that while RED has many revolutionary aspects, from an optical standpoint it is identical to not only the film camera legacy but even the current crop of HD cameras (i.e. the rules have not changed), so it's hard to see why a reinvention of the science of pulling focus would be suddenly possible.

Nevertheless, it's this sort of pioneering spirit that prompted the development of RED in the first place, so I will try to keep an open mind, and remain interested to see what you come up with!

[Charles Papert]

I've taken test rides on the Segways with the hands-free Steadicam option, and although they are mind-blowing technology, I believe that they are of relatively limited use due to the obstacles that are oft found on sets. For either the operator or the assistant to be able to safely negotiate their way around while maintaining their attention on the job at hand is a bit sketchy. For long walk-and-talks on exteriors, I think this a great tool, as well as shooting events like big stage shows or parades etc.

Interesting thought though! And why stop at the operator and AC--the boom guy would do well to have his own Segway, and the electrician carrying the roving fill-light; a set-full of Segways with anti-collision software would be something to see. When the craft service chap comes wheeling in with a tray of pigs-in-blankets, that's when we'll know the film industry has finally entered the 21st century.

[Júlio Taubkin]

I'd say depending on the price of the viewfinder, I'm inclined to upgrade my camera for viewfinder only and dish the LCD.

[Steve Gibby]

No doubt Charles...I thought about obstacles on the set and other creative uses after my initial Segway post and then edited that thought in a minute before your post.

A set full of Segways, all dancing in choreographed unison would be good "behind the scenes" documentary fodder in itself!

Viva la technology...

[Dominic Jones]

I am wondering about putting an HVX on set in a wide, high angle lock off as a spy cam hardwired to a LCD monitor that sits adjacent to the projected image to provide perspective and make it easier to anticipate entrances and exits.
It'll be a help, but you lose all of your important depth information as you're now viewing the set in 2D, of course...

You *could* try 2 HVX's and a projected polarized 3D image next to your monitor, but that's starting to get a little over-complex! Be a fun experiment though...

For me, I think I'm going to be standing pretty close to the camera for my AC work, most probably forever, but I admire your forward thinking and evolutionary spirit, Blair!

[Dominic Jones]

A set full of Segways, all dancing in choreographed unison would be good "behind the scenes" documentary fodder in itself!
Sounds like a great music promo to me...

Where's Spike Jonze when you need him?!

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Charles is right, the RedOne is not directly related to my musings about a better way to pull focus. When I'm ready to test I'll post a call for interested volunteers, should be fun and I'll bring the Espresso machine :cool:

Dominic, I like the idea of two spy cams creating a 3D representation but for now I think I'll just try and get the spy cam angle as high up as I can so I get a "top view".

I love Gibby's Segway idea though I think it only makes sense for the operator. For some set-ups I think it could be brilliant.

[Finner]

Hi Blair

I pulled focus for quite a few years and I would have to say that taking the focus puller away from the camera would be a bad thing. The nuances of actors can be subtle and critical. Even if an actor hits his mark dead on and (trust me on this a lot of even big A list actors that I have worked with miss) a slight lean or move can throw out focus and these slight leans and moves often are different in every take. Also in the case of lens, filter, and camera changes a 1AC should be right there to handle it or it slows things down. Now as a shooter I often wisper directions while rolling to my 1AC and I want them right beside me. I only know of one 1st AC that always uses a FIZ he's good at his job but he still is always right beside the camera. I see no way that a 1AC could be effective away from the camera. Unless a person is working for a low budget lots of time to wait production I would also not recomend a 1AC doing a DIT position at the same time. Saving money on someone doing both positions will often cost the production a lot more in time loss and having to pay everyone else on set while the 1st/DIT runs around like a chicken with his head cut off. That can also sour a company on using a RED in the later jobs.

As far as I am concerned the focus pullers job is the most pressure filled on set and I would hate for more to be placed on them. Even though my 1st has a fair amount of down time I expect a instant response when I need him.

Productions are always looking for cost savings but rarely willing to trade savings that cause a bunch of extra time on set.

[Júlio Taubkin]

Great post Finner. I actually don't think there is a better way to pull focus than the one availiable right now, and would think that the reason is because it isn't necessary. Ac's do pretty good jobs pulling focus the way it is, and also manage to take care of the camera at all times and assist the cinematographer, reminding him of everything camera related (wich can get fairly confusing: filter factors, frame rates, emulsion type in the mag, etc, etc...).

I have a much more limited experienced, but have pulled focus in quite a few sets, film and video, the last 5 years and have DP'd quite another few to like the idea of a first AC by my side.

Cheers!


Hi Blair

I pulled focus for quite a few years and I would have to say that taking the focus puller away from the camera would be a bad thing. The nuances of actors can be subtle and critical. Even if an actor hits his mark dead on and (trust me on this a lot of even big A list actors that I have worked with miss) a slight lean or move can throw out focus and these slight leans and moves often are different in every take. Also in the case of lens, filter, and camera changes a 1AC should be right there to handle it or it slows things down. Now as a shooter I often wisper directions while rolling to my 1AC and I want them right beside me. I only know of one 1st AC that always uses a FIZ he's good at his job but he still is always right beside the camera. I see no way that a 1AC could be effective away from the camera. Unless a person is working for a low budget lots of time to wait production I would also not recomend a 1AC doing a DIT position at the same time. Saving money on someone doing both positions will often cost the production a lot more in time loss and having to pay everyone else on set while the 1st/DIT runs around like a chicken with his head cut off. That can also sour a company on using a RED in the later jobs.

As far as I am concerned the focus pullers job is the most pressure filled on set and I would hate for more to be placed on them. Even though my 1st has a fair amount of down time I expect a instant response when I need him.

Productions are always looking for cost savings but rarely willing to trade savings that cause a bunch of extra time on set.

[Charles Papert]

Not to be contrary guys, but I know of at least three A-list assistants who use the FIZ full-time and stand away from the camera to do so: Jimmy Jenson, Tony Rivetti and Baird Steptoe (a quick peek at IMDB should inform as to their experience levels). This is a relatively recent development to be sure, as all have spent many years pulling directly from the camera, but like many things in the business, techniques evolve. Certainly there is more pressure placed on AC's these days, as there tend to be less rehearsals, less time to drop marks, longer lenses and wider stops than ever before.

Personally, I find it a little disconcerting also as I can no longer whisper focus notes or advance warning of a change in the camera move during a take, nor can I reach over to the lens and crank the focus while lining up a shot with the motor engaged. But if they feel that their success ratio is improved with this style, so be it.

Finally--the guys are never far from the camera, only a few feet really, and can still manage all of the other usual duties without a noticeable delay. Having a sixth sense of everything going on at the camera is part of a top AC's job.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I have no doubt that Charles and others are accurately reporting their real world experiences of the techniques of top notch 1sts. I also get that a good 1st AC is doing a lot more than pulling focus. I also understand that on a shoot with a full crew the DIT job needs to be limited to just that. Still...

I would love to give it a try just to see if with a little practice it could be done a different way. I'm curious, so sue me :rolleyes:

[Júlio Taubkin]

Not to be contrary guys, but I know of at least three A-list assistants who use the FIZ full-time and stand away from the camera to do so: Jimmy Jenson, Tony Rivetti and Baird Steptoe (a quick peek at IMDB should inform as to their experience levels). This is a relatively recent development to be sure, as all have spent many years pulling directly from the camera, but like many things in the business, techniques evolve. Certainly there is more pressure placed on AC's these days, as there tend to be less rehearsals, less time to drop marks, longer lenses and wider stops than ever before.

Personally, I find it a little disconcerting also as I can no longer whisper focus notes or advance warning of a change in the camera move during a take, nor can I reach over to the lens and crank the focus while lining up a shot with the motor engaged. But if they feel that their success ratio is improved with this style, so be it.

Finally--the guys are never far from the camera, only a few feet really, and can still manage all of the other usual duties without a noticeable delay. Having a sixth sense of everything going on at the camera is part of a top AC's job.

Nothing wrong with remote focus controls, and a little distance, but a guy pulling focus from the video village would certainly scare the heck out of me...

[Rob Lohman]

I guess we have to wait for the first guy to pull focus from the other side over the world through internet? ;)

[Mike Devlin]

I think NASA/JPL has been pulling focus on the Mars Rovers from California.

[Júlio Taubkin]

I think NASA/JPL has been pulling focus on the Mars Rovers from California.

Yeah but have you seen the images? A tad soft, don't you think? ;)

[Charles Papert]

Nothing wrong with remote focus controls, and a little distance, but a guy pulling focus from the video village would certainly scare the heck out of me...

We actually tried this a couple of times on shots where the DP was insisting that there was a focus issue so the AC joined him at the tent for a take. The thing was that this was after multiple takes of fairly predictable shots (static actor takes one step forward, for instance) so the AC knew what the distances were that were involved, but it was the fine tuning that was in question.

FYI, we also used the Preston single-channel controller on the iris which allowed the DP or the DIT to ride the iris control as needed wirelessly from the tent. I think there was a post earlier that alluded to particular types of lenses needed to accomodate a wireless setup--might be worth pointing out here that the Preston system can be used on any lens that has gears.

[Júlio Taubkin]

FYI, we also used the Preston single-channel controller on the iris which allowed the DP or the DIT to ride the iris control as needed wirelessly from the tent. I think there was a post earlier that alluded to particular types of lenses needed to accomodate a wireless setup--might be worth pointing out here that the Preston system can be used on any lens that has gears.

That sounds really clever. I always thought that DPs on the video village screaming 1/3 stop changes to the AC while sunlight was changing on the set was couterproductive.

Hey and thanks everyone for taking your time and contributing with the discussion. It's really enlighting to be able to talk frankly with people with more experience like Blair, Charles, and Finner (to name a few). So I hope I'm not being stubborn and unreasoneble.

Maybe you're all right, and focus pulling might end up to be a task performed by a more of an engeneer kind of guy. I for one think the video assist operator's job is the first that has to go. The guy is as useful as remote video link. Have him some data to log and some metadata to edit, we're getting somewhere, but just to hand a cable to the first AC... C'mon... And I've done my share of it. A great way to learn how to be a camera assistant, but not a very glamurous profession.

But anyway, I remember that the more evolved digital camera of all time actually behaves more like a traditional film camera than like a video camera, capturing raw with minimal image control, and leaving room for adjustments after shooting. Manual iris, and manual focus. That should be a testament that tradicional shooting methods do work.

If things change, and if change is for the better, great. I've been (mere) 5 years working with this, I am certainly not tied to anything. Certainly not afraid of changes.

But I'm just not so eager to change something that works, unless something really better comes around...

Cheers!

[Finner]

Maybe you're all right, and focus pulling might end up to be a task performed by a more of an engeneer kind of guy. I

Manual iris, and manual focus. That should be a testament that tradicional shooting methods do work.

But I'm just not so eager to change something that works, unless something really better comes around...

Cheers!


Nice post Taubkin

I totally agree with you. I have worked with a bunch of different focus pullers and they seem to fall into 2 camps. One is MECHANICAL. These type of focus pullers lay lots of marks have laser pointers and use every little mechanical trick in the book. The othe is ZEN. These type usually have there tape measures lay a few marks and don't take a lot of measurements they just seem to get things sharp. When I pulled focus I was a ZEN style puller. To tell you the truth there was a bunch of times I would not even run out my tape measure I just kind of knew where I needed to be to be sharp. Neither way is right or better as long as things are sharp. I find now as a Director/DP I still tend to just go more "ZEN" with my shooting. I know what I should get for composition and metering but often I just go with my gut and what feels right for the shot instead of worring about the lighting ratios math and what is deemed correct composition. In the end each to their own. Hell we are pretty much just making pretty pictures and contrary to some stressed out peoples opinion on set it is not life or death.

[Steve Gibby]

...often I just go with my gut and what feels right for the shot...

Yep...that comes with experience...and there's no shortcut to experience. Repetition of similar creative circumstances creates a 6th sense of what works and what doesn't. I work the same way, but if my 6th sense tells me to check or re-check a shot a little closer, I do it.

[Finner]

The gut can cause mistakes but one of my favorite things about this industry is the ability to make mistakes. Often I love the look of some of my mistakes and throw them in to the final cut. My wife is an engineer, she makes a mistake and a bridge falls down. I make a mistake, I call it "Artistic Impression" and win an award for the project.

[Steve Gibby]

But anyway, I remember that the more evolved digital camera of all time actually behaves more like a traditional film camera than like a video camera, capturing raw with minimal image control, and leaving room for adjustments after shooting. Manual iris, and manual focus. That should be a testament that tradicional shooting methods do work.

Hmmm... I think your statement is cine-centric. Traditional film cameras used celluloid film and were mechanical. Video technology comes from electronic technology. RED One is the next incarnation of electronic technology, utilizing next-generation electronic components that were conceived and developed in the video and DSLR industries, not the film industry. EVF, electronic shutter, histograms, electronic focus assist, and a long list of other features of RED One share a common pedigree with video cameras and DSLR cameras - not traditional film cameras. Celuloid film locks in images. RAW has its legacy in the DSLR world. The electronics of the body of RED One are most closely related in technology of DSLR’s, followed by video cameras.

Lenses are a different story. Since RED One is a manual camera, and manual cine lenses and manual 35mm still lenses can be used on RED One, that makes the lens use workflow be similar to old style still photography and 35mm cinematography. That enables a more traditional film-style workflow in the field – if wanted or needed.

RED One can be operated similar to traditional film cameras, and undoubtedly will, by those who need to or want to parallel traditional film camera use, but RED One can also be accessorized and lensed for EFP production where it's field use is essentially the same as most other EFP cameras: EVF, B4 2/3" HD ENG lens, 1080p or 720p RGB recording. RED One also has a 12volt auxiliary power tap for powering the servo zoom motors of B4 2/3” HD ENG lenses. 2/3” ENG lenses have always had the ability to be switched to full manual operation, and professional EFP/ENG shooters regularly use them in full manual mode, so traditional film shooters aren’t the only ones who are used to manual lens operation.

Yeah…traditional shooting methods do work, and many who are comfortable with them will continue to use them. But there is a large and growing group of shooters who have the skill sets and desire to adjust their shooting methods to the equipment and style that best suits each particular project – whether that be cine-style or EFP style. With their RED One cameras, they may use a S35mm lenses, a tape measure, and use traditional film style shooting on a large crew feature one day, the next day be on location shooting an HDTV program in true EFP style, and the next day be shooting stock footage by themselves using 35mm still lenses in a style that most closely parallels DSLR use.

RED One is what you accessorize and lens it to be, depending on each particular project. It follows that depending on the accessories, lenses, and the genre of what each project is, your shooting methods will commensurately change to be traditional film style, EFP style, or a blend of the two.

An “I’ve always done it this way, and I don’t plan on evolving” attitude will never unlock the flexibility and utility of RED One. Once we feel we have all the answers we stop growing professionally…

We’re all in one big convergent image making tribe now, and I think that’s way cool. Let’s learn from each other’s styles and experience.

[Steve Gibby]

The gut can cause mistakes but one of my favorite things about this industry is the ability to make mistakes. Often I love the look of some of my mistakes and throw them in to the final cut. My wife is an engineer, she makes a mistake and a bridge falls down. I make a mistake, I call it "Artistic Impression" and win an award for the project.

LOL...no doubt! Some of the best advances in shooting styles have been the result of what shooters originally thought of as mistakes, but after thinking about it and developing it, became "new looks".

Very cool to push the boundaries out further...

[Charles Papert]

That's a funny line Finner, I think I'll use that one! And true enough about the "life and death" aspect of it. A lot of this depends on who you are working for and what the expectations are. I once had the experience of sitting in a dailies screening room full of studio brass along with the producers, director etc. and had a scene come up that was printed with the wrong timing lights, resulting in their multi-million dollar actor's face disappearing into the shadows--the silence was deafening, and I nearly lost my lunch. You would have thought the bridge had fallen down...! (all was well by the next day's reprints, thankfullly).

It is interesting to see different focus pullers use differing levels of technology, I've definitely seen some guys who can do amazing things with nothing but a tape measure. All of the good ones still have to have that Zen mode within them as sometimes there's no other way. The other week we were pulling the lovely Charlize Theron down a hallway and through a doorway at top speed--it was pretty obvious on the monitor whether I was making it through in time, but the AC was blind for the critical part of the shot and had to use his best guess if it worked (the dailies looked great, turns out he knew exactly which takes he had it or not).

I honestly don't think that focus pulling will ever become an "engineer/technician" type of job, there are too many decisions that require an understanding of the overall filmmaking process to simplify it down to 1's and 0's. Knowing when and what speed to pull a rack has to do with understanding the emotion of a scene and being able to read the actor's rhythm. And on the subject of video assist operator, Taubkin--on most shows I've been on, a dedicated video assist guy is there to record takes on a hard drive system and playback for the director with a high degree of efficiency (most directors get awfully gruff if there is any delay or misunderstanding in this process!) and definitely needs to be a dedicated job. When there is no vidoe assist position on set, the camera assistants have to manage the video monitors and cabling, which can be a fierce task in the HD world. In fact, video assist is not actually a camera department job in the union world, it's part of the sound local. The DIT position is evolving for sure as cameras move towards RAW capture, where they don't need to painted for individual shots. The process of shooting high-end HD is currently complex enough to justify an individual to be able to wrangle the additional technology, troubleshoot as needed and run the engineering station, and even with a camera as seemingly "simple" as RED I still think there will be a need for an additional person with this job description for a while. Of course on a low-budget shoot the tasks are divided up differently, but I honestly feel that a DP's job is filled up with enough responsibilities (overseeing three departments and working with the director) to also have to deal with camera menus and trueing monitors, etc.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Just a little blue sky thinking here but what about an assistant DoP? DIT plus? I am seeing the need for a position that sort of protects the DoP's "post flank".

If you do your due diligence and reverse engineer your workflow pipeline back from the DI stage on a digital acquisition show, there are a host of data and metadata management issues. As Charles mentioned the DoP is already dealing with 3 departments and the director.

Union turf battles aside the new end-to-end digital paradigm may require a new roster of personnel assignments. Perhaps a "look" and data manager, we'll call him "looky-dat, looky-dat" :rolleyes:

[Charles Papert]

The current DIT position, (which is a Local 600 classification, as opposed to video assist operator) is pretty much what you described, Blair--a good one can dial in the look and act sort of like a "pre-colorist" for the DP, watching out for issues and creating the LUT's for the post-production colorist. The DIT rate is actually equal to the camera operator in the Basic Agreement (and more than the DP's rate in the Videotape Agreement...!)

[Steve Gibby]

The vast majority of professional productions worldwide are non-union. If you're trying to break some new ground in job classifications and duties, centered around evolving digital workflows and equipment like RED One, then for various reasons, I think marketing that to the non-union segment of the production community will bring you quicker success. That's not to say that union work won't evolve, or in any way to minimize union work, but evolution of jobs and job descriptions and duties just seems to be faster in the non-union environment.

Of the 800+ nationally and internationally airing television programs I've contributed to as a producer, director, editor, scriptwriter, DP, cinematographer, and videographer, none of them have been union. If they had been, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to spread my skill sets so broad because union rules would restrict that. I didn't want to be locked into just being a narrow job classification or group of skill sets, so I avoided union work. I have many friends who went the union route and are happy with it. I certainly won't criticize their choice on that - to each their own.

For you Blair, IMO your forward thinking on RED One field workflows will produce quicker and broader results in the non-union working arena.