Why hasn't this been invented?

Drew Hoffman · February 19, 2007

Why doesn't the signal bounce to a decomissioned NASA satellite, then relay to a secret bunker in Munich, then be sent by bike courier to the studio, then the 2nd AC can bring you a wax-sealed envelope, then you can open it (finally feeling like you're on-stage for the Academy Awards) and finally, nudge the dial the half-inch necessary to find your subject.

By far, the best method of pulling that I've ever heard of, give that man a gold star!

People try to come up with all kinds of fancy gadgets to help pull focus. Like the laser measuring tape mounted to the camera to give a constant read out. Maybe they'll develop an autofocus system for film cameras, I can see the "Pana-focus" system now!

Pulling focus is an art in itself. The pulls that are so subtle that they shift your attention without you even realizing it are a true thing of beauty. Having a good puller or a good dolly grip shapes a shot as much as having a good camera op or DP. I don't think they get enough credit for the role they play.

Carrying on with the crazy ideas: couldn't the chip be placed in the actor's mouth?

Really, then the chip should be implanted in their eye... and for that matter, why don't we replace the puller's eye with a bionic one that reads the chip and displays the distance which is also linked to their robot arm that adjusts the focus, I think an army of Six Million Dollar Camera Assistants is probably the way to go.

Anatole Sloan · February 19, 2007

DVXuser.com has tons on this on the "Red competition ideas" - or is it Reduser.net now?

Anyway, this idea has a lot of potential, but requires lens makers to integrate a motor in their lenses, which will make them more expensive, etc, etc. Maybe in the future...

chuck colburn · February 19, 2007

Rube Goldberg made many drawings of outlandish, very tongue-in-cheek machines that techncally work but are the "scenic route" for getting that particular job done.

See: http://www.rube-goldberg.com/

Yeah like how GM designs their engines! lol

Adam Kesher · February 20, 2007

What about this?

A distance meter, for example the Leica Disto, is fitted with the spot-meter-look-through-thingy (what's that name again?) that is placed on some light meters, e.g. Sekonic's Cinemeter. The 1st AC simply looks through the spot-meter-look-through-thingy (that is kind of like binoculars but not exactly, it has only one hole..), presses a button and infra-red singals och ultrawave signals or whatever are sent towards the point he has pointed the CineDisto© at, for example, an eye. Because of the rapid speed of the ultrawaves (or whatever), the CineDisto© receives updated information on distance several hundred times per second, so you know that what you're looking at is always in focus.

Furthermore, the CineDisto© would include a wireless link to the camera, much like the ones used with wireless follow focus these days. At the press of the button for distance-measure, it would instantly start sending signals to the lens system which would then set the parameters for the shot and continue doing so throughout the take.

Oh, and one more thing. Since this would mean that the 1st AC has to be aligned with the film plane, of course a chip would be installed in the on-board system mounted to the camera, and the signal would go from there via the CineDisto©, which would measure the distance, then send it back to a receiver which triangulates the signal and gives us perfect focus, EVERY TIME!

If anyone at Leica or so is reading this, please don't sue me for writing your company´s name in this post, instead please steal this idea and make a CineDisto©, fast!

Can I have any comments on this one?

Francis Kuhn · February 20, 2007

What about this?
. . .the CineDisto©, which would measure the distance, then send it back to a receiver which triangulates the signal and gives us perfect focus, EVERY TIME!

Can I have any comments on this one?

I think it's been done already: http://www.prestoncinema.com/products_light_LR.html

Mike Lary · February 20, 2007

It would only be a semi-automatic device unless it follows a single subject at all times. It would have to be programmed to switch targets during the shot. How would you do that? Would you have every actor/object implanted with a chip? Would they stand on a grid that you could plot points on from the Go-go Gadget focus assist? And what about interference with wireless mic systems? Why create more work and technical problems when we have a system that works just fine? And what about those highly skilled 1st ACs who get paid good money doing a difficult job?

Adam Kesher · February 20, 2007

I think it's been done already: http://www.prestoncinema.com/products_light_LR.html

Cheesus Chrust! That contraption is as big as all outdoors!

I meant a kind of smaller, hand-held unit. Y'know. So you won't have to rent an extra grip truck just to transport the focus-system..

K Borowski · February 21, 2007

Let's just replace all camera crews with robots :rolleyes:

I'm starting to get really tired of people and their technological "improvements". All the bullshit that it involves makes it not worth it in the end; I think there are a good deal of intelligent replies here that illustrate quite well why a computer replacement is never going to be entirely adequate. And transitioning back and forth between a human focus puller and a computer system begs the question, why not just use the human? THis is like those damned self-checkouts that everyone uses. Human beings are not only quicker than you are at loading your own bags, but they don't spontaneoulsy break down. . .

Francis Kuhn · February 21, 2007

Let's just replace all camera crews with robots :rolleyes:

I'm starting to get really tired of people and their technological "improvements". All the bullshit that it involves makes it not worth it in the end; I think there are a good deal of intelligent replies here that illustrate quite well why a computer replacement is never going to be entirely adequate. And transitioning back and forth between a human focus puller and a computer system begs the question, why not just use the human? THis is like those damned self-checkouts that everyone uses. Human beings are not only quicker than you are at loading your own bags, but they don't spontaneoulsy break down. . .

Karl,

Here's an interesting link about focus pulling on CML:

http://www.cinematography.net/Pages%20GB/FOCUSING.HTM

It mentions the Preston Light Ranger and how it was used in the film Without Limits about American runner Steve Prefontaine. The film's highly experienced crew felt the Light Ranger could help them to get a shot that would otherwise be impossible--runners coming head-on at the camera at 15mph, filmed with an 800mm lens at a high frame rate and wide aperture. They didn't use it for the entire film, only when they felt it was the best tool for a specific shot. So, in this case, technology improved the shot. (I recall reading an in-depth article about this setup somewhere else that said they were able to keep the runner's eyes in focus for the length of the shot.)

By the way, I love my Hermes 3000 typewriter, but I wouldn't want to write a screenplay on it!

-Fran

Dino Giammattei · February 21, 2007

If I'm not mistaken, there were a lot of old guys that wouldn't give up their rack overs. Do the young folks now even know what that is? It's why they needed focus pullers in the first place. It's about a hundred years late in the process to be anti-technology. Inovations that enhance abilities are a good thing, as long as a skilled and gifted person is at the controls. If this crazy stuff is actually possible, then you know darn well, sooner or later some well meaning egghead will build it. Someone with respect within the industry will do something wonderful with it, and it will become the next standard.

dino