AC'ing for HD

Max Jacoby · October 13, 2004

Today I got an offer to do an HD feature as a 2nd AC.

Probably F900, don't know yet if they are recording to tape or disk.

Now in what way is HD different from a film shoot for a 2nd?

- Is the sound linked to the camera or does one still do sync slates ?

- Do you do neg report sheets (or is that left to the continuity)?

Any other differences that I should be aware of?

Eric Steelberg ASC · October 13, 2004

Start learning all of the menus and functions so you have them down. You also need to know how to set back focus and black balance the camera. And most importantly, when you measure distance...on Cine Style zooms the lens in calibrated for distance from the 'film plane' while on standard ENG type zooms the focus scales are measured from the front of the lens.

You're sound person should be the only one dealing with sound. But yes, you should record to camera as your primary sound source with the sound mixer also going to their own DAT backup.

Keep the timecode on REC RUN and use a different hour for each tape. And make sure you record 30 seconds of bars and tone at the beginning of every tape.

You should always do slates for ID purposes. Would you want to edit it without slates?

Camera reports are not necessary. Script/continuity should handle that.

Phil Rhodes · October 13, 2004

Hi,

I, and virtually ever other documentary editor in the world, edit without slates all the time! There's a mode of thinking which suggests that you should be looking for what works best, not what someone else has already decided works best.

Phil

Max Jacoby · October 13, 2004

You're sound person should be the only one dealing with sound. But yes, you should record to camera as your primary sound source with the sound mixer also going to their own DAT backup.

How does the sound get into the camera? Via receiver or cable? Because for some types of shooting having a cable connected to the camera might not be practical.

Michael Nash · October 13, 2004

I, and virtually ever other documentary editor in the world, edit without slates all the time! There's a mode of thinking which suggests that you should be looking for what works best, not what someone else has already decided works best.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For documentary, yes. For drama, no! For drama, each shot pretty much has to go in the right place!

Michael Nash · October 13, 2004

How does the sound get into the camera? Via receiver or cable? Because for some types of shooting having a cable connected to the camera might not be practical.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again that will be up to the sound person, DP, and camera operator to decide.

Hard wiring is a simple XLR connection to the back of the camera. Make sure you keep the channels straight (sound usually color-codes the cables, right is red or Ch 2.). If it's to be a wireless receiver, that's up to the sound person to provide, The receivers are usually velcroed or taped into place wherever they fit best for the setup. The receiver then has an XLR pigtail to the camera.

2nd AC usually has the unglamourous duty of setting up the HD monitor for each new setup. Usually the monitor sits on top of the case it comes in, which is on wheels for (in)convenience. I say that because you're going to love pushing this small refrigerator through a tight set choked with people, gear and cables on the floor! ;)

Eric Steelberg ASC · October 14, 2004

Phil:

Actually organized documentaries do use slates frequently, but they are usually tail slates. It's a necessity to use them for scripted work so you know what's where...not to decide which takes are good/no good. Of course you DO get paid by the day so why WOULD an doc editor prefer slates?

"How does the sound get into the camera? Via receiver or cable? Because for some types of shooting having a cable connected to the camera might not be practical."

Ahh, the beauty of HD...or a some say "highly difficult." You're right. It's not practical, but it is essential. Wireless can be fine, but the risk of interference usually negates that option. It all depends on the mixer and his gear. Yes you'll have a bunch of cables. You just have to deal with it.

And listen to Michaal about the monitor. It sucks. I suggest the Sony 14". Anything bigger and you'll basically need a PA dedicated to it. Anything smaller and you can't check focus well.

Robert Sanders · October 15, 2004

I've never walked on a film-based set and not seen the camera covered with cables. The idea that HD is encumbered by cables is a fallacy.

Max Jacoby · October 15, 2004

Yes, but with a film camera, if you want to get rid of the cables (for steadicam shots for instance), you can.

Brad Grimmett · October 16, 2004

I've never walked on a film-based set and not seen the camera covered with cables. The idea that HD is encumbered by cables is a fallacy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Covered with cables? What kind of cables? Do you mean a BNC and a cable to a battery? That's about all that's needed on the majority of film jobs. I would hardly call that "covered" with cables.

As far as HD is concerned.....there's the two audio cables, a couple of BNC's, the cable for the egineer....I think I'm missing one, but that's enough! It's like a loom coming off of the back of that thing. So saying that, "The idea that HD is encumbered by cables is a fallacy" is not true. Unless of course you're shooting run and gun stuff that isn't monitored and you aren't rolling sound. In that case it would have the same amount of cables as film....none.

Michael Nash · October 16, 2004

We've been over this before and the reality is that you can shoot either format as stripped down or as wired up as you like. HD cameras can be configured for wireless Steadicam use just the same as film cameras. No HD monitoring or hard-wired sound in this mode, but then you wouldn't have that with a film camera either. The image gets downconverted and plugged into the Steadicam monitor for viewing and/or transmitting, effectively the same as the tap image on a film camera.

And both systems can have cables all over the camera, if you consider all the cabling that stays attached to the camera itself, like power cables for accessories, extra BNC for the onboard LCD, and so on. One HD-SDI cable coming off the camera for viewing is no different than one BNC coming off a video tap. Engineering/paintbox cables are usually temporary, and don't have to be attached all the time. About the only real difference is that HD often has sound cables coming into the camera, whereas film cameras won't -- but again it doesn't have to. You can record double system sound like film, or use wireless receivers. And let's not forget that HD cameras can often have onboard batteries, so in that configuration that's one less cable than most 35mm film cameras.

So really, all this stuff about HD vs. film cabling is a non-issue. The methods for Steadicam, sound, and monitoring for both systems are established and proven. Some of the hardware may be different between the systems, but the methods are essentially the same.

Phil Rhodes · October 16, 2004

Hi,

People also overlook the fact that the extra cable options for hi-def aren't just there to make it interesting - you do actually get extra functions out of it! An accurate preview of the image for a start - isn't that worth putting up with a BNC or fibre line for?

Phil

Brad Grimmett · October 17, 2004

HD cameras can be configured for wireless Steadicam use just the same as film cameras. No HD monitoring or hard-wired sound in this mode, but then you wouldn't have that with a film camera either. The image gets downconverted and plugged into the Steadicam monitor for viewing and/or transmitting, effectively the same as the tap image on a film camera.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Technically, you're correct. But in a real world situation it's almost never true.....at least not for me or for any of the other steadicam operators I talk to. They pretty much ALWAYS want to run all the same cables in steadicam mode as they do in standard mode. Lately, even the sound people insist on running cables to the camera in steadcam mode instead of going wireless. I've tried many times explaining why that's bad for me, and for the shot, but they don't seem to care. And the engineer (if there is one) seems to always insist on having the paintbox cable attached as well. It seems like some kind of paranoia, and it's very frustrating. Hopefully people will learn that this just isn't the best way to do steadicam. It severly hinders an operators ability to do a good shot.

Recently, I dayplayed on a movie shooting with the F900, and when I started talking to the director about what kinds of shot he wanted me to do, I realized very quickly that pretty much everything would be lowmode since one of the main characters was a kid (he didn't know what lowmode was....but that's a whole other discussion). After speaking to the A.C.'s I learned that they didn't have a lowmode bracket, which I was happy about because with the exception of Panavision or Claimont, the lowmode brackets for HD are terrible and wobbly. I told the director and DP that I would flip the camera upside down and that they could flip it in post. This is the way most HD lowmode is done, and is much easier for me, and improves the shot. Well, the engineer wasn't having it. She caused a huge fuss about this and said that you COULDN'T flip the camera (she later confided that she had called her friend at Sony and he had confirmed that flipping the camera is standard). Unfortunately, the director and DP got scared (neither had worked with HD before) and said that we had to get a bracket. So a bracket was rushed in from a rental house, and it was worse than most. I set my rig up in lowmode and the sound guy and engineer both INSISTED that they be hardwired through all the shots. Then the DP decided that he wanted a light mounted above the lens. So I had two BNC's, an engineering cable, two XLR's, and a power cable hanging off the camera. What a mess! So I did my best to get some very complicated shots (running at times, chasing the kid) with a horrible low mode bracket, six very unwieldly cables swinging around behind the camera, and an intern pulling cable. The shots suffered to say the least! And the director has the nerve to ask me, "Why is the camera wobbling when you are going side to side?" So I point him to my docked rig and poke the post with my index finger and the camera starts wobbling because of the lowmode bracket. It was pretty obvious what the problem was. I told them "No lowmode bracket" but the made me use one anyway. I told them "The shots will suffer if I have that many cables attached to the camera" and they loaded it up with the maximum amount of cables anyway. The better question would have been, "How are you even able to get a usable shot?" Sometimes you need to listen to the people that you hire, because most of the time they know what they're talking about.

So maybe it's not necessarily an HD thing, but more of a paranoia thing. They're unfamiliar with this stuff and they get scared. If there's a good reason for having the cable then I'm totally cool with it. There are always comprimises. But when people do things the hard way because they are unwilling to listen to someone who knows what he's talking about, it becomes VERY frustrating.

Sorry for the long rant, but I think this stuff is relevant to the conversation going on.

Phil Rhodes · October 17, 2004

Hi,

Two points occur to me:

- I don't believe I have ever done a steadicam shot without cables. Perhaps this is why I appear to suck.

- There are a lot of "professional" people working on very upscale productions using HD cameras who don't know what they're doing. I can only once again mention the HD demo I attended at Panavision, with apparently very experienced people asking the most cringe-worthy questions. At some point, producers will (I hope like hell) realise that they need to respect the abilities, experience and knowledge of TV and other video people when it comes to this recently-introduced equipment. You can't hang the camera upside down? And this woman was supposed to be a specialist. I would not expect to be able to get away with that level of incompetence and keep my job.

Phil

GWilliamPatrickB · October 18, 2004

Technically, you're correct. But in a real world situation it's almost never true.....at least not for me or for any of the other steadicam operators I talk to. They pretty much ALWAYS want to run all the same cables in steadicam mode as they do in standard mode. Lately, even the sound people insist on running cables to the camera in steadcam mode instead of going wireless. I've tried many times explaining why that's bad for me, and for the shot, but they don't seem to care. And the engineer (if there is one) seems to always insist on having the paintbox cable attached as well. It seems like some kind of paranoia, and it's very frustrating. Hopefully people will learn that this just isn't the best way to do steadicam. It severly hinders an operators ability to do a good shot.
Recently, I dayplayed on a movie shooting with the F900, and when I started talking to the director about what kinds of shot he wanted me to do, I realized very quickly that pretty much everything would be lowmode since one of the main characters was a kid (he didn't know what lowmode was....but that's a whole other discussion). After speaking to the A.C.'s I learned that they didn't have a lowmode bracket, which I was happy about because with the exception of Panavision or Claimont, the lowmode brackets for HD are terrible and wobbly. I told the director and DP that I would flip the camera upside down and that they could flip it in post. This is the way most HD lowmode is done, and is much easier for me, and improves the shot. Well, the engineer wasn't having it. She caused a huge fuss about this and said that you COULDN'T flip the camera (she later confided that she had called her friend at Sony and he had confirmed that flipping the camera is standard). Unfortunately, the director and DP got scared (neither had worked with HD before) and said that we had to get a bracket. So a bracket was rushed in from a rental house, and it was worse than most. I set my rig up in lowmode and the sound guy and engineer both INSISTED that they be hardwired through all the shots. Then the DP decided that he wanted a light mounted above the lens. So I had two BNC's, an engineering cable, two XLR's, and a power cable hanging off the camera. What a mess! So I did my best to get some very complicated shots (running at times, chasing the kid) with a horrible low mode bracket, six very unwieldly cables swinging around behind the camera, and an intern pulling cable. The shots suffered to say the least! And the director has the nerve to ask me, "Why is the camera wobbling when you are going side to side?" So I point him to my docked rig and poke the post with my index finger and the camera starts wobbling because of the lowmode bracket. It was pretty obvious what the problem was. I told them "No lowmode bracket" but the made me use one anyway. I told them "The shots will suffer if I have that many cables attached to the camera" and they loaded it up with the maximum amount of cables anyway. The better question would have been, "How are you even able to get a usable shot?" Sometimes you need to listen to the people that you hire, because most of the time they know what they're talking about.

So maybe it's not necessarily an HD thing, but more of a paranoia thing. They're unfamiliar with this stuff and they get scared. If there's a good reason for having the cable then I'm totally cool with it. There are always comprimises. But when people do things the hard way because they are unwilling to listen to someone who knows what he's talking about, it becomes VERY frustrating.

Sorry for the long rant, but I think this stuff is relevant to the conversation going on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just finished working an HD film (hated it). The Steadi op. put his foot down and said NO. After the ranting and raving he got his way. The director learned to not live in Video Village for a while and looked at the actors performances(what a shock). For the better part of the last 100 years real directors never had a tap to watch, prehaps some of them would be much more competent if they saw and "felt" the performance 1st hand rather than watching it on tv all the time. And sound realized they could pick up all the dialoge with the wireless trans.

GWPB

Brad Grimmett · October 18, 2004

Just finished working an HD film (hated it). The Steadi op. put his foot down and said NO. After the ranting and raving he got his way. The director learned to not live in Video Village for a while and looked at the actors performances(what a shock). For the better part of the last 100 years real directors never had a tap to watch, prehaps some of them would be much more competent if they saw and "felt" the performance 1st hand rather than watching it on tv all the time. And sound realized they could pick up all the dialoge with the wireless trans.

GWPB

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The problem is that he had to "rant and rave" to make his point. I'm not much of a ranter and raver, and I don't really want to be. I want to work in a better environment than that. Sensible conversations SHOULD work, but of course it seems like thats hardly the case anymore.

GWilliamPatrickB · October 18, 2004

The problem is that he had to "rant and rave" to make his point. I'm not much of a ranter and raver, and I don't really want to be. I want to work in a better environment than that. Sensible conversations SHOULD work, but of course it seems like thats hardly the case anymore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He didnt make a sound, all the antics came from the Director and DP. It was a 2 cam. shoot and the cameras were a bear to match and back focus on the "A" cam was constantly going out. The follow focus markings may as well not have been written on the wheel from shot to shot. The Angineux lenses also were just a little off in their zoom range for the DP and Director both of which would have prefered about 15 mm longer reach.

GWPB

Robert Sanders · October 19, 2004

We've been over this before and the reality is that you can shoot either format as stripped down or as wired up as you like. HD cameras can be configured for wireless Steadicam use just the same as film cameras. No HD monitoring or hard-wired sound in this mode, but then you wouldn't have that with a film camera either. The image gets downconverted and plugged into the Steadicam monitor for viewing and/or transmitting, effectively the same as the tap image on a film camera.

And both systems can have cables all over the camera, if you consider all the cabling that stays attached to the camera itself, like power cables for accessories, extra BNC for the onboard LCD, and so on. One HD-SDI cable coming off the camera for viewing is no different than one BNC coming off a video tap. Engineering/paintbox cables are usually temporary, and don't have to be attached all the time. About the only real difference is that HD often has sound cables coming into the camera, whereas film cameras won't -- but again it doesn't have to. You can record double system sound like film, or use wireless receivers. And let's not forget that HD cameras can often have onboard batteries, so in that configuration that's one less cable than most 35mm film cameras.

So really, all this stuff about HD vs. film cabling is a non-issue. The methods for Steadicam, sound, and monitoring for both systems are established and proven. Some of the hardware may be different between the systems, but the methods are essentially the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is the full-version of my original point. ;)

Obviously the steadicam operator has to be as untethered as possible. I, as a director, would never demand that the steadicam operator have the paint box or tap connected. Why would anybody want to hamper the potential performance of a steadicam operator?

That said, wrt to traditional setups, I still stick to my guns that the HD naysayers' knee jerk first response is "all the cables". Which is just plain silly. When you walk on a set you're usually walking over countless electrical cables, junction boxes, stingers, walking around c-stands, flags, apple boxes, avoiding the boom guy's cabling, etc. The notion that a small bundle of cables connected to a camera is unacceptable just seems silly to me. ;) Especially when you consider all the extra cabling that gets connected to any modern film camera rig.

I had a film snob recently quip that he could load a couple magazines, throw the camera on his shoulder, and shoot anywhere, the desert, the hemalayas, etc. Well, last time I checked the ENG guys were doing just fine in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Discovery Channel guys were doing just fine shooting in the Antarctic, Australia, etc.