Why are panavision lenses so big?

[David Mullen ASC]

This may also be a generational thing -- you're young and you've got the option of seeing the camera's image on a big HD monitor, a recent development, so AC's of your generation may end up preferring pulling focus that way, compared to an AC who began decades ago. Sort of like operating using a geared head versus a fluid head, there are some advantages both ways but it also tends to be a philosophical issue with some operators, a matter of taste and what they are comfortable with. Or a machismo thing...

[James Steven Beverly]

There are those that do and make things happen like me and there are those who CAN'T like you.

 

They bitch and moan because they can't and don't want to believe any else can. Oh, it's too hard, well piss off, don't pop my bubble.

 

Other people have much more experience making things happen that are new and innovative then relying on standard techniques. Most focus pullers don't have the engineering, scientific, or mechanical background I have.

 

Many people have been in business for 40 years and still don't have enough to pay the rent.

 

Ergo, so what, 30 movies and I can't seem to recall ever seeing any of them at a cinema or dvd. Well take that back, I saw about 10 minutes of Space Farmer because I was captive on an airplane, then I turned it off and slept for 9 hours.

 

"People like Mullen ASC can go bury your head in the sand all you want, others will see and be amazed at the cinematography and more importantly the story. If anyone is talking out of their ass, I suggest you were looking in the mirror.

 

You know because I watch a LOT of movies, I've seen a LOT of David's work and I can say unequivocally and without reservation that you are a f*ckin' idiot. The Astronaut Farmer of "Space Farmer" as you so childishly and really quite pathetically put it was one of the most beautifully photographed films I've ever seen which tells me right there you don't know what in the F*CK you're blowin' out your ass in some lame attempt to pass off as "expertise".

 

Here's a list of David's credits:

 

Stay Cool (2009) (filming)

Jennifer's Body (2009) (post-production)

Manure (2009) (post-production)

"Big Love" (7 episodes, 2007-2008)

- The Happiest Girl (2008) TV episode

- Oh, Pioneers (2007) TV episode

- Kingdom Come (2007) TV episode

- Dating Game (2007) TV episode

- Vision Thing (2007) TV episode

(2 more)

Assassination of a High School President (2008)

Solstice (2008) (V)

"Big Love: In the Beginning" (2 episodes, 2007)

- Meet the Babysitter (2007) TV episode

- Moving Day (2007) TV episode

The Astronaut Farmer (2006) (director of photography)

Akeelah and the Bee (2006)

The Quiet (2005)

Shadowboxer (2005)

When Do We Eat? (2005)

Tom's Nu Heaven (2005)

Out for Blood (2004) (director of photography)

... aka Vampires: Out for Blood (USA: DVD title)

D.E.B.S. (2004)

A Foreign Affair (2003) (lighting cameraman)

... aka 2 Brothers & a Bride (USA: DVD title)

Northfork (2003) (director of photography)

Infested (2002)

... aka Infested: Invasion of the Killer Bugs (USA: DVD box title)

New Suit (2002) (as David Mullen)

Stuck (2001)

The Hypnotist (2001)

Jackpot (2001)

The Tomorrow Man (2001)

... aka Time Shifters

A Moment of Silence (2000)

Teacher's Pet (2000)

... aka Chair et le diable, La (Canada: French title)

... aka Dearly Devoted II (Canada: English title)

... aka Devil in the Flesh 2 (USA: cable TV title)

... aka Teacher's Pet (USA)

The Perfect Tenant (2000)

Ritual (2000/I) (as David Mullen)

Alone with a Stranger (2000)

Twin Falls Idaho (1999)

Clean and Narrow (1999)

Captured (1998) (V)

The Night Caller (1998)

Man of Her Dreams (1997)

... aka The Fiancé (video title)

Cupid (1997)

Soulmates (1997)

Daddy's Girl (1996)

The Last Big Thing (1996)

Dead Cold (1996) (V)

Shadow Warriors (1996)

... aka Techno Sapiens (UK: video title)

... aka Techno-Fear

Lipstick Camera (1994)

Now Renting (1993)

River Bottom (1993)

... aka The River Bottom (USA)

Love Pig (1990)

... aka Bring Me Your Love

 

But you know what credit I've NEVER seen on any film EVER is Glen Alexander so if you're so good there Scooter, why don't you put up some of this "amazing" footage you claim to have shot using some amazing scientific break though no doubt reverse engineered from recovered alien technology from the Roswell site and stored at area 51 and stop running you mouth. David can back HIS poop up in SPADES all the only "proof" I've gotten from you is a whole lotta big talk with nothin' to but you own over blown ego to back it up. OH yeah and while we're at it why don't you put up a list of YOUR glorious work as well just too see if ANYONE ANYWHERE has seen ANYTHING YOU'VE ever done. I'll settle for a single well known movie, Hell I'll settle for some obscure piece of crap with your freakin' name on it ANYWHERE. <_<

Edited October 5, 2008 by James Steven Beverly

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

This may also be a generational thing -- you're young and you've got the option of seeing the camera's image on a big HD monitor, a recent development, so AC's of your generation may end up preferring pulling focus that way, compared to an AC who began decades ago.

 

I'm a relatively young AC, but most of my early focus pulling jobs were on 16mm where I had to trust the tape and my marks. On HD jobs, if there's an HD monitor up, I might glance at it to check my sharps sometimes between action in a take. But I find it very difficult to judge distances by looking a monitor, which I think is where the "reactionary" focus pulling comes from. If an actor moves 6" towards the camera, I can't quite tell that it's 6" unless I'm watching the actor in person and get the real life perspective. If I stay glued to the monitor, I find myself searching for focus, which I'm not at all comfortable with.

 

I can understand going off the monitor if it's a crane shot or something, but otherwise, one might as well go "old fashioned" and do it the way it's been done for years. And if you're able to do it, it's a mighty impressive skill.

 

(of course, this is just all personal preference. What works for some, may not for others, what matters is that whatever you're doing, works :) )

Edited October 6, 2008 by Jonathan Bowerbank

[Satsuki Murashige]

Jeez, just ignore the guy Steve, he's not worth the bother. You're just validating his inflated ego by responding to him. I stopped taking Alexander seriously after his whole anti-Panavision rant, and that was months ago. David's work hardly needs defending anyway :rolleyes:.

 

David, you make a great point, I never really thought about the whole generational aspect. The thing is, I've found that most of the older crew members I've worked with are pretty good about staying up to date with the latest gear and technologies (a lot better than me, I still don't have a GPS) so I figured if they weren't using the monitor technique then there must be something wrong with it. I'm glad to hear of others using it though, it's another trick to throw in the tool bag. I guess at the end of the day all that matters is that image stays in focus and that the pulls have the right feel, so we should be professionals and use whatever tool we need to get the job done as efficiently as possible.

 

Jon, well when I started, it was all eye marks, tape marks on the ground, and tape on the lens - 16mm Scoopic with a fixed zoom. Kinda ironic, since after learning all that other jive about measuring focus, monitor focus, and zen focus, we ended up back at square one again today with the EX1 (HD camera with a fixed zoom)! The only difference is that my tool bag is a lot heavier now, and I sweat more. :P

[Satsuki Murashige]

*EDIT @ Jon:

 

When I monitor focus, I never try to judge distance (as in, "I think she just leaned in 6"). My method is more like a branch of zen focus - I "feel" the actor's movement thru the focus ring (as in, "that feels like a 2 degree barrel rotation"). Thinking just gets in the way, slows you down. You can't be afraid to torque the focus ring either, the closer the action to the film plane, the harder you have to torque the lens. The only time my system goes to hooey is when my hand muscles "forget" which way to turn the focus ring - then it's a very dark day for camera department! I know it sounds like the ol' Jedi mind trick, but it works for me.

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

When I monitor focus, I never try to judge distance (as in, "I think she just leaned in 6"). My method is more like a branch of zen focus - I "feel" the actor's movement thru the focus ring (as in, "that feels like a 2 degree barrel rotation"). Thinking just gets in the way, slows you down. You can't be afraid to torque the focus ring either, the closer the action to the film plane, the harder you have to torque the lens. The only time my system goes to hooey is when my hand muscles "forget" which way to turn the focus ring - then it's a very dark day for camera department! I know it sounds like the ol' Jedi mind trick, but it works for me.

 

I getcha Satsuki, it's not as if I'm saying to myself "OK, he just moved 6" towards camera" either. I only gave the 6" as an example. It's just easier for me to sense or "zen" the adjustment I have to make if it's happening right in front of me. That's my only real point.

 

The result of that 16mm shoot sounds like a nightmare! It's one thing if you know you missed during a take, but to find out afterwards that what's in the can is no good, that's an even worse feeling. It makes me want to ALWAYS get eye focus marks whenever working on a zoom, from now on. Might as well, I guess, since you can always zoom in and get critical.

[Daniel Porto]

I went to almost every one of the 'heavy' hitters in Los Angeles rental shops, machine shops, optical labs and told them what I wanted to do and shoot, every single one said, "I don't know, it's never been done." That's bullshit. I figured it out, it looked great in the camera, we're just hoping that there are no mistakes in the lab.

 

What did you do and why was it considered impossible?

 

In the recent edition of the mag Kodak puts out, there is a great artical by an Italian DP, who has similar ideas to me, in fact I had already set up my model for lighting well before reading it. Basically, the guy doesn't lug around 50kW of Fresnel lighting and all of that bullshit, he goes light, uses natural lighting with a few bounce boards. It is well worth the read.

 

Could you give me a link to this article. That is exactly how I wish to light. On all these forums I hear people all the time recommending lights that I have never heard of before. I understand that I am still learning but is there any reason why I need to learn all the names of these lights?

[Andrew Koch]

That is exactly how I wish to light. On all these forums I hear people all the time recommending lights that I have never heard of before. I understand that I am still learning but is there any reason why I need to learn all the names of these lights?

 

 

Lighting is supposed to be determined by the story. Different stories have different requirements. There is no one style of lighting to suit every story. Natural lighting with bounce boards can be very beautiful, but try doing that when shooting massive night exteriors like those in the Dark Knight. Sometimes certain situations call for the big lights. Large lights are not necessarily bulls**t as Glen says. They can be very useful.

 

If you are hearing recommendations for lights that you have never heard of, and you have aspirations of being a cinematographer, then you should definitely look up these lights.

 

You should learn all the names of these lights because it is your job to know how to light. Knowing these lights will help you to have better communication with your gaffer. At the very least, it is important to have an understanding of the different types of lamps out there and what they can do (Pars, fresnels, open face, beam projectors, ellipsoidal, softlights, skypans, spacelights, cyc strips, flourescents, HMIs, just to name several) There is no reason not to learn as much as you can.

[David Mullen ASC]

When faking sunlight on a soundstage, or forced to shoot a day interior on location at night, a large light tends to be the only way to create sunlight in a wide shot.

 

Using available light is great, but it doesn't always work for the scheduling nor for the mood of the story nor needs of the actors. But if your goal is natural-looking lighting, you have to learn to use the tools that help you recreate what Mother Nature does. And sometimes that means big lights or big lighting set-ups to recreate sun and sky.

[Jim Hyslop]

On all these forums I hear people all the time recommending lights that I have never heard of before. I understand that I am still learning but is there any reason why I need to learn all the names of these lights?

Well, the most basic reason would be so that you can communicate intelligently with your gaffer, and tell her precisely what you want. Or if you're working as a sparky until you can get into the camera department, when your gaffer tells you "Grab a 1K and a couple of inkies from the truck" you don't stare like an idiot. Or, worse, waste even more time by bringing the wrong light.

 

With ANY profession, you need to know the tools of your trade. And that includes knowing what they're called.

[Sing Howe Yam]

I've recently shot a feature on an HVX200 with the Redrock adapter with Nikkor glass. Yeah I think the shallow depth of field is great but you have next to nothing control with your DoF. The director called me up recently and told me that some of the shots were slightly soft (wide open on some long lenses!) and I told him that my AC for that show is really good and unfortunately these kind of things happen. Plus we didn't have a nice HD monitor to view off. Had a crappy low res on board monitor that was more for composition, definitely not focus. Robert Elswit ASC came to my school as a guest artist and showed us Goodnight and Goodluck and he talked about how his AC's had to pull focus on the fly at some fast stops. Not all of the movie was in focus due to that and I commend his AC's for doing that well and even with soft shots the movie was nominated for best cinematography that year!

 

The director of the feature is ignorant to anything related to understanding the difference between still glass and cinema glass (or cinematography itself). He brought up how my AC on a RED music video shoot with Zeiss Standard primes was a much better focus puller. What this director didn't take into account/doesn't understand the difference between the two shoots.

 

Music Video = Cinema glass on ext. shot music video shooting at 8/11 for the day. Not to say pulling focus is easy, but with these facts, focus becomes easier

Feature = Still glass wide open on interior with crappy monitors. A lot of pressure on an AC who had 98% of this movie in focus. Not to say this is an excuse but definitely more difficult.

 

I remember my first tough pull shooting on an SRII with an 85mm zeiss super speed @ T1.3. It was a shot of a girl at a bar starting at 18'7 then she walks towards the camera towards our main character into a 6'8. I was freaking out a whole bunch waiting for that DP's dailies to get back. There was a small section in her travel that went out of focus, the beginning and end marks were sharp but still unfortunately I couldn't follow it through. It things like that give me total respect for great focus pullers. I think pulls like that should be done by instinct and like anything it just takes time and practice to become a very good focus puller.

 

35mm adapters are what they are but I think the amount of work and headaches it takes is not worth the look it gives. Plus cinema prime lenses don't breath! still primes breath because like David said there is a reason they design glass for different applications. Still glass is taking one frame, no point in having to deal with the breathing issue.

 

Unfortunately the next shoot I'm doing is on the RED w/ canon still primes. I tried to get a set of zeiss glass for the shoot but the budget won't allow for it <_<

 

I actually prefer pulling from he actual barrel of the lens (cine glass) unless it's a handheld shot. Does anyone else prefer pulling by hand rather than a follow focus?

[Satsuki Murashige]

Does anyone else prefer pulling by hand rather than a follow focus?

Sometimes I do. It depends on the len, setup, and situation - for example, with still lenses that have a short travel I find that I have more fine control over the focus ring by pulling from the barrel, rather than using some janky plastic gear ring. This is important for handheld where the subject to camera distance is always moving.

 

With cinema lenses with a long travel like digiprimes, master primes, and S4s, pulling from the barrel is awful because there's no way to get enough torque to make a long pull easily. I had to do this once with digiprimes stuffed into a super tiny loft with a DP and an 11 year old actor with ADD, not fun. I think I ended up using two strips of spike tape on the barrel to help me do the pull, pulley-style. A whip and speed crank is essential with these lenses, especially for handheld.

 

Pulling focus with a teleprompter rig can be pretty horrible without a follow focus since the prompter hood often has to cover the lens marks on the barrel, so you transfer your marks to the hand wheel and use those.

[Chris Keth]

I will pull off the barrel only if I absolutely have to. The way I pull focus doesn't lend itself to using the barrel. I try to stand back so that I'm looking past the follow focus and the lens and seeing the action. It's very, very awkward to do that and pull off the barrel. I'm also very used to the direction a follow focus turns. I really get mucked up doing handheld or fast action when it's reversed on me.