That HD AC's checklist thing

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Every time I read something like that I gag anew at the tiny level of knowledge expected of film ACs who are allowed to work HD shoots - presumably because of some implied, intrinsic benefit they offer over real video technicians, but if they have to be told this level of stuff you have to wonder exactly what that is.

 

This really is hopelessly basic, day-one baby steps with which I would expect anyone with ambitions to any dramatic production environment to be familiar, irrespective of the nature of the box of tricks in the middle. Reference tone is at -20dB? No, really! You don't say! Wide open for back focus checks? Genius! Let me make a note of that.

 

Look, film people: the sooner you get over your superiority complex and start hiring competent video technicians, the sooner you'll find yourself working with crews who aren't grossly incompetent.

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

Look, Phil, the NUMBER ONE job of a 1st AC is focus-pulling. And the SECOND most important job is organizing the camera crew and equipment package. All other skills come after those two. If I had a choice between hiring some guy who was an excellent focus-puller and was organized but needed some training on HD... versus an HD engineering genius who was a lousy focus-puller plus disorganized and couldn't run a camera crew, I'd go with the first guy every time.

 

Hey, weren't you the guy castigating people for HIRING a digital imaging technician rather than doing the job themselves? Now you're castigating people for NOT hiring them?

 

It really comes down to what are the necessary skills to get the job done, and being decent focus-pulling HAS to be, without question, an absolute requirement for a 1st AC. If you can't train him to handle the HD requirements as well, then hire a technician to handle that -- but you still need a focus-puller no matter what. And this will become even more true when you start using these digital cameras with 35mm-sized sensors.

 

You say that film people have a superiority complex? Aren't you exhibiting one yourself in claiming that your HD knowledge, and other engineers', are so superior that no digital movie can or should be made without hiring such people? I see just as much hype the other direction, from DIT's who can't understand how someone like me can make an HD feature without hiring them. Number one question I get these days: who's your video engineer?

 

Gee, some guy who goes out and shoots an infomercial on a betacam with just a sound guy doesn't seem to need an engineer, but if I go and do a little low-budget movie with a tiny crew and one F900 camera, I suddenly need an engineer because the technology is too complex to be grasped by mere mortals such as myself?

 

Seems like there is just as much a feeling of superiority among many videographers who feel that film people just aren't qualified to use a video camera... who were upset that when features started being shot digitally, producers hired -- guess what? -- feature cinematographers rather than videographers who normally shot industrials, infomercials, and news. I see evidence of that superiority complex among video people all the time...

 

What seems to hurt their feelings is the revelation that technology is not the most important aspect of moviemaking, let alone cinematography. Kubrick used to say that moviemaking technique could be learned in a week -- if you were a little slow mentally. The point is that whether the skill is threading a Panaflex or programming the menu to an F900, it's not THAT hard compared to the real artistic, logistic, political, etc. skills needed to make movies.

[David Mullen ASC]

Looking over Sean's list, I'm not sure what's so objectionable about it. There are many aspects to any technical list of instructions, when listed individually, seem rather petty or simplistic, like "...plug into power supply and hit the 'on' button..."

 

It's just a checklist. It doesn't mean there are no other aspects to the job.

 

All I know that a 1st AC's job is hard enough that I personally don't want to do it, nor am qualified to do it. I'm not even qualified to be a decent second AC! Maintaining film inventory lists... forget it. Pulling focus on a long-lensed close-up of an actor who can't hit marks... don't hire me, that's for sure.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Gee, some guy who goes out and shoots an infomercial on a betacam with just a

> sound guy doesn't seem to need an engineer, but if I go and do a little low-budget

> movie with a tiny crew and one F900 camera, I suddenly need an engineer because

> the technology is too complex to be grasped by mere mortals such as myself?

 

That's the point I'm trying to make - it makes no sense, and yet it seems to be happening all the time. Given that video is inherently a simpler, harder-to-screw-up technology, it makes even less sense.

 

> Seems like there is just as much a feeling of superiority among many videographers

> who feel that film people just aren't qualified to use a video camera... who were upset

> that when features started being shot digitally, producers hired -- guess what? --

> feature cinematographers rather than videographers who normally shot industrials,

> infomercials, and news.

 

Yes. And I'm sure you understand why, when those overlooked people (such as myself) see feature ACs being taught jobs they mastered years ago we get a little upset. There's a skill base out there that is being ignored. With crushing predictability several irritating things are happening:

 

- Jobs that are simple (cable management! menu programming!) are being made out to be a huge additional responsibility so that...

- Very well-paid union members can protect their jobs by...

- Discrediting people who are actually experienced in the field.

 

And people say the US doesn't have a class system. People just shouldn't need telling this stuff! And if they do there are already people out there who know it, so why not use them!?

 

Phil

[Brent J. Craig]

I agree with David completely. Watching someone try to pull focus whose real job is babysitting vectorscopes is a painful experience.

 

What a real 1st AC brings to an HD job is the fact that we are used to working with film, and we treat HD like film. To most of us, HD is just another filmstock (albeit a rediculously complicated and finicky one that gives new meaning to the word 'compromise').

 

Since our DP's are being hired to make stuff look like film, the last thing they need is a video professional who knows how to make something look like 'The Price is Right' or CNN.

 

Sure there are times when we need the video techs, just the same as we need the rental house techs for a film camera. Show me a scope-watcher who knows the exact millisecond to pull focus from the actor's left eye to their right and I will eat my words.

[Max Jacoby]

And I'm sure you understand why, when those overlooked people (such as myself) see feature ACs being taught jobs they mastered years ago we get a little upset. There's a skill base out there that is being ignored. With crushing predictability several irritating things are happening:

 

- Jobs that are simple (cable management! menu programming!) are being made out to be a huge additional responsibility so that...

- Very well-paid union members can protect their jobs by...

- Discrediting people who are actually experienced in the field.

 

 

Sorry Phil, but you are contradicting yourself here. Since the additional requirments of HD or video (like menus & cables) are simple to learn, then there is no reason why one shouldn't teach them to a feature AC. From my own experience I know that ACing on HD is not a rocket since and that everythig can be picked up during the prep period. On the other hand, try teaching a video technician how to pull focus. That is a skill that takes years to master. So the current practice of hiring feature ACs makes perfect sense, since their skills are superior to video people's.

[Luke Prendergast]

I think what he really meant was 'Bah, humbug.'

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I give up.

 

You find a way to justify the idea that HD is "finicky" in comparison to a format that doesn't allow you to see what you've shot until at least the next day, and a way to make out that running a camera where you do everything yourself is somehow easier and less worthy of admiration than having a separate person for every nut and bolt.

 

I don't get it. I carry the thing around and pull my own focus, and it's still easier? I take responsibility for exposure and colour balance on a moment to moment basis and it's still easier? Most of the time I even record my own sound, and you're still making out I'm an inferior person? Try it! Just how tricky does something have to be to be acceptably difficult to a real live film person?

 

 

 

Phil

[Max Jacoby]

I don't get it. I carry the thing around and pull my own focus, and it's still easier? I take responsibility for exposure and colour balance on a moment to moment basis and it's still easier? Most of the time I even record my own sound, and you're still making out I'm an inferior person? Try it! Just how tricky does something have to be to be acceptably difficult to a real live film person?

 

Oh come on Phil!

 

You are comparing apples to oranges here. The shoots that you refer to have nothing to do with the drama shoots that require a whole camera crew including focus-puller and 2nd AC. You could simply not do these shoots by yourself. Once you have a 35mm size sensor, I'd like to see you focus pull on the fly, especially if you are handheld on a Dalsa...

[Rik Andino]

I don't get it--what's the argument here? :blink:

 

 

Phil you might be flip-flopping a bit too much

You're losing the bunch of us--where do you stand on this argument?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> what's the argument here?

 

The fact that productions will pay film ACs about a week's worth of my wages per well-fed day, and yet they have to tell them how to line sound levels up.

 

Phil

[Brad Grimmett]

Hi,

 

> what's the argument here?

 

The fact that productions will pay film ACs about a week's worth of my wages per well-fed day, and yet they have to tell them how to line sound levels up.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's the sound guys job. :lol:

[drew_town]

I can see both sides of the arguement here.

 

It seems like I do a lot of work in a very similar manner to Phil. I've got to pull off most of the field stuff, be it camera operator, lighting and sound. So when I'm working I have to be responsible for all that stuff. If my director hired someone to supervise me technically, I'd be a little upset, especially if they started spouting off stuff that's really on a basic level. I'll admit I MIGHT have half the technical knowledge of David, Phil, and others here, but at the same time, I work incredibly hard so when I'm out shooting I know my stuff and can pull off a good shoot.

 

At the same time if I was shooting a complicated focus pull or whatever, I would totally want a professional on board. I'm not going to try and be a badass. I know when the water's coming in over my head and I'll take a step back. I'd rather walk away with better footage than for people to think I'm the greatest thing that ever happened to a production.

 

I totally agree with what David said about being able to learn the technical aspects of filmmaking rather quickly. Learning what to do takes longer than learning how to do it.

[Rik Andino]

Hi,

 

> what's the argument here?

 

The fact that productions will pay film ACs about a week's worth of my wages per well-fed day, and yet they have to tell them how to line sound levels up.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So you're just basically ranting...

because you're jealous of AC's who make more than you

Is that correct?

[Riku Naskali]

The fact that productions will pay film ACs about a week's worth of my wages per well-fed day, and yet they have to tell them how to line sound levels up.

Well that's not their job, so why they should know how to do it? Not everyone knows about everything and I think it's a good thing people still get hired for their specialty skills and not for all around proficiency in technical bits.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Well that's not their job, so why they should know how to do it?

 

Because it is their job if they're going to do HD shoots. If they're not willing to accept that it's part of the job without a lot of babying along, then they should step aside and be replaced by more experienced people. Note that's "replaced by" not "in addition to" - there are many perfectly capable focus pullers working on video drama.

 

> because you're jealous of AC's who make more than you

 

Whilst having far less ability? I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

Phil

[Brad Grimmett]

Hi,

 

> Well that's not their job, so why they should know how to do it?

 

Because it is their job if they're going to do HD shoots.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not an AC's job to do sound, whether it's an HD job or not.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> It's not an AC's job to do sound, whether it's an HD job or not.

 

They're not "doing sound," they're lining up the inputs, which is a camera-related task. Trying to make excuses because people are finding these incredibly simple tasks intimidating is not helpful. It is part of the job; get used to it.

 

Phil

[Stephen Williams]

there are many perfectly capable focus pullers working on video drama.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi Phil,

 

Many of whom have also worked on film.

 

Stephen Williams DP

Zurich

 

www.stephenw.com

[Rik Andino]

Hi,

 

> because you're jealous of AC's who make more than you

 

Whilst having far less ability? I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well Phil...

In this situation I think it's apt to use the phrase:

 

"If you can't beat 'em--join 'em." :)

[JONATHANEDWARDS]

Hi,

 

> It's not an AC's job to do sound, whether it's an HD job or not.

 

They're not "doing sound," they're lining up the inputs, which is a camera-related task. Trying to make excuses because people are finding these incredibly simple tasks intimidating is not helpful. It is part of the job; get used to it.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

man,you need to get laid Phil and please stop insulting 1st AC's . Thats the hardest tech job on set. I think if you saw a good 1st AC at work you would appreciate the job a bit more.

[Stephen Williams]

.

 

> because you're jealous of AC's who make more than you

 

Whilst having far less ability? I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Phil,

 

IMHO AC's earn every penny/cent they are paid. Ever thought of charging a rate based on your ability?

 

Stephen

[Brad Grimmett]

Hi,

 

> It's not an AC's job to do sound, whether it's an HD job or not.

 

They're not "doing sound," they're lining up the inputs, which is a camera-related task. Trying to make excuses because people are finding these incredibly simple tasks intimidating is not helpful. It is part of the job; get used to it.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pardon me! It's not an AC's job to RECORD sound. Obviously they can plug in the cables. But you act like AC's are complaining about it or something, which they aren't, at least not to my knowledge. And who are these people that are, "finding these incredibly simple tasks intimidating"?