Jump to content

Gregory Irwin

Sustaining Member
  • Posts

    902
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

About Gregory Irwin

  • Birthday September 21

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    1st Assistant Camera
  • Location
    Work is based out of Los Angeles but I live elsewhere.
  • My Gear
    Panavision, Arriflex, IMAX, Sony
  • Specialties
    Greg is a veteran first assistant cameraman who specializes in feature film production based in Hollywood, California. His experience spans 40 years with numerous major studio, feature length motion pictures that are recognized world-wide. He is a member of the International Cinematographers Guild and The Society of Camera Operators.

    In 1989, Greg founded and still leads Latitude 33 Motion Picture Services, LLC that provides motion picture camera technology and related services to the motion picture industry. Clients include Universal Pictures, Warner Bros., Paramount Pictures, Disney, DreamWorks, HBO, CBS, Sony, as well as Panavision, Otto Nemenz, INT and Keslow Camera.

    In 2016, The Society of Camera Operators honored Greg with their Lifetime Achievement Award for extraordinary service as a camera technician. The tribute video can be viewed on the "About Me" tab of this profile.

    Greg is happily married to his beloved wife, Rosie, and has two beautiful daughters, an incredible son-in-law and two wonderful grandchildren.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0410389/

Recent Profile Visitors

30447 profile views
  1. That’s exactly the issue I’ve experienced with the WC4. It’s not reliable. The nice thing about the Prestons is that you can adjust the torque levels of the motors. We normally have them on the lowest level but even that seems too much at times for older lenses. But the signal is always solid for good distances away from the camera and I like incorporating the read outs of the Cine RT or Light Ranger right on the display of the handset. G
  2. Of course, I appreciate you and Panavision. Your knowledge is valuable! We were referring to only anamorphic lenses which are getting older. My previous show was a Marvel show and we shot with the T Series. Every week we had to send in a lens for service/return due to elements dropping out of position, dublet’s coming unglued or other failures. The coveted Cs and Es are getting fewer and far between because of age and breakage. Part of the problem is that we use Prestons full time and the older lenses were never designed with the powerful motors constantly driving them in mind. That’s a lot of the wear and tear. Panavision has made many gains in the large format spherical world but the anamorphic world is lagging in my opinion. I guess I should mention the anamorphic expanders that help convert 35mm rear elements to cover large sensors which is good but still a bandaid solution. I love what we can do with detuned lenses but the problem is that every detuned lens becomes a prototype. If or when that lens goes down, there is not an inventory of custom detuned glass waiting to replace it. In fact, we really don’t have the luxury of testing several anamorphic lenses like we used to, spending a couple of weeks making our selections because the detuning process can take too long for most prep schedules. They are chosen for us ahead of time to facilitate the process. That, I don’t like. Thankfully, I can still convince producers to grant me prep schedules that can accommodate the time but I realize that isn’t the norm for most. For my current job, BLACK ADAM for Warner Bros, I had six weeks of lens prep. That was for testing lenses, making my selections and then detuning. Afterwards, the camera prep began for another three weeks. But that is not the typical prep time for most jobs. G
  3. I really appreciate your knowledge Dom. It’s always insightful. I would agree with the Panavision anamorphic point to a limit. I’ve been shooting with Panavision Anamorphics for the last 40 years. And I was very involved with the inception of the T Series Anamorphics that Dan Sasaki made for me for INTERSTELLAR, even though they didn’t have a name yet. Today, the Panavision Anamorphics are getting too old and they show the wear and tear. I have more issues with them than I do with any other current manufacture. It’s frustrating because I know what they are capable of and they are constantly failing these days. I wish new and fresh lens technology would come out of Woodland Hills but I don’t think they are in a financial position to do that. What are your thoughts? G
  4. I’ve never used any 1.3x but I’m currently using the Technovision 1.5x Anamorphics. After much testing, we dialed down the squeeze factor to 1.44x to eliminate any perception of mumping. We then built custom 1:2.40 frame lines for Open Gate, 1.44. They cover the large LF sensor very well using much more area of the sensor than what 2x would be able to use. G
  5. I can’t remember the focal length of the clip but it was a V-Lite. It’s too bad. I always want lenses to perform. Hawks by Hollywood standards just can’t compete with all of the other manufacturers out there. In the end, we shot STB on Master Anamorphics. Not much anamorphic personality in those lenses but they did perform well! G
  6. I would challenge the excellent lens part Tyler. Having tested them extensively, I would honestly not be able to recommend them. They distort, they are milky at the wide open apertures, they are very heavy and the minimum focus is not very close. Finally, as you can see from my attached clip, they flare in a way that is not good. This clip was from when I tested them for STAR TREK BEYOND. Just my opinion… IMG_2828.MOV
  7. Of course a “normal “ shutter is 180 degrees. A 190 shutter is hardly any difference. It gives you a minimal advantage with exposure. Treat it the same as a 180. That’s about a 1/48th of a second exposure time at 24 FPS. G
  8. It has always amazed me on how millions of dollars are spent on lens performance R&D and then in return we do everything we can to simply muk it all up! 🤣 G
  9. Joaquin, like any experienced cinema actor, knows exactly where the lens is, what the frame lines encompass and where his light is coming from. That kind of seasoned artist makes our job easier. G
  10. Honestly, I used to see it but I don’t see that very much anymore. I hate to go back to JOKER, but that was a great example for NOT blanket lighting. I feel that Larry Sher was very brave to light that movie in a single source style. We never knew what Joaquin was going to do or where he was going to go. It was completely improvisational. Larry took the risk of letting him go dark, knowing that he would eventually come back into the light. It was a risk that paid off extremely well. G
  11. David O. Russell for sure. He is interested in the story and acting only. The cinematographer must accept that her/she must blanket light for 360 degrees and plan on rolling continuously no matter what. G
  12. Sorry for taking so long with this, I’m on set everyday on a very demanding movie that is requiring my full attention. But for now, the evidence is suggesting a compression issue. We are still looking at the data you provided but at the moment, that’s the current thinking. I sadly don’t have any further information. Hope this helps. G
  13. Can you copy and paste the Arri file from this clip? G
  14. I’ll have several questions for you regarding this as we go along. For now, we are interested in what the light sources were, if any filters were used? If so, which filters? Also, does the low pass filter look clean and clear? G
  15. Got it. I’m consulting with my DIT because you’ve peaked my curiosity. I’ve shot a lot of open gate Alexa and have never experienced this. Let me get back to you. G
×
×
  • Create New...