Gregory Irwin

Not much $ for all of those requirements. Just being honest.

All good Satsuki! It's a dream job. And yes, Jon was with me for one of our multi camera days. He did a great job. G

Hi Tyler, I hope you reconsider your comment above due to its insensitivity towards all of the motion picture workers out there who rely on those exact studio jobs to feed their families. I'm one of those who hope that every film makes money so the studios keep producing them. I'm talking about the business and not the art of cinema. If you don't like the big budget, studio pictures, don't watch them! As for myself, the movies I like to watch are certainly different than the ones I like to work on. I couldn't make the living I earn working on the small, indie films but I sure appreciate the efforts and passion that goes into them. I'm simply trying to offer you a different point of view to think about while wishing gloom and doom on an industry that many of us depend on for our family's security. Cheers Tyler... G

A quick, easy test to see if your eye focus is the same on the film or sensor is to take a sheet of newspaper that has a lot of fine print (no pictures) and draw a red, sharpie line along a row of print in the center of the page by using a straight edge. Rotate the paper so the print and the red line is verticle and mount it flat on a wall or something else stable. Then, with your camera, zoom in to a long lens, wide open and frame up on the paper at an extreme raking angle so you can see very shallow depth of field with the verticle rows of print coming near to far in your frame. Focus on the red line in the center of the frame and you will see the rows of print falling out of focus in front and behind the red line. Roll on this for a few seconds. When you view the results, the red line should be in focus. If not, you will now know that what you see in focus in the finder is not ending up the same on the film or sensor. Big collimation issue and will need to be fixed. Good luck! G

Oops! I hit the button too fast! David, Alwin Küchler is the cameraman. G

I agree. I still use my TV Logic for film work but I really like my SmallHD DP7 Highbright for digital work.

Universal's "Steve Jobs" is shooting both 16mm and 35mm film.

Actually Richard, Spielberg did go to Cal State Long Beach and has already graduated from there a few years ago. He had to finish his studies in the film program in order to graduate. His graduate film that he turned in was Schindler's List! Isn't that hilarious? Only reason I know this is that I graduated from there as well back in the early 1980s. G

I just watched INTERSTELLAR again in a different theater. I must say, there are no significant focus issues and the contrast, blacks, etc were amazing. Beautiful work. As for the Michael Caine death scene, there is a moment where he tips his head within minimum focus but for almost the entire shot, his far eye in the light is sharp. I believe that the depth is so extremely shallow that we see more softness than sharpness in the overall frame. There were also a couple of quick buzzes on the imax close ups of Matthew where we were photographing him with a +3 diopter in order to achieve the desired image size. All and all, it's amazing work and quite the artistic and technical achievement. G

No worries John. All good!

All I can say is that the camera operator was the DP and all of us were doing our jobs. Everyone knew at the time the situation and only one person - Chris - made the decision to move on.

It's been very interesting reading all of these posts. I believe David's insight was correct. We built all of the anamorphic lenses custom for the movie as well as the two "hero" IMAX lenses - 50mm and 80mm. All of the lenses were T2 and 2 to 2.5 foot minimum focus. My anamorphic 65mm focused down to 16 inches. We shot almost the entire picture at a T2 and at minimum focus while hand held or on a remote head. Every shot was focused by a Preston FIZ. As for the Michael Caine death close up, that was the 65mm anamorphic at a T2. We slowly pushed into minimum focus and when Michael tilted his head, we were unfortunately inside of that minimum limit. The depth was incredibly shallow. For many of the IMAX close ups, I was remotely focusing the 80mm at minimum focus (T2) with a plus 3 diopter. That made life very tricky. I'm actually very proud of the movie as well as all of our work on the camera side of things. It was and is an amazing accomplishment. G

This whole discussion is so geeky! Just enjoy the picture. It's going to be a fun and cerebral ride. G

Bartechs are ok. I owned several at one time years ago. I couldn't get the range I needed out of them and there wasn't a zoom option at the time. Now I own several Prestons and am much more confident with them in my hands. As for breakdowns, that's an unfortunate byproduct of technology. Everything breaks at some point and will require some TLC. Greg

I've tried a few different wireless focus/iris/zoom systems out there and the only one that truly delivers is the Preston FIZ III. Not cheap but you get what you pay for. Greg

Crap! I thought I was onto something good! :)

Could it be set for Super 35 vs. Standard 35 or the other way around? Greg

Let's not leave out California State University at Long Beach. Top notch program, very difficult to get into and much more affordable than good ol' USC. FIGHT ON! :)

Unfortunately, most of these "trade schools" are very good with taking your money but don't offer a substantial curriculum. There are way too many of these ripoffs out there. I believe that you would have a very different and fulfilling experience at the university level but even there you must be selective to where you go. The top university film schools are not only tough to get into but even harder to stay in for the full term. The attrition rate is unbelievable. I started as a freshman in a class of 350 undergrads or so and graduated with 50! And we learned a lot. The experience toughened us up for the future and made us responsible. The latter being a very important attribute. Greg

Sounds to me like you chose the wrong film schools. What was the name of the 2nd school? Greg

I completely agree with you. And that barrier was once what union membership represented. It still does to a degree but it's much easier to get in now than it used to be. Back in the 1980s when I got into the Los Angeles Guild, it was nearly impossible to join and I remember having to take written and practical exams to receive my card in New York. I wish we still required that. Greg

I began film school as a freshman in high school and have never had an adult job away from the movie industry. It's my life. I love the business, the people and the life's experiences that I've enjoyed due to it. It has traveled me all over the world many times over and that has led to life long friendships that I highly value. The freelance nature of the job allows me to be my own boss and schedule work as I want. I doubt Office Max would allow that. Bottom line: it works for me. G

But George, you are assuming that everyone in this trade has a creative streak in them. I do not. I have no creative aspirations. I'm hired by the major studios to organize, manage and execute successful camera departments and to facilitate the technical means of the photography. I absolutely love managing the logistics and budgets of large camera crews and camera packages. For me, I put the business first. I would rather work on creative movies but if I worked on the films that I enjoy watching, I wouldn't be able to afford much. As I tell people, the movies I like to watch are not the movies I would want to work on. Greg

Ok. Let's get back on topic. I was afraid that this thread would go down this political road. There is nothing wrong with debating this but not here. Please take it to a new topic if you wish to proceed. Thanks for all of the replies. It's been an education and a good subject to share one's experiences about. Greg