Gregory Irwin

Ok, let's keep this simple. What happens with regards to the lens elements and groups of elements when you focus a lens towards close focus? Answer: the elements expand away from each other to where sometimes the lens itself grows physically longer. Thus there is more space between the elements. They are suspended away from each other thus becoming less stable, structurally. They are less protected. Conversely, what happens with the elements when you focus the lens to infinity? It's the exact opposite. The elements retract toward one another compacting less space between them thus more protection and less suspension against damaging forces such as vibration. The lens becomes mechanically shorter. And just to clarify, I only bubble wrap and strap the lenses for shipping purposes. I honestly don't worry about hand carrying them on board the plane. I'm usually shipping several tons of camera gear at a time and it all goes into a pile. On a day to day routine however, I always store the lenses at infinity and wide open in the lens case. I hope I didn't create confusion. G

Ha ha! I didn't mean to scare anyone from using them. I'm sure that they have a place somewhere... Like locked off shots! G

Because the lens elements are compressed together relieving any stress on the glass and/or the transport mechanism.

Assuming you already have a proper lens case, I always "strap" the lenses and wrap them in bubble wrap before placing them in the case. "Strapping" the lens means sticking a strip of tape across the lens barrel to insure the lens travels with the focus set at infinity and the iris is wide open. That's very important to maintain the health of the lens when considering all of the forces it will be subject to such as vibration. If you follow this procedure, you should not have any issues with shipping your lenses however you choose. G

Funny, I'm looking forward to that one as well! G

Panavision Woodland Hills used to allow people to practice with their Panahead on the prep floor. A phone call to the rental dept. may be good to find out whether they still do this. 818-316-1000. Good luck! G

You'll be learning for the rest of your life! That's the beauty of this. Make the mistakes now! Practice, practice, practice. You'll get there. G

I wish that it was that simple. Here's the basic deal: With regards to the Canon K35 lenses, there are 3 key points that are very vulnerable to DEAD PLAY or DEAD MOTION in the focus mechanism. Since it is a floating front objective design (as opposed to a fixed head design) the focusing transport is vulnerable to backlash - especially if not maintained. The K35's helical assembly is aluminum on brass which can wear very easily over time especially if this lens is from the 1979 era. The brass on aluminum helical assembly mates the parts together and has an approximate measured error of .0015” or 0.038mm backlash. This alone could account for an unreliable focus transport. Another point of interest is in the lens helical capture. This is a brass on aluminum on brass configuration that is threaded in place to the correct height and is held in position with loc-tite! This setup can potentially come loose or wear down over time and create a noticeable backlash. This means a measured .002” or 0.050mm end to end play which can easily create backlash especially if combined with some helical wear. The third point is the floating objective. The mechanism is held in by a fit and located by a brass key. Play in either or the mentioned parts could lead to an image shift as well as backlash. Remember, we were driving these lenses with powerful Preston focus motors and most likely overwhelmed the focus transport components. A final point worth mentioning is that these lenses typically have fairly strong traces of secondary color that can sometimes convolve the image quality and make seeing focus difficult at wide open. I'm not convinced that this was our case but it's a possibility. In the end, with all of the above mentioned and considering the K35's compressed focus travel, shooting these lenses on steadicam with ANY remote focus system, especially with an aggressive cinematic style as we had, would be futile. If these lenses were on a manually focused camera, where the focus puller could physically turn the barrel by hand and see the focus inscriptions, one's odds of success would be much greater. We simply had the wrong tool combination for AMERICAN HUSTLE. Sorry for this lengthy explanation - I'm a bit of a physical optics nut! :) I should also mention that Panavision's Dan Sasaki contributed to this posting. Greg

It was ALL steadicam. There was only one or two shots that the camera sat on a sand bag inside the front and back seat of a car. That was it! G

This video was shot with my iPhone to illustrate the focus issues we had with the Canon K35 lenses and the Preston FIZ. You can also see the T stop on the lens which further complicated our challenges in this shooting situation. This video was shot on set of AMERICAN HUSTLE.

Sounds good Adam! He loves living in Stckholm. He speaks very fondly of that. And it's very impressive that he speaks 6 languages!! Not many can claim that. As an American it's amazing that I can speak 2! ;) G

Thank you Mathew. To answer your last question, Geoff and I were direct requests by David. He wanted us for SLP as well but we were not available. And I believe that was one of the issues our DP had. He didn't have his crew since Geoff and I were "forced" upon him. But we tried our best to look out for both his and David's interests. That got a bit tricky at times. As far as your other observance, you're correct. David does not rehearse, there are no marks and we haven't a clue to what's going to happen during a take till after we have shot it. It must be quite a sight watching the steadicam operator, the focus puller, the boom man as well as the gaffer, who was booming a china ball on a stick, all negotiating for the same space while trying to stay out of eyelines and the key light! We all got into the habit of keeping an eye out for each other and signaling to which direction any of us needed to shift whether it was ducking either under the boom or even the lens! Even the cast got involved with the calling of audibles during a take and were extremely respectfull of our challenges as we were of theirs. The script supervisor would always ask me what the shot would be and I would smile and say " I'll let you know after we've shot it." Finally, I accidently omitted the name of our 3rd steadicam operator who spent just a couple of weeks with us. Dave Thompson also made a huge contribution to AH. Sorry Dave! G

Thanks for the kind words Jeremy. David O's choice of using steadicam only comes from his interpretation of what a steadicam is capable of. He feels that it has an ease of movement and he truly believes that it is a panacea for the amount of time that it would take to set up a studio camera along with dolly track, etc. He doesn't want to be limited in any way that track would limit his camera movement to. David simply wants the cast to do what they want and for us to conform on the fly to them. It's interesting to note that Geoff ("A" camera and Steadicam operator) and I are very accustom to no rehearsals or no blocking of a shot. In fact, we kind of enjoy that challenge. We had a tremendous success with David's THE FIGHTER which was shot in the same fashion. The movie is in frame and completely in focus. The difference was that we did not use the Canon K35 lenses. We shot with Zeiss Master Primes at a T1.3 and it looked fantastic! Hoyte van Hoytema was the cinematographer on THE FIGHTER where as Linus Sangren was the cinematographer on AMERICAN HUSTLE. His choice of employing the Canon K35s was fatal to our success when referring to the focus pulling challenges. Those lenses simply could not perform to the level we required. Thankfully, after we changed lenses to the Zeiss High Speeds, our focus issues were put behind us. I only wish we had made the change earlier in the shooting schedule. I also want to mention what iron men Geoff Haley and Greg Lundsgaard were. They both operated steadicam non-stop for long hours and weeks on end. They really sacrificed their bodies to make AMERICAN HUSTLE. It was both physically and mentally challenging for us all. Jorge Sanchez was my "B" camera 1st AC and he too did a wonderful job. G

Thank you!

Hoyte is a good friend of mine and we have now done 2 pictures together, THE FIGHTER and INTERSTELLAR. He has quite the interesting history. He's actually not a Swede, although he resides in Stockholm. He's Dutch, born in Switzerland and lives in Sweden. He is very worldly and quite a talented cameraman. His career has just begun and he will be a major influence in cinema. G

You're right! Much of the movie had focus issues. The cinematographer insisted upon using old Canon K35 lenses for their 1970's look, the time period that the movie takes place. Unfortunately, the K35's have 1970's technology as well. Since AMERICAN HUSTLE was shot entirely on steadicam, the use of Preston FIZ remote focus units were necessary. Since the K35 lenses have a compressed focus scale and are known for "loss of motion," they could neither respond to the Preston transmitter commands nor return to a prescribed focus mark. There wasn't much chance for success in the focus department with these lenses. About half way through the shoot and against the cinematographer's wishes, the First AC insisted on switching the Canon K35 lenses for the Zeiss Hi Speed lenses which were made for cinematic use. After the switch, the focus issues were eliminated and the integrity of a period look was mantained. G

I was one of the 1st ACs on a movie called "Pleasantville". We lost one our own, Brent Hershman, after working a 19 hour day. He fell asleep behind the wheel of his car and died. It affected all of us. As a result, our cinematographer and gaffer drafted a legislation and submitted it to our union titled "Brent's Rule". It called for a limit of working no more than a 14 hour day. It went nowhere. It actually got defeated by our very own members who opted for overtime over their safety and well being of their families. Years later, veteran camera operator, Michael Stone suffered the same fate after working all night. He was my mentor and I considered him family. I'll never forget hugging him goodnight at crew parking only to learn what happened to him a few hours later. I'll never get over his loss. In fact, his funeral is featured towards the end of Haskell's "Who Needs Sleep". Then it happened to me. I was working on a Disney feature film in the South Island of New Zealand. We were in a very remote location where many of us self drove long distances to and from where we were lodging. In my case, I was commuting about 100 kilometers (60 miles) after working long hours in grueling circumstances. I never realized that I was falling asleep. I want to repeat this part: I never realized that I was that tired and was falling asleep while driving. Not until I wrecked and totaled the car. I was lucky enough to walk away from the crash. But I can honestly tell all of you that it scared the living sh.. out of me! I never want to experience that again. Long hours are not worth one's life. Unfortunately, it still is a part of our industry. I will never stop being a proponent to limiting the length of the work day. If it's illegal to drive while intoxicated it should be illegal to drive extremely fatigued. There is no difference. Impaired judgement is the same. I call on each and every one of you to join me in this effort. Thank you for reading this. My best to ALL of you, Greg

Well, it's gotten you to pay attention and talk about it. Ha! Can't be all that bad...

It's not worth the extreme expense of 65mm IMAX when compared to 35mm cost.

No worries Mate! No offense taken. And yes! Your community college point is well taken and very correct. G

Where did you graduate from Richard?

I would love to disclose details but due to a signed non-disclosure agreement, I would be foolish to do so. Details to come after some time has passed. Hope you all understand. G

Just to be clear: California State University at Long Beach is not a community college. The film school there is very good. I know! I graduated from there (many years ago). I wish Lucas had gone to CSULB but he did not. However, Spielberg did. Regardless, Richard's point about community college is quite valid. G

Wow! And all I intended was to share a "first look"!

I'm glad to hear that. But from now on all I want to read from you is about your progress with all of the above. Nothing more. Best of luck to you Rueul. You can do this. Just believe.