Gregory Irwin

I don't have the powder coated gates yet. Why would super 16 be different from super 35? The percentage of the negative area is similar, isn't it? But I think that you are correct regarding the large, rear element bounce back. G

Yes on the open gate. The other factor in this is we get more than a typical gate flare from having practical, usually specular light sources inside of full aperture but outside of the frame lines. In other words, when a specular light source comes into view but not into frame, we have experienced this "wash" like flare. Once the light source is in frame, the flare ceases and the Cookes perform as expected. This is where it gets dicey since we always have light sources close to the frame lines. This is why I'm at a loss on this because we are performing everyday practices that we would normally do with any Panavision or Zeiss lens. I have repeatedly been told that nobody has experienced this before yet I know that I cannot be the first and only one. Finally, after much prodding, it starts to be revealed that this is a problem with the Cookes. So now I'm trying to move on to finding a solution to combat this. GI

We just have the plain, old S4s with the very large rear elements. Otto Nemenz (our rental house) says it's a common problem with the lens/film gate combo. Terrific. We are currently powder coating new gates to see if that eliminates our problem. Stay tuned...

Hi Stephen, I have only one complete set of the Cookes and we've had the issue mainly with the 75mm and the 32mm. Our Optimo zooms have had no flare issues. GI

Hi all. I have only used the Cooke S4s twice in my career and have now experienced milky flares both times. I know that these lenses are highly touted for not flaring. I'm a bit at a loss due to doing everything possible to protect the lens from any extraneious light and am still having massive flares that milk out a large portion of the frame. This has now happened three times on different Arricams on my current movie and the frustrating aspect is that the camera operators cannot see the flares through the viewing system and they don't show on video as well. The flares seem to be generated by the camera's gate with the light bouncing back through the lens' rear element off the emulsion and scattering throughout the lens barrel giving this milky, foggy effect. We know that we are not experiencing any light leaks in the camera bodies or mags. This definetly is a lens flare. Any thoughts, personal experience or advice would be greatly appreciated. We are shooting 4 perf, 1:1.85 format with Arricam ST and LT cameras and Cooke S4 lenses and Kodak film. Best, Gregory Irwin

Not to sound pessimistic but the reality is that 9 out of 10 productions will "cook" the books and will never show a profit even if there is one. Go into the job with the outlook that you will never get paid and you won't be disappointed. If you do get paid, great! Most likely though, in the end it's not likely. I hope I'm wrong on this one. :) Best, Greg

My good friend, David Eubank devolped this software and has put endless hours of time into making sure that it is accurate and perfect. The end result is simply amazing. I highly recommend that all camera people get P Cam and use it on the job. I used P Cam on my old Palm Pilot for years but I must say that the new, iPhone version is much more dynamic and has many more applications related to cine calculations that we all use at work. Congratulations David - you did it!!! Best, Greg

I don't remember the exact breakdown of crew. For the operated cameras, we had an operator, 1st and 2nd. We definitely had more assistants than operators since we had several "locked off" cameras that were remotely started. The most valuable member of our crew was our Panavision tech who was on location with us and would repair and service all of the equipment at the end of each shooting day. He would come in about 2 hours prior to our wrap and stay as long as needed to fulfill the service/repair list that Jerry would give him at the end of each day. If we were working days, he was working nights. If we were nights, he was on a day schedule, etc. There were times that he didn't have much to do but most of the time, he was plenty busy. Big action movies can take a big toll on the gear thus making him our MVP!

The only thing that I would add is that all of the listed "expendables" (ie. tape, markers, Q-tips, etc.) should be purchased by the production. This expense should not come out of your pocket at all. Best, Greg

This is an interesting thread. Reading all of these posts confirms my belief that the wide shots are at times way trickier and requires much more consideration than the tight ones. Since wider shots have a broader angle of view, the depth of field may not cover the entire frame thus requiring some decision making on where and how to play focus. This especially applies to the anamorphic format. The tighter shots are obvious. Keep the actor's eyes sharp or whatever the subject matter is. There's not much decision making there, you just need to get it right. If you are not so sure on how to play focus, absolutely confer with the DP. Best, Greg

Amen!!

Thank's Mike & Satsuki for the positive feedback. It's hard to advise others on how to pull focus because everyone has a different approach towards it. The best advice is to keep it simple. Don't overburden yourselves with so many marks that it gets confusing. If possible, I like to find one spot and not move during the shot (especially with remote work) so I don't have to worry about navigating myself through the set while concentrating on focus. But here's the real deal. It's not about the act of pulling focus but rather your approach to it. It begins with surrounding yourself with the best people that you can associate yourself with. It is so important to have team work. Having a DP and a camera operator that understands the difficulty level of a particular shot and will work WITH you instead of independently of you can be the difference between success and failure. Equally as important is having a 2nd AC who also understands the process. I've been fortunate to have had the same 2nd AC for the past 18 years and he knows how to lift the burden of the everyday business of the camera department off of my shoulders so I can concentrate only on focus. When facing challenges such as that 180mm example, he already understands what it's going to take to pull that off. He's involved not only when preparing to do the shot, but also during the shot. He will watch the monitor to give me feedback and watch the actors for little things that I may have missed. His input is paramount to me. This spirit of cooperation goes both ways as well. I look out for the DP, the operator and for my 2nd in ways that will be beneficial to us all. We are always reminding and double checking each other for any details that may have been missed. Having this kind of respect through out the camera department cannot be stressed enough. In an earlier post, there was a question about managing large camera crews. That's an excellent question and I have experience in this. There was one particular movie that I was the key 1st AC on that had 45 members in the first unit camera crew. Yes, 45. That means we were working with up to 30 cameras at once. These pictures don't come along often but when they do, you better have a system. Once again, my trusty 2nd AC, Jerry Patton was crucial to the success of our operation. Setting up multiple cameras is no big deal the first time around. I walk the set with the director and the cameraman, marking out camera positions (lens & height info), assign which crew and camera per spot, etc. That's easy. What gets tricky is when the changes begin such as switching cameras around to accommodate frame rates or whatever. Multiply this by 30 different camera, lens and support combinations and it can get real confusing real fast. That's when a direct line of communication between Jerry and myself becomes very important. I stay with my superiors keeping up with the changes (figuring out what gear and people we have available) and talk directly to Jerry over the radio keeping him up to date. I want only one person to communicate with in order to prevent an already mounting state of confusion. In turn, he is the only voice on set, delegating the tasks to the rest of the department. Having only one voice on set cuts down on having too many voices passing different and quite possibly wrong information. Jerry is also getting the "A" camera ready for shooting in order to allow me to stay with the information flow from above till it's time to roll. For us, this maintains a very calm and efficiently run set. I want to thank you for allowing me to share these experiences in this forum. It's a lot of fun. I hope that the above is helpful. Keep shooting, panning and pulling. That's how we learn and get good at this racket. :lol: Best, Greg

Oh please. Get over it. No one here is trying to steal your thunder as a DP. The quote is "we shot" to be precise- as in collective effort and team work. I never insinuated that I was the cinematographer. Let's end this pettiness and get back on track. I'm sure that everyone here would appreciate that. Thanks...

"Can you elaborate on that a little bit? That's a side of assisting I haven't seen yet. Sounds to me like you're describing a relationship between DP and 1st as similar to the relationship between DP and Gaffer - "here's my vision, now go on and make it happen. Here are my ideas, but you can do what you think works best." I've not had the pleasure of that type of challenge before. Is that what you're describing?" - Mike Thorn (sorry, I screwed up the quote thing) Yes Mike. That's exactly what I'm describing. Once an AC gains the trust of the Cameraman, the AC becomes a collaborator much like the gaffer. I look at it as translating the creativity into technical possibilities. A good example of this is when I was brought onto "The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian" early on. I'm not trying to show off by mentioning this title but it serves as good evidence of what we are talking about. I got involved in aiding the development of a practical hard drive to record frame by frame camera data (ie. lens, focus distance, exposure, camera tilt & roll, etc) that was generated by time code in order to allow the visual effects artists to have a constant information flow from us when trying to recreate our physical shots in their cyber world. I began this project from home in Southern California and continued working with Arriflex in Munich, Germany and our VFX producers throughout my pre-production. Months later, I finally received the first prototype in Auckland, New Zealand where we began production. The data boxes, when mounted to our Arricams, worked like a charm. The Arri engineers delivered big time for us. This removed much of the guess work by the VFX people when they were recreating already photographed shots many months later and in another country. This type of research and development requires both sides - the engineers and camera people like myself to work together in concert since we have different points of view - the laboratory vs. the end-user in the field. Am I proud of this? Of course. On a picture called "Hollow Man", I was brought on board about 3 months early to oversee the design of an underwater, motion control system that didn't exist at the time. What do I know about engineering? Not too much. But I did know how to put a team of people together who could make this a reality. Again with both of our sides represented, we were very successful. These are good examples of why we just don't "pull" on movies. Best, Greg

Hello Yuka! It's been a while since we shot "Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift". Talk about some aggressive cinematography. Wow! We did some great work on that one. We had fun in your city. I think back on it with great memories. Thanks again for all of your hard work and I wish you the best. Greg

This sounds like a motor issue as opposed to an overall Bartech issue. There are various motors available for the Bartech. I liked the Heden M28VP motors because they were quiet, powerful and versatile. I'm going to guess that you may have had a squeaky M1 motor. Out of curiosity, do you remember which motor it was? Best, Greg

The whole shooting or assisting thing is like a left brain - right brain exercise. Not everyone is necessarily built for both. Personally, I have no interest in operating or shooting my own projects. I definitely have more of a technical/managerial mind with not much artistic creativity. I can actually say that I enjoy pulling focus because not many people understand the craft and view it as some sort of voodoo that they want nothing to do with. Most want to shoot and especially want to operate the camera but when it comes to focus pulling - forget it. I still get a kick out of being able to pull off challenges such as a 180mm anamorphic remote head or steadicam shot successfully. There's not much glory in it but it's personally satisfying. I would modestly say that only a few could do it. The top assistants also are required to maintain a view of the overall goal of the project and are able to mate the producer's limitations with the DP's needs. Many times I've had to come up with alternate ways of accomplishing the same result that kept both sides happy. It's imperative to understand the broad view of cinematography as much as the cinematographer does in order to be effective for him or her. This also means staying on top of the ever changing technologies that are constantly evolving in order to allow the cinematographer to concentrate on being creative without becoming bogged down with the nuts and bolts stuff. We assistants simply have to wear multiple hats and be able to constantly shift gears whether it's on the business side dealing with the studio or production company, managing a camera crew to actually making the film. We deal with the camera related details that others don't and in the end it can be on heck of a career. Best, Greg

Ha, Ha! You're right! We need to get this SAG situation settled and go back to work. I've got way too much time on my hands right now. :lol:

Hi Chris, Please don't take it as "arguing". This is simply a discussion. You have many valid points. Learning from experience is a great way to go if one has the chance. Best, Greg

Suggesting that the 2 AC position is simply nothing but a stepping stone on the way up and does not require a learned set of skills is erroneous. It certainly is not the "training" type of job. The 2nd Assistant Cameraman must be one of the most responsible and well trained within our department. Our friend is asking about training programs. Suggesting that he walks into a camera crew as an inexperienced 2nd AC would be disastrous especially if he was working for an experienced 1st AC. I have been lucky enough to have had the same 2nd AC for the past 17 years. Not only is he very successful and great at his job, he allows me to concentrate on what is important to me such as fully involving myself in the filmmaking process without having to worry about the day to day business of our camera department. He is the conduit for keeping the process of running our department efficiently whether it involves the information flow between myself and the rest of the crew or to what equipment is coming in or going out for that particular shooting day or week. He receives the information from me that we need additional crew in the near future and he makes sure that we are covered. In short, he executes the daily business of our camera department so I can concentrate on other matters. The slating and the writing of camera reports is the probably the most banal part of the job, although necessary. As a 1st AC, I cannot emphasize enough the value in having a 2nd AC who understands the overall process of filmmaking and knows how to facilitate his area of it seamlessly. It can be a delicate balance of knowing how to get what you need without stepping on other toes. Experience and a full understanding of the filmmaking process and the politics of a movie set is the only way to achieve our necessary goals. On our camera crew, our film loader is also expected to understand all of the above while applying his/her skills to that specialty. The film loader is just as responsible of a job for other reasons and certainly not to be taken lightly. I understand that what I have written about above is more of a description on what happens on larger scale productions. On many small sized projects the job requirements are simpler. This is where our friend who is asking about training should try to connect with these camera assistants and learn from that level. The smaller productions are sometimes easier to access. It's interesting to note here that not everyone is destined to become a DP. There are many of us who have had very satisfying careers specializing in the other camera crew positions such as camera operator or 1st and 2nd AC's. A great focus puller will not automatically become a great camera operator and just because one is a great camera operator does not mean he will be a successful DP. These are all different skills and different mind sets. Ok, enough... Best, Greg

I must agree with Peter. The Bartechs are a wonderful, less expensive option for remote focus. Their beauty is in their simplicity. They are light weight, compact and with less cables to manage allows for quick and easy use. I never had one problem with mine. Like I indicated in my earlier post, I used my two Bartechs on eight years worth of feature filmmaking. I absolutely loved them. In my case, I simply needed a more sophisticated system to achieve my current demands. That's why I switched to the Preston FIZ. Best, Greg

I have used them all and by far the best is the Preston. I owned 2 Bartechs and used them on several feature films over the years but I agree that they are limited. I bought the Preston 3 when I did "The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian" and have been very happy with it. It offers much more with the 3 channel handset, the single channel handset and the wireless zoom. You can buy each component individually or the complete system which will run you just under $40K. Greg

I should clarify that I meant the SEP IRA will lower your taxable gross income. Greg

Hi David, What you should have is a SEP (Simplified Employee Pension) IRA. The SEP IRA is designed for self-employed people like you and me here in the USA. You can contribute up to 25% of your gross income or up to $48,000 max. for 2008 - which ever comes first. That number goes up annually. I've had one for years and as you know, I've been a union member for years. It's the best annuity of its type for us free-lancers. You will be qualified to take money out of it, penalty free, once you are 59 years old. Then you are taxed at whatever tax rate you are in at that time. The theory is most people use their IRA as retirement funds and are automatically in a lower tax bracket. Till then you'll enjoy the tax deferments that the SEP IRA offers lowering your gross income at tax time. Having said all of this, you should never rely on just one source of financial planning. Annuities are just one type of funding for the future. You need a balanced portfolio of all sectors of the market (stocks or mutual funds, bonds, annuities, REITS, etc.) Get a financial advisor that you will be comfortable with and begin some discussions with him or her. I have accounts with Ameriprise as well as Sanford Bernstein & Co. Good luck! Best, Greg

Hi Frank, A common commercial First AC rate in Los Angeles is $650 for 10 hours. Overtime and double time follow for the additional hours worked. Greg