Come on, Star Wars

[Tyler Purcell]

Pulling focus by video tap from a film camera isnt easy even with an HD tap, and with a big multi-camera show some of the film cameras are going to have SD taps.

Well yea, I mean that's true. However, they have cinetape. They also have a person who looks through the lens of the camera as well. The viewfinder is very bright on those XLII's, MUCH nicer and brighter than any 16 or 35 camera I've ever owned.

 

If I had all those tools and the experience of people making a Star Wars movie, those sorts of "mistakes" would simply not happen. I watched nearly all the movies shot on film this year and none of them had static shots with focus issues.

[Jon O'Brien]

Anyway, to hell with it. It was so good to see you back, Luke Skywalker!!! Who cares if you leaned in a bit out of the range of the depth of field.

[Phil Rhodes]

The thing about this is that I see people being far harder on this sort of error from beginners than from the top professionals on the best-funded productions.

 

I remember having a discussion very much in this vein with a colourist on this very forum a few years ago in which I'd pointed out that some material from Lost suffered cyan foliage and magenta skies. It was quite robustly argued that, well, the very highly paid people who shot and graded it had done a good job under difficult circumstances. This is possibly true, but consistency demands that we treat low budget productions as positively heroic every time they get a shot in focus, which we don't.

 

It was a screwup, a mistake, and it looked bad, and to be painfully clear, it is less acceptable on a more generously-funded productions.

 

So yes, I fully understand why these things happen, but sorry, if I'd paid $200m for that I'd have only a very limited appetite for excuses.

 

P

[Stuart Brereton]

Also... there is no excuse. If you're watching the monitor as a focus puller, you will see the focus go off and you will adjust. I don't care how many decades you've been in the industry, I don't care what shows you've worked on, if your **(obscenity removed)**up out of focus shot makes it into the movie, that's a big problem.

For a soft shot to make it into the movie, first of all the director has decided to move on without shooting another take, and secondly, he and the editor have decided to use it in the cut. Neither of those things is the Focus Puller's fault.

Every AC I work with calls out at the end of the take if they know they've buzzed focus and need another go at it. That's standard professional practice. Continual focus buzzes can get an AC fired, and sometimes the Operator too. There is no reason for them to keep quiet about it. 99 times out of a 100, if there's a soft shot, it's because of a directorial decision somewhere down the line.

 

Years ago, I was working on a low budget movie in the UK. In one scene the main character delivers a very angry monologue, yelling in the face of another character. We shot a great take, but on his last line, the actor leaned inside minimum focus, and was soft. We backed him up, and shot it again, this time with him in focus throughout. In the edit, the director used the version where he went soft. He felt the out of focus last line was in keeping with the one character screaming in the face of the other. Despite being technically 'wrong', it fitted the mood of the scene.

 

i have no idea if it was a similar situation in Star Wars, but these things are not always mistakes or accidents.

[Gregory Irwin]

I was originally going to stay out of this conversation but now I feel the need to defend my fellow focus pullers. No one, outside of the inner circle of the DP, Operator and the Focus Puller, knows or understands the situation behind any issues of cinematography. No one else was there to experience the challenges and or limitations that were present at the time. No one, for example, would know that most of the buzzed shots in INTERSTELLAR (since Tyler loves to keep referring to it) were made on a IMAX 80mm lens at a T2 with a +2 or +3 diopter while hand held. Who knows what Michael Green's situation was on ORIENT EXPRESS? Maybe he was boxed out due to lights around the camera and he never had a chance at having a clear line of sight to the shot? Was Michael sick that day and some other unsuspecting soul was thrusted at the last minute onto the focus knob? We simply do not know. I'm not whining here but I am pointing out the fact that it's easy to criticize without having the inside knowledge of what was happening at that moment in time. I should disclose that I haven't seen ORIENT EXPRESS but I'm simply using Mr. Green as an example since he was referred to earlier in this thread. I'll bet he did a stupendous job on his movie.

 

G

[Phil Rhodes]

I think my concern with this is exactly that. Yes, I'm aware of the sort of concerns that can, generally, make life difficult for people. The issue to me is that on a production of that scale those concerns should be vanishingly rare.

 

Blame doesn't rest on the focus puller or even on the camera department. It's the whole production. If it means stopping for a while and reconfiguring everything so that the focus puller does have a decent line of sight, then surely that's what we're paying all that money for - the ability to take the time, to get it right.

 

I have to rush things. I have to work quickly. Star Wars can afford the time, you'd have thought.

 

P

[Gregory Irwin]

I have to rush things. I have to work quickly. Star Wars can afford the time, you'd have thought.

 

P

 

Every production has it's limitations regardless of budget and scope. One still rushes against the sunset no matter what size picture it is.

 

G

[Tyler Purcell]

No one, for example, would know that most of the buzzed shots in INTERSTELLAR (since Tyler loves to keep referring to it) were made on a IMAX 80mm lens at a T2 with a +2 or +3 diopter while hand held.

The only out of focus shots in "Interstellar" that I give two shits about, were all done anamorphic 35mm.

 

Yes, there was a TOUCH of focus issues with SOME of the 15/65 material, but it was touch and go, which is fine. If a character and camera is MOVING, I COULD GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT FOCUS!!! It's a moving shot, it's IMPOSSIBLE to get perfect focus.

 

When the shot is static... as in a person sitting and NOT MOVING, the camera on a dolly, crane, jib, sticks.. NOT MOVING and the shot is OUT OF FOCUS, I'm gonna scream bloody murder.

 

This is the case with Interstellar and this is the case with The Last Jedi.

 

Notice, I'm not mentioning 4 dozen other movies shot on 35mm that came out between Interstellar and The Last Jedi. I've seen them all, but they don't appear to have focus issues... OR you bet your ass I would have said something.

 

I hold people who shoot on film to a higher standard than those who don't. Mainly because people will look at it and say "ohh that's the way film is, it's just old tech that's poop", just because someone mucked up.

[Stuart Brereton]

I hold people who shoot on film to a higher standard than those who don't.

 

That really should be the other way around, as pulling focus with nothing but a video assist is a vastly different experience to pulling focus from a 17" monitor.

 

Tyler, you've never pulled focus professionally, and you've never worked on the kind of sets that Greg has. You may well make bold statements about 'screaming bloody murder', but you weren't there and you don't know the circumstances that you are talking about.

[Samuel Berger]

It wasn't. It's in the trailer; he's in focus at the opening of the shot, delivers a line and leans in slightly, and in doing so goes soft.

In the immortal words of Idi Amin, "Oh! So it was the EDITOR?"

 

Has anyone seen if this shot made it into the final film rather than just the trailer?

 

Tyler, you've never pulled focus professionally, and you've never worked on the kind of sets that Greg has. You may well make bold statements about 'screaming bloody murder', but you weren't there and you don't know the circumstances that you are talking about.

What? But...neither was Greg! Just trying to follow the logic, here.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Samuel Berger

[Stuart Brereton]

What? But...neither was Greg! Just trying to follow the logic, here.

Greg Irwin was the A Camera 1st AC on Interstellar, which is one of the films Tyler continually mentions in this context.

[Samuel Berger]

Greg Irwin was the A Camera 1st AC on Interstellar, which is one of the films Tyler continually mentions in this context.

Oh, I thought you meant Star Wars.

[Tyler Purcell]

Tyler, you've never pulled focus professionally, and you've never worked on the kind of sets that Greg has. You may well make bold statements about 'screaming bloody murder', but you weren't there and you don't know the circumstances that you are talking about.

You're trying to tell me that a 200M feature that shoots over 60+ days, with a camera crew of what, 10+ people, should get a pass because they're somehow working harder than I am?

 

I shoot roughly 7 - 10 pages a day. I have to not only shoot, but in most cases, I also direct, I also shoot 16 or 35mm with generally the only crew being a gaffer and a sound guy, outside of the cast. Yet, I seem to have zero problems getting focus. When I muck up focus, it's generally unnoticeable to the casual audience go'er.

 

You could claim that it's a "calmer" environment, but I disagree. The stress level of shooting 7 - 10 pages a day with little to no crew, with no money to fight fires, is FAR GREATER than a big hollywood movie. The amount of "waste" on a big show is astronomical. Ya'll can shoot 3/4 of a page in a day if you want, I can't.

[Robin R Probyn]

So where are the reviews ,trailers for all these razor sharp master pieces .. I have to admit your name was unknown to me till you entered this forum.. but you are obviously of some repute..and experience in the feature world.. where is the body of work..?

[Tyler Purcell]

So where are the reviews ,trailers for all these razor sharp master pieces .. I have to admit your name was unknown to me till you entered this forum.. but you are obviously of some repute..and experience in the feature world.. where is the body of work..?

 

Why is it you feel the need to pick on me. Am I picking on someone else here? Nope... sure am not.

 

You gotta learn the difference between a personal attack (which is what you're doing now) and an "opinion", based on what someone has seen.

 

Also, I wasn't the person who brought this subject up. I suggest you start your rant with the original poster, rather than someone who is simply agreeing with them.

[Keith Walters]

Much as I hesitate to reinforce any reputation I may have as an unsympathetic, malcontent curmudgeon....

You often say that, and for the life of me I can't work out why :rolleyes:

Am I missing something here? The only way you're going to know for sure what the focus was like on a film shoot is when you look at the rushes the next day or whenever.

I suspect it's what others have said; the editor or somebody decided that the cinematographically inferior take was the one with the best performance and they went with that.

 

There are numerous popular songs where the singer forgot the words of one verse and just whistled or burbled their way through that part, and that was the version that was released. Bill Withers's Ain't no Sunshine When She's Gone (I know, I know, I know etc) is just one example.

 

Anyway George Lucas shot about 4 hours of Star Wars with 2/3" tarted-up ENG cameras, and you complain about 4 seconds! :P

 

The thing about this is that I see people being far harder on this sort of error from beginners than from the top professionals on the best-funded productions.

 

Well yes, but let's face it: If you can get the focus wrong on a Sony Handycam, what hope do you have with a large-format camera?

[Samuel Berger]

There are numerous popular songs where the singer forgot the words of one verse and just whistled or burbled their way through that part, and that was the version that was released. Bill Withers's Ain't no Sunshine When She's Gone (I know, I know, I know etc) is just one example.

I remember my aunt and uncle talking about this performance by Topol on stage in a play based on a Marcel Pagnol film. He didn't say a single understandable word throughout the whole performance, scatting and making odd sounds that only mimicked human speech without belonging to any particular language. At one point in the play he supposedly just started making random repetitive movements.

My uncle's imitation of Topol's performance that night is a memory I'll never forget. I'd never heard of a professional, established actor forgetting an entire play, before.

[Tyler Purcell]

I suspect it's what others have said; the editor or somebody decided that the cinematographically inferior take was the one with the best performance and they went with that.

As someone who edits when they aren't shooting, I can attest to performances being built in post. It's very easy to slug in lines under a different performance that isn't so perfect.

 

Anyway George Lucas shot about 4 hours of Star Wars with 2/3" tarted-up ENG cameras, and you complain about 4 seconds! :P

4 hours? More like 100's of hours to get one movie that works and he shot 2 movies with those cameras. Funny enough, they still look like poop.

[Landon D. Parks]

I don't think its really fair to pick on the old Star Wars prequels for how shitty they look - I mean, the camera systems at the time were what they were. You wouldn't look back at an old black and white film from the 20's and say 'That looks shitty', even though it might to some degree and by modern standards.

 

What shocks me most is you can STILL BUY an F900 new. And it's over $80,000. I don't see where the market for such a camera could possibly be in the 2017 landscape.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Landon D. Parks

[Samuel Berger]

I don't think its really fair to pick on the old Star Wars prequels for how shitty they look - I mean, the camera systems at the time were what they were.

 

Which is why it was insane to have used them, when so many 35mm film cameras were available.

[Landon D. Parks]

That may well be true, but to be entirely honest with you, I don't think it would have mattered much what camera Lucas shot the prequels on... 90-99% of each frame was digital CGI anyway, so film would probably have been overkill for such a production, and I question rather it would have improved the way it looked. Though to be honest, I didn't think they 'looked' all that bad - they where just bad films.

 

I'd highly question if anyone other than other filmmakers and pixel-peepers could really tell any difference between a film shot and digital shot prequel. There just wasn't enough of the frame used to really make a difference.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Landon D. Parks

[Tyler Purcell]

I'd highly question if anyone other than other filmmakers and pixel-peepers could really tell any difference between a film shot and digital shot prequel. There just wasn't enough of the frame used to really make a difference.

I mean Phantom Menace used a photochemical workflow, the master is on film and it looks ENTIRELY different then Episode II and III, which the masters are only digital.

 

They all look like poop, but I agree it's not necessarily from the camera system.

[Tyler Purcell]

Which is why it was insane to have used them, when so many 35mm film cameras were available.

Lucas hates film. He paid USC and UCLA to throw away their film cameras.

 

He thinks learning the past, the history of filmmaking using motion picture film "has no bearing on present day"

 

What he's done to the "film" industry is a travesty and now, many of the students from those schools are coming to me because they have no other option in order to learn "real" filmmaking.

[Robin R Probyn]

 

Why is it you feel the need to pick on me. Am I picking on someone else here? Nope... sure am not.

 

You gotta learn the difference between a personal attack (which is what you're doing now) and an "opinion", based on what someone has seen.

 

Also, I wasn't the person who brought this subject up. I suggest you start your rant with the original poster, rather than someone who is simply agreeing with them.

 

 

Just pulling your chain a bit.. there is certain pomposity to your acclamations at times..rather than a more considered vanilla opinion of others posters .. just cant resist .. will try harder to not to.. :)

[Landon D. Parks]

I would tend to agree, Tyler - However, 'Filmmaking' as an art has little to nothing to do with your camera. While I'm sure there is some nostalgia about learning to shoot on celluloid film, I don't see how that directly plays into someone learning the skills required to be a filmmaker. The digital realm has caused some side effects that I don't like, such as the 'constantly running camera' and endless takes. However, you could easily remedy that by teaching the students, even on digital, that more is not better in all cases.

 

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I can't see how the simple act of shooting on film could have such a huge impact on ones ability to learn to be a filmmaker. It's neat to shoot on the format, but HOW does it make one a better filmmaker in general?

 

As for Lucas - we can blame him for the digital revolution, but the reality is - it was going to happen one way or the other. He ushered it in, but if he hadn't, someone else would have.

 

I'd also argue against the idea that the digital revolution has 'ruined' filmmaking. A lack of original ideas and bad filmmakers have done that.

 

For example, I learned Photography on film - but if I was teaching someone today, I couldn't see how teaching them ON film itself would have any bearing on their ability to be a good photographer. There is a lot more to it than format.

 

PS) Episode one also relied a lot less on digital backlot effects, so the difference would certainly be more noticeable.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Landon D. Parks