Buzzed focus on big movies. AC, or tech issue?

[David Mullen ASC]

That would require the camera operator pull their own focus. Traditionally on a film shoot, a 1st AC doesnt look through the viewfinder except when they need to get some marks before the take by looking through the lens, otherwise they mainly work using tape measurements and aids like Cinetape. Their onboard monitor image was mainly used to see what the operator was framing since it usually was a fuzzy standard def video image of the ground glass.

[Bruce Greene]

Is anyone shooting for big feature films these days (on film) and doing all the focus via the optical viewfinder and groundglass? Not saying that's a mistake proof option by any means, especially in lower light.

Today, on digital shoots, I think most focus pullers are using a radio focus and HD display with focus peaking. And they are getting darn good at it!

 

I do miss, on the occasions that I'm operating a camera, that I can't grab the focus knob and fix the focus by eye when necessary, as I used to do occasionally in the film days to "save" a take that's slightly off. It is quite difficult sometimes to see focus through an optical viewfinder when the mirror is spinning while the camera runs though. But, on a film shoot, it's the operator's responsibility to say if the shot is in focus. But, it's not always possible to see it clearly. Camera operator is not an easy job. And neither is focus puller :)

 

What does irk me, is when the focus puller or operator knows that the shot has some soft focus, but fail to say so upon completion of the take, hoping that, all is well, if the video village people don't notice it. Please speak up guys! Otherwise, I will need to, and it will sound like I'm criticizing your work. If you speak up, I'll say thanks and ask that we do another take. Of course there's no guarantee that the soft take will not end up in the movie anyways...

[Jon O'Brien]

... Traditionally on a film shoot, a 1st AC doesnt look through the viewfinder except when they need to get some marks before the take by looking through the lens, otherwise they mainly work using tape measurements and aids like Cinetape ...

 

Thanks, I knew that tape measurements were always done and of the necessity of focus pullers, but I should have phrased the question whether anyone shoots on film cameras without any form of digital aid to focus these days, which must have been the way they did it once.

Edited October 28, 2018 by Jon O'Brien

[Brenton Lee]

Man, once there's a few stop of ND's and an 85 on a lens I can barely tell what I'm looking at, more or less if its in perfectly in focus.

 

Sure .. an AC can have whatever tricks they have, be it a cinetape etc, but if they can't see the image and the cam op doesn't identify it and tell them right there, then no ones gonna know till that films processed.

 

I can see a million legitimate ways a slightly buzzed image could make it to the screen without anyone having actually screwed up.

[Jon O'Brien]

On the productions decades ago the lights were so bright from the slow film speeds I've read the actors sometimes developed eye problems. With today's improved ability to use natural light it's a different situation for sure.

[David Mullen ASC]

That happened in the early days of cinema when they used carbon arc lights without a glass lens in front, so actors burned their retinas from the UV. The syndrome was called Klieg Eye because some arcs were made by the Kliegl brothers:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klieg_light

https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/klieg%20eyes