From the Fall/Winter 1995/1996 issue of the Operating Cameraman

Click thumbnails for larger view

PRODUCTION PROBLEMS

The general problems encountered were due to equipment limitations, last-minute planning, inexperience and under-anticipation of the number of uses the television equipment would find. Lights were the most severe problem.

It was necessary not only to gobo (shield) or move the monitor to avoid direct light but also to place the monitor in areas where it could be most easily seen without the director or actor being blinded by nearby lights. Ambient light reflected from floors, walls and ceilings faded the picture, and it was often necessary to increase the monitor's brightness and contrast beyond recommended limits to obtain a good picture. It was also necessary to adjust the television camera control system continuously to maintain a good picture during rehearsals and light changes.

Outdoor scenes imposed a limit on the monitor that could be met only by using a contrived shadow-box on the monitor. Daylighted objects are ten or more times brighter than the maximum brightness of the monitor and it was necessary to view the monitor within the shadow-box for several seconds while awaiting eye accommodation.

Power to operate the equipment was obtained from 1 l 5 volt AC convenience outlets. During the airport jet scenes it was necessary to use 300 feet of AC cable. The drop in voltage caused a delay in equipment warmup time, and the first shot was "missed" by the television equipment. At the golf course, the nearest AC was 800 feet away and although an effort to locate a portable AC generator was made, it was not practical to follow through.

"As a personal note," Lewis stated "it is my carefully considered opinion that the use of the television equipment resulted in saving shooting time, that it was an aid to the director and other members of the staff and that after its novelty passed, it became part of the company equipment."

Yet more than three decades after its introduction Lewis remains embittered by the fact that he is not duly recognized for his achievement. He stated recently to "The Operating Cameraman," "We work in a strange industry when an innovation of this kind has been kicked under the rug for almost 40 years. They (the film community) haven't appreciated the work of an innovator because he's a pratfall comic so I won't dignify them with any further comment about my device! It's not worth it to me anymore."

But Steven Spielberg is compelled to add, "Ever since Jerry Lewis inaugurated video playback in the 1960s, it has continuously proven to be a benefit to directors, with some notable exceptions. Using playback is not unlike "sneaking" your movie in front of your entire cast and crew and although when things are going swimmingly this is a valuable morale-booster, it could also turn your leading actors into Siskel and Ebert, thereby inviting a day-one collaboration between director, actor, producer and most certainly the camera operator. Some film makers welcome this collaboration as I have in the past; other film makers I know decry it."

No matter what the circumstances that take place on the set, what counts is that the shot designed is the shot delivered. How often as camera operators have we heard "cut-print" at the conclusion of a shot only to have to jump from the dolly and explain to the director that there were certain elements of the scene that were unsatisfactory composition-wise or for other problematical reasons? When a director views the scene he or she is looking and listening to a myriad of things and it stands to chance that something may occasionally be overlooked. That is why the camera operator must be ever-vigilant to the smallest details and not leave anything to chance. Believing that the director or script supervisor will catch an oversight on the part of the operator, actor, boom operator or others only creates a false sense of security to the detriment of the operator. Cinematographer George La Fountaine, ASC ("Hope & Gloria") states, "Just because a shot is on a monitor doesn't mean it's good or right. The director who's looking at it may be hearing the words but not seeing the move or wondering if his agent has made that certain deal. I never hesitate to make something better. Never. Even if it's the director's favorite shot."

As fast as we are asked to shoot each scene we must remember that the next day's dailies are viewed under more subdued conditions by the director and producers with more critical eyes. La Fountaine recalls first seeing video assist in 1960 at Paramount Studios which was Lewis' second effort with his video assist device on a picture entitled "The Ladies Man." "I visited a huge four- or five-storied set. Jerry was directing himself and W Wallace Kelley, ASC was the cameraman. The set (described by noted film critic Leonard Maltin as "the real star of the movie") was a Hollywood hotel for aspiring actresses and built all the way to the perms. The face of the building had been removed to provide the camera with an open view of what seemed like thirty rooms. Each apartment was occupied by a pretty starlet and fully dressed with furniture. Lewis watched his stand-in's rehearsal on a floor monitor as an immense crane followed the stand-in from the topmost floor, down halls and stairs to the lobby in one continuous shot. A small video camera mounted above the Mitchell BNC swing-out finder provided Lewis with a black and white approximation of Kelley's lens.

Granted, the video image was crude. But it gave frame lines and a reasonable perspective of what the camera was seeing. I worked in live television at the time so I was more impressed with the set than the electronics. At KTLA-TV we had just succeeded in placing a live camera aboard a helicopter so seeing the film guys using our tool was a kick.

Coming out of live television I was never intimidated by video assist. I've heard many of the arguments: 'It slows things down,' 'Everyone's a cameraman,' etc. My feeling is the more we agree with the placement of the product, performance or action the better. Before video assist I remember once soothing a commercial client with the words, 'Wait 'til you see it, you'll like it.'" La Fountaine adds, "He didn't."

George Turner former editor of "American Cinematographer" magazine remembers when he first saw video assist on a set years ago. "Many people didn't want to use it because they were afraid that by watching a monitor they would become hypnotized by it... turns out they were right!" Turner notes that as a production illustrator in 1982 on the set of "One From the Heart," "director Francis Coppola has probably been the staunchest supporter of it to date."

THE CREW

Often not mentioned in this mix of getting the shot is the dolly grip. With more and more TV dramas trying to emulate feature style shots with TV budget constraints the operator and dolly grip are thrust into situations that at first seem unattainable with the time allotted.

Steadicams, cranes and remote controlled cameras are now part of what is normal practice on most sets. Tight lenses during over-the-shoulder shots while the camera slides across the floor are commonplace. A good dolly grip has an innate sense of what the operator sees, sort of his own "parallax view."

With experience and quick reflexes the dolly grip can make an instantaneous adjustment with the nuance of an actor's head tilt in order to maintain the designed shot. With video assist as a tool that job becomes easier. More often than not the dolly grip is asked to do a great deal of thinking on his/her feet in order to help the operator maintain the desired composition. This in effect makes the dolly grip another component of the camera team, a virtual co-operator.

With the advent of the small onboard monitor first-assistants now have the ability to see what the operator sees, enabling them to become better operators when the opportunity arises. They can see what is actually in frame thereby giving a hint as to where the focus should be placed in some cases. Also it is a silent way of cueing "focus racks" where necessary. Those assistants who work on the sets without video assist gain the same type of parallax vision that dolly grips learn when, for example, the operator has to cut the camera because an over-the-shoulder didn't work out. With time they can tell what isn't working for the operator. Adding the onboard monitor takes that ability away from the assistant yet if they have time to look away from the actor and up at the monitor it is a newer form of education in composition.

Producer/director Robert Singer ("Cujo," "Lois & Clark") was a long time holdout, not wanting to rely on the monitor until he discovered while watching dailies on a show some years back that he wasn't getting the kind of exacting over-the-shoulder compositions that he had designed. With video he found that once the operator was able to watch a rehearsal on the monitor he could emulate the set up and then Singer could spend more time watching the scene directly. He adds, "When I work with an operator that I can trust it makes my job a lot easier."

Director W Richard Lang, Jr (James Michener's "Texas") states that "at first it was unusual not looking directly at the performance but after the initial newness wore off I found it to be very advantageous. I have yet to see a video screen hurt a great performance or sadly, to hide a poor one. Since I work mostly in TV the close-up coverage gives me an image size that makes performances easy to evaluate. Although sometimes, for whatever reasons, I slip back into the old dinosaurian habit of actually looking directly at the actor."

Lang continues, "It is truly a great tool. For instance it means not having to weigh on and off the Chapman or climb up a twenty foot parallel. Being able to "see" how much of the actor was covered or blocked. Did the arm move pan/tilt/swish/stop and flow from one element into the other with the right tempos? Was it Kubric, Capra or crap? So much of this art/craft is opinion. Each of us is unique. Long live la différence... But the video assist is still just a tool. Like a hammer or a saw it can help make beautiful things or butcher them. It depends entirely on the carpenter."

THE SOUND MIXER

Just as the monitor is a tool for directors, dolly grips and assistants, it is also utilized by the production sound mixer. Joseph Geisinger, CAS ("The Jungle Book," "Showgirls") states, "I received my training prior to the advent of video assist, so my point of reference was solely aural. With the video tap I now have a visual reference as well. This added dimension is valuable to me. In order to prevent overall diminished audio quality due to phase problems or "boominess" only one mic can be used at a time. So in multiple mic situations a visual aid helps me to decide which mic to use and when.

Video assist also helps me to anticipate the unpredictability of actors. The energy level (volume) and physical direction that a line reading will be given is important information. This information allows me to make instantaneous adjustments with greater accuracy.

A through the lens visual reference puts me in a position to assist the camera operator by keeping the boom operator informed of the frame lines. I have the ability to communicate with the boom operator (via a private line that doesn't go onto the recorded track) when the mic is getting too close to the frame lines." Geisinger adds, "It is always a concern of mine to get the mic as close to the actor as possible in order to alleviate background noise yet at the same time I never want the mic so close that it becomes a distraction to the camera operator. I feel that it is unfair for the operator to be watching the mic rather than the scene. Often in the past when I really needed a direct eyeline to the actors I found that my sound cart was in the way of camera, grip or electric so with video assist I can remove myself and my equipment from the set."

Part I | Part II | Part III