On the Set with Video Assist -
Part III
by Michael Frediani, SOC
Click thumbnails for larger
view |
ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS A DAY
Owen Marsh, SOC the renowned and now retired
camera operator recounts his first experiences with video for "The
Operating Cameraman": "I first encountered video assist
around 1961 during the filming of the MGM/Cinerama feature "How
The West Was Won." I had the opportunity to help Peter Gibbons
the Cinerama machinist/technician/inventor, develop a video assist
unit. The video cameras were mounted on top of a wild Cinerama
camera which was in turn slung beneath a helicopter. The TV monitors
were in the 'copter cabin and by viewing the pictures we were
able to direct the pilot where to fly.
My impression at the time was that we had a
wonderful tool which could have many applications in the filming
of pictures. This proved to be true but also false.
It takes a cinematographer or director who
is extremely well-educated in the art of camera operating to
have any beneficial input to offer an experienced camera operator.
They as the boss can tell you what they want but should leave
the method of getting there to their operator. If you were to
ask for a number I would say possibly about 10% of the above
are so qualified.
Over the years the video assist, like many
other cinema tools, has been over used. The use by a director
who is also the actor in the scene is invaluable and well-founded,
but more and more you find the video assist being used by directors
who are not secure in their decisions and need the assurance
of a committee's vote before they can accept a shot.
The use
as a "toy" to shoot multiple takes, run them back and
forth, have everyone who is in the "booth" put in their
opinions then choose the maybe three or four that you want to
see on film is, in my opinion a waste of time and money and an
insult to the camera operator who after every take has the opportunity
and obligation to say "Good" or "Let's do it again."
Marsh
recounts the time when he worked on the Gene Wilder feature, "The
World's Greatest Lover," at Fox in 1977. The star was the
director, producer, writer, and even wrote the music. "The
star/director and the cinematographer became such slaves to the
video assist that the little green canvas "TV room" would
cost us hours a day.
"On one occasion we were to shoot a process
shot with the principals in front of a train window with the
process screen outside the train. To make the shot I had to use
a Mitchell Mark II which was synched-up to the process projector
but would not accept the video assist that we were using on the
Panaflex.
"So we set up the Panaflex next to my
camera and ran it locked-off without an operator just for the
video
while I
made the actual shot with the Mark II. After we had done about
eight takes the "group" retired to the canvas booth
to watch the videos.
"For about ten minutes all was silent,
then the voices began to get louder and louder. You could finally
hear the director yelling "If you don't fire him, I will." With
that the cinematographer came out of the booth, walked over to
me and told me that I was through.
"When I asked the reason he
explained that the director couldn't believe that I had made
eight takes without once tilting up with him, the actor, when
he stood up to get his suitcase from the overhead rack; that
his head had gone out of the frame every time. It was only
then that the DP noticed the second camera which he had forgotten,
the Panaflex, locked-off with no operator and no film.
"The production manager was by this time on
the set and the call had gone out for another operator. While
they were all apologizing to me and asking me to stay I had only
one thing to say: 'One hundred dollars a day for the insult of
having to use a video assist, for the rest of the picture.'
"Well
they paid it and since that day whenever someone said that there
would be video assist on a camera that I was going to operate
my stock remark was 'One hundred dollars a day for the insult'
and if they didn't want to pay it I didn't work for them." Marsh concludes, "I guess what I'm trying
to say is that if the cameraman and/or the director doesn't trust
the operator's word on a shot and feels he needs a video monitor
so he can check on or correct him or if he himself is so unsure
of his ability to judge a take while it is being shot and has
to look at it over and over then he should either get a new operating
cameraman or quit because one of them does not belong in the
movie industry. It's a tool, not a crutch."
Sol Negrin, ASC ("Blood Rush") president
of International Photographers Local #644 has had an opinion
concerning video on the set since he first encountered it on
a commercial in 1982. "In some respects it's annoying because
agency people had their varied opinions in regard to the takes
and you shot footage more than necessary because of indecisions.
At least in theatrical or television narrative material it's
the director who makes the decision concerning performance."
Concerning the collaborative effort the DP
shares with the operator Negrin states, "If I know the operator
well and have worked with him often, I know I can rely on his
taste. Communication is essential to make certain that he is
following your ideas but I will also give allowance for his aesthetics.
I certainly will respect his decision for improvement or correction
for a scene made. If one can convince the director after he/she
approved the take that it could be done better then the attempt
should be made."
As to the use of color video playback on the
set Negrin replies, "I do not approve, because it give a
false illusion as to what you are photographing of the actual
scene. Psychologically disturbing since the video assist color
and the film image will be different. In commercials agency people
can easily be contaminated by this illusion."
Cinematographer
George Spiro Dibie, ASC ("Sister, Sister") president
of International Photographers Guild Local #659 adds, "Color
video assist is a useful tool if used for staging purposes only.
Some new producers tend to judge the quality of our lighting
by the video assist-which is wrong and dangerous." "In narrative films," Negrin states, "video
assist is a boon to the director for performance and concept.
For the DP he certainly gets a good idea of the framing and how
well the scene was executed. In commercials it has drawbacks
because several individuals may draw varied opinions of how the
framing of the scene should be. If your agency people are new
to the field insecurity is noticeable."
Dibie who first encountered the quad system
on "Barney Miller" in the 1980's felt compelled to
sit next to the director facing the action. "With my left
eye I watched the quad monitor and with my right eye I watched
the actors.
They felt our presence. They didn't look up into thin air to
talk to the director or cinematographer." Dibie concludes
by reflecting, "In the beginning I hated the system but
now I love it. It helps me to 'educate' producers/writers who
become new directors. The shots are there and what you see is
what you get (framing). I give my input to improve composition
and to protect coverage of the scene."
THE RENTAL HOUSES
Alan Albert, Executive Vice President at Clairmont
Camera remembers first sending out black and white tube type
video assists on their Arri BL-2 cameras around 1976. "Shortly
afterwards video taps for Arri-3 cameras were developed by John
Clap, CSC, Arriflex and Jergens Camera Service," recalls
Albert. "The first practical color video assist was around
1987-88. We now send video assist out on commercials 90-98% of
the time, TV movies and episodic 70-80% and theatricals hover
at about 50% with video." As to the choice between color
vs. black and white Albert estimates that 10% of Clairmont's
cameras go out with color taps, the majority being CCD type vs.
tube and that virtually all commercials now use color.
THROUGH THE VIEWFINDER
From another operator's viewpoint Paul Babin
remembers video as a staple of his existence since becoming a
film operator in 1984. "Prior to '84 I had worked for several
years as a video camera operator so the experience of someone
scrutinizing my work in real time was not new to me.
As I think back it's hard to remember which
shows have had video assist and which didn't. I think most of
them have. And my vagueness of memory points, I guess, to the
fact that video assist hasn't been all that intrusive. In those
few instances where directors or DPs have critiqued my framing
via the monitor it's usually been justified. In a couple of instances
weak directors with nothing better to do needed to establish
some authority and offered some patronizing suggestion based
on what they saw in the monitor. But again those have been seldom.
During Always, between takes or during set-ups, Spielberg
would catch me napping and suggest that if I framed the shot
the way it was at that moment, 'there would be hell to pay!'
In general I've found video assist to be a
helpful tool in communicating to the director, especially in
situations where you want to suggest a variation on an agreed
upon set-up or offer a new idea altogether. It's imperative for
the director of photography to know what he's lighting. It's
very easy to place the DP and director in front of the monitor
and execute the move so all are agreed-that's the shot!"
As recently as 1992 with director Peter Weir
on "Fearless," Babin and Director of Photography Allen
Daviau, ASC began production without video assist. Babin notes, "It
wasn't until we got into cramped practical locations and the
script supervisor was losing her mind trying to keep up that
we put on the tap. Weir is very committed to his actors and wanted
to be near camera when rolling. He's part of a dying breed."
Babin
adds with some chagrin, "I think a lot of us as operators
feel the consequences of the 'director in the next room' syndrome.
So often the actors yearn for feedback after a take. The nearest
human contact is often the operator. I think this separation
of directors from their actors caused by video is the worst consequence
brought on by the technology. Though I can appreciate how seductive
seeing the camera's view is during the take." Babin thinks that currently one of the best
uses of video technology is Jim Cameron's "VID-Stick," a
viewfinder which accepts Zeiss or Primo lenses with an attached
video tap and RF transmitter. Cameron holds the VID-Stick in
one hand and a Walkman TV/recorder in the other. "He lines
up his shot, records the lineup rehearsals which he operates
and hands the tape to the operator for a 'guide track.' This
works especially well for all the numerous Steadicam shots Cameron
employs in his movies."
Whether video assist and playback on the film
set is used as a tool or as a crutch or both during any given
day, chances are you will encounter it more often than not. With
the constant advances in technology that affect everybody's lives
every day and in every way we must learn how to make it work
for us whether we are camera operators, cinematographers, actors
or directors.
"In any case," Spielberg notes, "video
playback is not going anywhere and must remain an optional filmmaking
tool for the director."
Part I | Part
II | Part III Information from "The
Jerry Lewis Films" courtesy of Ted Okuda.
|
