Follow Focus recommendations appreciated

[Michael Hardwick]

Anyone remember the Panavision 2-Speed follow focus unit? Outside bezel geared for big end to end pulls, the inside wheel geared for fine focus adjustments.

Still holds a fond place in my heart....

 

[Clint Lealos]

Alexander pretty much described exactly what happened the first time we pulled out the CFF-1... ACs fiddled for 3 minutes and then pulled out the FF-4 (we had both on set). They said there were too many adjustment knobs and they got in the way. Once I showed them how to use the CFF-1 (after the shoot in private) and all the configurations it was capable of, they gave it another chance.

I think the important lesson I learned is nobody want's to look ignorant on set. As long as you give people a chance to learn the gear before the shoot they will embrace it. If you surprise them with new equipment in front of their peers they will most likely complain and reject it immediately, so they don't look foolish. Its human nature. I learned that lesson the hard way and the CFF-1 paid the penalty for it. Thankfully, the ACs have grown to appreciate the CFF-1, but I'd be lying if I said they preferred it over the FF-4 Like I said, both top notch units.

 

[Jim Elias]

Hey Jim,

My preference is your Cff-1. But I currently have the good old Willytech. (If anyone is not familiar with these they are extremely modular and robust.) I had a funny thought the other day and wondered if the drive module for the Willy would slid on to the bridge of the Cff-1 making a sort of a light weight Franken focus?

Sorry Yaque, it won't work. The two dovetails were designed around different spatial requirements. For example, the Willytec dimensions were fine-tickled down to the point where it could squash into the narrow space resulting from using an old T2.1 standard speed on a camera with a large mirror-shutter, while at the same time allowing for enough room for the matte box. Not really relevant at the current time, whereas getting low to allow for some of today's big lenses (CFF-1) is relevant and presumably will become more relevant as the goalposts keep on moving forward regarding glass. So the two dovetails "save space" in different directions, and thus aren't compatible.

Anyone remember the Panavision 2-Speed follow focus unit? Outside bezel geared for big end to end pulls, the inside wheel geared for fine focus adjustments.

Still holds a fond place in my heart....

Ha! During the whole time I've been following this thread, I've been thinking of PV follow-focus units. For much of the period when I was working in production, PV was considered perfect engineering and any FF that was mounted on rods or (horrors!) had that little swing arm was considered fiddly and good cause for getting into a bad mood in general. ...acceptance changes with the times.

Alexander pretty much described exactly what happened the first time we pulled out the CFF-1... ACs fiddled for 3 minutes and then pulled out the FF-4 (we had both on set). They said there were too many adjustment knobs and they got in the way. Once I showed them how to use the CFF-1 (after the shoot in private) and all the configurations it was capable of, they gave it another chance.

I think the important lesson I learned is nobody want's to look ignorant on set. As long as you give people a chance to learn the gear before the shoot they will embrace it. If you surprise them with new equipment in front of their peers they will most likely complain and reject it immediately, so they don't look foolish. Its human nature. I learned that lesson the hard way and the CFF-1 paid the penalty for it. Thankfully, the ACs have grown to appreciate the CFF-1, but I'd be lying if I said they preferred it over the FF-4 Like I said, both top notch units.

Yes, that can happen in the proverbial heat of battle -- new gear has to be learned, no matter what it is. We knew this going into the CFF-1 project and expected it was going to take time, but had a good feeling it was going to be worth it after enough units got out there. Progress can be slowed down, but it can't be frozen as long as you can make a commitment to be in for the long haul There are legendary stories of how skeptical operators and rental house managers didn't want to touch the 25/75 fluid head when it first appeared, and I think that today, most would be hard-pressed to even imagine such a thing.

Big thanks to all CFF-1 users and fans in this thread, it's great feedback.

 

[Tim Naylor]

Ha haa No not rugged indie guy... poor indie guy. You should truly pity the choices I have to make.

And in low budget indie films its still common to throw extra time at a problem to save money. That comes in many forms.

Back to the O'Con versus the FF4... neither of which are cheap.

I know the FF4 is standard common and simple.

I know the O'Con is more complicated.

My argument is simply that if you can make any given shot with the FF4, you can also do so with the O'Con. Operationally the difference is negligible

I even agree with the ACs, using the O'Con would certainly have cost you 15 minutes the first day.

With a good 1AC and a positive attitude towards learning and new tech it would cost you 0 minutes the next day- and for the rest of the O'Con and AC's lives. After all 99% of the time it will work to exactly replace an FF4, so once you figure out how to best set it up to do that job... there is nothing else to learn to keep your day on track.

Look, the O'Con FF might genuinely suck balls. If they had tried the thing and it just failed them, I'd be OK with that... but that isn't what happened is it?

These 1ACs show up see new gear fiddle for a few minutes and pitch the "standard gear please" fit. I don't see you explaining how they gave the thing a fair shake. I don't see an eagerness to learn on their part.

I don't have shares in O'Connor, so I don't really care. Its the attitude that I am not happy with.

As a professional I'm happy to pay both cash AND time to learn a piece of gear that might help me. I think most of us are agreed that the O'Con CFF-1 fits that bill.

As an employer, I'm happy to pay for people that have the same attitude.

Including giving them 15 minutes over a 600 minute day to learn a piece of gear.

Let me put that differently... I should'nt have to "force" any member of my crew to learn job related things.

Would this qualify as a fair shake: three 12-14 hour days with about 20-30 lens changes a day (with an additional test day)? I can also personally attest to their exemplary attitude and eagerness to learn when it comes to new gear. Assuming you've worked with them, how could you miss it? After all they know my RED better than I do. Far from Luddites, we press new gear upon them all the time without complaint.

Considering you've used both FF's, how did you find using the O'Connor in cold weather compared to the FF4? Did you find the O'Connor any more difficult in terms of switching to the dumb side? Did you find any of the knobs too small or crowded for large hands? Based on your 1st hand experience, where do you think the OC FF1 can be improved?

 

[Jim Elias]

Did you find the O'Connor any more difficult in terms of switching to the dumb side? Did you find any of the knobs too small or crowded for large hands?

I don't know how you had it set up, but for everyday situations where space is not at a premium, we usually recommend using the handwheel extension tubes. The handwheels have short throats so that you can get very small and narrow with the FF if you need to, but by adding the extensions, you can bring the handwheel locks farther outboard and away from other elements. Especially when wearing gloves, many CFF-1 users just leave one extension each on both sides of the main bridge and can thus have more grab space when orienting their handwheels to suit.

The CFF-1 handwheel drive couplings have tapered flanks to eliminate backlash, so you can use as many extensions as you wish without adding any slop, in contrast to couplings with straight flanks where there is always some noticeable "rock and roll" between linkages.

 

[D Fuller]

Alexander pretty much described exactly what happened the first time we pulled out the CFF-1... ACs fiddled for 3 minutes and then pulled out the FF-4 (we had both on set). They said there were too many adjustment knobs and they got in the way. Once I showed them how to use the CFF-1 (after the shoot in private) and all the configurations it was capable of, they gave it another chance.

I think the important lesson I learned is nobody want's to look ignorant on set. As long as you give people a chance to learn the gear before the shoot they will embrace it. If you surprise them with new equipment in front of their peers they will most likely complain and reject it immediately, so they don't look foolish. Its human nature. I learned that lesson the hard way and the CFF-1 paid the penalty for it. Thankfully, the ACs have grown to appreciate the CFF-1, but I'd be lying if I said they preferred it over the FF-4 Like I said, both top notch units.

This is really true in a lot of areas on a set these days. There is a lot of new gear that can make people look stupid if they don't get the time to learn it before the shoot day. From the Red camera to a Teradek Cube to a CFF-1 we've really got to factor that learning time into our prep schedules. If we do, we can work miracles. If we don't everybody looks bad and gets grumpy.

 

[Clint Lealos]

This is really true in a lot of areas on a set these days. There is a lot of new gear that can make people look stupid if they don't get the time to learn it before the shoot day. From the Red camera to a Teradek Cube to a CFF-1 we've really got to factor that learning time into our prep schedules. If we do, we can work miracles. If we don't everybody looks bad and gets grumpy.

Its funny you mentioned the Teradek Cube. We did extensive testing and prep with the Teradek because of the lessons learned with the CFF-1. Everyone on the set from the director to the client was floored at the technology, and our guys felt good about it. They knew exactly how it worked and they looked like magicians running around setting up people's laptop's to receive the Teradek video feed. It helps when you have good ACs and DITs like we do

 

[paul engstrom]

Its funny you mentioned the Teradek Cube. We did extensive testing and prep with the Teradek because of the lessons learned with the CFF-1. Everyone on the set from the director to the client was floored at the technology, and our guys felt good about it. They knew exactly how it worked and they looked like magicians running around setting up people's laptop's to receive the Teradek video feed. It helps when you have good ACs and DITs like we do

Well said on this -- I've found a little extra time with people the day before is going a long way. This is a big point you've made.

 

[Paul Duvilla]

Just a tip if your on a really really tight budget you can get bye with mounting a k'nex motor and rubber band on your rig. Itll work just as good as most follow focuses.

 

[HD Hildebrand]

I've been going back and forth on getting the Arri MFF1, the Chrosziel 206-01 and the Cinevate for Nikon lenses. Anyone know of a solutions to get a 1:1 ratio on either the Arri MFF1 or the Chrosziel 206-01 like the Cinevate can?

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I'll second Alexander's Cinevate's Durus recommendation. Solid and well priced.

Also light, and just "feels right".

 

[Yaque Silva-Doyle]

I am thinking of selling my Willytec and getting an Cff-1. If anyone is interested let me know. It is a studio 15mm version with a single sided handheld bracket.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Would this qualify as a fair shake: three 12-14 hour days with about 20-30 lens changes a day (with an additional test day)? I can also personally attest to their exemplary attitude and eagerness to learn when it comes to new gear. Assuming you've worked with them, how could you miss it? After all they know my RED better than I do. Far from Luddites, we press new gear upon them all the time without complaint.

Considering you've used both FF's, how did you find using the O'Connor in cold weather compared to the FF4? Did you find the O'Connor any more difficult in terms of switching to the dumb side? Did you find any of the knobs too small or crowded for large hands? Based on your 1st hand experience, where do you think the OC FF1 can be improved?

Fair enough.

I got the wrong idea, and I apologize to your ACs.

I haven't been that lucky with the 600 members I've worked with to date.

 

[Kar Wai Ng]

From the perspective of an AC, although I really like the FF4 and happily use it regularly, I do miss the focus knob design of the FF3. If I have the ability to request the FF3 on a job and there are no clearance issues with lenses, then it's something I strongly consider. I like how on the FF3 focus knobs there is a protruding knob screw that indicates the witness mark, because it provides a tactile 'stop' for your fingers. Like when doing a pull for dialogue, or an actor leaning forward etc, you can overhang your index and middle finger over the edge of the wheel, using your fingers as the hard mark boundaries for the range of motion as you pull. Allows you to keep your eyes on the action a greater percentage of the time. With the FF4, I usually keep the speed crank on to give me back that reference for absolute positioning (11 o'clock, 3 o'clock, etc). I guess the FF4 could be easily modified by adding a little protrusion where the witness mark is.

I've never used the O'connor FF before, but I like that the same fundamental focus knob design from the FF3 has been brought back.

 

[Tim Naylor]

Fair enough.

I got the wrong idea, and I apologize to your ACs.

I haven't been that lucky with the 600 members I've worked with to date.

Don't recall mentioning anyone's union affiliation?

 

[sander kamp]

I don't know how you had it set up, but for everyday situations where space is not at a premium, we usually recommend using the handwheel extension tubes.

Hi Jim,

I just received my CFF-1 yesterday. First I would like to say: what an amazing piece of machinery! Beautifully made, really.

That said, I can see where potentially there could be a problem. I think it is mostly the hand wheel attachment that is in a tight spot and the way it is set up it means you can rotate the lever only 180 degrees before you hit something. Wouldn't it be a good idea to make the screws a bit longer/higher so the levers clear the way and can rotate 360 degrees and you can leave it tightened where you want? Not sure if that is clear...

Another thing is that on the O'Connor website is shows that you can attach the wheel directly to the main unit, without the arm. Unless I am doing something wrong there is just no way that will work.

 

[Eric J. Johnston]

Thanks Sander,

We appreciate your support. The lock levers are an 18 position ratcheting design. As Jim pointed out the use of a handwheel extension would alleviate this issue.

Regarding the website picture where the focus gear is attached directly to the drive housing that was put up in error. It was a concept picture for the O-Focus Mini that was taken at the same time we did the photography for the CFF-1.

Why will the O-Focus be able to do this why the CFF-1 can not? The CFF-1 has larger bearings to handle heavy cine torque loads at the higher output speeds necessary for long throw lenses, with the offset load of a massive stretch resistant belt (the most stretch resistant ever used in a follow focus) to support in addition. These bearings are bigger than the drive gear.

The O-Focus Mini has smaller bearings, as it is primarily intended to work with short-throw, low torque lenses. The gear fits directly on the O-Focus mini because it was designed to without the use of a swing arm.

My apologies for the confusion this caused and the picture is now removed from our website.

 

[sander kamp]

We appreciate your support. The lock levers are an 18 position ratcheting design. As Jim pointed out the use of a handwheel extension would alleviate this issue.

Regarding the website picture where the focus gear is attached directly to the drive housing that was put up in error. It was a concept picture for the O-Focus Mini that was taken at the same time we did the photography for the CFF-1

Hi Eric,

Thanks for tuning in!

I have to disagree that the extension is the solution though. First of all it should just work without extension. Second, adding the extension takes time too and the extension has the same levers as the wheel and so some of the same problems. And third, even with the extension the lock lever of the hand wheel still can't turn 360 degrees without hitting the shaft. It is better with the extension but not there yet. I understand that you can lift the levers and put them anywhere you want but it takes more time then just turning something.

Would it be really difficult to make levers with a bit longer shaft so they clear the whole way? I do think it would make a big difference.

 

[Tim Naylor]

Sander, you summed up some of the issues we were having, colliding and ratcheting knobs. We now use an FF4. No ratcheting since the knobs require 1/4 turn. Nothing impedes another knob. AC's are loving the fast/simple operation.

 

[Ben Graham]

One of the biggest keys to a successful shoot is to prep, prep and test your gear in advance. If we had more clients like you Tim we would definitely stock the FF4 but the Chrosziel has proven very durable. I am eager to see how the CFF-1 could fit into our inventory but we would need to test in advance with our clients. Seeing as there is none in China, Arri might be an easier approach.