Can you pull your own focus?

[combatentropy]

With the depth of field of Super 35 mm,
just how hard is it to work the camera completely by yourself?

Granted, I am not a soccer mom.
I'm like one of those kids in the Scarlet forum,
15 years later.
In school I made 40 short movies.
Afterward, I ran my own video production business
for four years.

I've always done everything myself.
The largest format that I have shot moving pictures with is 2/3".
And of course I've shot some 35mm stills
(which is even shallower than Super 35).

In fact, I never would have doubted
that I could keep on being a one-man crew,
even with Super 35 depth of field,
until someone raked me over the coals about it.

 

[peter roehsler]

you can pull your own focus, if you `learn´ your lens. do not use follow focus, use a lever. `learn´ the position of the lever for each distance by heart, train this and check focus every time after `guesstimating´ at the longest focal length of your zoom lens. (you will be surprised at the number of misses, btw.) stopping down the lens of course will give you extra depth of field. don´t rely on visual info only (efv or lcd) - get to know the lens. you could - somehow - manage to handle one lens reasonably well. if you change lenses, you may find it hard to use this technique, as they may have different positions (turns) for the same distance.

 

[Cail Young]

Coming from an EFP operating background I generally have no problem staying sharp if the end product is no higher than 720p. Once you get to 1080p/2K/4K critical focus steps out from behind simple downsampling sharpness and it's way more obvious if you're off by a bit.

This is handheld, by the way, if you're in a funky tripod situation you might have trouble pulling easily due to ergonomics.

 

[Shawn Booth]

Pulling focus is hard. Especially if your subject is moving. It's a skill, period.

The 1st AC allows the operator to focus on what they're doing.

 

[Mikael Lubtchansky]

I'd say it all depends of what you're shooting...
You can of course pull focus yourself on documentary style (looks like Jim - a real reduser-aholic - does agree it is doable most of the time) on short films, also when you're producing and shooting on your own film... As soon as you're in more challenging environement with talents etc it is quite delicate to ask for a new take everytime you missed the focus because lead role did or did not stop right in his mark.
A good focus puller is like a perfect auto-focus system, and much more

 

[Martin Weiss]

As a former focus puller, who now operates mostly without one, I would say it is just like with a soundman. When you have one, your pictures become better, because you can concentrate on your job, rather than doing somebody else's.

Of course you can help yourself a bit by choosing a somewhat conservative f-stop — with the added benefit that most lenses behave best when stopped down.

If shallow depth-of-field is crucial to your story, and you do not have the time for endless re-takes, then do spend some money on an experienced Focus Puller. They are worth their bits in gold.

 

[Andreas Höhn]

I believe its very hard

I believe its very hard

- pay attention to framing and pulling focus simultaneously
- focus with one eye the viewfinder image, with the other the subject to pull focus
- start the camera on Q
- pan + tilt
- listen to the director

I cannot, under no circumstances. I have stress just to thinking on that.
But iam not a Dop.

 

[Michael Brennan]

This subject has been covered here in depth to excuse the pun.

Depth of field wide open on 2/3 inch HD is hard enough to track focus, on longer lenses with subject more than 50ft away it is guesswork/craft/witchcraft =$$$$ if you get it right!

But 35mm format with a lens @ F2.8, with the subject or camera moving is more difficult. With one eye (presumably) in the viewfinder that leaves one eye to judge camera subject distance. Alternatively you can guess the distance the subject is moving through the viewfinder. If you are hand holding you can judge the distance you are moving.

Long lens is difficult as it is hard to judge how much subject is moving.
Remember that the audience will see the shot go soft before you since at the moment we only have 720p res viewfinder.


Regular use and harsh self criticism referring to a 4K image would improve above skills.

Perhaps a combination of the above inputs is what most doc cameramen use.

To state the obvious if you really want the full benefits of REDone @ 4K then the picture should be in focus.
Significant % of HD sports and even 35mm motion pictures have soft shots.
So a certain amount of fudge is allowed with current distribution and viewing resolutions, just make sure production team understand that if you or the subject is moving shot could be soft and without checking the shot back you can't be sure. I do this with HD if self pulling.



Mike Brennan

 

[diskojerk]

Accurate focus pulls while moving the camera can't really be achieved while simultaneously operating the camera. Timing camera moves with focus pulls requires a minimum of two people if you want to do it right. I was 2nd ACing on a shoot and we did a focus pull on a dolly through a doorway where we had to pass the baton so to speak in the middle of the shot as the camera went through the doorway.

If you're just racking focus between subjects in a fixed frame without a camera move and you absolutely can not find another person to help you, it wouldn't be unheard of to take your eye off the view finder and just pull focus. If your distances are measured accurately and marked then you should get a clean focus pull. Of course you won't be 100% sure until you see the footage, but you get the idea.

Hand held, forget it.

 

[Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock]

Stopped down on a tripod with a stationary subject, wide angle: Absolutly.

Wide open handheld with a moving subject, tele: Absolutly not.

(Especially because the Focus Overlay is no help with that)

Jochen

 

[Uli Plank]

Just as Jochen says.
But if you want to train yourself, definitely use a long lever. There's a good reason why fighter pilots for example use the clock as an indicator for direction (as in: "your enemy is approaching at 9 o'clock"): humans seem to have a better mental image for angular positions than just a number on a dial.

My two cents,

Uli

 

[Stephen Williams]

Wide open handheld with a moving subject, tele: Absolutly not.

Jochen

Hi,

It can sometimes work as it's so obvious where the focus actually is.

Stephen

 

[Lewis-M Soucy]

One has to have "tricks"... With smaller cams, in that situation where I didn't want to have the auto-focus "pumping", I'd set the lens really wide (wide=less focus incident) and set the focus manually to a certain distance. I'd just shoot like that, follow the subject at that distance, etc... My shots would always come pretty clean. I also did it with film cameras a few times and it did the joke...

 

[JD Holloway]

Hi,

It can sometimes work as it's so obvious where the focus actually is.

Stephen

Very good point. Often a stopped down lens is very difficult to find critical focus on without ruining a shot. It can seem like mush everywhere and you start hunting. Just make sure you hide your hunt with a camera/actor/prop move or its obvious.

-Projection size is critical. 720/1080/K whatever. What is your "relative" viewing distance/angle of output material. 10' off 40' screen/1 foot off 4 foot screen? Watch out!

-Certain lenses are much easier to focus at distance. Stills glass (manual) should be very difficult I think (although I think somebody should invent a "cammed" gear system. Berger mount may help by spreading out the distances electronically on the focus dial. Cine glass can do this physically with milled out barrels with variable pitch threading.

-Thank God for 24p frame motion blur. It hides focus like nobodies business. But you may have to land on a mark when actors land on theirs...and you cant be searching for focus at the mark or the shot is on the cutting room floor (or electronic equivalent).

-Whats your subject matter? Some subjects don't need or warrant technical perfection. Some are better "a little loose"; its a creative choice.

-Shoot Lots. Shoot Lots. Shoot Lots.

-"6 Ps" Proper Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance.

my 0.02$

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

I met a DP from NFL films that had a rifle scope (low power) rigged up to his 16mm high speed camera. He was in the endzone for the "qb throws the ball to the WR for the TD catch" shot you see in the NFL films. He could track the football all the way in and it was TACK SHARP.

 

[Steve Gibby]

I’ve been shooting extensively with RED ONE for almost eight months now – with a number of crew sizes, in multiple styles and genres, and with a wide array of lenses and accessories. I cast my vote along with those who voted in the category of: “If you’re experienced and alert, it’s doable most of the time”. Here’s why:

Convergence of shooting styles
With cameras like RED, there is a synthesis of shooting styles possible, and in fact being used in the real world. REDs technology is closely related to DSLR, moderately related to TV/video, and least related to film. Users of RED are now converging from all three of those backgrounds, and some people like me come from all three. With the technology being convergent, and the mix of people using RED being convergent, its no surprise that especially in non-union, mid to small crew productions, shooters with RED are free to push the camera and how they use it to modified paradigms. General categories of shooting style with RED may be traditional cine style, hybrid cine/EFP style, and EFP style. Traditional cine style will generally be using cine lenses, MB, FF, ACs, measuring tapes, hand held meters, etc. Hybrid cine/EFP style may be using various lens types (cine, 35mm still, B4), may or may not be using MB/FF/ACs, and may be using in-camera electronic aids for focus and exposure. EFP style will generally be using EFP lenses (but may also use cine, 35mm still), almost never a MB/FF/ACs. All these approaches to using RED ONE are valid, as are varying flavors and modifications between the general categories I listed. Whatever style most effectively achieves the images, and is also cost-effective (producer in me speaking now), is perfectly valid with RED.

Genres of Production and Focusing Needs
Except for some b-camera shooting, narrative cinema will almost always use a traditional crew, including an AC for pulling focus. But narrative cinema is but a narrow slice of the overall motion media production worldwide, and a commensurately narrow slice of the potential usage of RED ONE (and EPIC and Scarlet in the future). There is a vast universe of RED-capable production genres and sub-genres beyond narrative cinema. Even in narrative cinema, where shallow DOF gets a lot of press, and some newbies feel they have to use it on every shot, medium to deep DOF is used widely when shots and effectively telling the story call for it. Sidelight: a few nights ago on an HDTV movie channel I watched the multiple Oscar-winning film “The Sting” (1973 – Newman, Redford). There was not a single shallow DOF shot used in the entire movie – all DOF was medium to deep. And yet the telling of the story was very effective – witness the Oscars. Vast numbers of genres and individual productions shot on RED simply call for medium to deep DOF, and except for shallow DOF montage shots, use mostly apertures between f5.6 and F11 – where sight focusing by the shooter, using the EVF, LCD, 2x magnification, and false color, is in fact a very viable option - and in fact for many crew/genre situations may be the best focusing workflow choice.

Focusing with RED
Fact: the vast majority of productions worldwide each year are either Hybrid cine/EFP style or EFP style. Almost all of those productions are shot by sight focusers working either alone, or in medium to small non-union crews. I see some confusion on this thread about sight focusing. There are two types of focusing that fit that term: 1) An AC/focus puller, or single shooter visually estimating distance to the subject and focusing according to that estimate 2) A shooter or single operator using their eyesight to use electronic aids (EVF, LCD, or other monitor) and the focus aids (2x magnification, false color) in an electronic camera (like RED) to sight focus. Some shooters routinely use both methods of sight focusing. I am mostly a sight focuser, who works in medium to small crews, doing high profile international and national work. In almost eight months of heavy use of my RED cameras, I’ve found RED’s focus tools to be accurate and very quick and easy to use – even for very shallow DOF critical focus. Professional sight focusing with RED ONE is a reality folks. That’s not to cast doubt on others choice to go a more traditional way, with measuring tapes/lens scales/ACs, etc. If it fits their workflow and crew requirements, fine.

Reactive versus Anticipatory Focusing
Professional fast-action followers (sports, nature, etc.) who have good aptitude, who continually keep their skills sharpened, and have mastered the equipment they use, move largely from being reactive focusers, exposers, framers, and followers, to be much more anticipatory camera manipulators in near real time. In following fast action by yourself there is no time to think - you must anticipate and react very quickly to nail the shots. By the time you stop to think about a shot its already gone - along with the two or three quick shots that happened right after it. When you've shot fast moving subjects a lot which are very familiar to you, you develop a 6th sense in the back of your head about where the subject is going to move next. It has to be like automatic radar in order to have a high percentage of usable footage. Those same shooters must also have the skill sets to shoot many other styles besides action following for those projects: interviews, talent, creative b-roll with very shallow DOF, very good at hand held, etc. The challenges to shooting skills in these programs are both varied and intense.

Final Thoughts
I see the need at times, in certain genres, for the traditional film/cine style focusing methods - AC. tape measures, practiced scenes, hitting marks, etc. I'm not against that when it’s the best choice for what's being shot, and/or clients/execs are expecting to see that workflow. I have deep respect for the good DPs, cinematogaphers, and ACs I've worked with over the years who practice traditional methods. I use some of those methods myself frequently. But I don't hesitate to experiment with my shooting and incorporate sight focusing when I feel it works best for a project.

My point is to encourage people here to open their minds to maximize RED ONE's potential in terms of the diversity of ways to shoot with RED (and equipment setups) that enable acquiring good footage. The RED ONE camera combines DSLR, TV/Video and traditional film technology, so to me there is no reason we can't combine shooting techniques from all those industries when a project determines it is warranted.

 

[Joel Kaye]

I think Gibby's got the answer but I'll just add that with RED you can learn to ease a shot into focus once you learn how the focus assist lights things up.

For me, having someone else pull focus is preferable for some shots but not all all shots. I think I can be much more intimate and personal with some shots pulling my focus.

There was a recent podcast I heard where the crew was shooting RED the first time and they were shooting little kids (they couldn't plan the actor's motions). They ended up sight focusing via a monitor and the director thought they got better shots and it was easier to direct the AC.

To me it's just a step from there to focusing yourself in any situation where the ergonomics of the camera allows. BUT it's definitely an eye hand coordination drill. Practice.

I know this is going to sound trite - but since I just went through this I think it's a perfect metaphor. Recently I got a first person shooter video game. I hadn't played a video game in years. You have to use your left hand to move your character, run, jump, switch weapons, talk via voice over IP. You use your right hand to look up/down/left/right, you right click to bring up your gunsights and aim with your mouse. Your left hand, right hand, fingers and brain all are doing they're own thing. It's friggin' tough. But after maybe 100 hours of practice under pressure I could do all that stuff well and very fast (subconsciously).

When I first began I actually got killed 27 times in a row without killing anyone. If focus pulling was as tough as a video game I bet a lot of focus pullers would have given up. But tons of people are good at really complicated video games where things happen in 3D via a 2D interface. Just like focusing by eye. I personally don't think there's a need to learn to stand aside a camera to judge focus. That's a by product of how film cameras work. Focusing by eye is more accurate (on a digital camera like RED) and more intuitive IMHO. The more shallow the DOF the more obvious what's out of focus. That's easier than focusing a 24mm at 11 feet where it's a pretty subtle difference between what's sharp and isn't. But with RED's focus assist in the EVF you can see even that.

IF YOU HAVE GOOD EYE HAND COORDINATION you can do it if you put in the hours. Be your own judge. People who can't do it can't do it. But that doesn't mean no one can. A lot of people suck at table tennis and video games. They probably wouldn't be good focus pullers either.

 

[Alex Fostvedt]

I shoot different action sports, mostly mountainbiking, and a few snow sports when I can. I find that when a subject is coming at you at 40k it can be tough to not buzz here and there.
I had an idea on a recent shoot where I was pulling focus like a mad man. The idea was to attach a small ring on either side of the lens barrel. One ring is on the focus side of the lens, the part that turns, and the other on the static side of the lens that has the marker. The idea is to have a hard start and stop point between the two markers, two slide type brackets, that you could position as a marker. So you set up a shot, find your start focus, set your lens bracket stop, find your end focus mark, and set your end stop. You still have to pull focus through the shot, but at least you would not be going past your end mark, and you would be able to set your start mark after each take. This would be useful for camera people that do not have an AC. I think it would work for any setup shot, but it would be tough for any run and gun stuff, then you are back to using your eye and instincts.
Any companies out there that make a device like this?

 

[Rudi Herbert]

three things I want to add to this,

First, my original background is still photography, where you HAVE to focus by eye, and you have to do it through a pretty small viewfinder. I found myself shooting for large poster assingments, the kind you see 40 feet tall on the side of a building, where focus was critical, and as many others have said, eye focusing is not as difficult and elusive an art as might seem. But yes, there are times and situations, mostly studio/large cine style setups, where you'll need an AC to pull focus for you.

A while ago I had the privilege of working with a very talented and famous DP, who told me a couple of things that made a lot of sense. First, he said that focus racking as a tool to direct viewers' attention to different parts of the scene is one of the golden tricks of cinema, but it is a little overused today, far too many scenes where the dynamics of the action and the characters are fast and/or strong enough to dictate a logical, easy to follow rythm do not need as much focus changing as most directors seem intent on nowadays. Whatever happened to the Sergio Leone or even Orson Welles' movies, did you find it difficult to follow the story or the characters in those everything-in-sharp-focus classics?

Then, if you really have to do it, and your story really neccessitates the isolation/differentiation of characters against their backgrounds, do yourself a favor and use/design sets where you can stage your motion in a way that the charatcers always end up relatively far from the area to be blurred out and/or against a strong light source so that changing focus is very easy and almost intuitive. Look at all the interior scenes in the mansion in "Atonement" where most dialogues are shot with drastically short DOF, and how there's always a physical separation between the characters and the backgrounds, even in relatively small rooms. Remember, the more distance between the in-focus subject and the out-of-focus one the easier it is to pull a good focus rack. He claims it is far easier to re-arrange a set or stage a scene so that the focal plains are far enough from each other than to depend on an AC having to guesstimate focus, however good they are, while precariously hanging by the side of the camera, trying to match his movements to those of the operator and without much to go by. AC's are the most important people on the set, in that if they screw the focus, everybody else's jobs are ruined. So don't burden them with unneccessarily complex focus racks, switching focus by inches just to attain that much more "excellence"...

Lastly, he mentioned that most good DP's and AC's are too old fashioned for their own good and their understandable, but ilogical, resistance to technology becomes their worst enemy at times. He says that it is also the operator's job to check for focus, as he is the one looking through the viewfinder, NOT the AC, and that for this to happen better, the operator is beteer served by a nice, HD monitor than an optical viewfinder. He says he starts planning set ups with a viewfinder, but the minute the camera is powered up, he switches to an 8'' monitor and never looks back. He furthermore insists that his AC carry a second monitor from a shoulder harness they've made for him, thethered to the camera so that they both see the same thing at the same time. Lastly, they now use EXCLUSIVELY a remote FF system, where his AC is actually at a distance from the camera, and he can look at the scene from a different angle where ascertaining DOF is easier AND the operator can move easier. They rehearse the scenes carefully for every focus pull and have a numerical system where, for example, for short throws, he counts up to 5, and up to 10 for longer pulls, and as he goes "ok, and 1,2,3.....10" the AC racks the focus accordingly, at an agreed upon speed, from a distance. This DP swears by this technique and says he can't understand why most people still only use remote FF systems just for steadycam work and other complex stuff, where it can be used for everything...For what is worth, this French DP is really top notch and most of you have seen one or several of his films.

Hope this contributes something to this interesting topic,

 

[michael zaletel]

Better than books...

Better than books...

Gibby, Joelnet and Rubi (among others), thanks for the incredible dialog here. Real-life, real-world technical discussion by people out doing it for a living everyday. Better than any book. Thanks a million for taking the time.

-shooter