Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Cinetape.. Does anyone use these?

They are good for checking yourself when you're done pulling the focus mark but it's not like you can watch it and follow it while you're pulling otherwise you'd be late on the focus mark.

You pay 10k cause it's a cinema product that works in realtime. I recommend you go with a name the working man can trust: Stanley.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BDIRYC/ref=pd_cp_hi_title/104-6195090-1818314

Also, keep in mind the cinetape is only good with lenses that have reliable distance markings on them like some Arris or Cookes. Sort of useless with the Nikon mount my broke ass is gonna be using on my red one.

See if you can get Finner to post on this one, I bet he has the most experience with this item of anybody on here.
 
The similar Panavision product, Panatape, seems only useful as a "confirmation." Every AC I've ever seen still uses real tape measures. Not that this wouldn't be handy to have anyway. Wait, you're the guy that's gonna make all kinds of cool follow-focus stuff for NAB, so I guess you know all this stuff already. I wrote about a "dream" device on the other forum that I wish someone would invent. Lemme find it and I'll re-post it here.
 
Oh, I work in Burbank on that big network TV lot on Bob Hope Drive. So if you ever want someone to breathe over your shoulder on some product your prototyping, just give me a buzz!

818-535-4743
 
Re-posted from another forum (authored by me):

For those of us planning on using primes on our RED bodies, we won't have the luxury of pushing in to grab a focus . . . I know no one really uses that Panatape thingy, but I always wondered why someone couldn't develop some kind of optical spotting scope kinda thing, with a crosshair reticle, that had some kind of accurate-enough distance sensor (IR, etc.), that the AC could keep pointed at a particular point in space (e.g., an actor's eyeball). It could also have some kind of trigger to hold focus points and whatnot, for when something moved, but you still wanted to hold that mark. Of course, such a device would have to "know" where the image plane is by some method.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #6
Cool.. thanks for the info. I think I might take a stab at it. I'm trying to gauge whether I should do a laser range finder or a ultrasonic. The laser version would be nice because it would work through glass and have a long range. Ultrasonic ranging is actually easy, I could probably produce a decent system for 1/20th of the cinetape price. Price wise the laser solution is not the best.

Ralph, I had an idea similar to yours... I was thinking about making a triangulation system that would calculate the position of the focus puller relative to the camera.. when the focus puller paints a target (ie the actor), the system calculates the geometry between the actor, focus puller, and the camera then adjusts the focus accordingly. The problem with just getting the distance from the focus puller is that you still need to determine the distance from the focus puller to the image plane on the camera. Unfortunately the technology isn't there just yet... Most RF systems can locate objects to within a couple feet, the other options require a fair amount of infrastructure and just aren't viable due to setup time/cost. Some day :)
 
CVB said:
Cool.. thanks for the info. I think I might take a stab at it. I'm trying to gauge whether I should do a laser range finder or a ultrasonic. The laser version would be nice because it would work through glass and have a long range. Ultrasonic ranging is actually easy, I could probably produce a decent system for 1/20th of the cinetape price.
Click to expand...
Whatever sensing technology that has the most range, but with the "narrowest," most "selective" beam, and that can work in extremely bright light (e.g., daylight which is typically 5,000-10,000 footcandles). I know that IR doesn't do to well in high ambient light. I didn't know if lasers would work for two reasons: 1. Vision safety of the actor. 2. Visible to camera. If you can make something priced reasonably, we'll probably all buy one!
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #8
Those are two important points.. for realtime the laser would have to flicker between the frames so that the camera wouldn't see the dot... I think that is already patented by the guys that make the cinetape. There are IR lasers that work well in sunlight and are also eye-safe. The tricy part about laser range finding is the sensing side.. you need to have a pretty nasty opto-electric setup to get the reflected IR light and calculate the distance. Time for me to get a stanley laser range finder and do some reverse engineering..
 
i do

i do

i own one and its a great help pulling focus (i'm a focus puller).
specially with todays ways of filmmaking with moving cameras and free moving actors. ok, its an expensive toy, but it really works.
as for nobody using it.. watch carefully on making of bigger movies/tv-series.

greetz,
bart!
 
Curt, what if the focus pullers job was shifted from pulling focus, to having a touchscreen LCD, where the focus pullers job was to keep his finger on the subject.. and follow the subject with his finger.. The machine could use that point of focus to throw the beam and produce focus in real time ?
 
Yeah.. that would be awesome. Just have the laser/ultrasonic beam move to the indicated position on the LCD then get a reading and tell the motors/lens where to go. Man I wish I had more time or people to do this stuff :)
 
Shame you couldn't just plant an ultrasonic "bug" on the actor much like a lapel mic and have the lens ping the lapel every 10th of a second. Calculate round trip time and there you have your range.

You could then give the AC a little wheel with "A <-> B" for multiple frequencies and a deadman's switch to pass B and continue to C.

I say shame because I assume there is no way to get the accuracy at such short ranges anywhere close to tolerances necessary.

More problems would arise I imagine from delayed echoes etc...
 
This is the first I have seen of this thread. I have had the cinetape and panavisions version on quite a few shoots when I pulled focus. I really only pulled it out for car to car stuff (camera on a moving camera car shooting a hero picture car). Even then I rarely would look at it sometimes just for reference (there are always a lot of variables that screw these things up). The thing is I feel some people here think I was an old school traditional type focus puller which is just not even close to the correct assumption. I was always the youngest focus puller on bigger features and jobs up here and always was tech savy and had the latest tools available on my shoots. The thing is far more often then not technology takes longer and often bites you in the ass compared to the simple solution. K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid) is the best thing you can learn as any kind of movie technician. Not to say people don't do complicated things but after years of experience many complicated things become simple. I can not even begin to count the # of focus pullers I have seen show up for work one day and not be able to read that things are moving fast and because they have relied on high tech time consuming tools too much and can not keep up and are replaced the next day. There are 2 kinds of focus pullers 1. mechanical and 2. Zen.

1. mechanical: Works with lots of tools and tricks and need marks, laser pointers, cine tapes and every other thing they can come up with.

2. zen: often don't even pull out a tape measure just look and know distances and ready to shoot at any time. This type of focus puller usually know how to use all the tech tools but have run into problems with them in the past or don't really need them very much anymore.

I was a zen guy and just found I had better luck trusting my instincts. Now there are a lot of world class mechanical focus pullers and if it works for them great. The thing they both have in common is the simple tools are the most valuable to both of them such as a tape measure, a follow focus, a marking pencil or pen for the lens or the marking disc. I have never seen any focus pullers work without these items. Simple just saves your ass because if you are good at simple you can always get by and work fast and take advantage of more complex tools when you feel you have the time and they are needed. If you don't learn and get good at the basic simple stuff though you will never go very far.

There are really no short cuts or magic answers that will solve all the problems. Time and experience is what makes you good not the next best tool. Go ahead and ask David Mullen if he started with really complex tool heavy shots, I would bet he started simple and learned and moved up.

All this said there are times a cine tape tool is useful and they are way overpriced so one that works the same or better for less money will be popular. Just don't think you will be able to throw one on the camera and be a great focus puller, It just doesn't work that way.
 
acehole said:
Curt, what if the focus pullers job was shifted from pulling focus, to having a touchscreen LCD, where the focus pullers job was to keep his finger on the subject.. and follow the subject with his finger.. The machine could use that point of focus to throw the beam and produce focus in real time ?
Click to expand...

Sometimes the focal circle of confusion can be a soft nose and a sharp eye or if your off the it can be the reverse. You would need a large lcd screen to make sure your keeping focus on the eye. Also rack focusing and comfortable focus timing shifts would be tough with this.
 
I always wondered why there is no other company making an electronic tape. (ok, there is the laser based system by C-Motion, the cfinder: http://www.cmotion.eu/download/video/08-cfinder.mov ).

Arri, btw, had an ultrasonic tape, too (the "ultrasonic tape" or UTM, the name makes sense :-), which was integrated into the Arricam system as a module and was sort of two-component-based, with a sensor and a hand unit.
You can find a bit of info here: http://www.bobo.at/project/downloads/arricam.pdf or (a tiny bit hidden somewhere) here: http://www.arri.com/infodown/news/0009_e.pdf
But to unknown reasons it was pulled even before shipping more broadly.

There is definately a big demand for something like this, but like the others said, it's more of an assist.
 
Finner said:
K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid) is the best thing you can learn as any kind of movie technician. Not to say people don't do complicated things but after years of experience many complicated things become simple. I can not even begin to count the # of focus pullers I have seen show up for work one day and not be able to read that things are moving fast and because they have relied on high tech time consuming tools too much and can not keep up and are replaced the next day. There are 2 kinds of focus pullers 1. mechanical and 2. Zen.
Click to expand...

Hey Finner,

Thanks for elaborating so well. There was a similar thread started in a different forum and I tried to explain much of the same, but not being an AC I didn't articulate it quite so nicely.

A good friend of mine is Steadicam Op on "Rescue Me". They've been shooting a lot of Steadicam this season, and being the show it is, a lot of it takes place on very smoky, fiery, and dangerous sets. Few places is Zen more important than following a camera that's following a bunch of actors that's rushing through a collapsing building that's on fire.

As Finner stated, a good focus puller will have a very small set of simple and important tools. I just cannot ever imagine a piece of technology ever being faster than someone that's always ready to just go. No power up, no battery, no calibration. Just go.

I'm 100% in favor of advancements in technology. If something comes along that allows me to do my job faster with more accuracy, I'm buying it. But if there's ever even one situation that it cannot handle, and I'm left not knowing how to do it myself, it will be on eBay before the day is over.

If you have never seen it before, the look of collective rage that descends upon the faces of the crew when production gets held up because of a finicky piece of technology is chilling. God help you if you're the one in charge of that device.
 
I'm a bit late jumping in here it seems, but... Curt, if you're thinking of a range finder, go with laser. Ultrasonic is far less reliable and much harder to know just what your're targeting. The only drawback I see to the laser model would be using it with actors or even just using it at eye level. The last thing you will want to do is shine it in peoples' eyes. But the one thing cool with lasers is that the beam can be cycled on/off with the camera shutter interval if you connect it to the camera or a camera controller. So everyone on set can see the laser dot, but the camera does not.

Speaking of future products, how is that mattebox coming along? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top