OK, as the title suggests, I feel a bit dubious about foisting this on you guys, but I recently noticed that Bravo is running reruns of the first season of "The West Wing". I operated (conventional and Steadicam) for two months on the first season, and the episodes I worked on are re-airing this week. The schedule is available here (http://westwing.bewarne.com/extras/bravoschedule.html); the episodes I worked on are "In Excelsios Deo", "Lord John Marbury" and "He Shall, from Time to Time", as well as part of "Take out the Trash Day".

I haven't seen them in a long time, but I recall the beginning of "In Excelsios Deo" (which airs tomorrow, Tuesday) had a marathon Steadicam shot in front of the White House Christmas tree that required something like 35 takes--ugh!

Again, I'm not trying to blow my own horn, but I thought some of you might be interested in checking it out. It was an exceptionally challenging show to work on, certainly from a Steadicam perspective--oh, those endless hallway shots!--and if you have questions I'd be happy to answer as much as I can remember (it was three or four years ago now).

Your not blowing your own horn at all, heh.

The west wing is a big deal, thats a huge show, I'd be plugging that nonstop. You rock.

To be honest though, I don't like that show, there's just something about it.... I love pretty much all the other NBC shows though, Scrubs, ER....etc etc...

Charles,
I've never watched the series but will make a point of at least taping it. Thirty-five takes?! Can't you get anything right? <g> Seriously, though, that must have been a real killer. I'm in the midst of shooting something and recently had to run 9 takes of a scene with the camera on a tripod. By take 8 the actors began to flub lines and lose focus. By take 35 they probably wouldn't even have remembered how to get home. I can't imagine carrying a 60 lb rig for 35 takes. Do you recall how long it took to shoot that scene?

BTW, I read that Bravo is paying upwards of $1 mil. per episode for West Wing reruns. Apparently, that's a pretty big bet for a series that features running story lines rather than self-contained episodes.

Thanks Alex. "Scrubs" was the best experience of all of them, that's why I stayed for 2 years on that one (vs. 2 months on "West Wing", for instance).

Ken,

It's funny, I haven't watched "The West Wing" for the last couple of years, but I checked it out tonight to sort of refresh myself to the story lines that feed into the episodes in the next couple of days, and it hooks you right in. Aaron Sorkin's writing is not for everyone, it's definitely stylized a la David Mamet (in that the writing really colors the performances) but it has a rat-tat-tat rhythm that is unmistakably his.

As far as the multiple takes on that one shot, I recall that it had to do with nailing the actor's lines at very specific places in the move, which was one of those circling Steadicam deals. One actor in particular who shall remain nameless (but just happened to be in the "Brat Pack" back in the day) had a tendency to bust the take if he even hinted at flubbing his lines. Thus the many, many takes. I think it took about an hour and a half to get that shot, after a certain amount of rehearsing, lighting etc.

I wonder if thats why the Brat Pack guy couldn't get a raise?
Just speculation.

I never thought much of WW, but I will certainly try to look at your shots. Technically it was always well done.

Hi Charles,

I've never shot a scene using a Steadicam, and would love to hear some of your technique...specifically relating to pulling focus on difficult shots with a lot of motion.

Hi Jim,

Thankfully, the task of pulling focus falls entirely on the 1st assistant (camera assistant)'s lap. With conventional film operating, one is expected to report focus buzzes as seen through the eyepiece but it is a given that with Steadicam or another video-assist dependent operation (remote head, Doggiecam, etc.) the assistant alone is responsible for judging the accuracy of focus purely by feel, Zen mastery etc. It's an incredible skill, the ability to triangulate distances between camera and subject with serious accuracy. Again, since I'm not the one doing it (my focus pulling experience was a long time ago, and for a short time, and I wasn't all that great at it), there's not a whole lot for me to say about it.

Here's one thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13307&highlight=steadicam+focus) where I did touch on some techniques.

<<but it is a given that with Steadicam or another video-assist dependent operation (remote head, Doggiecam, etc.) the assistant alone is responsible for judging the accuracy of focus purely by feel, Zen mastery etc>>

Hey Charles...I guess that's what I was wondering. I'm assuming your shooting 35mm, and was wondering where the 1st assistant was during your moves...focusing remotely? What kind of reference monitoring?

Of course I visted the thread you included after I posted my last question. I'm shooting exclusively with the Mini35 setup on the XL1s. I've always been the irector, but have been having a lot of fun acting as the DP/camera guy this ast year. Of course dealing with the DOF issues is why i was asking originally. You touched on a few of my issues in that other thread...thanks.

One was the advantage of HD with both more inherent DOF as well as accurate field monitoring. I know that traditional video tap with a film camera won't do. That's where the Mini35 becomes such an interesting beast. You have the creative opprtunities of film DOF, but the ability to judge accurate focus with monitoring. Of course that all goes out the window with Steadicam type movement for the most part.

We do some bigger production work, but for the most part i like to keep it smaller for field production...often with just 3 or 4 of us. Sometimes 2. THat's the beauty of this setup...you can shoot and shoot with out the cost and logistical limitations of Film. For that reason I've just put together a new PVM 8045Q setup with David Riddles system so that I can have a real evaluation monitor on a stand with a real hood right there beside the camera in most instances.

Thanks for your input Charles

And one mre thing <g> In that thread you said:

<<I've seen decently lit material shot on an XL1 at 60i with the Mini 35, shooting with very shallow depth of field, and it still doesn't look like film (or even that impressive) to me.>>

I couldn't agree more. Before I invested in the Mini35 setup, I first rented one to test on a commercial shoot last summer, I did some test shots of this football spot shooting straight 60i and in Frame mode. The first thing my assistant (who's spent a good deal of time working in both commercial film and video) said when we looked at the footage back in the studio was that the 60i looked like really good video...nothing more.

He's a snob, and when the Mini35 Frame mode footage came up, he said..."when did we switch to a 35mm camera?"

Hi Jim.

I checked out that Riddle monitor setup at NAB but ultimately decided it wasn't for me...the only type of hood that I've found works in the harshest sunlight conditions is a diagonal Hoodman-type, any straight hood will end up reflecting your own image onto the screen which I find distracting. The work-around is to throw a piece of black fabric (duvateen) over yourself like an old-time plate photographer! Nevertheless, it's a smart system and good protection for the monitor. I have to come up with something for my Sony 8", I just keep carrying it around in the shipping box--ugh.

Regarding your question a while back about where does the assistant work from while pulling on a Steadicam shot; we use a sophisticated multi-channel wireless lens control system (here is the model I use (http://www.prestoncinema.com/products_FI+Z_bro.html)) that allows the assistant to work from alongside the camera to some distance away, useful for remote head crane shots. The Preston FI&Z is the benchmark system; it's so responsive it seems you actually have the follow focus knob in your hand, and it's bulletproof. And it's $20,000...! Oh well. There are other lower priced systems out there (here's one of them (http://www.bartechengineering.com/) that do the same sort of thing.

Thanks so much for the info on the lens control system Charles...exactly what I was looking for. And as far as the hood issue with the field monitor...yes, I agree, and this would make an excellent thread on it's own.

I was really attracted to the quick setup of the Riddle system and safety for a high end mointor in the field, especially using a baby 5/8 mount. it mkes it really easy to move the monitor along with the camera setups.

I alo agree about the duvateen 'tent" I think it's a basic and simple way to cover everything in a pinch under bright light. The other thing I like with the Riddle is having it on it's spring loaded tilt mount in the back of an Explorer with the tailgate down. It's a great shaded shaded environment with the 8045Q plugged into the cigarette lighter. In a lot of setups, this makes for a great little village with a couple of director chairs setup at monitor height.

I kind of regard you as our resident celebrity. It's funny, but I'd rather ask Owen Roizman, Dean Cundey, Lucien Ballard and/or William Fraker for fifteen minutes of their time over a cup of Turkish coffee to pick their brains about tradecraft rather than fill a book full of autographs from actors and directors. I'd MUCH rather be behind the camera and in the editing suite. Have you ever read any of Robert Rodriguez's empassioned interviews about HD 24p? It's enough to make you stick yourhead out of your tenement window a-la Peter Finch in "Network" and scream "I'm as mad as hell (at film) and I'm not gonna take it any more!" Right now, you couldn't GIVE me a brand spankin' new Arriflex 35. Please pass the Panasonic AG SDX900. Whenever I need a little motivation I just read yoruprevious posts, cousin Charles. Keep it up. In six years when I retire from my regular job, I just might come around begging you for an apprenticeship as tenth assistant cameraman/DP (You MUST try my coffee. That alone is reason enough to offer me the internship! HA!

Charles,

You da man!

I love the amazing steadicam work on "West Wing". I find the show tedious but often I watch just for the camera work. Really great stuff.

Rick

<<Have you ever read any of Robert Rodriguez's empassioned interviews about HD 24p? It's enough to make you stick yourhead out of your tenement window a-la Peter Finch in "Network" and scream "I'm as mad as hell (at film) and I'm not gonna take it any more!" Right now, you couldn't GIVE me a brand spankin' new Arriflex 35. Please pass the Panasonic AG SDX900.>>

Think of the world in a year or so when HDV is our new medium.

<<Wringing my hands with glee>> I feel evil welcoming the demise of film. I must admit, I am intimidated by film (having shot Super-8 as a lad) and completely angered at it's cost prohibitiveness for us middle class folks who aren't made of money. I mean, I don't want to hear that the new breed of people in digital video are lazy because they think they don't have to take the same care in setting up shots as with film. I say, hell, I relish the opportunity to set up involved and creative lighting scenarios and I will do so with complete confidence while watching it unfold on the monitor. Forgive me for not feeling like a true artisan by having the confidence to wait for the celluloid dailies. No thanks. I want to know what I have in "the can" as soon as I press the stop button on my XL1s.

Thanks Hugh and Rick.

Again, I only did two months on that show which resulted in something like 4 episodes before I moved on. There was a regular revolving door on that show the first season, seven operators came and went one after another for various reasons. A skilled eye can detect variations in the Steadicam work as a result...!

Regarding Rodriguez: he may be vocal and passionate, but that alone doesn't convince me that his is the gospel. Nobody else in the industry is as much of a control freak as he, covering as many as six key positions on his films. I barely have enough energy to do my own...! As soon as digital has the latitude of film and the format/hardware/data storage/cabling issues are worked out, I'll jump on that bandwagon.

Charles:

Three things. 1) I, too, used to live in Brookline, (1969 - 1970). The Beatles just came out with the song "Something" and I remember hearing that song and driving by the giant Citgo sign in Boston. I remember Coolidge corner and that huge ornate movie theatre caddy corner across the street from the pharmacy where I used to buy my Matchbox cars for .30 a piece. I remember the "Combat Zone" and "Bickford's". Wow. I attended S.S. Pierce (Pearce?) school. Is any of that still there?

2) I saw "Office Space" for the first time a few weeks ago and laughed my arse off. You were lucky to be part of that film crew. The dude who played the "slow guy" with the Coke bottle glasses stole the show and John McGinley is underused and unappreciated.

3) I saw "My Fellow Americans" on a cruise to Canada and I have to say, again, you were very lucky to be part of that. What is it like working with such (who appear to be, at least) cool actors?

Oh, I lookd you up on IMDB. Very impressive.

Hi Hugh:

We moved to Brookline a couple of years after you left.

Citgo sign in Kenmore Square--still there, I think it may have historic landmark status. You can still see it in the background of Sox games on TV.

Coolidge Corner is all spruced up, but the movie theater remains, and is still an indie house. Pierce School is still there; a new modern building was erected in the early 70's with open classrooms and other progressive ideas. I don't know if it's been reconfigured, I was last in there doing a shoot around '84.

As far as the movies, yeah, "Milton" was a great character. That's Stephen Root who was the station manager on "News Radio".

I only dayplayed on "My Fellow Americans", shooting second unit for the climax of the film where the two ex-presidents are riding on horseback across the White House lawn. Two stunt guys wearing blue hoods with reference marks were doing the riding (the hoods to allow for easier head replacement, which was more complicated then than now).

Fabulous. Thanks for the stroll down memory lane.

Sorry Hugh, I was rushed before, forgot a couple things.

S.S. Pierce was the name of the building in the middle of Coolidge Corner, here's a picture (http://www.town.brookline.ma.us/TownInformation/BrooklinePhotos/6.htm). They are also a liquor distributor. No connection to Pierce School, I believe.

The Combat Zone is, for all intents and purposes, gone. It was cleaned up over the past 15 years. Only one original strip club remains, although I heard another one opened recently. Boston has undergone quite the gentrification since the days you lived there!

Oh wow! Thanks for the pic! Hell, I forgot to mention the trolleys! It cost me a dime to ride the trolley from my apartment into Boston. Also, my mother took me to see Funny Girl at that ornate theatre. We sat in the balcony! I love Boston. I miss it. I've been back to visit a few times and as we speak, my partner and husband are in Cape Cod now for a week's vacation. She wants to move there something fierce. Just a little problem with money, not being a millionaire, and all that. Oh, and how does a Boston based cameraman get all of that fabulous Hollywood work?

Hey Charles...I didn't know you were a Boston boy. I was born and raised there, then moved to Cape Cod as a starving musician. Kristen and I just took the boys (both are into film making) down to Fenway for the Mariners game. I love Bean Town...even more so now that I can get there in 2 1/2 hours from my farm in Vermont <g>.

Farm in Vermont...sigh.

Hugh: I'm not based in Boston anymore. Been in LA for six years. I moved literally because a Boston based cameraman can't get all of that fabulous Hollywood work--unless you've already lived in LA and established yourself.

Farm in Vermont: <<TRIPLE SIGH>> I can imagine an ass-kicking studio in my own barn loft converted to my liking.

Charles, when in L.A. if you run into a screenwriting buddy of mine named Ken Copel (he wrote the screenplay "Two Guys Talking About Girls" which was changed to "At First Sight" starring Jonathan Silverman, Dan Cortese and R. Lee Ermey. Went right to video which is a shame because it was a wonderful movie) say hello to him from me. He's ultra pissed at me now because I missed his wedding. Stopped talking to me. I'm giving him some cool down time. ha ha ha. The chances of you running into him are probably slim to none but you never know because he can give a pitch at almost any studio and you seem to get alot of work. He's a fabulous writer. Wants to direct. Anyway, with all the synchronicity flying about in that town, you just might run into him.

By the by, I also own an XL1s and it's interesting to know that a cameraman of your caliber owns and uses one. Says something about the product. I'm about to supplement my camera with the Panasonic AG DVX100 for wedding work. Any thoughts?

Well, I like a lot of things about the Panasonic. It's a nice little package and offers a lot for the money. I still think the XL1 has the skin tone rendition to beat though.

I used the DVX100 for one of my Instant Films, seen here (http://www.instantfilms.tv/archivenew4.htm), specifically "Hollywood and Valentine". "Fill" was another film on that page made with that camera.

I liked it, although not so much that I felt compelled to run out and buy one. After shooting a PSA last weekend with the Mini 35 on the XL1, I'm even more sure of that! (and I'm of the mind, as are others, that the Mini 35 version for the DVX100 has a serious issue optically, that the image has to travel through the DVX's own lens, although I'll be interested in the results).

Thanks