That multiplied our motion control cameras to three, the first one being the Dykstraflex, which was used for Star Wars, and its sister camera which runs on the same information base, although it looks entirely different. It will repeat the same move that the other camera made, so that a matching background can be photographed on the second camera. This allows the main camera to go on shooting the more complex shots or those that require greater flexibility.
Meanwhile, the high-speed camera was being developed and worked on by Gene Whiteman and master movement wizard Jim Beaumonte. We knew the design of the movement would be capable of at least 100 fps, which we have achieved at this writing, but we are planning further modifications to some of the parts and the movement in order to make the camera run at perhaps 150 fps—if we are lucky.
This meant that we now had four cameras. Then Brian Johnson found five Technirama cameras in England and we have been systematically dragging those out, one at a time, and more or less retuning them and putting up-to-date electronic drive systems into them in order to increase the number of cameras that we have available, so that we can commit a camera to each shot.
The system that we have is capable of a very high rate of production in that we can program a shot in, say, 15 minutes, if it's a very simple shot. A really complex shot may take two hours to get the motion program down. Then, once that is done, we can photograph a black and white test, develop it in-house, and look at it immediately. If it looks good, then we go on with it. That is fine for the main type of production shots (which involve careening spaceships, in a lot of cases) or background paintings or miniature shots in one form or another.
The thing is that there are certain shots which require tweaking. Because they are R&D shots of a type that you haven't exactly done before, you are taking a chance. In order to do that kind of shot, you have to commit a camera to the shot for a period of time, and if you don't have enough cameras to commit to such shots, then you have to shoot the scene, give it your best shot, and go on. The more cameras we have to commit to shots, the less personnel we have to tie up on each set-up. One person can work from set-up to set-up. He can do a test on one set-up, while he moves on to another set-up and leaves the first camera where it is. This system enables us to try a greater variety of shots and spend more time on certain problems that require finessing. We'll have probably eight cameras before we are finished.
This brings me to the new VistaCruiser camera which we are now working on. It will have an 80-foot track, as opposed to the 42-foot track which we have now. It will have a longer boom arm, be a steadier camera and have a greater film capacity. It will also have a better video viewing system, a better follow-focus system and a better motion control system.
Our final vision (or our fantasy) is to make an electronic control system which will feed all of the cameras, including the printer, the Oxberry animation stand and all of the departments, so that the various pieces of equipment can "talk" to each other. For example, let's say that there is a shot which, because of limitations of space or the length of the track, you can't make as long as is needed. Then, you would either want the printer to continue moving back on it at the same rate the camera was going and maintain a similar trajectory, or you would want the Oxberry animation camera to continue on, or you would want the Oxberry to shoot the background—but the various pieces of equipment would all be speaking a common language. This means that we could move back and forth from department to department and thereby increase the scope of the type of work that we can do.
Actually the tracking camera we built for Star Wars is fairly primitive. At the time it was the best we could do, being pretty much under the gun, as we were—and we didn't have the success that we now have behind us. We were all learning, so we took the most conservative approach in terms of building the system. I think that was a really good move because, first of all, it worked when we plugged it in and we didn't have the heartaches of finding out that it wouldn't work. We knew that once we learned how to use the equipment, it would be much more of a sure thing—so there is a lot to be said for that approach when I lay back and talk about our "fantasy" system.
You have to work into a system like that slowly, a step at a time, because if it gets too complex, you will wind up with something that won't work unless it all works. We don't want to get into that position, because we all know that when you have a lot of components that are all prototypical, you're going to have problems and there are going to have to be people working out those problems all the time. So if you try to build the thing all at once to be the "ultimate" system, you will wind up failing. I think you have to go a step at a time.
The system that we have now is not a computer system. It's a solid core memory system, and the electronics very precisely remember what you've done in programming a shot. It's all done by humans and not by computers—which brings us to the subject of our philosophy of motion control.
I would say that there are two basic philosophies of motion control. One is the concept of letting it all be done by mathematics, or depending heavily on the mathematically-based move. The other concept allows the human being to program the move. When the mathematician programs the move, it comes out in a perfectly mathematical parabola. The shot is so perfect that it is not interesting. The trajectories are all perfect—and predictable. On the other hand, if you enter the human element into it—which is what you'd really prefer if you wanted the material you are photographing to have something of the look of a guy out there with a hand-held Arriflex shooting it—then you would have a certain suspense. It would be very peripheral; you wouldn't know why it was there—but you would know that the shot had not been done by a machine. Therefore, your material would have an effect that is altogether different from that of material that has been programmed mathematically. Not that there aren't certain cases in which you would want to use mathematically-based material. there are specific times when you do want to have that precise kind of control and it would be very agonizing to try to get the other way. But, in our operation, we tend to lean toward the human operator interface, rather than the mathematical interface. However, the new system that we are contemplating will be able to do both, and it will have an essentially unlimited number of channels.
[ continued on page 3 ]