Tom - I agree with the sentiment, but have you seen the new Star Trek movie? It is filled with all kinds of intentional flare. As I mentioned above, Abrams was very keen on this and didn't want to do any of it in post because it wouldn't be "organic" enough. He insisted shooting anamorphic and on film.

In the BTS footage you see them shooting on the Enterprise bridge with no mattebox and two crew members just outside the frame shining lights right into the lens. He also personally hugged the camera and shook it around for every scene in a spaceship. It's a riot to watch him do that to the steadicam guy.

I could have done without all this myself, but... maybe that's more of a subject for the "how to tell if you're an old fart" thread.

Amen, brother! Not a fan of flares or shaky cam myself. Every time I see shaky cam, I think of watching the ORIGINAL Star Trek as a child and actually asking my parents why people were throwing themselves at the walls. The OPPOSITE walls...

BTW, I'm 38.

At least one of the standard Canon 2/3" zooms does a terrible double image of any bright light sources when being used at the longer focal lengths.

EXACTLY my point Charles!

You have 5 actors walking down a hallway (cave, tunnel, etc., take your pick) holding flashlights. Now in reality, probably no one would be waving those flashlight all around, but purely for its dramatic effect, I will have them moving them around rapidly and aimed at the lens, sometimes even adding a bit of very light fog to the scene so the light beams stand out as well.

I usually balance out the headlights to achieve an audience comfortable natural look (streaks and tips, etc.), but HID lights are sometimes a real pain to work with, and I usually shoot the lens bare.

BTW, that car headlight scene that Haskell shot with the Canons was a dramatic/suspense scene of a car going up or down a hill (forget which). The camera was on the car (in master and CU's at the curves) a lot. So it was sort of a story point.

My wife hates that shaky cam work that is so popular today, but it can sometimes be used to great effect. A camera is just a tool, it's how you use it that can can add impact to a scene.

Besides the Steadicam, I have a couple of tricked out Figs (one that rotates on a ball bearing race that I can fly with), plus some other trick odds and ends. The point is, that when the director asks "can you do this?", I like to say, "I can try".

Its all about getting the shot.

Are you sure Haskell used Canon still lenses?
I pretty much copied his personal kit years back, and used Canon K35 lenses with my Eclair.

Thanks for the great discussion. I usually hang out at DVX user... and I have been researching a prosumer Rig for my canon 7D for at Least 5 Weeks! I really wanted to get everything for $1000, and so I was really tempted to buy the proaim, follow focus, mattebox, kit... But the Redrock stuff is just so great looking.

Anyway. I think my decision is spend $1000 on a support system, likely the eyespy standard. Which will still work well in 5 years and have a re-sale value. Then wait on the mattbox UNTIL I can afford $700 for the redrock mattebox. Screw the follow focus. you can easily make a $1 solution each for each lens.

I already dropped $3500 on camera and 4 lenses.

Which is only true in some situations, but entirely untrue in others. Try to film without UV filters at higher altitudes or without polarizer on water or snow. And no, you can't fix it in the post. I have seen cameras being knocked down during the events, going lens first. BTW, the same dust which gets on filters will get on lenses equally degrading the image.

Robert, you're right to say, 'BTW, the same dust which gets on filters will get on lenses' but wrong to say, ' equally degrading the image.'

It's the fact that you've added two more (imperfect) air to glass surfaces and placed this in front of the lens and then shot at very short focal lengths that is the cause of much more flare damage. If you're shooting wide-angle with a 5D2 then 28 mm is quite a long focal length. But the same field of view on a typical camcorder is a minuscule 4 mm, and it's the huge dof at these focal lengths that causes the problems. That and the difficulty in effectively hooding the new front element.

I'm so pleased Sony and Canon have abandoned the VAP OIS in favour of internal vibrating elements. That vari-angle prism always held filters even further away from the front element, never a good thing.

tom.

David, I can't be entirely sure about anything that happed 20+ years ago :)

This was about the time Canon came out with their multi-coated line of still camera lenses, and as I remember it, Haskell had a couple of the MC high speeds adapted. Since they didn't seems to work out, I believe he just abandoned that whole idea.

Just my 2 cents on the matte box issue; I have a small Pelican case FULL of round Tiffen filters that rarely got used with exception to the polarizer (that always vignettes). I used these with my 3-CCD Sony broadcast camera, and now that I've purchased a new PMW-350, I'm afraid these are now worthless with the new Fuji lens.

A new matte box will, I assume, necessitate spending more money on glass filters to fit. However, I do tend to shoot an awful lot by myself, and it would be nice to have flags at the lens to quickly reduce or eliminate flares....that for me would be where I would get the most use....but I don't know if it's worth 3 thousand dollars. I also dislike having to put a lot of stuff all over my camera as 9 times out of 10, it just gets in the way.

There is a film camera rental place here in Houston and I could rent a matte box if the shoot required one. I guess I'll just put it on my wish list. I'd rather spend that money on a NanoFlash first.

I'm also the type that if the difference between a cheap matte box that is frustrating to use and a good one such as Arri is a thousand dollars, I'll pay the extra bucks. As far as "cool" appearance goes, I always revert back to the saying "need to have vs. nice to have" when considering anything for my camera system.

Patrick