All Activity

they are compensating overtime just like that when using the "periodic work" model: you do one hour of overtime, you get one hour off. If you still have some overtime hours left at the end of the month (when the period ends) THEN they have to actually pay for it. Otherwise it is just "free extra work". They have adopted this model from other industries and it does not work that well for film/tv-series shoots but it is cheaper for the production companies so they just use it anyway. Previously they had to pay 50% more for the first overtime hours over the 8hrs day. Then 100% more for the next hours. And 200% for the last ones until one could not legally add any more overtime hours to a single day and you had to wrap. With this old model the director often got a talking to if the day went over 11 or 12 hours because it was so expensive for the prod company. Then things improved in the following days to prevent the budget going over. So it was a self regulating system but did not work on high budget shoots where there WAS money to pay for the ridiculous overtime expenses... or for the shoots where overtime was not paid for at all like the music videos and some commercials. It is more of that one does not want to abandon one's friends in the middle of the shoot just for the working hours going over to a limit. Then your friend would be even more screwed and would take even longer for them to get home. So it is more of helping out your friends when the production screwed something up or there was just "bad luck" for the day going over the planned hours.

oh, and travel hours to work and back are in almost all cases your own time here. Not paid, not taken into account when calculating if you have time to sleep or not. Driving to the set and back takes always at least 1.5 hours or 2 hours per day, every day. I still like our local model more than the Mexican one where it seems you'll start to wrap only when you run out of money for that shooting day and after that you might actually go to the bar instead of going to your room to sleep because you will be so tired anyway that the sleep would not help much anyway at that point . Well, we do most music videos and commercials here with the similar attitude so it is not a "Mexican thing" , more of a case where no one wants to admit that the day has been too long and now we really really need to wrap... no more extra shots even when the director still has 200 extra shots on his list! Didn't most the Hollywood films get made like this just recently before the Unions kicked in? the producers clearly miss those old days where no one went home until the budget was done for the day

I don't, in principle, object to overtime being compensated with time off in lieu, so long as the time off in lieu is longer than the overtime worked. For a long time in the UK it's been normal for conventional employers (not the film industry) to use this approach but with the time off being of the same duration as the overtime. That means you're essentially being paid overtime at 1.0, which isn't really the idea of overtime. Film and TV crews might be one of very few employee groups in the UK to actually get paid overtime. I do understand the logic of shooting long days; setting up that day costs enough that overtime to get the most out of it becomes worth paying. My view is that there is some sanity in it, it's sometimes OK on short projects like music videos and short films but naturally we don't want to encourage anyone to endlessly work 14 hour days, 6 days a week on longer projects.

here it is common to do 10 hour shooting days (8 hours + 2hours overtime per day. the prod companies can't afford paying more overtime in most productions) and most tv-series have transferred to 8-hour days but with a "periodic work hours" model where overtime is not compensated but instead the next shooting day might be a bit shorter or at the end of the month you get more days off to compensate the extra hours. This "periodic model" is because the production companies don't want to pay for overtime but want to have the possibility to get people work a half hours or a hour extra every day if needed. They risk the whole crew getting angry (they generally will every time the shooting day goes over 8 hours) but no one has left their job yet because of this free overtime work so the production companies are happy. The length of the shooting day does not necessarily reflect the real work hours of all the individual workers. In one production the shooting days were about 12 hours generally but my real work hours were about 21 to 23 hours a day, 6 days a week and at the 7th day I had to do some maintenance work which was "only" an 8 hours day so no days off at all. I got paid for only the 12 hours which were on the callsheet and got a lot of nasty health problems because of that shoot

Not necessarily. Nonunion crews regularly stay late until the job is done without compensation. Most of us went into this game because it tickled us, and the youngest, least-experienced people, the least likely to be in the union, are the most likely to still feel that way.

Hey, I was wondering if anyone here has any experience hiring PTZ ops or work as a PTZ op. I'm interested to know what the daily rate on average for a PTZ op would be in NYC or LA. I thinking in terms of big network shows like The Bachelor, Jersey Shore etc... That incorporate like 20 robo cams in a house. How much would the operator make a day? I know that there are alot of ENG camera operators that say they don't go below $600/12 for a day of shooting. Is it the same for a robo op, more/less? Thanks!

This problem would be much more easily solved if you wipe out monetary incentives for overtime. No overtime, nobody will stay. Then it's really a non-issue.

The conversion was done by Bernie O'Doherty at Super 16, inc. Here is some test footage -- nothing has been done to the footage -- processed by Cinelab in New Bedford: https://vimeo.com/616079690 P

Some signs of usage on the gearing, but otherwise excellent condition. Glass is very clean and clear or marks etc

Some images of the CP Ultra T 16mm lens

Location Location !!! If you would like to shoot in Budapest ( Hungary ) see the beautiful images you can get back 30% from the government so every 100USD what you spend it is 30% cheaper here . Pls let me know if you are interested in

To put my accustomed hat on, it's worth bearing in mind that whatever's being suffered by union members is generally being suffered even more severely by non-union people. Most of them will be underpaid, inexperienced, and lacking the confidence and security of employment to adequately defend themselves. The fact that many people working on the extreme low end may never become full-time, high-end film industry employees, and therefore may never join the union, is irrelevant here; it's possible to fall asleep at the wheel going home form a student short too and I know people to whom it has happened. The fact that they're here to tell me about it based on nothing more than blind luck. I have no position on the IATSE strike vote as I don't know nearly enough about it to form an opinion, but as ever my thoughts turn to the much larger group of people who will be outright denied help by unions. P

Greg, well said. I support our union and will also vote as needed. I do not take this lightly as many brothers and sisters will suffer real financial hardship if a strike is called. Nothing will change if we do not stick together and make it better. Neal Norton Local 600 member

It's very sad indeed if as Tyler says, 15/70 projection is now dead. A 54 year lifespan isn't bad, though I'm sure many devotees like myself would still support the cost of providing those mammoth rolls of film. I think Simon mentioned: unlike 35mm there haven't been any monochrome Imax's during this time. I wonder why. It would be great to see something like Ansel Adams-type footage of Yosemite and so on, not to mention the many creative possibilities of chemical black and white film projected on to that vast screen. Maybe indies should take over...

Hi Phillip I do have a single KOWA spherical Cine Prominar 25mm in mint condition on Arri-PL. I'm not in a hurry to sell (as you know how wonderful these lenses are) but might consider it for the right price.

Hey Patrick, who did the conversion? Can you put up a link to the footage you mention in your listing? Thank you.

I wonder if a contributing factor to this perception that 70mm and IMAX has less distortion might be due to the lack of lens choices. It is my understanding, for instance, that only Panavision made anamorphic lenses for standard 70mm, and they only made a single set. Seeing Hateful Eight projected in 70mm, shot on Ben Hur anamorphic lenses, still looked really clean... so, with only spherical prime lenses and a single set of anamorphics from Panavision available, Its easy to see how such films have less visual distortion than a great deal of other productions that had more tools (and dear I say shortcuts?) available. It is also a nice novelty to view old family movies from the 1950s onward, shot on 70mm and viewing on a recently mastered Blu-ray, and think that it could have been shot yesterday. 70mm is indeed the gold standard.

It's a myth that large formats allow you to shoot wider-angle shots with less distortion because of the longer focal lengths used. When people use the word wide-angle "distortion" they usually mean either perspective distortion (exaggerated size of foreground elements compared to background) or optical artifacts like barrel distortion, fall-off, etc. Neither have anything to do with the size of the format. Relative size of foreground objects compared to background objects is not a focal length issue, it isn't even a lens or camera issue at all -- it happens with your own eyes. It is due to your position as a viewer (or a camera) relative to the objects in front of you. If you are standing in a line of people, the back of someone's head might be very close to you and be very large in your field of vision compared to some distant object, but back away from that foreground head and it becomes smaller relative to the background objects. The focal length of the lens only magnifies that view, it doesn't change relative sizes. I was driving along the highway and saw the Full Moon rising and saw a Union 76 gas station approaching and was hoping to find a camera position where the Moon and the orange ball sign above the station were the same size, and then use a telephoto lens to make them both fairly large in the frame. But the alignment from the highway was off and as I got closer to the gas station, the orange ball sign became larger than the Moon in the background. The two relative sizes were determined by my position in space. It's the thing when photographing a face in close-up -- if the camera gets physically too close, the nose is much larger in size relative to the ears. That is true whether the camera had a 10mm lens on or a 1000mm lens on, the only difference would be that the 1000mm lens probably would only hold a small part of the face in frame. But the distortion of areas of the face relative to each other, the large nose and small ears, would be the same. The other type of wide-angle distortion -- barrel distortion or corner fall-off, are not unique to lenses made for smaller formats. In fact, some older lenses made for large formats show quite a bit of these artifacts compared to some modern lenses made for smaller formats.

I have seen this some data before... but even more convincing as seeing it projected in several of Nolan's 70mm IMAX releases; the images are bright and rock steady. If you know how a basic projection works, there's little difference from a 35mm theater system to that of a modest 8mm home projector. IMAX changed that with a revolutionary system for their film. This recent video showing the last viewing for a particular IMAX theater shows off the ingenuous design:

Interesting. I have not heard this before. Where can I read about this in greater detail?

I think you're right. 16mm is so good these days. But I would bet that a Red 8K camera, cropped to 4:3, is more than enough for true IMAX.

I am new in Super 8 world. Nizo is my dream brand specially 801 Macro. By the way.. I decided to buy a Nizo 801 macro. The seller is located nearby my city. I have tested some basic functions at the time of purchase. Every function like film drive at all speed,power zoom ,exposure meter .. was fine at the beginning. But at some point, the seller pressed the R button ( located on top of camera ) to check the dissolve function. After that, the film drive motor stopped working( but all other functions like power zoom, exposure etc. works normally) We tried a lot , followed the instruction manual, battery reset etc. but nothing worked. Can anyone please tell me is there any way to fix this problem? Thanks in advance.

Yes, I was getting rather a different impression to Dom of how 16mm is currently going. Top of the line Super 16 gear at the moment is going higher in price it seems. Sure, S16 lenses are used by the digital people too but S16 film camera bodies themselves are going up. 416's are scarily high in price if one ever becomes available. 2 perf 35mm cameras also seem to be sought-after but are as rare as hen's teeth. 3 perf is much sought after too. It's really the look people want. If you want a super sharp digital image then that's great -- you can get it. If you want the 16mm look it's available too. It's great that film looks like it's doing quite well.

Part of the look, is the heavy camera and depth of field, which "can" look more shallow because of longer length lenses used. The heavy camera means the way you shoot with the camera is more restrictive. Nolan was one of the first filmmakers to use it hand held, but even then, on films like Dunkirk and Tenet, it's completely indistinguishable from the 5 perf material outside of the image crop change. Na it really doesn't, again just look at Dunkirk and Tenet. It can be less distorted because you use longer lenses to get wide shots. But you can do the same thing with 4 perf 35mm or Vista Vision. What makes 15 perf IMAX such a special format is it's high resolution and unbelievable registration/bright projection system. It's more of a projection format than a camera format honestly, because the camera tech isn't too special, but the projection format is very unique and it's sadly dead.