Buying Equipment

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

My question is how people can afford to get all of this stuff...

 

Buying a £16,000 camera, £5000 worth of lenses, £5000 vtr, £1500 worth of tripod, £500 protective gear, and then probably another grand or so worth of optical acc's. (For a descent setup, you?re talking round about £30,000)

 

Do people ever take out loans for these kinds of things? Rich to start of with?

 

I have been practicing film work for a year now and not to sound big headed, I think I can do a very good job. Trouble is people want DP's with cameras, and if they were to rent out a camera it would most likely be a HD and, well... "where?s the bloody on button??" kinda thing... (Or worse it could be 35mm?)

 

So my plan is to get a descent camera (SDX900, unless there?s something better at the time) and then people will be even further pushed to hire me. Trouble is, I can't afford £30,000 (Unfortunately my Saturday job doesn't pay that much...) About the only equipment I have is a 15 year old tripod, a 400,000 pixel MiniDV consumer vid cam and an ok editing suite.

 

What did all you guys do?

 

Tnx for suggestions.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I think you'll find that very few people here, and very few prominent DPs, own much more than a light meter (£500) and a few filters (could be thousands, depending how many, but not camera money). Having to own the gear simply means you're not bigtime enough to persuade people to rent it for you - that is, you're not useful enough on your own to be worth hiring just for who you are. That's certainly how it is for me, anyway. Nobody's going to hire me for my knowledge because I don't have very much knowledge, so I have to bribe them to hire me by offering my equipment as a package.

 

So, owning gear doesn't make you big time, it makes you small time. Kinda takes the gloss off it, huh?

 

That said, there are people, upscale people, who own specific bits of kit and do it as a sideline. Also certain professions are expected to come equipped - Steadicam operators will never be any good without having equipment to practice on, and Jimmy Jib people usually turn up with a Transit van full of plastic crates. ENG news people, if they're freelance, often own gear (often not very good gear, actually). The absolute highest-end person I know personally who has kit shoots TV ads the whole time and owns an Arri 435 with a set of Cooke S4 lenses (giant investment) but that's probably unusual. Nobody ever turns up to a feature set with their own personal camera truck.

 

Owning equipment is a pain, particularly video equipment. You're insane if you think you're ever going to have a good reason to buy an SDX-900. What're you shooting, Channel 4 documentaries? By the time you can afford one, there'll be something better anyway, but that's not the point - owning a great camera doesn't get you work. Owning a better camera than the next guy probably won't either. It's not about toys. The best thing you can do is get into a decent film school, and work your way up the camera department ladder. This almost certainly won't work, but it's the best bet you have in this godawful country.

 

Phil

[Matthew McDermott]

I second Phil; I know very few people who own much personal gear. I've got a light meter and a bunch of filters, plus a DVX100, a couple of lights and lavs so I don't have to rent just to do a quick interview. Anything else gets rented.

 

Buying a miniDV camera can be good when starting out so you inexpensively practice composition, but beyond that don't worry about it. Develop your other skills.

[John Mastrogiacomo]

I second Phil; I know very few people who own much personal gear. I've got a light meter and a bunch of filters, plus a DVX100, a couple of lights and lavs so I don't have to rent just to do a quick interview. Anything else gets rented.

 

Buying a miniDV camera can be good when starting out so you inexpensively practice composition, but beyond that don't worry about it. Develop your other skills.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I must be the exception. I have about $600,000 worth of video equipment, most of it post production, and I am still buying.

 

I started with nothing and no customers. The thing is, once you buy the gear, you are really motivated to pay for it. Yes, you start out doing cheap work, and you can becuase you own your own gear but you have to keep pushing to do higher and higher end work.

 

The first commercial I ever edited I did for $85. Last year we produced two :30 sec 35 mm spots for $150,000. I have sold my soul to the devil to pay for my stuff.

 

When you have a lot of gear, especially video gear, you really have to find a way for it to earn money. You can't count on any resale value.

 

When I first started out, I had no demo reel, so I would make my own commercials and put them on my demo reel and get some work.

 

It's a big risk, but I wouldn't have it any other way. :)

[Patrick Neary]

The first time you have a shoot on an ocean beach with blowing sand and rain, you'll be really glad it's not your equipment!

 

As a shooter, renting gear (having the prod. co. rent gear, I mean) also gives you the chance to play with different systems, which I think is part of the fun of this work...

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Ok, seems like a trip down the LFS. I am confident I could shoot a film no problem, get framing right e.t.c. A course on HD and 35mm wouldn't hurt, but at the end of the day I'm 16 and I doubt some producers going to rely on me to shoot their film. I mean you couldn't exactly take them seriously, if I were making a film and hired a DP and some 16 year turns up on my doorstep.. well, I'd be slightly disappointed, and expect to have some crappy media student level film made.

 

I know owning a descent camera and getting hired just because of that, is slightly off putting, but then again I know I can do a good job, I just need to prove it. And they aren't going to believe me just from saying "I can do a good job". But with the big'ol camera they should (hopefully) take me a lot more seriously and consider hiring me. I mean, if I came across a DP that owned a HD camera, HIRED.

 

I see myself with 2 options here. 1. Go to the LFS and get some educational credentials worth mentioning. Or. 2. Save up and buy a descent camera and then people might automatically see me as being serious and they are confident they will get good results.

 

Either way I just want to shoot a few good films just to prove myself, but it's bloody hard getting to do those films in the first place. After the first few maybe it's ok, but for now I'm stuffed.

 

Working on films all I've ever done is camera assistant. Sure I can mention a few ideas, and I do, but I can't go taking over. (For one the DP will just get pissed off)

 

The only work as a DP are small projects of my own.

 

Maybe for now I should stick at camera assistant, build up a ton of experience and credits, and then when I finally leave college I'll consider the LFS and from then on people will start actually taking me seriously. I?ll have good film school credentials and a load of experience on set.

 

Hey.. be nice to start of as a DP at 16/17 though! I know I could do it, but others don't. (And you can?t exactly blame them for not being 100% confident about it)

[Max Jacoby]

The best thing you can do is get into a decent film school, and work your way up the camera department ladder. This almost certainly won't work, but it's the best bet you have in this godawful country.

 

Why did I just know Phil would say this? :P

[Matthew McDermott]

Maybe for now I should stick at camera assistant, build up a ton of experience and credits, and then when I finally leave college I'll consider the LFS and from then on people will start actually taking me seriously. I?ll have good film school credentials and a load of experience on set.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Getting as much experience as you can is very important. Far more important than what equipment you own is who you know. Personal relationships will get you farther faster than anything else. Of course you do need some ability, and if you know people and have the equipment then all the better, but it really comes down to knowing people. This doesn't neccesarily mean people with a ton of money at first, but people just making films where you can get on-set experience.

 

Some thoughts on LFS specifically: I went there for one term before dropping out. I had a good deal of experience going into the program, but felt it would help me to get some credentials. (My degree is in Writing & Literature.) I was bored to tears with the curriculum. I knew it would be a slight step back for a couple of terms, but I thought I could put up with it. I couldn't and decided just working more would be more beneficial. If you work on as many shoots from now through college, you'll have more experience than going through the program.

[Matt Pacini]

" ...Having to own the gear simply means you're not bigtime enough to persuade people to rent it for you...

...So, owning gear doesn't make you big time, it makes you small time.

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow, that pretty much says it all.

This statement alone sums up about 6 gigs worth of data on Tim's servers, with all those discussions and arguments about "to own, or not to own".

 

Daniel, you're only 16, so you have a huge head start on almost everyone here.

Take your time, make a plan to learn all you can, using what you have reasonably at your disposal.

If you own a bunch of killer gear, but don't have a killer reel, then anyone looking to hire you is just going to think you're a rich kid who doesn't know squat, but mommy & daddy gave you the credit card (I've known a few of these).

 

Initiat and get involved in as many projects as you can in your area with your miniDV camera. There are lots of shorts & other projects that having that gear would get you into at the "student film" level.

 

Another thing I would do, is something I've never really heard of anyone doing, but I think would help.

 

Get a good still camera, and build up a good portfolio of still photos that look "cinematic".

Check out the "greatest shots" discussion going on right now in "General" and you can see some nice shots.

It's certainly less expensive to set up a scene of some sort and take 35mm still photos of it, than it is to rent/buy pro cine gear and shoot the same thing.

Sure, it's not motion picture, but an outstanding portfolio of shots like that, combined with a really nice DV shot DVD would impress someone with your ability, much more than a bunch of mediocre 16mm or 35mm footage.

 

Matt Pacini

Edited January 17, 2005 by Matt Pacini

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Arr cheers guys.

 

I do actually own a 35mm stills camera, it's what I use most actually. Plus I work in camera shop so development and film comes cheaper. For any other students reading this you might want to consider giving photography a go, really useful in judging depth of field and learning characteristics of lenses e.t.c. for instance I wanted to take a portrait shot of my dog, so thinking it would be fine to switch the lens to 1.8.. wrong. I found 1.8 was much too shallow, need more like 5.6. I find that?s something you can only learn with experience instead of books. (And a bucket load of film)

 

Anyone ever found those film schools to be damn expensive as well? I was looking through the enrolment fees of the LFS and it's about 6 grand per term. Ideally you want to stay there for the full 3 terms. Sod saving for the camera, LFS.

[Matthew McDermott]

Anyone ever found those film schools to be damn expensive as well? I was looking through the enrolment fees of the LFS and it's about 6 grand per term. Ideally you want to stay there for the full 3 terms.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Film school is very expensive, and unlike other expensive programs (law school, medical school), your chances of getting employment are very low. I don't know if it's statistically accurate, but something like 4 out of 5 film school graduates are not working in film within 5 years of graduating.

 

If you choose LFS, make sure you stick it out for the full six terms. The interesting part of the program really doesn't happen until the second year. When considering the cost of LFS, keep in mind that all your film and processing (other than your graduation film) is included in the fee. In fact you are not allowed to spend your own money on any of the films you make to increase the amount of stock you have. You're also not allowed to rent outside equipment either. When I was there, there was a controversy because a student wanted to rent a crane for their term four film. They were told that it was outside the scope of the assignment, and couldn't rent it. They were told this after paying for the rental and went ahead anyway. The school was in a fit; I think there was talk of not giving him credit for the term. They allow you complete control of your projects, but set the boundaries very close.

[Riku Naskali]

Anyone ever found those film schools to be damn expensive as well? I was looking through the enrolment fees of the LFS and it's about 6 grand per term.

At least there's something good in Finland, free school :)

[Stuart Brereton]

Hi,

 

Having to own the gear simply means you're not bigtime enough to persuade people to rent it for you

So, owning gear doesn't make you big time, it makes you small time. Kinda takes the gloss off it, huh?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know if i agree with this, Phil. I know a number of Documentary Cameramen who own their own kit, and who are certainly not small time. If you are spending £15k + on hiring kit every year, it makes sense to buy it instead. The kit gets paid off, and all of your £700 (or whatever) daily rate goes in your pocket. Sure, there are considerations like upkeep, servicing and insurance, and of course, you have to keep working, but overall ownership has big financial rewards.

 

I've never met a Producer that divided Camerapeople into big-time/small-time on the basis of whether they owned kit or not.

 

Stuart

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Yes, fine, I was generalising horribly. I know lots of people who own lots of equipment which cost lots of money and none of them are small time; however, all of them are Jimmy Jib or Steadicam operators. Buying an SDX-900 is not going to get you a gig.

 

Phil

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Buying an SDX-900 is not going to get you a gig.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No? Maybe it's different with other people but if I hired a DP I'd want to see what camera he could supply.

[Tim Tyler]

I know several freelance news shooters who own their gear, keep it in great shape, and make a lot of money back by renting it all ala-carte to the networks when they're shooting. Joker HMI's can pay for themselves in just a month or two of steady work.

 

Owning allows them piece of mind, and lots of flexibility. They can customize the gear to suite their shooting styles, without having to un-customize the gear at the end of the shoot.

 

As a producer, I don't think I'd ever hire a video shooter without his own camera unless I had to. Film is different though.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Maybe it's different with other people but if I hired a DP I'd want to see what camera

> the could supply.

 

Yes, it's different with other people. You're going to end up paying for the camera rental anyway; you can either hire your favourite guy who has a camera you may not want or you can hire a guy solo and rent the camera you want separately.

 

There are exceptions, but owning cameras is definitely to be avoided.

 

Phil

[Nathan Milford]

I know quite a few DPs who own SDX900's and actually more who own Varicams (basically because we sell them and I service them). They do quite well. It'd be rude for me to ask them exactly how well, but a few of them have disclosed.

 

On the film side it's a bit different I've noticed. Different culture and history and jobs. Making your money back with loan intrest isn't as easy.

 

I would love to own an XTRprod just for aesthetic value (beautiful hunk of metal and design), but that isn't exactly practical. *shrugs*

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

With film ofcourse I would make an exception. (For one they start from around 50 thousand so not many DP's do own them)

[Annie Wengenroth]

Speaking as the proud owner of an Arriflex 16S (*cough* it needs some work though *cough*) I would say that if you, on a personal level, are very interested in cameras as a collector as well as a filmmaker, you might enjoy owning one. That's pretty much where my interest falls in; not only do I like shooting on them but I just like looking at them too (yeah, I'm a geek). I'm also endlessly curious about how things work (see "Bolex autopsy" ). I guess it's like how some people are into classic cars? Who knows. And I don't know if you fit into this category, but it seems like you might.

 

Anyway, I wouldn't lean too heavily on buying your own stuff and then having it "pay off". It might happen, depending on what you're doing and how much you're spending, but then again, it might not. This being said, I don't think it's as black and white as "Don't ever buy your own equipment! It's a waste!" or "You must blow thousands of bucks on gear so that you can get work."

 

To me, the subtext with the former attitude is sort of like, "god forbid that you never shoot anything for your own enjoyment!" I suppose I'm talking more about video, but think about the DVX-100s and their "target audience" or even the whole "prosumer" category in general. This equipment is designed [ideally] to go in either direction: Hey, Let's Go to the Park and Videotape Squirrels (What! It's fun!) or So-and-So Needs a Camera Operator (or DP) For This Music Video, and so on. I know plenty of people who bought DVX-100s and paid them off by taping weddings and skateboarding videos. Or you could be like me and go out to the park and tape squirrels every Saturday...

 

On the other hand, it's not completely necessary to have one's own equipment and like some people have mentioned, there are probably some situations where it would hinder you to have your own camera, because maybe the people you're working with don't *want* to shoot on an SDX900 (or whatever your poison is) . If you're not totally sold on getting a camera that would be partially for your own enjoyment, you may be better off spending your money on film and important accessories, even little stuff like gaff tape, lens cleaner, etc. Let's just say I felt really stupid when I showed up on my first student shoot with my coveted Bolex only to find that I had no lens cleaner..

 

Sorry for the length, I just haven't posted in a few days and felt the need to make it up with some extra paragraphs. :P

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I always liked the thought that at any given moment I can go outside with a camera and film anything, instead of having to do the whole check out ritual at a rental house.

 

I think it is actually a good idea to own a modest camera that can deliver at least a semi-professional quality. It lets you do some kind of work and get yourself practiced, you can even get hired with it in some cases.

 

You can shoot a completely broadcast airable TV commercial on a Canon GL-2 which costs under $3K. You can do the same with a 16mm Arri S, or a 35mm Konvas, both of which cost under $2K and neither of which look as amateurish as a K-3 or as archaic as an Eyemo (a good paint job for appearance sakes always helps, of course). You can also do short films with these combinations that will help train your eye and get you practice.

 

The investment isn't heavy, and if you're good enough you can get it to pay for itself with relative ease, even getting paid as little as you do in the beginning.

 

There is absolutely no need for you to drop down tens of thousands of dollars to get the latest and greatest equipment, especially when there's always something else around the corner that will upstage what you have - film or video. That is only a game you can play if you have a guaranteed stream of work coming in that pays well enough.

 

This is where you really win with rental. As an example, the rental company will charge you $600 a day to rent the latest 35mm camera that costs hundreds of thousands. The same outfit will charge you $200 a day to rent an older 35mm camera that costs under ten thousand. With the newer equipment they're absorbing much more of the cost than with the older which has paid for itself and is basically only incurring maintenance fees (meaning that they profit more off of it per rental, than with the newer equipment). The equipment doesn't even have to be old per sey, a Canon XL-1 rents for not that much less than a higher end DV camera that can cost up to 5 times its price. One of the reasons for this is that the rental house has a bottom line to deal with on top of rental popularity issues.

 

So in the end, owning modest gear that can deliver professional results is efficient. Owning the latest gear is in the overwhelming majority of situations (esp. yours) not.

 

- G.

Edited January 19, 2005 by GeorgeSelinsky

[Guest Sean McVeigh]

I always liked the thought that at any given moment I can go outside with a camera and film anything, instead of having to do the whole check out ritual at a rental house.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This very thing happened to me recently.. I was in preproduction for a short and my assistant director called me on my drive home and said "look at the moon! if I were you, I'd take advantage of that!" It was a crystal clear night, the full moon was hanging low over the treetops, etc. etc. Basically a perfect setup. My film actually called for such a shot -- but even if it hadn't, it could certainly be used in the future.

It would have been disappointing to have dropped money on rental gear and never been able to get the shot I wanted because mother nature wasn't feeling co-operative.. (and of course, full moons don't happen every day).

[Matt Pacini]

I think there are a lot of factors that weigh in as to if it makes sense to own or not.

It's not a "one size fits all" situation.

Here are some of my thoughts on the matter (which may be right, or may be wrong!)

 

1. It almost never makes sense to own 35mm cameras, because there's almost zero chance you're going to make your money back.

They're so expensive, and most projects that are funded enough to be working in 35mm have enough money to rent the camera(s) as well.

 

2. Indie features/shorts, docs, news stuff, etc., it usually makes sense to own (or it makes sense to find/hire those who own), because most of these projects are done partially or completely on spec, i.e. there's barely enough money available to do anything.

You're making the product, THEN trying to sell it.

 

3. The dynamic is different based on location:

Big City, vs. Small Town.

Here in Sacramento, I'm really cool because I've got two 16mm cameras and a load of lighting & grip gear.

In L.A. or NY, that would bring a yawn.

 

There is not a single place in Sacramento that rents film cameras.

You would have to drive to San Francisco, which is about 100 miles each way.

 

So all these suggestions to "just rent it!" usually do not take into account the fact that some people are going to have to drive 100-300 miles to rent stuff.

 

Most if not all of the guys here that are saying "rent it" live where they can drive 6 blocks and get anything they could ever need.

Most people here do not, unfortunately.

 

Matt Pacini

[Dan Salzmann]

I own an Eclair ACLII that has been converted to super16mm which I have used on some music videos and some independent projects where a rigid shooting schedule could not be adhered to. This did not get me the job but did make the job possible.

Be patient Daniel. As has been pointed out - you are ahead of most of us by knowing what you want to do at the ripe old age of 16.

It is your showreel and experience which get you work not the gear you own.

If you got a job at a place that hired cameras you would learn alot, meet people and probably be able to get a break on hire fees when the time came.

Just learn as much as you can about cinematography and related things but most importantly work on yourself as a man because a cinematographer is both a creative individual and a leader.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

The "can shoot anytime" thing I can see working for video, but with a minimum four-figure investment every time you hit "run" on a film camera, I can't see the argument there. It's still the circus coming to town to use the thing.

 

Phil