Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/31/20 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    I think a lot of cinematographers aim for that ideal master shot lighting that needs almost no adjustments for closer work, it's a dream a lot of us have. Sometimes we manage it, sometimes it's just not possible. Sometimes it's a budgetary issue, it takes better production design and set rigging for great wide shots indoors whereas even a show with a tiny budget can light a nice close-up.
  2. 2 points
    I have a very different opinion. I had to actually use the Utracam and it was truly one of the worst cameras ever made. We called it the Ultrajam due to it’s inherent issues of film jamming. Depending on the film manufacturer, the camera could run very noisy. The viewfinder was incredibly dark and muddy as well. Terrible camera. In Hollywood, I know of several camera crews who would turn down the job if using the Ultracam was a requirement. I became one of them after enduring it only once for a few weeks. The only real competition Panavision ever had in film cameras was the Arricam for narrative filmmaking. My 2 cents... G
  3. 2 points
    Multiple cameras sort of force you into a longer-lens look, and it's harder to cheat people and objects for better composition for one camera without making it harder for another camera. And the eyelines tend to be wider. At some point, you have to ask yourself if you are making a movie or just documenting a performance. Altman made a style out of this approach, sort of a loose observational style with an ironic distance. I mean, is the point of the exercise to just to not take care in making a movie, or is it because of performance reasons?
  4. 1 point
    Not only the eyes but the amount of contrast from one side of the face to the other.
  5. 1 point
    It's recommended you use 12v batteries because the voltage regulators over heat when they are trying to shed the higher voltage. We use 14.4v Lithium NP1 style batteries and they've been fine over the years on the XTR. We also have some 16.4v and I prefer not to go that high. Amperage is the most important thing when it comes to the high speed running.
  6. 1 point
    Hi Robin, Yes! It follows the foot print of the original IVS electronics module so clears the top of the DC/DC-2 module.
  7. 1 point
    This picture of Natalie Wood being pied always makes me smile. Taken behind the scenes of 'The Great Race' ( that's director Blake Edwards throwing the pie ! ) John S ☺️
  8. 1 point
    I just read this on the American Cinematographer website and thought that it could be appropriate! https://ascmag.com/articles/filming-the-i-love-lucy-show Love the behind the scenes video on the article!
  9. 1 point
  10. 1 point
  11. 1 point
    Yeah basically.. Sony LUT,s for fs7/f5/55 camera,s will not give the same results with the fx9 (or Venice) due to completely different sensor and color filters .. for slog 3 / S Gamut 3 (.cine).. Its why Sony made the s709 LUT specifically for the Venice .. fx9 is much more similar to the Venice in color science but its a different sensor and the Venice s709 LUT applied to fx9 footage also has a slight green tint .. go to Alister Chapmans site .. he has made a pretty good LUT specifically for the fx9 sensor Slog3 footage .. you can down load, buy him a PayPal coffee if you want .. last shoot I actually sent this LUT to the editors .. presumably one day Sony will come out with LUT,s for the fx9 .. or some how tweak the s709 Venice LUT
  12. 1 point
    Willis Toland Deakins Chivo Storaro Savides
  13. 1 point
    Hello All, A couple of you had asked about side-mount cheese plates to mount accessory bits to in the shadow of where the old IVS control box mounted and availability is getting much closer... An industry professional that I was bouncing ideas off of during the development of the IVS unit had already been working on a really good cheese plate for the SR-3 and is in the manufacturing stages now. We will be offering the plate when ready for a projected retail of just under $400.00. Here's a teaser! Stay tuned & stay safe!
  14. 1 point
    https://www.afcinema.com/David-Watkin-1925-2008.html?lang=fr David Watkin was the master of lighting a set once and barely doing any relighting for coverage. It helps to use a camera with the widest possible dynamic range because you will have some hot areas in the frame. Think of it as if you had to light the set for a flowing 360 degree Steadicam move...
  15. 1 point
    Thanks Miguel! I've seen the doc. Brilliant. Unfortunately I can't read Spanish. Thanks for the offer!
  16. 1 point
    I’ve been lucky on “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” in that respect, almost everything is written and directed by the two showrunners, creator Amy Sherman-Palladino and her husband Dan Palladino. So there is a stylistic consistency driven by the directors. The only difference is that I don’t get the level of preparation I would on a feature film, but on the other hand, after three seasons a lot of stylistic issues have been settled.
  17. 1 point
    In my experience, television is more created by committee than film, and creative people are much more interchangeable, which is not my inherent way to work. I need a clear and focused and consistent approach, and otherwise become lost in generality without consistency and decisive creative rules. Film more often allows me to be my fussy and overly-precious self. For now. That said, my one successful television endeavor was an episode of "Servant," which encouraged originality and wore its single-camera approach as a badge of honor. It was great, and I took my time beforehand in designing the episode as best I could. My other real TV experience was obsessed with quantity of shots rather than quality. At one point the line producer was grabbing the camera and grabbing who knows what, material that was completely out of my hands but would have my name on it, which is a breaking point for me. We had our differences, the producers were actually very lovely people, but not a good creative match and I soon stepped out for the benefit of all. J
  18. 1 point
    Hi Doug, welcome to the forum! Talking about my own experience, I light environments as opposed as shots as I like giving a 270º freedom to the director. It works for me because I work with people who understand it and we block the scenes together to shoot that way and probably because I like being invisible with my lighting and I light from outside the locations (through windows or with practicals) Said that, if I go from a wide master shot to a close up I add either a diffusion frame near the talent and negative fill or a polyboard / china ball + negative fill if I have time in order to shape the face a bit. Placing a diffusion frame + negative fill for a close up usually takes 5 to 10 minutes (depending on how many crew you have). So it definitely is a practical consideration and once that makes things a bit more natural under my point of view. 🙂 Here are some practical examples:
  19. 1 point
    I actually picked up a couple from batteries and bulbs in the us, the guy was surprised it was still around. You could tell it was older packaging. They’re on amazon, too! (E26 to e39) https://www.amazon.com/DiCUNO-Adapter-Converter-Maximum-Resistant/dp/B07GZD3N4R You never really know the color quality without testing , I doubt the corn bulb you listed is manufactured to account for the values that matter to us, too (like r9, etc).
  20. 1 point
    Every day is world back up day in my workflow.
  21. 1 point
    You can stack two but it might not add up like you think in terms of heaviness, so keep an eye on it. For example, each strength of Hollywood Black Magic has a 1/8 Black Frost base, so stacking a 1/4 HBM with a 1/2 HBM doesn't get you a 3/4 HBM because you've doubled the 1/8 Black Frost. Keep in mind that all these jumps in strengths were sort of eyeballed by the designer, there isn't really a scientific way of saying the a 1/4 ProMist has twice the affect of a 1/8 ProMist. Also, the general problem with stacking glass filters is double reflections.
  22. 1 point
    Better in what way? Image-wise, assuming the movement is steady, the quality is the same if the film stock and the lenses are the same. Also, there's a design difference between the Arriflex BL35's and the later Arricams, so which Arriflex do you mean? A BL4? A 535? Or an Arricam ST or LT? I've shot features on all of them and don't feel there is a difference that affects the cinematography. However camera assistants will have an opinion and so would operators, who want whichever has the brightest viewfinder or balances in handheld mode the best. The Arris are faster to load on set because the Panaflexes use a Mitchell type movement with a lot of loops and latches, with even less spacing for your fingertips in a Millennium XL. To me, it sort of comes down to whether I want to shoot with Master Primes versus Primos.
  23. 1 point
    If you can break the politics rule, we can break your rules.
  24. 1 point
    Traditionally television and film have had very different approaches up until very recently, say the last decade or so. Television was born for the small screen. Up until the mid-90s a 35" TV screen would've been considered huge, as the average home was watching on 13" and 20" televisions. This necessitated a different style of photography that was much more centered on the closeup with shallow focus. The speed in which shows are produced (an average episodic TV show might only have 7-10 days to get through 45-50 pages of script) also necessitated an economic approach to lighting, camera movement and coverage with much more of the show being put together in the edit. Lighting in particular tended to be high-key until the 70s. As mentioned above, TV directors are guests on most shows and can only go so far in dictating a look of a given episode, and everything on a TV set is really built for speed and efficiency. That's why so many shows come down to a master and two dirty overs for every scene. The number of setups in a day is staggering compared to a feature film and directors are often forced to find the most economical and efficient way to pull of a scene if time is of the essence. Sometimes on a CSI type show the master might be doing something crazy like a circular steadicam shot on a long lens or something, but generally the approach tends to be about simplicity. You can name on one hand TV shows that had a more complex philosophy and most of those were directed by people like Paris Barclay and Tommy Schlamme in the 90s (ER, The West Wing) or have come along in the HBO/Netflix-era where you have a auteur directors like Fincher doing Mindhunter, large budgets and a little bit more time. For all of its stylishness even Mad Men was fairly conventional in approach. The show that really brought, I think, more of a big action-adventure film look to TV was Lost, which was helmed by JJ Abrams and shot by Larry Fong originally, but that show was insanely expensive and tended toward more conventional coverage for a lot of the meat of episodes. It's hard to tell these days because right now we live in an era that is something of a hybrid between an old-school movie look and television techniques. In the last 20-25 years the TV way of doing things (especially since the proliferation of digital cameras) has begun to overpower the film ways of doing things. Ridley Scott, Michael Bay and David Fincher were early adopters of this style in features and have probably helped it along a bit. It used to be that you could do a scene with just a great master and maybe some inserts or cutaways for safety. Many great directors like Spielberg and Tarantino still direct this way and Spielberg is notoriously fast. But this more classical single-camera approach has been supplanted by an approach of multiple cameras shooting simultaneously (which is a very TVish mentality), insane amounts of footage being shot (the shooting ratios have gotten out of control - I once had 40 hours of footage in editorial for a 30 second commercial), and much, much less thoughtful composition (a lot of shows have adopted almost a verite/documentary philosophy regardless of whether or not it's appropriate for the setting or narrative). Attached is a screen grab from Star Trek: Picard and you can see they are shooting with three cameras like a sitcom, a far cry from the simple, precise elegant single-camera work of Marvin Rush on TNG and Voyager. Again this is a product of the digital age because hard drive space is infinitely cheaper than film stock. It should also be noted that film production has generally had a high barrier to entry. You had to live in LA or NYC and either work your way up through the trades or go to film school. Technology has changed all of that and democratized film making, in much the same way digital audio technology created home studios in the 1990s. All of a sudden people who were stuck making film on camcorders and DV equipment now have access to many of the same tools that professional filmmakers use and the tools are philosophically much closer to video cameras than an organic film workflow, which fewer and fewer people understand. Today's DP's often do not have photography backgrounds as they were born out of a video world, or if they have studied photography its been during the age of the DSLR and smartphone. You can clearly see this phenomenon when you read camera reviews and so little attention is given to the way the camera looks as opposed to its technical specifications. The "film look" is reduced to technical considerations like depth of field, dynamic range, resolution and sensor size, which is not at all how film DPs used to think of things. Today the expectation is that things will work in a video-ish way in terms of technical approach (multiple cameras, video villages, instant results, extensive color grading, piecing it together in editorial) rather than a traditional film-style approach and this new ideology is now the default perspective even among executives and producers. Film has become the equivalent of a 9 foot concert Steinway piano. Nice for concerts at Carnegie Hall but completely impractical to have for most work. Even the current craze with shallow depth of field comes more from TV than it does movies. Movies traditionally have not been so obsessed with shallow focus, and its actually not nearly as common as you'd think, with the exception of a handful of directors who prefer longer lenses. Feature directors tend to prefer wide angles and deeper focus, but TV being a closeup medium didn't have the choice. I would say the average TV lens is probably a 50mm. In broadcast television this is further exacerbated by the fact that on TV you often can't put the camera as close to the subject as you'd like. Even on a sitcom, which up until recently were shot on broadcast cameras, and is more like theater, the cameras are a good 10-12 feet back from the talent or more. Same with news and information shows. Soap operas are a strange animal as well with entire episodes being taped in a day. On a sporting event the camera could be hundreds of feet back meaning longer lenses are just a way of life on TV. The combination of having to favor closeups and having to use longer lenses, the 4:3 aspect ratio along with the speed in which you have to work has given television a unique visual identity. (A similar thing is happening now with social media video -- which was born out of webcams and smart phones and has a fish-eye wide angle look that is becoming popular). The other thing with television is that it is generally much more of an apprenticed craft. TV education is much less formal than film education. Unlike film where there is film school and a general approach to how movies are shot and who does what on set that are basic universals with only minor cultural differences, broadcast television shows can vary wildly from show to show and studio to studio. The tools and techniques are often dependent upon "house rules," and sometimes even basic terminology can be different from place to place. I remember listening to Chip Dean direct Monday Night Football and his commands were very precise ("Ready One. Take. Set three. Dissolve"), where someone like Hamish Hamilton who directs The Super Bowl Halftime and Victoria's Secret Fashion Show is basically dancing in the truck and yelling out Austin Powers-esque stuff like "yea baby do it!" and somehow his TD/Vision Mixer interprets that into what camera to cut to. Narrative shows are a bit different but even then there has traditionally been a huge difference in the look and approach of British and European dramatic television as compared to American dramatic TV and we all know the Mexican soap opera/telenovella look is very unique to that market. Star Trek Picard set photo
  25. 1 point
    I had a dream the other night that a stranger shook my hand... I woke up and immediately washed my hands... even though I knew it was a dream. 🤷‍♂️
  26. 1 point
    If the UK population is 66 million, even a conservative mortality rate of 1% results in more deaths than half a million. But if you do nothing, the health system cannot cope with millions of sick people so the mortality rate skyrockets. Look at Italy, they have 60,000 cases right now, with 5500 deaths and only 7000 recovered. Those are not good statistics. Are people really asking if it's worth shutting down the capitalist treadmill for a few months to save millions of lives? How brainwashed are we that we can't imagine alternatives to the work/pay bills/sleep paradigm? Max would rather be dead than broke? Seriously? Being broke is temporary. Dead is dead. I know too many wonderful older people or ones with compromised immune systems to accept that their deaths are an acceptable sacrifice to keep the edifice of comfortable capitalism from crumbling. We just need to imagine new ways to get through this. Living wages for those without income, a freeze on mortgages, loans and rents, universal healthcare, communities supporting each other while we isolate. It's all possible. The US is possibly the worst place to be right now, because they've never had good social security or healthcare systems in place, but plenty of other countries have. And now the value of governments looking after their populations rather than just facilitating wealth creation for a few is becoming very apparent. Time for a paradigm shift.
  27. 1 point
    I see a lot of people in this thread saying that society has to choose between: 1. Stopping work and bankrupting everyone on earth who lives paycheck to paycheck. 2. Continuing to work, letting the virus run its course, and killing untold millions of additional people. There is a third option, temporary socialism. All we have to do is briefly suspend what we typically believe to be "fair" in a capitalist system. In America that would entail drastic war-time-style government action: 1. Medicare for all during the crisis. People have to feel safe going to the hospital without the fear of a lifetime of medical debt. 2a. Open up the maximum unemployment benefits to everyone. Everyone outside of the government's defined "critical industries" are going to unemployed for months on end. $400/week in unemployment benefits would act as a temporary universal basic income. That would let people continue to pay their bills while staying home, and they wouldn't feel like they have to choose between bankruptcy and spreading the virus. 2b. People employed in "critical industries" need an immediate doubling of their salaries for hazard pay, plus universal 2 weeks of sick leave. That's pretty self explanatory. People have to stay home if they're sick. 3. Suspend all rent payments, mortgages, property taxes, and associated interest accrual. Land ownership adds no economic benefit to society, yet it's the #1 expense for the vast majority of people. The land owners will still own the land after the crisis is done. Right now, we can no longer afford to pay them. If you don't think we can afford to do all this, consider this. Jeff Bezos's PERSONAL fortune could pay a $400/week universal basic income to every adult in California for 3 months. Confiscate the obscene personal fortunes of America's billionaires, add that to the yearly budget of the pentagon, tweak the numbers until it all adds up, and all of a sudden we can easily tackle coronavirus.
  28. 1 point
    I was assisting a film last week with actor Sophia Myles, her Dad died of corona virus this weekend. It brings it scarily close and personal fall out is horrible - I've seen it first hand. My thoughts are with her and her family. We all know people at risk - I really hope people start taking it seriously and try their best to not spread it
  29. 1 point
    Yes, of course at some point we'll go back to work and there won't be some obvious "all's clear" line, it will be a calculated risk that it's relatively safe because the rate of infection is manageable. But the notion that we should just all go about our business on Monday and let the chips fall where they may no matter how many thousands may die, well, that doesn't strike me as very responsible or ethical. You would think that death is pretty much a worse-case scenario for someone since you can't recover from that. It's not something to be taken lightly. Hospitals are getting pretty full-up right now and some health workers are going home sick -- and it's still early in this pandemic. Hence all the talk about "flattening the curve" so the rate of people needing treatment stays at a manageable level. Do people really want a situation where people are suffocating on gurneys in hospital corridors because there is a lack of ventilators or beds or doctors and nurses? Do you really think that could never happen? I don't get it -- what's the point of money for your family if your family is sick or dead? Is the paycheck going to shield them from infection? And what if it's the person earning the paycheck for the family that gets sick? There are already people working in the film industry who have gotten sick and some have died.
  30. 1 point
    My parents are in their 80's, they both have limited lung capacity due to COPD and pulmonary fibrosis and they live in a small town with one ventilator in their hospital... so it's not a question about whether I want to take risks are not. I've spent too many days in a hospital watching someone I love be unable to take a breath and the fear on their face is something I'll never forget. So I don't really want to hear about calculating the risk to life versus financial gain right now.
  31. 1 point
    But if we did nothing and allowed a lot of deaths, there might be an economic cost anyway, particularly if a lot of money had to be thrown at the problem. Personally I don’t value money more than my life or my family’s or my friends’ or, well, people in general!
  32. 1 point
    Be careful not to downplay the risk to young people. Yes, it's worse the older you are, but I personally know two people in their 20's who got it and ended up in the hospital. They're not going to die, but pneumonia is no fun. If the hospitals were full right now, they would both be dead. I worked at Harvard Med School for a long time and sat in on plenty of epidemiology classes. There's a reason doctors sound like "alarmists" on this. Our healthcare system is not capable of handling a pandemic. We're hyper-vulnerable to spikes in demand. And we're hyper-vulnerable to disruptions to the global supply chain. We already can't get the chemicals we need for testing, and we've only just begun. The emergency measures that governments are putting in place will save a lot of people, but it's not going to be enough. The poop has not yet hit the fan. But remember, everything is a sliding scale. It sounds stupid, but every hand you don't shake could be saving a life. Seriously.
  33. 1 point
    Funny you should bring that up.. Nick is always droning on about playing me in a Bio flick.. had to ban the guy from my parties .. always after my wife ..this Asian thing he has .. I see it more as a John Malkovich role.. Being Robin Probyn ..
  34. 1 point
    I'll hold out for the American remake, with Nicholas Cage in the Probyn role and Andy Serkis in mo-cap as the FX9
  35. 1 point
    Indeed, I remember how angry peeps on Reduser got when someone posted a test that showed how much better the F23 looked then the RED One. Simply impossible! It's only HD, 4K must be better because its erm 4K
  36. 1 point
    That same sensor is still producing the majority of worldwide narrative and commercial projects (though now in the smaller Alexa Mini form factor). Unless you’ve got Producers specifically asking for 4k, it’s still a perfectly relevant picture making machine.
  37. 1 point
    I don't think one should just light flat and somehow create contrast and mood in post. That hard lighting style was complex because it was often high and frontal for women's faces but more shadowy everywhere else. This requires a lot of flags. You would do the same lighting whether or not you shot in film or digital, but with the higher ISO of digital cameras compared to the slow film stocks of the day, you'd probably use lower-wattage equivalents to what they would have used back then, assuming you wanted a similar depth of field (mostly in the f/2.8-4 range). But in terms of the ket to fill ratio, I'd probably do the same whether shooting in film or digital, but with digital I'd be lighting to a LUT with enough contrast and deep blacks so that I was forced to add fill where I needed it.
  38. 0 points
    Nice response, hope to hear from others here.
  39. 0 points
    Again, please keep opinions out of this thread. There should only be information and links shared here regarding help for cinematographers during the COVID-19 economic crisis. The stimulus bill expands Unemployment Insurance to cover self-employed individuals. Depending on the individual State's Unemployment system, how you prove which job(s) you've lost varies. Some may have been given a verbal lay off (ie the producers told everyone in person that the show is being canceled), some may have it in writing (email from producers saying show is canceled), and others may just have no calls coming in (in this case, citing industry news sources and showing history of work compared to today can indicate the unemployment). Regardless, the bill directly says that self-employed individuals are covered under the federal expansion of Unemployment Insurance. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/748/text#H97CF349D361342F895E939CF0579F8A0 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/748/text#H94475F15C4074D4388A3AA2FA6EAC731 For 2019, the tax deadline has been pushed to July 15th. One can file their 2019 taxes to use for the stimulus bill, but they are not required to pay the 2019 taxes until the July 15th deadline. If one hasn't filed their 2018 taxes yet, then they should do so now. However, the above 2019 tax deadline changes do not apply to 2018 taxes and the individual will most likely have to pay what is owed in taxes plus whatever penalties apply. The text of the law (H.R. 748) does not directly say that 2018 taxes must be paid before receiving any benefits of this legislation. It's generally assumed by all that one must pay all taxes eventually; if an individual wants to receive tax-payer money, they should be paying their taxes. Some states, counties, and cities across the country are banning evictions, some banks are allowing deferrals on mortgages/loans, and the Dept. of Education has suspended payments to federal student loans until 9/30/2020. These short term measures are being put into place to soften the financial burden Americans have until the relief comes. None of this means that those payments disappear; like the tax deadline, they're just pushed back until later. A mortgage or student loan will simply end later than expected, for example.
  40. -1 points
    And that's the problem. Frankly, and to be as callous as possible, this has so far been approached with a mindset which prioritises the preservation of life above basically everything else. What we're in right now is a situation created by the reaction to that, which is (quite understandably) to avoid the horror of millions of deaths. But as Gabriel quite correctly suggests, we have no exit strategy. Herd immunity, vaccination or simply starving the disease of hosts through isolation will not be effective in reasonable time and may not be effective at all. So, at some point, the consequences of relaxing the restrictions will start to look less awful than the consequences of continuing them. We will eventually crack, and a lot of deaths may be involved. It is unavoidable, especially if reinfection is possible. What worries me is that we may end up with the worst of both worlds: economic disaster from the restrictions, and suffering the casualties anyway.
  41. -1 points
    But, but......34, 200 deaths from flu in the USA last flu season, and I never heard about it until I looked it up on-line. R,
  42. -1 points
    Right, but it doesn't cover businesses or "employer" taxes. Many professionals have their own businesses, that's how they deal with liability and reduced tax burden. Businesses need to pay by the April 15th deadline. The "extension" is only for personal taxes. Look at it from my examples please. I had a booking to shoot a short film in March. It was a week-long project that was going to net some decent money. There was a text message that said "project canceled" and that was it. There is no way you can quantify those losses, it's impossible. There is no contract, no texts or e-mails to quantify the amount that I would have earned. That stuff generally doesn't come until a few days before the shoot and it was suppose to happen this previous week. How about this one. You're currently on a project and you haven't been paid because payroll isn't operational. I have that same problem right now. I'm owed several thousand from a freelance gig and they aren't paying. How do I quantify that? Send the IRS invoices? They don't care. I also rent cameras, so now my rental business is dead. I usually average 4 - 6 rentals a month, but I don't keep electronic records. I keep a paper trail for insurance reasons, but it could all be made-up. There is nothing to verify that I've lost 3 months worth of business on that front, it's impossible for me to tell the IRS that. So unless you're working on big shows that had the ability to send out notices of "shut down" before they closed house, unless you have verified contracts that show what you were suppose to earn, unless you have proof that's what you NORMALLY earn, I have a feeling the IRS is going to walk away from giving any benefits. I'm anxious to see what happens when people apply. I'm ok because I have another source of income that's steady for now. Yes, but that doesn't work. People are being sent letters from landlords demanding they hand over the government checks when they're received as payment. Do you think landlords aren't going to kick your ass to the street the moment the economy is back up and running? If you don't pay, all you're doing is prolonging the inevitable future of you being kicked to the curb. Suspending student loans is great, but for instance, my student loans were not federal. So I don't think that's going to help everyone sadly.
  43. -1 points
    Here is the actual press release from the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/tax-day-now-july-15-treasury-irs-extend-filing-deadline-and-federal-tax-payments-regardless-of-amount-owed In regards to Unemployment Insurance, what qualifies as losing employment is defined in the law (LINK) The three bolded items directly apply to nearly everyone in the film industry. In terms of your short that you lost (sorry, by the way), you at least have the text message that the project has been canceled. Though nothing was agreed on payment, you can reference your historical wages for similar gigs via prior invoices, tax returns, etc. Regardless of how much you would've been paid, the federal government will give you $600 a week so long as you can continue to show that you are unemployed and actively looking for work. In my prior experience with California Unemployment, you actually receive a call from the Employment Development Department to discuss your eligibility; this is where I've been able to explain my situation and how the film industry operates when it comes to hiring and turnover. If you have an employer who hasn't paid through their payroll because it isn't operational, then you should contact the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and explain that your employer is not paying you on the regularly scheduled paydays. Failure to pay you within the California Labor Code is a misdemeanor. If a company hasn't fulfilled an invoice to you, then I recommend keeping in as much contact with them as possible, particularly the accounting department and project manager you've been working with. The Freelancers Union has an excellent resource for client nonpayment. If this issue still can not be resolved, then you may have to go through small claims court, but at this point you may need to get a lawyer involved. In terms of a rental business, showing historical data isn't too difficult if you've already got a paper trail with your insurance company. However, if your rental business isn't established as a company and does not file taxes as a company, then it is considered part of your individual income and won't increase your amount of unemployment from the federal government (it's max $600/week). If you do have a legally formed business and are seeking funds to fulfill payroll, pay bills, etc, then I recommend visiting the US Chamber of Commerce's Coronavirus Small Business Guide. A landlord has no legal jurisdiction over the government checks. Landlords are legally owed rent payments and banning evictions for a short period of time doesn't mean rents for those months are no longer owed; banning the evictions gives renters time to gather funds to meet their financial obligations to pay rent while they wait for the unemployment and stimulus checks. Eviction laws vary by state and unpaid rent is the biggest grounds for eviction. However, it's becoming clear (in CA) that late payment during the COVID-19 economic crisis will not qualify for eviction so long as the rent is paid eventually in a reasonable amount of time. Only law enforcement can enforce evictions and, in California, Governor Gavin Newsom has banned evictions and the enforcement thereof. LINK I hope these links and resources help you during this tough time! We're all in this together.
  44. -1 points
    Produced to keep up and actually surpass Panavision, the Ultracam was truly a marvel.
  45. -1 points
  46. -1 points
    It had just a few flaws, yet was a complete masterpiece of a camera. One of the most mass-produced cameras ever created, with allocation and collocation that could not be surpassed.
  47. -1 points
    The color spectrum was used to matrix certain objects and persons. Also, the inspiration came from their father, Frank Leonetti.
  48. -1 points
    I mean the video processing was magnificent for the single operating of the system itself. Its a budget camera, so for its pricing and features it was just phenomenal.
  49. -1 points
    Extensively used by him, also by his brother, John, no one could top the Ultracam 35 system back in 1991. The camera itself is a thing of the past, but wont be forgotten. It has amazing magnification, color spacing for any other competitor around that time. May look like a dated camera, but I saw its listing on ebay about a year ago. Whoever purchases one of these, you are in for special treat.
  50. -2 points
    Color reproduction or spectrum are correlated within a camera system, just like an automobile is correlated with a motor and transmission. But nice to know you worked with him sometimes. Ever seen his debut stance as a cinematographer in Child's Play 3?
  • Create New...