Phil Connolly

Don't most people travelling with film request hand inspection and bypass the scanner?

Parasite is the best film I've seen in a few years, its great. But not seen enough of the others to judge if its my favorite

Yoga probably makes sense - because often your forced to hold uncomfortable positions and be still. I think camera operating is less about pure strength, but more about having stamina and flexibility. Equipment is getting less heavy, but if your operating on a longer shot it can still get painful. There's nothing worse than starting a shot in the wrong position and being forced to hold it while you start to cramp. Narrative film isn't too bad from an operating pov because takes typically only last a few minutes and your going to have breaks for rehearsal etc.. But multicam live TV (particularly sports or shopping) can put you in a world of pain if your not prepared for it. If your covering golf or cricket you may have to be offering usable shots for hours at a time. So if you are looking for that kind of work building stamina and fitness is super important Yoga also helps you stretch and recover. Bad technique with camera operating can risk back problems, so anything that builds your core strength. Running is also good. You can also experiment with yoga by using online exercise videos and skip the expensive gym membership. Other things with shoots, if you not used to it you can get tired from standing 10-12 hours a day. So when I'm doing office work, I try to use a standing desk so I keep my stamina up for shoots.

I didn't know that, that makes it more impressive. The discipline about not cheating on the light sources was already impressive enough. I'll have to put it on my rewatch list, I'm starting to develop a low budget single location idea and I'm looking for inspiration in ways to keep it visually interesting. "Shallow Grave" is one of my references, contained location, great blocking and superb lighting. Its my favorite Danny Boyle/Brian Tufano collaboration

Buried (2010) is a good example of being visually inventive for such a tiny location

Yep we are back to digital vs analogue

good/experienced actors are pretty good at watching their own continuity. I've found if you cast well you don't have too many issues in the edit. We didn't have a continuity person or 1s tAD on my last short film and had no major issues. It also helps if you've written the script, since you know it so well, you can spot straight away when a line is skipped/changed etc..

Sure what he did was disingenuous and deeply stupid. I've always made a much better effort to anonymize myself when I'm calling out my employer on the internet (just make a fresh email/account its not that hard) . Or if they are treating the CA employees less well than the US ones, there are probably betterways to refer upto to management than twitter. But employee's do dumb stuff all the time, hence why good companies have decent disciplinary procedures and a zero tolerance approach could result in the loss of an otherwise good worker that could be reformed. But in this case who knows, was it a moment of madness or the final straw after bunch of infractions?

I've seen examples of unions preventing unfair dismissal by threatening strike action. So maybe a union might have given some protections, at the very least they would have held the employer to a formal appeals/disciplinary process rather than a casual firing.

The only time it's potentially an issue is 4K is demanding and may lag on a complex edit. In those situations it's probably better to make smaller proxies for the edit and conform later. I'm doing that on my current 4K production so I can edit on my small laptop and fit all the 720p proxy rushes on my internal SSD. I'd need to more powerful machine for an end to end 4K workflow. My laptop is fine with upto 1080p prores but it's less responsive on 4K projects. I find the time lost due to transcode is made back by a faster edit.

In principle if your able to do that you should do that and that would force employers to improve standards otherwise they won't be able to attract employees. Thats been my attitude for the majority of my working life, don't like it leave. I also don't like the attitude that some employees have about "whats owed to them" etc... It's not helpful. And I agree if you don't like the pay don't take the job. But in areas with high unemployment, the quitting thing and finding something better perhaps isn't always available. Being in an a union is about making the best of a situation that for whatever reason you can't leave. Granted this is more applicable to other industries then film, but it's just another way for workers to negotiate benefits beyond the hiring and firing process. Also you have situations for instance "pensions" where employers say they are going todo X and they try to do Y. Unions can hold those people to account in a way that an individual might not be able to do. Sure you could quit, but some people like their jobs and don't want to quit but don't want employers to take the piss.... Me personally, I'm in a union because it offers me some protections in my main gig and (I think) makes my position more secure. Although of course I could be made redundant/fired at a later point but maybe the union would make that harder. So in that situation its a no brainer. But overall if I was unhappy about my current pay - I wouldn't see that as a union issue because that's what I agreed to in the first place. I don't support striking to hold employers hostage for unaffordable pay rises either. If I wanted a better situation, I'd leave and get a different job. But if my current conditions got significantly worse then what I signed up for and maybe I wasn't able to find another job (it's not always possible to jump ship quickly) - I'd see if the union could help. I don't disagree with you thoughts Richard and someone that's generally tried to be self sufficient and generated a lot of my own work, I have an uneasy relationship with my current position in a teaching union. But I've also seen first hand how union activity has helped people and everyone's different. Ultimately you may not like unions, but a large section of the workforce has decided collectively that it works for them. Those people aren't wrong,, just have different circumstances and priorities.

Sure I agree unions shouldn't be needed, but laws preventing "not whipping the workers" is a pretty low bar. Labour laws can also become eroded (look at Uber they have skirted minimum wage law in many countries) gutted by lobbyists etc... The UK is being dragged into a Brexit nightmare right now, in part to divert from EU labour laws. I stayed away from unions for most of my career. I felt they didn't apply to me, I could always move on, get a better job etc... But in my current role in Academia it's become increasingly precarious and I'm older have more responsibilities/dependants that would make it harder to jump ship quickly in the event of disaster. So at this point, it felt safer to join the union and get "some" protections however minor. Its judgement you have to make at any particular time, based on personal circumstances. Right now working is a sector that's going to be damaged by Brexit etc... I can see some messy battles on the horizon and unions might help advocate for workers rights. I'd trust them to do that more than the UK government at the mo. Corruption seems to be a human condition, sure unions can be corrupt, governments can be pretty corrupt as well - so you have to try and choose who's working in your best interests. Of course not all unions are equal and some have problems. But I would on balance support them because they are working to improve workers rights and opportunities. There is a lot of anti union propaganda spread by the ruling class/right wing press - because they have a vested interest in crushing unions and preserving profits. Film and media is skewed because of a large over supply of labour for the quantity work available, so you either have the UK situation of completely powerless unions or overly protectionistic US unions. But I don't know what the alternative solution would be, and on some level if unions can improve things for workers on any level that's a "good thing". Also in the US you have the added complexity of private healthcare etc.. don't unions pay a role in administering that? Sustaining a freelance career in the US and dealing with healthcare outside a union sounds scary.

Hi Richard, As imperfect as most unions are, what would your propose in their place? Not having them would make life "easier" for some producers but then who is looking out to protect workers? I'm sure in your case your a good employer who treats your employees well. In that situation you'd probably not see the point of unions...e.g "I'm a good guy, so unions please get off my case" Unfortunately, historically many employers aren't good and in many industries its a complete race to the bottom. If governments don't enforce workers rights properly and people still need a job, what do they do? Accept the poor status quo or unionise? Nobody unionises because they want to unionise. We'd rather we didn't have too because we trusted our employers had our best interests at heart. Joining a union in most industries is about self preservation and getting some protections we wouldn't have as an individual. Look at the way the job market is going, with strong clamping down on unions and an increasingly casualised workforce. You see examples of workers being exploited more and more by organisations that could afford to treat their staff better. In those situations workers can either quit or unionise and quittings not going to pay the bills. In the UK we don't really have any unions with any clout in the film and television industry and the race to the bottom on pay and conditions makes careers less sustainable. Me personally, I'd like to be in the DGA - I think I'd benefit, if I make the move to the US at some point.

double post

Thats a big chunk of the UK media, BBC is similar - most of the opportunities are sown up by the private school oxbridge set. It's not the best way to either support filmmakers or produce films people would like to watch. Occasionally they will support a few working class/minority voices in a cack handed attempt to pay lip service to diversity. Which is patronising to all involved and wouldn't be needed if most the funding wasn't hoovered up by the private school contingent. But I agree in general they don't seem to make particularly good choices about content, fund the same narrow trench of people multiple times regardless of the outcome of their previous efforts. It's a shame it's not better as it could really develop the UK film industry. But that's the main issue with class stratification in sectors of UK public life. It's a huge missed opportunity, with a great deal of potential talent ignored. While so many opportunities are contained within specific social class circles. Its always been hard to "make it" in film/TV/art's in the UK - but I think it's becoming harder due to the increased costs of living in London etc.. many people are just priced out of the race. I know thats a trend in places worldwide and income disparity is going up in many western countries. So if a country is going have government film funding agency its important they do their job properly. You could argue why do they need to exist at all? E.g American cinema dominates the world cinema market without public funding. But then maybe that's why, Hollywood has worked hard to maintain its monopoly, so filmmakers in other markets do need additional support to produce content.

BFI's policy seems to be funding the same 10 people again and again... It feels often that they have "people they like" to fund, rather than the quality of the project. The rest of us basically submit projects to the BFI as a hail mary pass. Pretty much every decent project has to get its BFI rejection in the bag before they move on and get it made. It's a right of passage. I'm in post production, at the moment, on my most recent BFI rejected project. I will still have a punt at the BFI iFeatures next time round, the potential upside is still worth the aggravation - but I'll need to attract a co-producer to the project that has a track record of BFI success. I know that life isn't fair and places like the BFI are going to disappoint the majority, so in my case it could just be bad luck or that my work isn't good enough to be championed by them. So you have to take my comments with a pinch of salt. But at times it feels that the BFI has a "thing" they will fund and if your work/profile isn't "that thing" regardless of its artistic merits it won't get funded.

maybe not quite that slow, but something in the ballpark. You could try testing digitally to see if the look is close. Either by finding a digital camera that can do 9fps or maybe shoot 30fps with a 360 degree shutter and keep one frame in three - that would get you 10 fps with a 120 degree shutter - which is in the ball park and close enough to see if your going to like the effect Makes sense to have a play with a digital camera before you burn expensive film stock

I did read once that the mirror assemblies on some DLSR's was good for around 100,000 exposures. Which is loads if you use them for stills and for video the mirror stays open, so wear would be minimal But I did read, it could be an issue on stop motion films - where 100 of thousands of stills are taken, wearing out the mirror assembly potentially could become possible on big animation projects/series. Aardman in the UK used EOS 1D's for a big chunk of time (Shaun the Sheep, Early Man, Wallace and Gromit), I wonder if they wore any out.

360 degrees means the shutter is open all the time. You can't be more open then fully open. One 1/24 of a sec is the longest you can have on digital camera at 24fps. In that case you can only extend the period the shutter is open by reducing the frame rate. at 12 fps with a 360 shutter angle, its open 1/12 of a sec

Some ideas: Shoot at 12fps and double every frame in post so you get a staccato juddery look -it can look trippy if you add a slow shutter speed for lots of motion blur, Wong Kar Wai uses put the effect to good use: Or stop motion with people:

Also at the ultra budget end is appling diffusion in post. It can look pretty good and you have more control of the strength and dial it in shot by shot if needed.

Lee softs are cheaper: https://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera-directory/camera-dir-list/category/soft-set Although looking at the examples they are bit stronger what you might use on glass filters I've not personally used them on the front of the lens, but have cut them down and put on the back of the lens for a 2/3" multi-cam shoot and they worked well enough.

Post's trigger discussion, it happens organically. If your upset about be "hijacked", you need to read the room. This is cinematography.com - it mostly go's down weird rabbit holes and is better for it.

It's not about ascribing blame - but something must be putting women off from the camera dept. There are gender biases in all sorts of jobs. But in movies Directing and DOPing are really under represented and I think that's a shame if there are some amazing female filmmakers that have been put off from doing it for some reason. Its not something that needs to be politicised to the level of Trans altheate's - that's a proper ethical minefield from both sides of the fence. Personally positive discrimination is potentially illegal and also patronising to the people it benefits - e.g did you get the job because of meeting a quota or your ability? But I don't think the status quo is good idea. I teach undergrad cinematography - I have a lot of female students that are interested in the subject. So there are women that want to pursue a photography/directing career hopefully this is a positive trend. But it could be there were always women that wanted to cinematography and have been put off for some reason. The current stats aren't great. I've only directed three project's with a female DOP's, in the last 10 years. That's not due to any biases on my part but limited women applying for those roles. But I get Stuarts point about some roles are gender skewed - e.g make up etc... I guess the best you can be is open and inclusive and in my teaching I try to do my best to not include gender biases and include case studies with both male and female DOP's.

I was making the jokes