Stuart McCammon

Only problem with the jib is to make sure and use a heavy-duty, non-remote head that won't drift on ya)

Periscope lens (also called a snorkel) are useful any time you can't get the camera directly into position for the shot, such as when you are shooting miniatures (because the camera is too big to get the right shot) - also when you want the lens at a right angle, or any angle that is different than the camera body. The bad thing about periscopes is you lose a lot of light in them. Yes, a Frazier is a periscope, with both ends being able to rotate - a cheaper way to get many of the same shots you could get with a Frazier would be to mount the camera on a jib or crane with a Weaver-Steadman head and use a regular persicope.

So does this mean I should 86 my craft service reel?

Low budget, no muss no fuss version=green screen the actor on a stage, undecrank the street scene, voila!

Google the word "cukuloris" - most often just a sheet of metal you put in front of the light, can make your own with tin snips and other common tools -

What about the set-ups that run the TV screen in sync with the camera speed - have you checked those out yet? Actually, if you fed the TV signal off a computer, you might even be able to come up with a homemade version of that rig -

I think a much bigger problem than the lights, actually, is having the camera inside the car. Simple car rigs don't cost much to rent and provide alot more flexibility in terms of shot selection. Heck, there are probably a bunch of people here who could tell you how to make a car rig.

I think at least part of the problem is that in any other business, freebie workers are referred to as interns and everyone who looks at their resume knows that it is different level of experience than a full-time employee, but in film an intern can put "1st AC" on his resume if there was nobody in the camera department besides him and the DP, and people accept it as if he or she has some training and experience.

Here is an idea for your steam shooting out of something shot (forget what you said you wanted it to shoot out of) Rig up: 1) A tank of compressed air - very cheap at any scuba shop. 2) Plumb the comressed air into some sort of a "Y" - use the same principle as an ordinary garden sprayer from Home Depot - the vacuum created by the compressed air rushing by draws fog into the "Y" 3) Rig a sturdy, airtight reservoir (a 5-gallon paint bucket or a bigger garbage can maybe?), fill it with fog and attach it to the "Y" 4) rig a valve to the line out and plumb it to whatever you want to shoot steam out of The compressed air will do two things, it will make the "steam" shoot out with force, and it will thin the fog out and make it look more like steam. Not sure if that is the best way to achieve your goal, but it is a thought)

Depending on where you are located, you should be able to rent a fogger cheaply and find cheap juice - in LA I would buy juice from Expendable Supply Store. The fog oil is literally that - oil - so you are going to have trouble making it look like steam. Also, with the shots you are contemplating, you will need to fool around with the rigs to get them to look and work just right, so it may make more sense for you to buy a fogger (have seen them used around $300). As far as rules, you are going to have more real-world limitations than anything - most people simply can't function that well breathing in oil for sustained periods, and on top of that fog juice really smells awful.

Or you could be the video operator, have to carry stuff onto the set but most video/prompter people have a little cart or dolly rigged up)

The beauty of House of Flying Daggers - photography, costumes, props, sets - made the acting only that much more painful to watch. How did it end? I had to turn it off - couldn't handle the bad acting)

This discussion reminds me of a time, shooting outdoors on a cloudy day, when the DP decided he needed to fly a 40 x 40 silk about 20 feet off the ground to get the look just right - of course it rained and we ended up buying a brand new 40 x 40 silk. That experience, and many others like it, are why I love small crews. You couldn't even attempt something like that with a small crew - you have to be creative and resourceful instead. Go for it with the small crews man, you will learn alot, be less bored and in better shape)

Replying to the original scenario, with the grass - on a super-low budget, I would: 1) Do the crane shot with a jib 2) for the XCU's of water creeping up on his hand & face, rig a frame of 2x6 covered with a tarp, then covered with aritificial grass. Keeping the shots tight minimizes the water volume issue, although you can also rig a raised tub full of water with a suction hose to direct the water flow better. Getting enough light on the water will be a bigger issue. 3) for the reverse angle, make a box with a plexi bottom, fill it with water and shoot up through the plexi 4) when he gets up, sound effects will nicely reinforce the impression of him getting up out of water (if you are worried about wide shots) and contrast to his dry appearance. Would shoot them 1,4,2,3 Cheers!

Just a suggestion - a long, fluid shot might not even be the best if you are trying to build suspense and/or heighten action. How about a low-budget version: 1. You find a circular staircase and shoot a static shot of the guy running upstairs with the camera pointing straight down from a jib arm (the jib arm would place the camera suspended in mid-air in the center of the staircase). 2. As the guy gets to the top, sweep the camera up and across in front of him (actor running toward the camera now), stopping wherever you hit the limits of your jib. The actor can stop and look frantically around or breathe hard. 3. Switch to a reverse angle and dolly in with him as he bursts through the door to the roof (probably a different location) 4. Reverse angles (outside, on the roof now, maybe a new location) as he stops again and looks for where he can go. Pan and dolly with him again as he runs by the camera toward the edge of the roof. 5. Reverse up angle on actor as he runs toward the camera (fake edge of roof in bottom of shot) and jumps. 6. Street scene with car in frame, dummy crashes into car. 7. Down angle, zoom in on bloody actor laying on crushed car. For that you would need a jib, dolly, dummy and a junk car - I'm thinking under $1,000 for the whole thing? Just a thought)

Quick, someone tell Mark Roberts that his website name means "Mr. Booger" in Spanish)

I guess a more complete answer would have been: if I had $25,000 for hardware, I wouldn't spend it on hardware. So many people have invested so much money into hardware that it is extremely cheap to rent, and if you don't happen to own it you are not stuck storing it, maintaining it, insuring it or justifying its existence. Good scripts are rare, so if you have a couple you are better off focusing on that and choosing people and equipment that will best fulfill the artistic vision of the script, instead of buying a bunch of stuff and ending up writing scripts that can be produced with the equipment you happen to own. If you simply must buy a computer and editing software, a PC will cost 1/3 of the price of an equivalent MAC, and Avid runs equally well on both platforms (and even offers a free version of its software). Best wishes)

I thought the remake of "Mr. Deeds" updated nicely and even outdid the original in many ways, even though I was originally horrified at the thought of Adam Sandler in a remake of that film.

Ibbadibba

Of all the gear rental houses, I have always been impressed by Clairmont and Mole-Richardson, their equipment is always in excellent shape and well-maintained. With regard to crew, I try to keep far away from angry, delusional people who twist words into fantastical shapes to fit their own confrontational view of business and life, and prefer instead to work with nice people who exhibit character and a good work ethic as the best guarantee of a lack of screwups on-set - particularly people who own their own gear because they tend to keep it in top shape. As far as the grinding thing, it is more about getting a fair shake for the production company than anything else - it is, after all, still a transaction, even though it is one that may produce art)

You know Brian, you are right. At $3,000 an hour, production time is simply too important. I need to meet these perfect grips and electricians though. With such sterling prep amd professionalism, surely they would feel comfortable reimbursing the production company for any delays/screwups caused by their department on the set.

With regard to why people do all of this crazy stuff with 8 MM cameras - I met a guy at a party a couple of weeks ago who put a 350 HP, 1 liter snowmobile engine in a Geo Metro to do speed runs on the Bonneville Salt Flats. Personally, I would have just bought a Corvette if I wanted 350 HP, and would shoot 35MM if I wanted beautiful film.

Take classes at the local JC and get all the stuff for free, use your $$ on raw stock, processing and post, and things that wil add production value (like costumes, props and feeding the crew)

Speaking as a producer, there is a great advantage to establishing relationships with crew and rental houses, having P.A.'s pick up and drop off gear and puchase expendables, which are always ten times as expensive if you have to buy them off the grip truck. Grinding people is just what producers do, it's part of the job description, and although there is a fine line between getting the best deal and destroying relationships (which a good producer will always try to preserve), your director buddy sure isn't spending his own money to hire you, and the producer has people he answers to in terms of the costs of the shoot. Paying a day (or half day) to have the AC check out the camera gear is just smart insurance, but what value does it add to have a grip pick up a c-stand or an electrician pick up a light at the rental house? Anyway, that's how I was trained, and it definitely has its advantages for the production company. And as far as the equipment list, the producer does have to sign off on it, again because he or she is responsible for the cost - yet another fine line between being responsible and penny wise/pound foolish - overall, if there are things that are legitimately unneccessary or would only be used in a best-case scenario, the producer may cut them because, as you well know, the best case scenario rarely happens)

Having worked with some very experienced script supervisors whom I respect deeply, I cannot think of a single one that I would want second-guessing the DP.