Saul Rodgar

So frigging awesome yet disgustingly real. :unsure:

This is the kind of thing that can get one fired if done on the wrong job. ENG-type jobs for example. If one has the inclination, the producer's blessing, bandwidth and post leeway, sure why not.

As it has been noted tho, and in my experience, on even moderately compressed video formats, the image can get so blue, for example if shot under overcast skies (around 6000K) with tungsten balance setting (3200K or less), that recovering the neutral tonalities may be pretty hard without introducing other artifacts, even with the use of Macbeth charts, etc.

If one is filming RAW or on negative stock, there is no choice, of course. But those formats were designed to use post CC.

 

 

Bottom line is that as a producer I can cast or hire any one I please to. You will not find this info on any union website though!! :D

 

R,

I believe such information may be found on their website under the section: "Union Busting and other Scabs" :)

Jeez, wouldn't it be smarter to have two shifts?

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

I have worked on a couple of big studio films (as an assistant) where split shifts were attempted at production-wide levels and the results were near catastrophic, IMO, since the heads of departments are not around all the time to supervise that things are happening as needed. The incoming crew was fresh, yes, but when push comes to shove in the thick of heavy filming pressure, the outgoing and very tired crew members always forgot to mention some little detail that made the fresh crews' working with other departments HELL, making production react in very negative ways sometimes.

Some situations we encountered included: people getting fired for not relaying needed information or items, or for merely being at the wrong place at the wrong time, and then sometimes being re-hired a few days later when things calm down; pressing things not happening because crew members don't have authority to call some shots and those who do are NOT on split shifts, and by the time that person gets in, all hell breaks loose because things didn't happen in a timely fashion; entire departments threatening to walk out because of those types of situations, etc. Just madness.

I suppose it can work under the right circumstances, but I haven't seen it work smoothly. Would I love to work 8 hour shifts on features? You bet! Just my practical experience with it has not being nothing but a string of avoidable bad situations.

 

 

But, of course, "free market" Conservatives HATE regulations of any kind, so if they had their way, not only would your van driver be paid less than the minimum wage, he'd also likely drive you into a ditch because of fatigue as they would be forced to work non-stop by "free market" Producers. :unsure:

Yup.

 

Thought I'd get myself a working holiday visa and a SIN for my travels. Then I thought "hmm, wonder what the industries like in Canada"

Then I asked around. All responses pretty much said to join the union to get any serious work.

 

My understanding is that in order to join IA669 in Canada, permanent residency in the country is a must. Don't know how easy it is for citizens of members of the Commonwealth to get that, or if I waiver exists.

http://www.ia669.com/page.aspx?code=ABOUTUS

You guys are waaay off topic. The question is about unions for United States film and TV productions, specifically the "Teamsters" and whether their demands for $1,500 a day for van drivers, for example, are causing damage to the local film industry.

Well, thing is, all these issues are interconnected. One can't seriously and honestly look at an issue without acknowledging the factors related to said issue. The challenges facing unions in the entertainment industry are related to the issues that unions across many industries face nowadays. It is often said: "No man is an island," which applies likewise to the issues facing such men.

However, and merely to set the record straight, I do believe it was you who gladly compared Teamsters' paychecks to those of regular industry drivers and former professionals currently moonlighting / or fully employed at Starbucks . . .

Getting paid $1,500 a day to drive a van is a "living wage"? You must be joking. We have teachers making 1/10th that amount. And they have college degrees. How about the millions of unemployed former professionals out there who are making lattes at Starbucks right now for $7.50 an hour? They would kill to get a job driving a van for 1/5th the amount of money these "Teamsters" are demanding.

 

I love ACLs, do not like Bolexes or NPRs. I actually prefer my ACL to my Aaton.

But, as said, if I were going to go to war, needed a crash cam or for climbing Everest, a K3 (or to a lesser degree, a Bolex) would be best suited. For all other purposes I stick to my ACL and LTR cams.

Let's get our facts right Brian, NAFTA involves Canada, The USA, & Mexico. So what well paying jobs went "overseas" as a result of NAFTA?

 

Actually, they did, if somewhat indirectly. Here is a very oversimplified version of what happened:

One of the terms of NAFTA was that Maquiladoras (sweatshop factories) would be set up along the border US border in Mexico (so that Mexicans wouldn't have to come to the US for jobs anymore) and that the Mexican gov't would guarantee they would beef up infrastructure and social services with the taxes the transnational corporations would pay (most roads leading to the Maquiladoras were dirt, most workers lived in squalor, violent crime against women in particular was on the rise, etc.)

When this didn't happen-- the tax money mostly went to corrupt Mexican officials, one assumes-- and among other reasons, like the entry of China to the WTO, a lot of those companies closed up shop in Mexico and left for China -- which has better infrastructure, cheaper wages and plenty of skilled workers and engineers. "In a deregulated world, there is always someone who will work for less. "

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_nafta_failed_mexico

I agree. I find it interesting that most "Capitalists" are the one's who whine most about workers earning too much while defending the rights of CEOs to make 1000x what their employees do. The only justification for wishing ordinary workers to earn less no matter what the job, is to protect the true agenda of the "Reagan Revolution," which was to destroy the Middle Class which so threatens the security of the Aristocracy of the planet. Allowing "ordinary" people to have too much money means that "the rich" can't exert the control over them that they desire. So, by forcing wages DOWN and keeping unemployment steady (a verified strategy of Alan Greenspan), it keeps "workers" in their place, just happy to have a job. That any ordinary worker would defend that strategy of the Fascist Right Wing is truly mind-boggling.

 

I'd have to wonder if anyone in the camera department would turn down $1,500 a day because they don't feel that their skillset is deserving of such a wage? Unions are NOT "destroying" California or our nation. Unfair trade policies and other pre-Reagan/Bush protections are. Our tax base has been undermined because A) Reagan and Bush cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans and B) trade policies like NAFTA sent millions of well-paying jobs over our borders and across the seas. US workers need to stop whining about ordinary people making "too much" and start fighting back against the Right Wing Agenda and return to sensible economic policies where EVERYONE can earn a comfortable living. :)

AMEN, brother!!!

Saul, not sure your, the rich are thieves therefore a union driver should make $1500.00/day argument, will hold up either.

 

R,

I didn't say that a driver should make $1,500 a day. But that if they can get that kind of money, more power to them.

Indeed, that's why there are day gigs. When somebody tells you they're an actor, the next question is "which restaurant?"....

 

It's not reasonable to be paid so much that you can take six months of vacation per year. It is reasonable to be paid enough that you can do OK working at something else the other half of the year.

 

-- J.S.

I agree that $1500 a day is a hell of a lot of money, but if the Teamsters can collectively bargain that amount, more power to them. I have never made nowhere near that amount doing camerawork, or anything else really. Would I like to? Sure.

But in terms of what it is reasonable, what it is reasonable to me may not be to you. I know people (some former clients of mine) who make $30,000 a month by sitting on their butts in their 5,000 sq feet, million dollar home doing nothing all day. And yet they complained they are too poor, and how they couldn't pay me my daily rate. Completely unreasonable as far as I am concerned.

One thing I have learned is what you think your time is worth and what you can get for your time are completely different things. Again, looking at the current headlines indicates how subjective the pay scale perceptions can be:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100723/ap_on_re_us/us_pay_czar;_ylt=AjBveWEIGfTt5ebG7N3x60Ws0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNjczZqN3NqBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNzIzL3VzX3BheV9jemFyBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMwRwb3MDMTEEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA3BheWN6YXIxN2JhaQ--

Talk about unreasonable pay scales. These people caused the financial mess we are in, the got bailed out by the taxpayers and that money was used to lavishly compensate those responsible for the disaster. I am sure if you ask the actual recipients of the money, they will be fine with it, telling you how deserving of the money they really are, etc .

The film unions in the UK and Australia have been weakened substantially over the last 20 years. That's a trend that may hit North America at some stage.

When I see fat cats who nearly brought the entire system down with their manipulations and speculations, who got out of it scot-free, and with millions in bonuses to boot, I sure hope there are some unions keeping the balance out there. :ph34r:

And of course this is exactly what is happening. Not just in the film biz but hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the US and Canada have moved to Mexico, Indonesia, China, & India, never to return.

 

R,

That seems like fear mongering to me. Of course there are runaway film productions, following the general trend in other industries to outsource -- and they would continue doing it if it weren't for the unions. I mean, in industry who can possibly compete with China wages, for example. Even countries like Mexico cannot compete with them, in terms of infrastructure, skilled labor and wages.

Trouble is, most of these countries do not have neither the infrastructure nor the highly trained crews to support most film productions yet, to say nothing of the right locations needed to film the movie. Most of the crews (at the very least, heads of department and keys) travel from the US with the prod co to a foreign locale. India has good crews, so does Eastern Europe and Argentina, but I don't see a story that is set in NYC being shot in either of those places. Toronto, however, has fulfilled that niche with great success to this day.

Producers will travel to far-flung locales, if they can find the locations to support their stories. With the blatant US-centrism of American TV and film audiences (and thus storylines), I don't see every production just flying overseas to save money if the geographic settings aren't just what they need for picture.

And this notion that these film productions are leaving "never to return" is inaccurate. During the 90s, US film productions left for Canada, only to return stateside earlier this decade. Under the auspices of government tax credits, incentives, etc, states like NM have been very successful in their efforts to lure some movie prod co's that would have gone elsewhere, Canada included -- unions notwithstanding. I do not intend to gloat, but it shows that it can be done.

Besides, it looks like even the "bitterness-eating" workers in China are not just lying quietly with the "maximum profits" boot pressing down their throats anymore:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Companies-brace-for-end-of-apf-2437567795.html?x=0

Should read:

[quote name='Saul Rodgar' date='22 July 2010 - 08:02 PM' timestamp='1279850569'

A producer may not want to pay what the union asks, maybe trying to run the show by themselves would make it easier. As long as they need people to man their show, and they are unionized, the producers will need to reckon with their bargaining power. Again, the producers may not like it, but if they can't run the entire show themselves, or move to a non union locale, they have to deal with unions.

Gee Saul not sure your, film workers only work six months a year so they need double the pay when they do work, argument will hold up with many people.

 

A director may go 4-6 years between movies, are you in favour of directors earning enough money to last them through these long stretches as well?

 

What about actors? They might even have to wait even longer before they are on set again.

 

As people who work in film we all accept that the work is sporadic and freelance, we are not working 52 weeks every year on salary with three weeks vacation.

 

I really don't think it's job of the studios to try and "fix" this problem. If people want a steady income then they need to leave film and get a steady M-F 9-5 job like 90% of the population.

 

R,

The point is that the workers need to be available to work on a show. While $1,500 a day is extremely high, in order to survive film workers need to save what they make during the high times. That is just a reality. Those who don't save at least a portion of their wages don't last too long in this industry, that I know of.

Teachers have been used as an example, although I think it is not a perfect analogy, they get paid for the summertime, when they don't work. Otherwise there would be no teachers at the beginning of the fall because they all needed other jobs. If they can't collectively bargain their wages successfully, that is another problem.

All I am saying is, a producer or studio needs to take into account the workers' needs too, because they both need each other. The current trend here is for the investors to reap the majority of the rewards. But without the workers, the investors are screwed, and viceversa. So there is a middle point where both groups win.

It may no be perfect, but it sure beats pure Capitalism and pure Socialism. That is why the US and Canada are mixed economies. In fact, in this day and age a purely Capitalist society does not truly exist, but do not tell that to the Tea Party and conservatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

People do not realize that unions are responsible for the 40 hr work week among many other things. Sure there have been many abuses, but it is disingenuous to simply say "Not my problem," and move on to dismiss collective bargaining as the "great ill" that affects the world.

A producer may not want to pay what the union asks, maybe trying to run by themselves would make it easier. As long as they need people to man their show, and they are unionized, the producers will need to reckon with their bargaining power. Again, the producers may not like it, but if they can't run the entire show themselves, or move to a non union locale, they have to deal with unions.

Getting paid $1,500 a day to drive a van is a "living wage"? You must be joking. We have teachers making 1/10th that amount. And they have college degrees. How about the millions of unemployed former professionals out there who are making lattes at Starbucks right now for $7.50 an hour? They would kill to get a job driving a van for 1/5th the amount of money these "Teamsters" are demanding.

 

People should be paid according to the value of what they do in a free market.

You are mixing apples and oranges. See, what people not familiar with the nature of this industry don't realize is that most drivers, or DPs for that matter, do not work every day of the year, or even close. So $1,500 a day for a couple of months (60 days is the standard length of your average film production), and then nothing for a month, or six, or more is not cakewalk. Teachers, on the other hand, work 40 hrs a week --if full time-- every week (except for summer vacations and holidays, for which they get paid for).

Of course, most producers (and employers) do not want to pay the premium to have those people available when they need them, until they really do need them. But since they are generally available in great numbers, then the perceived value is greatly diminished.

And this is the similar failed argument that Meg Whitman is making in CA with the state unions, (and every CEO out there, for that matter). The idea seems to be this:

"Yes, you (state workers) provide essential services we couldn't do without, but we (taxpayers) just don't think that what you need in compensation for performing those services is accurate. It has to be done much cheaper, because we really don't want to pay higher taxes to give you what you think you deserve for your services. You work for us, and we expect you to be at the ready when we need you, but we also know how much that is worth in dollars and cents, and it is not very much."

It is the same at federal level. Everyone wants premium government services and infrastructure, education, etc but no one wants to pay its real price. Thus the government is forced to borrow to cover the difference and we know where things are headed now. What is amazing is that everyone is still convinced that tax cuts are needed, that the gov't is still too bloated, but as long as one's entitlements are untouched, costs need to be shaved off elsewhere. :blink:

So this notion that (film production) union members are somehow evil for engaging in collective bargaining to make sure their needs are met is, well, insane at best.

 

These guys should not be asking for raises, they should be taking massive pay cuts if we want to bring production back to LA and California.

Yeah. Me, I help the economy by working for free. See, I got tired of being constantly outbid on projects because I wasn't competitive with Chinese and East Indian labor. So now I do it for free, just because I love doing it so much and employers really deserve to make some OUTRAGEOUS profits. But that is OK, because I don't deserve making a living wage. Soon, when the rest of my fellow film technicians employ my strategy, I will be paying for the honor of working on movie projects. <_<

Little Mosque on Ground Zero, anyone? Quick, call Sarah Palin, it is time to refudiate, just like Shakespeare would have, if he had any sense. :blink:

 

I read the article, Tim about Local #399, Tim, but have to admit I am ignorant to the jurisdiction of that Union. Is this going to affect the East Coast, Chicago, and Miami areas as well, or is this something confined to the Teamsters in Hollywood?

Teasmters Local 399 is So Cal mostly, though a lot of their drivers travel to other locals if the movie's equipment trucks come from LA. That happens here in NM a lot. I'd say, at least 1/3 the transpo staff is from LA for any given NM film production.

http://www.ht399.org/

 

 

$150 is less than $10/hr BEFORE taxes and Union dues with a 16 hour day. I assume that is at or below the average for a workday for a Teamster, considering they have to drive to and from the location in addition to work during the day.

 

Hey listen, if you can't get by with minimum wage, that is YOUR problem. You should have thought about that before being born in a "capitalist" country, man. My shareholders and investors need to save as much money while maximizing their future returns. I mean, what is this, a SOCIALIST country or something? What, do you want health care too? And what the hell you mean I have to pay taxes to the government? I thought the country paid for all infrastructure I demand to properly conduct business with Monopoly money. JEEEEEEEEESUS What is this country coming to? Next you are going to tell me that I need to pay for my meals at a restaurant or something like that!!!!! :rolleyes:

Or is there a way to use the magazine without the claw (which is significantly quieter) and still register the image properly?

 

The reason why the magazine without the inner claw (or clicker) is quieter --the one right before the second loop is formed on the first pic you posted-- is because that claw it is designed to click if the film is not going through properly.

In other words, if you hear a steady clicking sound as the camera rolls, the film loop is gone, the sprockets may be damaging your film, the claw at the gate is not keeping your film steady as it is being exposed, thus making it blurry, and that seems to be your problem.

It takes a while to get it right. I would use a dummy load and run the film without the mag cover on, the loops need to stay the same size all the way through to the end of the roll.

Yeah, if you could get a modern Fuji stock (the 160T or 250T and adjust in Tk), that would work. But I still think a good colorist could match the Kodak to the Fuji stock. I am shooting a project on 7212, 7217 and 8622 and the difference in not that great, particularly for HD finish. :ph34r:

Hi. While I haven't shot the new 7213, the Kodak Vision 3 are generally very smooth grained, while most Fuji stocks tend to be grainier than any modern Kodak counterparts. A test would be the way to go here. I would push process the Kodak stock 1 stop for starters, but to properly match it, a test is required. The bounce card under the actor is a really good idea, I'd say.

Good luck.

Production usually polices bad behavior. The AD's are pretty aware of what's going on because they are the ones who keep the set together moving in the direction that budget and schedule dictate. If somebody is out of control, they get fired. There is a parking lot full of out of work grips, DP's, AC's etc that are waiting in line hoping that someone gets fired so they can step in and take over.

That is true, to a certain extent. A few years back, I used to work on an ABC TV show and the main director / writer was a big coke-head. But production only covered for him, even when it was evident that his work or his attitude were not up to par. But, of course, he was the director / writer. For lower level crew members the axe would have come down swiftly.

 

Many crew members don't want to move up. Some people make a good living doing what they do and don't want the responsibility or the headache that goes with the job of department head.

Amen to that.

[quote name='George Ebersole' date='18 July 2010 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1279519025'

To be honest, I sometimes wish there was a licensing or certification program for grips, gaffers, DPs, ADs, and all pertinent crew members. Something that says "The State of California" or wherever, that Person-X is capable of handling Task-Y with professionalism. They will not harass the locals, act like jerks, and do what's asked of them without b___ching and whining about craft services. But that's just me :)

That is what the union locals are for. All the offended party has to do is let them know about it. I have seen them tackle some of these issues sending out mass correspondence to the members of the specific craft with something along these lines:

"We have received reports of one or several crew member(s) --who will not be id'd here-- who have incurred in such and such unacceptable behavior on set. In an attempt to make sure we all aware of appropriate on set behaviors here is a run down of how to handle / prevent these situations in the future, etc."

Some even include stern warnings along the lines of: "If we continue to receive similar complaints, the offending member(s) won't be recommended for future jobs, etc"