Brad Grimmett

An easier way to do the same thing would just be to use a wireless transmitter and handheld monitor. You can be very close to camera at all times and no one ever has to lug around your chair and monitor.

I don't agree with this at all regarding documentaries. Are you going to do another take? No. I think a documentary director needs to be near the operator and being the eyes in the back of his/her head, so that important moments don't get missed. They'll see it all later anyway. If it's really a documentary there is no second chance, so sitting at a monitor is pointless. This isn't the case with features and tv of course, but one good example of someone who rarely uses a monitor is Clint Eastwood, and look at his track record as a director. He knows what he wants, hires good people who he knows he can trust, and makes films that are constantly in the running for awards and do very well financially. His example is one of the best arguments for not using a monitor. And I don't think he's an anomaly, I think his process is one that works for him, and could work for other directors.

Yeah, it does have that going for it.

That monitor isn't very good though.... Sure, when you're right in front of it at the exact perfect angle it looks good, but if you're off axis by a degree or two it's un-viewable. I think there are quite a few much better monitors out there that don't need modifying. Is it how cheap it is that makes it attractive?

So if you saw the barrel set at 10'6" and the action was at 11', but you knew for a fact that it was still sharp, you would ask for another one? Why? Would you still ask for another one if it was the 8th take, the actor finally gave the emotional performance on that last take that they had been trying to get for the last seven takes and was completely drained? What if the sun was going down and there was another setup that had to happen within 10 minutes or else you weren't ever going to get it? My answer in all these situations would be no, because we already got it. It was in focus already... I'm just playing devil's advocate, but if you got the shot, you got the shot. Why waste time with semantics? Sure, if your 1st is constantly off then that is something that needs to be addressed, but we're talking about situations in which you KNOW you got it. What is the point of wasting time, money, and energy, and possibly irritating an actor, director, and producer/s, re-doing something that has already been done properly? It just doesn't make sense to me. If you prefer to always have your 1st pull, no matter what the DOF, no problem, just let them know. I'm sure they'll be happy to oblige. But to be upset or redo something just BECAUSE, seems pointless to me.

Any idea what stop each of those examples was shot at David?

Yeah, I think you're right. I was hoping someone would pop up and say, "Oh, yeah, I could build something for you easily!" Now that would be a sight to see! I have, but the UV levels in those lights is often quite a bit lower than in psoriasis specific bulbs. Also, I would prefer to avoid exposing the rest of my body to that light. I've spent much more time in the sun than the average person, growing up in FL and the Cayman Islands, so if I can avoid any unnecessary exposure, that would be good. I've seen way too many cases of skin cancer among old friends.

Well, for that price I may as well just avoid the hassle and just pay a bit more for an existing lamp. Of course it would be nice to increase intensity, but the main thing is to try not to treat the unaffected areas too much, since it's not great for your skin. I can tell you know what you're talking about. I'm sure if we continued the discussion you'd quickly fly right over my head!

What are the dimensions and weight? I didn't see that info in the link you posted.

Thanks for the tips Hal. I'm not gonna shoot with it though, I just have psoriasis and want to build a very spotty light for treatment. I managed to get rid of the psoriasis in an affected area on my back last year while working in the Bahamas. I accidentally burned the crap out of it and it went away and never came back. All of the other areas went away thanks to all the sunlight, but since they didn't burn, they all came back. So, my plan is to burn every spot I have, which is why I want such a spotty light. These lights aren't great for the rest of your skin, so I'd prefer to confine it to the affected area as much as possible. I figured we might have some good electricians here on the forum that would enjoy building a light for the fun of it and some pocket change. These lights are available with a prescription, but I don't think any of them really fit the bill for exactly what I'm looking for...oh, and they're all very expensive. Thanks again Hal.

I'd like to build a light around a particular bulb. You can see it here. I don't know enough to do it myself, so I need a bit of help. I need a directional source and am looking for someone who knows how to do this type of thing. Please reply or PM me if you think you can help. Thanks.

You could always just try asking here....

That's a really good point. I've been denied requests for footage from producers before, but when they hired me, they wanted to see my reel! A reel is something most of us must have in order to get work. If I have to use images and music illegally in order to be able to make a living, then I'm going to do it. I would prefer not to break any laws or use someone else's work if they don't want me to, but in this case I don't have much choice. If an artist (actor, musician, director, DP, etc) asked me not to use their image or music on my reel I would remove it. If someone used my images on their reel to help showcase their music, I would be cool with that. Of course, if they started telling people that they operated or shot those images I would have a problem, but it doesn't hurt me (in the majority of cases) to have my images shown to support someone else's work. I'm not losing anything because they are using those images. BTW, just to play devils advocate, ASCAP is NOT a law making organization. According to their website, "ASCAP protects the rights of its members by licensing and distributing royalties for the non-dramatic public performances of their copyrighted works." ASCAP does not make the law, they just try to make sure their artists get paid when someone uses their work. Just because they say using someone's music on your reel is against the law doesn't make it so. They would have to file a case and get a judgment in order to prove that it's illegal. Maybe they have sued someone for using an artists work on their reel, I don't know, but I can't find any evidence of this. In my opinion there is a difference between something being "right or wrong" and "legal or illegal". Plenty of things that are technically legal aren't right, and plenty of things that are technically illegal aren't wrong. I won't post a bunch of examples because it would cause a severe topic change I think, but one of the things that may be illegal but not wrong, in my opinion, is this issue. If you don't feel right about using someone's music or image without their permission, then don't do it. But be aware that you may have a hard time ever putting together a complete reel.

It's a very common practice to use copyrighted music on demo reels without permission. No, you're most likely never going to have any problem doing so. It's absolutely not the same as using copyrighted music in an indie film or wedding video because you're not trying to sell it. I'm not a copyright attorney, but I believe the spirit of copyright law is to protect artists from having someone use their work for a profit without sharing the money with the original artist. If that is indeed the case, which I believe it is, then there is very little reason, if any, to go after someone using copyrighted music on their reel. There's no money in it for the attorneys or the artists, so what's the point? Make your own decision of course, but I wouldn't sweat it.

I've had luck finding info like this by doing creative google searches. There are all kinds of weird forums out there that talk about stuff like this. I've found out which directors and DP's did particular spots this way.

Angels and Demons wasn't shot on a Red. I think I remember hearing that they did some tests or something on it, but most, if not all, of the film was shot on 35mm.

Even though using a Segway would be easier physically on the operator, I think the actual shot itself would be harder. First of all, take any steps out of the equation. Also, the Segway may or may not fit through a doorway. I've never tried, so I'm not sure, but if it doesn't then you're even more limited. And the Segway with a rig attached is not easy to control in tight spaces. In certain situations the Segway is a great tool for steadicam, but like anything else, it has it's drawbacks. There is a reason it's been around as an option for steadicam for 4 or 5 years and only a few people own them.

To be fair, that particular shot was a huge success, albeit years and years later. Maybe Touch of Evil should have been a one'r! It might have been a better movie.

It would have to have cuts since it was shot on 16mm. Or is there a 3000ft mag I don't know about?

Understood. I just don't want someone to be overly discouraged about something. I agree that there is probably no reason to do a single take movie, but you never know....the "masterpiece" one'r hasn't been done yet. Maybe someday someone will do it.

I don't think that's what he's referring to. I think this is. And this. I think the episode was called "Triangle".

Agreed. But I don't agree with this, which is why I replied.

You may not know any operators that can do that shot, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. They obviously do.

According to Tillman, he never rested the sled on anything for the whole shot. For about a 30 second portion of the film (when the kids run past him in the long hallway) he stood on a platform built on the front of a dolly and leaned on the seat. But please inform us if you know something Tillman doesn't.

I think the biggest technical issue will be power. Can the Red roll continuously for 90 minutes without a battery change when powered by it's own battery? Will it do it with two batts? I don't think there is a steadicam rig that will power the monitor, camera, and necessary accessories for that long. If I was called for the job I think power would be my first concern. Without addressing that problem there is no way to do the shot. There are other issues as well of course. The first being, why? The one shot movie gimmick has been done, and it's not as though the films that did it were huge successes. Sure, they were technical successes, but not the best films. It's hard to make a five minute one'r interesting for the whole time, and the longer the shot gets the more difficult it becomes. A good example of long steadicam takes (not the whole film) is Nine Lives. There are nine steadicam shots in the film which comprise the whole movie, each running about 10 minutes. That's tough to pull off, but it worked well because the shots have purpose and don't meander from place to place. I think this is a much easier, and frankly more interesting, way to shoot a film. If I got a call to do a 90 minute one'r I think I would probably turn it down. It's too hard on your body and it's most likely not going to be a creative masterpiece, so the upside to a shot like that is limited. Of course, everyone has a price....but for a shot like that, the price would be very high!