Brad Grimmett

As has been mentioned already, there are quite a few steadicam operators who have done this exact thing. Tillman Buttner was the first, but there have been many since. Sometimes it's best not to reply to something if you don't know what you're talking about.

Sorry to hear that John. I hope all goes well and we'll see you back here soon.

Where are you getting that #? I've never even heard anyone propose this idea. Have I missed something? And where are you getting THOSE #'s? The highest federal rate anyone is currently paying is 35%. I guess I could be mistaken about the exact #, but it's certainly not 50%-60%, even if you add state tax. I think we can all agree that the 1950's were/are considered to be a very good time in our country, arguably the best. People were prospering, the country was prospering, and there was a general happiness throughout the nation. So, food for thought....in the 50's the max marginal tax rate was 92% on married couples. This rate applied to any married couple making a combined $400,000.00 or more. Now, I'm certainly not saying that we need to have a 92% tax rate, but one could certainly argue that taxes should be higher based on our past experiences regarding taxes/happiness/prosperity. Here is a chart that lists max tax rates from 1917-2003. I find it interesting that taxes were very low leading up to and during 1929 and more than doubled a couple years later in order to help the country recover from the Depression. A quick look at the chart and you can see the similarities to the present. I'm not an economist, but this stuff isn't exactly rocket science. Yeah, it sucks to pay taxes, but taxes are an investment in our country and our people. We can certainly argue quite a bit with the politicians about how, why, and where they spend that money, but taxes in general aren't a bad thing. They pay for the things that we can't. What's so bad about that? Some people don't want to pay taxes at all, but they sure want the fire department to show up when their house is on fire....they just don't want to pay for it.

Hey, at least it's an improvement! Park City is a fun town.

Yeah, I would figure that it would be standard, but from what I understand it isn't always. But of course if we're talking about movie stars, I don't think they really work off the SAG contract anyway. They make well above scale and don't have to worry about the majority of the things that, say, a dayplayer would. Minimums aren't really an issue.

Are you sure of that David? I know of exceptions to that rule. One example would be Band of Brothers. It shot in England and was not SAG. And of course you would assume that a huge project like that would be, and it's not as if they just used no name actors who were willing to work non-union just to have a job.... I don't have hard #'s, but I'd be very curious to see how many projects shoot out of North America that aren't SAG.

But certainly not before you hijack yet another thread.

Cheaper, faster, better....pick two. You can't have three. "Relatively the same thing" is an acceptable statement I guess....you're recording an image, but film is different than Red, or VHS, or DV, or HD, or HDV, or any of the many other formats out there. They might be "relatively" the same, but they're all very different.

Jean, you must be a writer as well as a director! Your post was informative and full of good advice and info. Your advice to "grow a thick skin, but not a blind eye..." is fantastic advice and works in the majority of situations we face on a day to day basis. Well done. You know, sometimes I almost regret that I've been really lucky on a few particular "dream projects" where everyone treats each other wonderfully, respects each others work, enjoys the long hours they spend together, and actually works on a project worth making and watching. The reason for the "almost regret" is that the vast majority of projects aren't "dream projects", and I know that next week or next month I'll be on the exact opposite type of project, and I might not be on another dream project for years. But I guess in a lot of ways the dream projects are what keep us in the business....

Which union are you talking about? You list yourself as a camera operator, so I assume you're talking about Local 600, but 600 doesn't have a hiring hall, and they don't place workers, at least not that I've ever been aware of. Anyway, just curious which union you were referring to.

I think you answered this in your post. "Laugh Inwardly". If you can just laugh these silly things off (most of them really are silly after all) I think you'll find that you're much less bothered by them. That doesn't make them right of course, but laughing can help you deal with them, instead of stewing about what an butt someone is. I've had a few issues in the past where I spoke up when it would have been much better for me in the long run to keep my trap shut. I don't regret standing up for myself, but in the long run it can be better, both for your well-being and future work opportunities, to just let it go and not let it bother you. Of course there are sometimes instances that need addressing and aren't something to laugh about. Knowing the difference can be very important.

Well, none of us here are named Kaminski, so we don't know what he made on either of those pictures. His rate very well may have been the same on both movies. Maybe it wasn't. I guess you could get in touch with him and ask him, but even if he told you his rates, there's probably very little relation between what he makes and what most other DP's make.

Many northern basements are decorated as if they're a "bonus room" in the house. They don't really look like a basement. So you may be able to pull off something in a more conventional type room with no windows. Of course, you may WANT it to look like a basement, in which case I've been absolutely no help.

Very nice Stephen! It felt like a trailer, but for you....which I guess in the long run is exactly what a reel should be. Well done.

It's a very difficult question to answer, which is why you haven't found one in the archives. Rates are all over the map. I'm afraid you're probably not going to get a specific answer unless you offer up some specifics regarding budget and project, and even then rates will vary quite a bit.

I think you're mistaken about this. From what I understand, Pulp Fiction is considered to be the largest budgeted non union movie to ever shoot in LA at $8 million. I obviously can't confirm that as a hard fact, but this is widely believed to be true...at least by the circles of people I know. It's only been about 15 or 20 years since $30 million was considered to be a pretty big budget movie.

No clue why it posted that three times. I'm not a moderator on this forum, so I can't delete. Hopefully another mod will take care of it for me.

If memory serves, they used to use Panavision and now they use Arri with S4's and Optimo Zooms. They were probably using Primo primes and zooms when they were a Panavision show. They don't seem to use any extremely short or long lenses except for special shots here and there. The episode with Mos Def is example of when they probably used a very wide lens for his POV. But if I had to guess I would say the majority of the show is shot with lenses between 35mm and 100mm, but that's really just a guess based on the episodes I've seen. Oh, and I believe it is a Fuji show.

If memory serves, they used to use Panavision and now they use Arri with S4's and Optimo Zooms. They were probably using Primo primes and zooms when they were a Panavision show. They don't seem to use any extremely short or long lenses except for special shots here and there. The episode with Mos Def is example of when they probably used a very wide lens for his POV. But if I had to guess I would say the majority of the show is shot with lenses between 35mm and 100mm, but that's really just a guess based on the episodes I've seen. Oh, and I believe it is a Fuji show.

If memory serves, they used to use Panavision and now they use Arri with S4's and Optimo Zooms. They were probably using Primo primes and zooms when they were a Panavision show. They don't seem to use any extremely short or long lenses except for special shots here and there. The episode with Mos Def is example of when they probably used a very wide lens for his POV. But if I had to guess I would say the majority of the show is shot with lenses between 35mm and 100mm, but that's really just a guess based on the episodes I've seen. Oh, and I believe it is a Fuji show.

I once shot with an SR2 with mags that very badly needed service. The mags were named....one was "Thumper" and another was "Scratchy" (as in "Itchy and Scratchy". The names described exactly what the sound coming from the mags was. But in general the camera is fine for sound as long as it's been maintained well.

The Master Primes are the sharpest and fastest and all the widest lenses focus at 14". My second choice would be super speeds if you're on a budget. S4's would be my last choice since they're considered to be a bit softer.

I saw it the other day. Great work Chas! It looked fantastic.

Hey, the perfect thread for you David! It's exactly what you're pushing in every post you make.

Every situation is different of course. Sometimes the operators job is simply to figure out the best way to get the shot the Director/DP want without adding any input. Sometimes the operator makes little creative suggestions here and there to try to better achieve the shot the DP/Director is looking for. And sometimes the operator is given a lot of free reign to come up with their own shot that works with the general ideas that the Director/DP have.