Brad Grimmett

Wait...you're an operator, but you're considering working for free as an assistant? What's the point? It would be different if you were a 1st and you were considering operating for free, but taking a step backwards for no money makes absolutely no sense.

Anytime anyone works for free they're financing someone else's project, regardless of whether they're bringing equipment or not. Part of the financing includes money to pay the crew...

There are good reasons to do freebies sometimes. In this case I can't see any reason.

short film that involves PTST and returning veterans.

I would think doing the film about ptsd instead of ptst might be a good start.

As soon as the Epic can do playback it will be ready to be released...oh, wait...

Regarding the Jerry Lewis playback claims...it appears the issue isn't black and white. Lewis claims to have invented video assist in 1956, but there was already a patent from 1947, and the name on the patent was Adolph H. Rosenthal, not Jerry Lewis. Lewis may not have been intentionally dishonest, but he didn't technically invent video assist.

Here's an article about it: CNet

My name is manigandan sundaram

OK great. Now please change your user name to your full name. It's one of the rules here.

Hey buddy, long time no see. Are you trying to build a hand cranked IIC? If that's the case then I'm not sure how to help you. If you're just looking for a hand cranked IIC I think you can probably find one at a few places in LA. I used one (I believe it was a IIC) out of Otto years ago and I've heard Panavision has one. If you need one built I think you could get some good info from rental houses that already have them.

First of all, the cinematography is fantastic! Just what I expected. The acting is also fantastic, as I had expected. I had no idea what to expect with the rest of the film and I ended up having very mixed reactions. I thought parts of this film were absolutely brilliant. Genius. And other parts not so much. And I can understand why some people disliked it. When I think of an "art" film, this is the kind of film I'm thinking of. It makes you think. Really think. It makes some people angry. It makes some people bored. It makes some people sad. It makes some people cry. I went through a lot of those emotions throughout the film. Did I "get" it? I don't know. Maybe. But I think that's the point. It's a piece of art that will mean different things to different people. It's not a typical movie that steers your emotions the whole way and gives you a definitive resolution at the end. It dares to just be what it is, and that's part of what I like about it. I may not love, or even like, every second of it, but I LOVE the idea that it was made without compromise and without caring whether people will like it or not. That's true of only very few films.

I think we'll see quite a few Oscar nominations for this. I'm not quite sure how it could get a best director nomination, but I'm not quite sure how it couldn't either. Does that make any sense?

I'm glad I saw it and I'm not surprised to see and hear how differently so many people feel about it. To me, one mark of a good film is that people disagree about whether or not it's good and argue about it.

None of this looks to be over 60fps to me. It could be quite a few cameras.

I think "B" camera is a CP16.

I think I'm a little late to the discussion, but I'll tell you about a couple situations I've been in.

The first time I was ever booked to shoot baseball was a bit of a last minute call and I had no clue what to expect. When I got to the stadium the other operators asked me what camera I normally did. I told them honestly that I'd never shot baseball before. A couple of guys shook their heads and turned and walked the other way, but a couple of them were very kind and gave me some tips and made sure I got camera 4, which happens to be on the air more than any other camera but is also the most simple and straightforward. I was also honest with the director about my baseball experience and he was very helpful in making sure I knew what my responsibilities were in every situation. The combination of a couple helpful operators and a helpful and understanding director made my first game an easy and fun experience. And at the end of the game the director made a point of telling me how well I did on comms. Of course, the whole thing could have gone completely differently if the director and/or operators weren't so willing to work with me. Some people like to have someone to yell at and look down upon, but everyone has their first day at some point and we all have to learn somehow. How you approach those learning situations can make a big difference in how your day goes.

The first time I ever operated on a sitcom was also the first time I ever used a geared head on a job. I'd practiced with one A LOT, but I'd never actually been paid to turn the wheels before. I was probably about 29 at the time, and I felt like the baby of the camera dept. Even the utilities and 2nd's were all in their forties. So I was very nervous and felt a bit out of place. I was "B" camera, which is generally the tighter wide shot, and I was doing a dolly move on the same track as "A" camera tracking two people walking down a sidewalk. Pretty simple, but man was I nervous! At the beginning of the shot I was panning the actors in before the move started. We did a couple rehearsals and everything went fine. On the first take I turned my pan wheel the wrong way and panned them right out of frame! I quickly corrected and finished the take and no one said anything to me about it. At the end of the take the (very veteran) 1st said, "Did you cut early?"

me: "No, why?"

1st: "I noticed the camera wasn't rolling at the end of the take."

me: "Well, did you roll it?"

1st: "No."

me: "Why not?"

1st: "Because operators roll their own cameras on this show."

me: "Oh, crap!"

1st: "Don't worry, I'll let Scripty know. By the way, we'll do about 20 more takes, so it's no big deal."

me "Oh, good."

In my nervousness I hadn't thought to ask if the 1st would roll or not, and I was too preoccupied to notice that we weren't rolling. Whoops! So this is another instance where I could have been thrown under the bus, but wasn't. After that I relaxed a lot more and had a nice night of work with some great people on a fun show.

There have been many instances where I've gone back and looked at a steadicam shot I did maybe 6 months or a year before and cringed. Many times I think, "Geez, I don't remember the shot being that bad!" 12 years into my steadicam career I still look back at shots I did and think, "Hmm, that could have been better" all the time. Just today I watched a rough cut of a commercial I did a month or two ago and I found parts of shots I'd like to change.

There have also been instances when I thought a shot didn't turn out so well and then I was happily surprised when I saw it later. Sometimes I see a cringeworthy shot and realize that they've used a bad take. Sometimes the take they use is literally the worst take we did! I know there are other elements involved (those pesky actors) other than just how well executed a shot is, that cause directors and editors to choose a particular take, and luckily these days my worst takes are better than my best takes were 12 years ago.

Wow, I'm coming late to this party...

Did Sarah Lane work on Black Swan SOLELY for the credit? Or did she get paid? She got paid. And I'd bet she got paid pretty darn well. I'd also guess that she had some days where she didn't even leave her trailer, but she still got paid. And there were probably some days where she danced her butt off, and still got paid. Waiting and dancing are what she was paid to do. Did the checks not cash when she worked on the film? My point is, we all work for a living. We may love what we do, but we expect to be compensated for it, and she was. Would she have done the job if they offered her 'credit only' as payment? No. She worked so that she could earn a living, which is perfectly acceptable. She didn't work on the film for a credit. All of this business about her credit is just silliness. And as far as I can tell it's silliness created mostly by the press, not by Sarah Lane.

Sarah Lane got paid for the job she did, and so did Natalie Portman. Does Sarah deserve 'extra' credit later on just because Natalie won an Oscar? I don't tend to think so. Would it have been nice if the producers had just written "Natalie Portman Dance Double - Sarah Lane" in the credits? Of course. But what difference does that make? She did the work and everyone who matters already knew it.

The 235 isn't a loud camera to begin with, so I don't think it's out of the question. Do a test and find out.

We shot with Red's in 2008 in the Bahamas on boats, underwater, and sometimes chest high in the ocean and never had a problem. A pool shouldn't be a problem.

You don't think those problems are easily addressed with accessories? Much like almost every other digital camera?

Maybe. But those accessories weren't available to us at the time, so I can only comment on what I actually worked with.

You can put an Alexa on your shoulder out of the box and shoot all day, but most others have the same problem.

I can shoot all day with quite a lot of cameras on my shoulder. XL, SL, F35, F23, Red, etc....

Then you have the advantage of small size, you won't be hold a RED for long with one hand in a tight space. And Steadicam?

Weight and/or size isn't the issue. The issue is the ergonomics and length. I can hand hold a GII and other very heavy cameras for quite a long time because it's possible to balance the camera on your shoulder. With these super small cameras it's not possible, so you end up with all the weight in front of you being supported only by your arms, which as we all know tires you out quickly. The Red isn't ideal for hand held, but it's certainly not the worst.

Steadicam is a whole different thing since the weight is evenly distributed throughout your body.

I'm all for innovative and different from the norm, but when the "style" tears the audience OUT OF the story to the point where they notice the "filmmaking," then it is a bad choice.

I completely agree with you. But I agree with Francesco as well. I wasn't taken out of the film by the way it was shot at all, just the opposite. I was drawn into the film because of the way it was shot.

I'll also agree with Francesco regarding the King's Speech. I was taken out of that film over and over again because of the odd composition. I'm still puzzled as to exactly why it won so many awards.

When I worked in FL we used to shoot on roller coasters quite often. There was a Key Grip (his name is escaping me at the moment) that had made custom mounts for each of the different roller coasters both in Orlando and Tampa. They worked great and I would guess that would be the best way to go as opposed to trying to do it all improvisationally with speedrail. I'll try to remember his name and post it. Sorry, it's been ten years so the memory is a little foggy.

Fat Matt's Rib Shack. It's a necessity.

I just shot with it last weekend. I haven't seen anything on a large screen yet, but it looked great on a small monitor.

My main complaint is the absolutely horrible eyepiece and viewfinder. I shot a night scene with very minimal lighting and it was dead black in both, but when I looked at the HD onboard there was plenty of information there. Unfortunately, the camera is pretty heavy, so mounting a decent onboard to operate off of makes it pretty unusable except for very short takes. Ergonomically, it's very bad as well. The majority of my shots were handheld (some pretty lengthy) and it would have been very nice to have been able to put the thing on my shoulder. How do the camera manufacturers still not get this?

I was impressed with the dynamic range (at least based on what I saw on the computer after downloading). There was much more detail in the highlights and shadows than I could seen in the onboard monitor. We did some car work on a very sunny day in Los Angeles shooting inside the car and the sky was holding. I even tried to blow out the background for a couple of cheats we did and it was tough! I was blown away.

We wanted Super Speeds but ended up shooting on CP2's and I was worried about the loss of a stop, but it ended up not effecting me much at all. The camera performed pretty well in low light.

Overall I was pretty happy with the camera. I wouldn't want to use it on a feature or TV show both because of the VF and monitor, and because of the ergonomic issues, but for small projects I can see it having it's place.

I thought the ending was botched by the camerawork and editing. It was difficult to really take in the choreography, and yet at the end we're asked to accept that she gave the performance of her life. It felt like cheating.

FYI, the end was the only scene in the movie to use steadicam. What did you think was "botched" about it?

And when Aaronofsky said he wanted the film to feel real, hence the use of shaky cam, my respect for him fell several orders of magnitude. It's such a cliched thing to say. Who says shaky feels real? It's simply that it codes for real because it's a techniques coopted from 60s documentary cinema. And it's not like THEY were striving for an intentionally shaky image, but rather the shakiness was a functional byproduct of necessity. They had to go handheld to get the shot, which gives it an immediacy.

Wait, is it a cliche or not? You've contradicted yourself a bit.

There is nothing shaky about the operating in this movie. Anyone who's seen it clearly knows that, yet at least 20 people in this thread have referred to the operating in Black Swan as shaky cam. Did any of you SEE the film? If I had operated on the film I would consider those comments direct insults. I'm guessing at least some of you can understand how hard the operators worked on the film....

Like I said in an earlier post, it's one thing to disagree or question Aronofsky's decision to shoot the majority of the film hand held, but it's a whole different thing to bad mouth the operators who, by all important accounts, did a magnificent job and gave the director exactly what he wanted.

The Bourne trilogy. Worst camera work ever.

I couldn't disagree more. I do agree that speaking in absolutes is a good idea, though.

handheld camerawork degrades or erodes the image quality that all these technological advances were meant to elevate. Right?

Oh, of course that's correct! I personally will never drive any other car besides the Bugatti Veyron ever again because it's so technologically advanced, and if I drove any other car I would erode the advancements that have been made. I'm sure all of you have already spent that $1 million as well, or will very soon.

The operating in Black Swan is some of the best handheld work I've ever seen. Anyone calling it "shakycam" needs to watch the film again. It's one thing to disagree with the directors choice to shoot the film this way, which is a valid opinion, but to bad mouth the operating is crazy to me. There are very few operators in the world who can do what these operators did on this film.

I guess I'm a bit biased since I'm an operator, but I think being an operator informs me a bit more of what it actually takes to make handheld look as great as these guys did.

What's happening here in TV land is that shows that started on film are staying on film.

-- J.S.

Unfortunately, not all of them are staying on film. A couple have switched in the last couple years. It's nice to see shows like Glee start with film though.

1st's don't tend to ride dolly's that often, so a seat is very rarely necessary.

"35mm print for our home theater"

 

That's the best part.

Nothing strange about that. If you're willing to spend the money to shoot your wedding on 35mm, then surely you have a screening room with 35mm projector in your house!