Brad Grimmett

Is craigslist and Mandy the only place for newbies to get work?

I don't know if there is really a good place for a "newbie" operator to get work. On those very small jobs they generally don't hire an operator, unless they need steadicam for certain shots. So it's a bit of a Catch 22. "Newbie" steadicam operators can learn this way though.

Operating is one of the few jobs on set that really doesn't have a lower position that trains you for the job. AC'ing doesn't train you to be an operator, but it's the closest. But you can know every camera inside and out and it won't do you much good when you put your eye to the eyepiece to operate. Sure, you can learn good things from watching other operators work, but watching and doing are two different things. I guess what I'm saying is that the job of conventional camera operator isn't really an entry level position, but of course there is no other way to learn than to do it.

So, I guess after all that, I have no good advice for you. Sorry.

When I worked in news we called each other "shooters". It's much more fitting for news than it is for entertainment.

Lots of old school A.C.'s call DP's "cameramen", normally referring to old school DP's, but you know what they mean when they say it.

Don't fall into the "every piracy is a lost sale" trap. Most of the people who pirated the film haven't stolen anything from you; there is no lost sale.

 

P

Well, they have definitely watched it illegally, but whether the producer lost a sale or not is a whole other issue. Many people simply rip movies because they are free but they would never pay to see them.

A few years ago a friend of mine was at the Time Warner stock holders meeting and they were claiming that piracy was costing them hundreds of millions every year, most notably in China. This is clearly not the case (sounds good to stock holders though) and the studios profits continue to increase year after year. This is in direct contrast to the music industry which actually DID take a huge hit due to piracy. We've seen the aftermath of that. It's clearly changed the music business. They changed because they HAD to. This isn't the case at all with movies.

The fact is that people are always going to find a way to steal. But if you put out a good product people will always be willing to pay for it. Putting out crap and blaming bad sales on piracy is just a cop out.

Sounds like a fun project David. That Nike spot is really well done. I hadn't seen it, so thanks for posting.

I have one thought regarding mounting: If I were doing the shot I would make sure the camera could be panned and tilted (at least a little) while mounted so that you don't get stuck depending on how the helmet fits on the operators head and constantly trying to adjust the helmet to control the frame.

Good luck.

I know for a fact that the Arri mags for the LT and ST actually have to be carried on their side

I disagree with you. Why would there be a handle on the top of the mags if they didn't intend for you to carry them that way? There wouldn't.

Obviously you want to avoid coning, but trying to carry multiple mags onto set on their side isn't a practical way of doing things. You're just going to end up with scratched (on the outside) or dropped mags.

Only a small amount of movies are made to intentionally go straight to DVD, and those are generally studio (or subsidiary) movies. The "Bring It On" sequels come to mind as well as the "Get Smart" companion "Get Smart's Bruce and Lloyd Out of Control". Most movies are made with the intention of having a theatrical release (however misguided that may be). So finding an existing business model for producing a movie with the intention of going straight to DVD would be tough. Sure, you could try to see what the studios do, but they spend many millions producing those movies, not the hundreds of thousands that most small independents spend, so that model is probably out of reach for most people. Sure, there's Troma, but they have existing infrastructure I believe that they use on all of their films, so they're able to do things for quite a bit cheaper than someone just starting out.

Another reason any real numbers will be hard to find is that most producers never really divulge how much a film makes. They intentionally keep those #'s secret.

I've used all of the different Canon zooms and have like them all. We shot the whole feature "Dirty" on two 11.5-138mm zooms and it looked great. Have used the 8-64mm and 11-165mm on many projects and have been very impressed. They're all fairly lightweight and durable as well. I may not have used the 7-63mm, but I assume the quality is comparable to the rest of them.

Not daylight-viewable.

Well, as we found out, that was true for a few of the monitors that were there as well.

I can refer you to some Seattle/Washington people if you're still looking. PM me if you need names. I'd be hesitant to hire someone off Craigslist for an anamorphic project.

A Sony music video?

For example, hardly any of Columbia (Sony) movies were shot using Sony's video cameras, they were and still are virtually 100% 35mm film.

No, many of them are Genesis now because Sony demands it.

My suggestion is getting the Angenieux 15-40 and 28-76.

 

Matthew

I second that. Also, a clip on mattebox and carbon fiber rods would be a good idea too. Also, ditch the top rods and attach the battery/hard drive cradle to the bottom rods (decreases weight and lowers the center of gravity).

I had a feeling the post was gonna go this way, you guys are completely missing the point

I don't think they are. That incident has nothing to do with the cinematography of the film and therefore isn't pertinent.

If someone on the camera crew was killed in an accident and it was a majorly publicized event, would it still be avoided in the interview?

Yes, and it has been in the past. There have been quite a few movies that had crew members die that had articles written about them in AC, and there was no mention of that crewmembers death.

You guys dont think that a magazine dedicated to cinematographers should give the cinematographer who got the poop end of the stick basically (seeing how he was never given a chance to give his side) a means to explain his point of view??

I'm sure he's had plenty of chances to speak out on the matter. I'm sure every media outlet in the country was trying to get a quote from him when this story broke. My guess is that he made the choice not to, knowing that it wouldn't do him, or anyone else, any good.

I think it's absolutely pertinent to the conversation/article and is not out of line to at least ASK if he wanted to comment about it.

They probably did ask.

Make sure to safety the lens. I've seen a lens fly right out of the mount while rigged to a roller coaster.

An assistant I just worked with had the best set bag I've ever seen. He got it at Lowes for like $15 I think. It was similar to this one but it had a metal handle that swiveled and was large enough for hard mattes. It might be worth having a look before you spend more on a "film" set bag.

I don't know the current Euro/Dollar conversion rate, but you can buy a set of Super Speeds for just a little more than he's asking. I'm really curious who would buy these, especially considering the previously mentioned limitations and issues.

Also if you're looking for someone specific, just google someone's name.

90% of the time it throws up their website...unless they haven't used their name as their address.

You'd think that would be the case, but I haven't found it to be true in many cases. For example, my website doesn't come up on google when you search my name. It should since my website is www.bradgrimmett.com, but it doesn't. Even if I search "www.bradgrimmett.com" it doesn't come up with a link to my site.

I've found it very hard to find peoples websites simply by searching for them unless they are a bigger name DP. If you're looking specifically for conventional operators I think you'll have an even tougher time since it's not that common for non-steadicam operators to have reels.

I can't look for the article right now, and I'm probably not the best to explain it anyway. Hopefully someone will chime in with more info. I looked for a quick link through google but didn't find anything immediately.

Free beer....I'm there!

In our local entertainment section of the paper, there was a shot of Alison Lohman in what looked like a grave and the shot looked like it used the silver retention process, but I didn't see that in the trailer so I was just curious if anyone knew if Raimi used this process in certain portions of the film? (I haven't seen it yet BTW)

I believe they attempted to replicate the OZ process in the DI. There was an article about it in AC or ICG.

KODAK 5201 for exteriors and 5217,5260 and 5219 for interiors.

I stand corrected. Unfortunately, it could be shot on VHS and look about the same on AMC.

I'd take some rubber matting and make some little T marks and stick a thumbtack through them.

I don't think putting any kind of marks that could trip an actor while on ice are a great idea. Just a thought.

My gut tells me the guy either wanted to look cool or to look like he was doing something important so production would think they were getting their monies worth.

Well, I wasn't going to say it, but I think that's about the gist of it.

I believe it's 35mm shot on Fuji with Arricams, but it's been awhile since I heard this, so I could be wrong.

It's a great show and extremely dark. I'm just bummed they don't have it on On Demand anymore in HD. The compression on AMC is horrendous. When you see it in HD it will look like a different show.

I really don't see how running at full speed would help him pull focus. If anything I think it would be detrimental. Maybe there was a good reason for him to do that, but I haven't figured it out yet.

Hope you had a good one Tim! Thanks for building cinematography.com and keeping it up and running for so long. How long has it been now?