Larry Blanford

In general, I would agree on most of the comments. 2 operators are optimal along with shooting on the same axis for lighting purposes. Also, yes the two camera's may have some slight color shifts, but nothing a DI can't handle. Having said that, with the proper location choices, two camera facing opposite direction can be worthwhile and save quite a bit of time. I shot a film called "Think Like a Man" that had a 33 day shooting schedule with a 140 pg script. Lots of dialogue in restaurants, clubs..etc. Most of it being two actors facing each other. By making sure the actors sat next to windows I was able to light both actors at the same time...while using slightly longer lenses to keep the camera's out of view. In all cases, the windows we're also next to pillars which I utilized to hide the lights. Each actors "key" light was also a soft backlight for the other. In one particular scene, I used 3 cameras. I had a 50-50 along with over over's on each actor. The 50-50 was interesting only because it was "front lit"....but when you have very soft front light and a deep background that falls off (back of the restaurant) it can be visually appealing. FYI.. It worked well on that particular film because we planned it out in prep. The director and I collaborated on locations based on our ability to be able to shoot in opposite directions...but in general, without that kind of commitment in prep, stay with the same axis.

Depends on what your actually trying to photograph and what it's for..I.E..feature..TV...documentary? If it's just aerial beauty shots then you might get away with a Steadicam (you'll want to use wider lens and overcrank a touch as the pilot will have to "crab" the helicopter which brings in more wind) or some of the formats that have already been mentioned. If it's anything that you feel a longer lens is necessary then you'll most definitely want a stabilizing head. If it's a car commercial then sometimes a good old fashioned Tyler Mount (cheaper than Steadicam) can be better...more energy. As far as a stabilizing head, I've recently been using Pictorvision's new "Eclipse" and it's about as good as it gets. What also needs to be mentioned and is equally as important...who's the pilot. The pilot is 50% of good aerial cinematography. There are loads of pilots all over the world that call themselves "movie pilots" but I can assure you there are only a handful that truly are. True film pilots tend to suggest things or play "top this"..they're there to help you get the best shot. If you go up with a pilot and he says "where do you want me?"...your with the wrong guy.

There's been numerous articles over the years on whether to incorporate or not to incorporate and most end up stating that unless your making around 150K a year, it's probably not worth it. Positive side...your able to put up to 46K a year into your personal corporate retirement...and it's a tax deduction off your corporation. Negative side...the extra Social Security and increased accounting costs. On a side note, I've noticed the last few years where some of my crew that have incorporated were not allowed to work as "loan-outs" by the studios. More and more it's only the DP's and higher salaried Steadicam Ops that are being allowed to work via their Corporations. Also there is no actual "Corporate Taxes"..at least not in the US. At the end of each year your accountant basically "zero's" you out. Meaning whatever is left in the Corporate Account is disbursed to you as income, hence the Corporation never actually "profits" so no tax liabilities. I incorporated 10 years ago and am now fairly well versed in the pro's and con's. For me it's been worth it, but from my own experience a good accountant is very key. Also I would suggest keeping your expenses and income up to date via Quickbooks or Quicken. When it's time for the accountant to review, I just send over the file via an email.

Doggicam in LA has a rail system...maybe half the speed of ACS's