George Ebersole

Patents only last for about 14 to 15 years, and are only renewable if you make a significant design and performance improvement. After that anybody can reverse engineer your device, and market it themselves. I remember back in 1987 or 86 some local kid up in San Francisco had done just that. His rig was covered with duck tape, and made out of roughly welded springs and pipes. But it worked. He couldn't market his thing, but showed that making one yourself was not impossible. That was over 20 years ago. And if that kid could make one out of nothing but scrap, cheap welds and duck tape, then who in their right mind would purchase a "professional" rig for 15-grand? I think this probably explains Steadicam's woes.

Where's the link?

It depends on what you define as success. There's tons of successful directors locally where I live. Only most of them shoot training videos and other industrials. Maybe they work at a TV station or shoot adult videos. More and more they probably work for computer game companies doing intros or cutscenes for games. *EDIT* If you mean "Mega-Successful"/Superstardom, then yeah, that's a one in a million chance. And those are favorable odds. But a director who can crank out a useful and well received film on any scale is a success. Me, I just want a goddamn fulltime job so I can save up AND get back to doing film as a side. To me that's about the only success I can hope for at my age. But I'm good with it.

I remember all of the effort that went into one of the older comedy-action-sci-fi films shot here locally ("Inner Space"), and on a stage I used to work at. I remember all the features I worked on or hovered around and noting the gigantic effort needed to get the director's "vision" put onto film. It was a far cry from the videos and films I shot with my friends growing up. Hell, even the industrials I worked on at the time and later only required your basic crew. My thought was that there had to be a cheaper way. At the time SONY was experimenting with shutter speeds for video to simulate film. I figured if I couldn't afford to rent equipment and organize a crew, then maybe I'd go do something else for a few years, then hopefully when and if I came back the video technology would have developed enough to make shooting small films on video affordable, and still retain that filmic look. Well, it's come about, sort of. I'm flat busted broke (or nearly there), and can't afford the new affordable technology. But, at least the technology has developed to an acceptable point that a guy can shoot a film on a budget, and make it look reasonably professional. The reason this ties into David's post is because, to me at least, it's probably easier to tweak the image to give a screenplay a certain look. In short, it's cheaper to shoot. It's also cheaper to give your project a certain aura or visual style.

I've known a few people who do the reverse; live in LA and work up in the Bay Area. It's very rare for the reverse to be doable, unless you've "big name" talent.

One more thing; If I wasn't trying to save myself from financial ruin, I would've done what Ridley said and gone out there and "Just done it". I'm not about to risk putting myself out of house and home for a shot at the lottery. I'll do it once I can guarantee a roof over my head, food on my plate and gas in my tank. I can live without power, net and phone. I'll hang out at the library or a cafe for that. In short, if you got the chance, then do it. I'll be there with the youngins in a little bit, but it takes us older types a bit longer because of obligations.

Completely agree. A lot of directors, particularly directors of commercials, completely miss this ultra important factor. So, they go to film school or go through the broadcasting department at a university, and are given the basics but nothing more; i.e. "Basic shot workbook/syllabus; what is a medium shot, what is a TTT shot, what does tight mean, what does wide mean..." That kind of thing. No joke. I've seen them in years past by videographers that went to big name campuses and carried around exactly what I described. If it's a good film school like USC, UCLA, SF State or NYU, then you'll get an okay dose of what works, and what doesn't. But making a good film is about bringing your knowledge of the arts to bear. And a lot of kids just don't have that. Innate talent will only take you so far, and ultimately will fail you in the end without formal training and a healthy database to back it up. It's like the teenager who sees a lot of junk films, makes it to the core program, then thinks he can crank out great stuff, but completely fails and doesn't understand why. So he winds up shooting schlocky horror flicks or porn, and that's if he's lucky. Otherwise, if he's a bit more competent than that, then he'll wind up shooting industrials, and maybe the occasional offbeat indy. From there he can move up the food chain. Just my take. p.s. today's film industry is primarily all about market appeal. Based upon what I've seen on the screen, and this is just my personal opinion, it seems like the only thing that matters now is if your technically competent, because the money-people'll hire other personnel to make up for any artistic short comings any of the crew have. And this usually means a test market audience to tweak whatever film that's in the works. Ergo, the director probably doesn't have a whole lot of say anymore, and much less so the people working for and with him.

I hear ya on that note. It's never really too late, but it all depends on your financial situation. Me, I simply can't afford to do it anymore, and with my new job I'll only be able to eek by and live. That's just the way of it. One of the reasons I never boarded with a bunch of filmmakers, as I probably should have, was that a lot of them didn't seem serious, or were still unsure of what they wanted to do. That was a kind of intimidation unto itself, risking moving in with people who wind up flaking. No fun. So, you've got to be careful even there. But, if you find the guys who've got actual cameras and are shooting footage, then stick with them and network. Good luck. I know you'll make it. :)

When I was working lots in my 20s I had a ton of free time and resources, but also some familial obligations. If you don't have anything tying you down, then get into one of those lofts rented by 20 people (preferably artsy film types), and work on their stuff. I wish I had.

p.s. Bryan, that writing website looks dead as a doornail. I think I'll stick with my original plan, and get some tech training on the side while I work a regular day job.

Oh, I suppose so. It's just that the reason I took the path that I did was because I simply didn't have the money and resources to hire people and equipment. I figured I'd shoot something like I did with my friends back in middle school and high school. I'd gather the resources I'd need, then shoot my script. It was my version of a low/no-budget approach. Once I got enough of those done, and, assuming they were good enough quality wise to earn some brownie points and recognition, THEN I'd be able to move up the food chain. Oh well. Cest la vie :) I'll never get there, but I'm cool with it. Doing it as a hobby is good enough for me. But, to your points on the narrowness of the feature world verse broadcast; yeah, that always struck me as being odd. It did so because when I first entered the industry in San Francisco there were tons of indy projects and documentaries being shot at the time. I mean there were hundreds from Marin to San Jose and all counties in-between, though most of them seemed to come out of San Francisco and the Berkeley-Oakland area. And, on those productions, everyone did everything because they were so low budget. The grip would do boom work, or the sound guy, if he had nothing else to do, and we were shooting MOS, would help push the dolly. That kind of thing. I know that sounds chaotic, but when you have no money, and are paying people with pizza, that's how things get done. It wasn't always like what I described, but, when I moved out of working on those kinds of projects, and moved onto industrials and features, I often wondered why the grip with his tool belt chatting with the hottie actress next to a 10k didn't help the gay set designer move a table. Some of those divisions of labor are necessary, but, at least to me at the time, they seemed overly emphasized. In closing, I'll say this. I miss working on sets, stages, and locations. I got an ego boost of looking important as "civilians" (non-movie people) would look on in awe. I got a rush out of that :) But, it doesn't pay the bills. Still, I do miss media, and would like to be part of it in some capacity, if possible. That's probably not going to happen, but, like I say, I'm actually okay with it now :D

Thanks Brian. I guess I've been a real idiot these last several years in more way than one. I've told this story many times, but I'll tell it again, I had am emphasis in writing in film school while I learned on set operations in the local industry, which started with an internship. I thought I might shoot what I wrote after I graduated. Some people have really tried to help me in the last few years, but I guess I really screwed up big-time here. Thanks.

Uh, thanks. I know about favoritism and all that, but why can't an old guy like me, someone who's willing to work cheap and has set experience, get a break? I'm good. I have an eye. I can write. I've got a willing mind and body. But it seems like I keep getting road-block after road-block tossed in my face. *EDIT* Truth is maybe I'd be better off working at a TV station than trying to work on industrials and features.

Well, I just hooked up with the wrong guy then. Thanks.

Some of you may know that I used to work on shoots in a support/grip capacity. I also stage managed and did a little AD work. That was years ago, and I thought I might try to get back in, but failed these last couple of years because of other life problems. When I told my aunt I was all about to give up, she replied "You have to know somebody!" I love my aunt, don't get me wrong. She one of the most wonderful people on the face of this Earth, but that comment really stung. When I first went into this industry in the 80s, I knew absolutely no one. I called up a local studio, volunteered to work for free, and the rest is history. Now I'm an older bald guy who's a bit out of shape, but I'm still willing to make a go of it given the opportunity. However, I'm wondering if what my aunt said was true, and whether I just got really luck all those years ago. Can anybody enlighten me? Thanks.

Well, the thing I don't get is this; once a movie is released, it's essentially done. There aren't anymore good films that people see again and again because they actually like the substance of the movie. Those days are long-long gone. Today's market is about making the biggest weekend splash, and opening wide. A movie can't appreciate. It's not going to get any better ten years down the road. This whole scheme really has me scratching my head.

I heard about this yesterday from several sources, but I'm still not convinced of it. Variety, Yahoo News and CNN state that the vote's going to be on the 21st, and that nothing's been decided as yet. Of course, I'm probably totally wrong. Links; http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/feds-delay-decision-movie-futures-trading-18100 http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118020305.html?categoryid=18&cs=1

Wow, no other replies. Interesting. I'm sure the topic's been bandied about a bit, but I figured with all the debate of who's willing to shoot what, and with the continued advancement in chip technology, that there would surely be some vocal opinions. I guess I was wrong.

Huh? :huh: Anybody else? If you had your choice would you always shoot film, or is there something about pixels that does it for ya?

I think most films and TV series prior to 1970 used day-for-night filters. Most John Wayne westerns and some pirate films are the best examples that come to mind.

Heh, are you sure? Back in the day I was working with a couple of actors who wanted to produce a project. One of them was real high on a real stinker of a film; Beverly Hills Vampire. The thing was shot on Super-8, marketed on VHS, and made money. He thought we could pull it off. I said "No", and so did the other guy. The "negative cost" was low, but for us it seemed like if just shot on 16mm we'd be okay. Then we considered BETACAM SP telecine, then 35mm. And the incrimental cost of shooting stuff seemed really cheap. But it wasn't. In the end we didn't get anything done. I went on to AD and stage manage, while those two jokers went on to unknown careers (one recently died in a car crash I think), while the other ADs for Pixar. So, what's my point? Well, my personal thinking at the time was that if we couldn't do something well, then better not to shoot it at all.

Nobody else? The reason I ask is because JP Beauviala, Aaton's founder, states that 35mm is 7k's worth of visual information. Based on that, one wonders why anyone would shoot on anything other than film. It seems like if film is going to give that much more visual content, then would it not make sense to always shoot film? Is it me, or is traffic really low on this website as of late? Can any of the pros chime in on this?

I'm just kind of curious, given a choice, would you rather shoot on film or shoot digital?

Sorry for butting into this thread, but could someone tell me exactly what this camera is? I'm really a green-horned idiot when it comes to digital cameras, particularly this one. The Youtube clip states that it's a "film" camera, but it's a digital film camera with a film magazine? Am I missing something?