George Ebersole

Call me crazy, but she doesn't "do it" for me. That verse Marilyn Monroe who was no only attractive but was also an excellent actress. You don't see that with a lot of actors these days.

I'm thinking of taking a 4 day course next week to get myself certified on Sony's pro line of HD cameras. Here's the course catalogue; https://servicesplus.us.sony.biz/sony-training-search.aspx Is it worth it? I could really use some brutally honest opinions here. I've done camera ops before, but I'm not a video engineer, much less a DP. And I know next to nothing about servicing and color balancing a Cine Alta.

Get me :) I'm offering free labor as I work my way back into media. I know the difference between a single, double and half scrim, apple box, half apple and pancake, as well as flags and nets. I've worked with Mole Richardson lights and laid dolly track. I've worked on indy features, commercials and industrials, and multimedia events. Give me a PM for contact info. San Francisco Bay Area only please; south bay, peninsula, coast, Marin, and East Bay.

Heh, there isn't a single "hot" actress that lures me to the theatre. I guess that includes Carmen Electra. I like Nicole Kidman as a performer. I think she's a great actress, but I've never bought a ticket because she was in something. I can name actors and actresses that I think are exceptional, but I really go to see the film and not the people in it. When I went and saw Indy Jones 4 a few weeks ago, I saw a huge line in the theatre foyer. It was all women (well, 99% women... one or two males). I didn't think it was for Indy4. I mean, I can't imagine all these women wanting to see an aging Harrison Ford on the big screen... but maybe they did. It turns out they were all lined up for "Sex in the City". What's even more interesting is that all these women were dressed up like they were going out for a night of clubbing. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that movie wasn't billed because there was some hunk acting in it. It was about the women, not the guys. Anyway, I thought it was really weird. I guess Sarah Jessica Parker and Kim Catrell draw women into the movie houses. But not guys. Truth is, I kind of wanted to see it, just to see what all these women were going to see, but I held off. I'll rent it or something.

For me it's always the company; i.e. Touchstone, Merchant Ivory and so forth. I never go because an actor or actress is staring. A well known and known-capable actor will help bolster the reputation of a film, but it isn't the deciding factor for me. If I know a company makes good films, then I'm more likely to buy a ticket or rent/buy their DVD. The closest I've ever come to letting a name urge me to see a film was Sean Connery when he was doing the Bond films.

Thanks. I've worked around Arris and Panaflex, and have done some poking around their innards, but I've never operated one in a professional capacity. I was wondering if there was a certification program somewhere. Something like Sony has down in silicon valley. SF State offers training on Bolex, Arri 16 and Panavision Elaine cameras, but that's strictly for grad students. I'll figure something out. Thanks for the reply.

I just may do that. I really just want to do some really cheap test shots up in the Santa Cruz mountains.

Thanks guys. I guess I just need to work some gigs as an AC or AD.

Now I remember my reply. David Mullen; I saw that cycle too, but again (like with most of my posts) it was years back. Los Angeles and New York, being more film entertainment oriented, you guys probably kept working features and commercials. Up here in San Francisco the opportunities weren't as prevalent, though there were always hints that SF (and the Bay Area en large) was going to be the next big media powerhouse. It's never panned out, so, if you're expertise is features, then San Francisco probably isn't the place to be. Me, I worked pretty much every job that was tossed my way, unless it conflicted with my schedule or was way out in the boondocks (i.e. I didn't work jobs where I needed to commute over 100 miles when I needed to be back in town the next day). As a consequence I worked tons of multimedia gigs, tons of industrials, a few commercials, indy flicks, and only rarely a few local TV shows, and even rarer national dramatic TV. When things got really bad I started to work weddings. Reading the experiences of the locals who post here, it appears that's changed somewhat. But again, this is all from a San Francisco Bay Area perspective, and one that's over ten years old. But, not to repeat myself too much, the features that were shot up here and backed by LA studios had, at the time, a tendency to bring their own crews with them. A couple very well known local gaffers I worked with, Alan and Arthur, were rarely hired on any LA productions. Likewise with a lot of local talent. But again, maybe that's changed. I hope that doesn't come across as being negative, because it's not meant to be. If I ran a major studio up here, say out of San Jose or Oakland, and wanted to shoot down in LA, I might be inclined to bring my own crew. But, getting back to the point, I think the studios are realising that they've shifted the market so much to a certain age bracket, that they've realized that they can't recapture the older audiences that used to frequent movie houses. The point being that fewer indys are going to get made, hence fewer crew jobs. But, you never know what may happen in the future.

Crud. I lost my edit. Now I've forgotten what I was going to say.

I worked a multimedia event for Sun Micro one time, which normally I wouldn't recall except that the second camera was getting ready to take off during the wrap. The producer caught him, and told him stay and help the rest of the crew. He was a trust-fund kid whose philosophy was that if you wanted to work on features, then you needed backing like he did. His work ethic was to come late, setup, and wrap early, leaving everyone else to coil cable and put lights back on the grip truck. At the time I thought he was just being a lazy spoiled brat, but, I think his observation can apply to any business field. In this case it was media (at the time rock-concert-gigs kind of cross over with video and film gigs), because feature work was relatively rare. Usually, but not always, LA productions haul their crews up from the Los Angeles area, leaving a lot of locals high and dry. Or so it was... maybe that's changed. What hasn't changed is the fact that it is a business of people who are in business for themselves. Another one of the reasons I got out many years back was that all the people I was "befriending" in the industry, I also had to compete with for jobs. Maybe it was just the times, but it was pretty hairy back then. I'll be honest, I liked the work, but I hated freelancing. I tried to stick with a small number of clients, but always welcomed new sources of income, because I really wanted to get hired as a regular employee instead of as a contractor. But, unless you're working for a major studio that can fall back on several major releases (and/or TV productions), you're only option is to keep networking and hope for the best. For me, truth is I hate freelancing, but I like the work. It was addicting. But, like that 2nd Camera said all those years ago, unless you've got something to fall back on, maybe you need to get into another line of work. He wasn't knocking anybody's talent or skill, it was just his comment on the availability of paying gigs.

In my "hay day", most of the work in the Bay Area was from industrials. There were also lots of small indy projects, but the indy gigs usually weren't paid positions. A lot of them were documentaries or art house films; stuff I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole back then, largely because (at the time) I had already done the free-labor thing. But the Bay Area is unique in this regard, in that feature films have always hovered on the periphery of San Francisco, but, like I mentioned on another thread, it's just too damn expensive to setup up shop and shoot commercial feature films here permanently. Maybe someone'll find the right formula. Maybe not. A former boss, when he opened his studio, briefly considered San Francisco's piers/docks as studio real estate. Since Oakland had upgraded theirs and all the maritime traffic was flowing to the East Bay, this left the piers empty. But it never panned out. Instead he helped open up one of the great ambitious cinema experiments in San Francisco, across the street from the Hall of Justice. It folded within five years. Part of the reason it folded was because it just wasn't a proper studio. Los Angeles, in its formative years, had lots of free land where the major studios could setup shop, and erect proper sound stages with baffleing and sound walls surrounding their complexes. San Francisco doesn't have any free land, just some overpriced lots in rundown neighborhoods. That, and the support services that used to be here are long gone. So, based on the emails and job postings I see on the local media boards, work is slim within the Bay Area itself. But work being offered to Bay Area people to work elsewhere, via networking on this site and other places, seems to be thriving. Some guy at work, who's a producer/director & DP, asked me what I did when I was working a lot. He needed a film mag loader. I didn't qualify. I just knew how to wrack focus and pan the beast. I don't know a thing about loading film into motion picture magazines (though I've done dark room work, and have loaded regular cameras via black bags). That lack of qualification kept him from hiring me. Oh well. I wanted to ask him why he was still shooting with an Arri BLIII or IV instead of digital. But I let it go. It's not like I'm qualified on DI. But even my offer of free labor, even with my knowledge of basic camera ops (video and film), gripping, AD and so forth wasn't enough for him to consider me. What to do? He and I actually share the same job at work. We're both part timers, but he gets more hours. A couple months back Jonathan Bowerbank, or one of you guys, stopped by at the store where I used to work, and dropped a lot of hints about doing a shoot down in Louisiana (or someplace in the deep South), but unless someone tosses work my way and asks me what I can do for them, there's not much else I can do. Truth is, I'm going to shoot for above the line work anyway, so crewing probably isn't in my future anyway. BUT, at one time I thought that was the way to work up the ladder to get to the actual creative process. I'm guessing that was probably wrong. Still, it'd be real nice to keep my feet wet in terms of basic production skills. But now I'm rambling... largely because it's late at night, and I'm all gamed out for the evening :) Anymore thoughts? What are you all guys (and gals) career objectives anyway? Do you want to shoot other people's stuff for the rest of your life, or are you aiming for something else?

None of you folks have shot a rock concert? :huh:

I've been trying to hunt down a guy I used to work for by the name of Scott Marshall. He was a SFX artist I used to work for on and off through the 80s and 90s. If anyone has any information could you send me a PM? Thanks much.

Oh sure. Filmmaker, again to me, is anyone who's in charge of the project and creating a project for artistic purposes. But that's just my opinion. :)

That's what gets me. I've rarely, if ever, seen myself as a film maker. When I was working lots I always saw myself as a hired hand; a crew member. Film maker was (is) a term used by people outside the industry. One of my first gigs was working on a rap video many years back. I helped setup lights, clipped on gels, moved flats, pushed the dolly around, even stood in for the models and actors being shot, and racked focus. But I wasn't a filmmaker. That title went to the guy flipping the bill and directing the thing. But even then, to me at least, it connotates (in a good way) an amateur; i.e. someone who's making movies for the fun of it, or for art's sake. To me it doesn't apply to any of the directors I worked for who were cranking out commercials or industrials, if they were shot on 35mm or BETACAM SP. I guess the only time I ever saw myself as a "film maker" was when I was shooting my student projects. But I'm babbling now. :)

My first camera was a windup Super-8 Bolex that my photography instructor gave to me when I was 11. From there I moved onto home video equipment. But, when I was shooting video, even for me and my friends, I didn't think of myself as a film maker. Likewise when I did professional camera ops I was manning tube cameras for BETACAM SP shoots, I didn't consider myself a film maker. The term filmmaker didn't sit well with me. At best I was a videographer. I never really considered myself a film maker in the professional sense. Filmmakers are people who are producing and shooting their own stuff, and are shooting it on film. Just my take.

I'm wondering if anyone here can reccomend a good reference (book or website) for shootig live events like rock concerts, plays or operas. Thanks for any reply.

I offered free labor, and no takers. That's more to people scratching their heads about me in a "Who's this guy?" kind of way. Most of the job listings I'm seeing on other media BBS and services are related to finance or office support, and not production. In the early 90s I went through two writer strikes, a recession under Bush sr., and a couple other things that really put a crimp in San Francisco's media industry. A bunch of rental houses shut down and people closed up shop. Me included. In this regard I feel like I never left because I haven't had any job offers (save for a handful of you who visited me at my former place of work, and dropped hints ;)). I don't know about the rest of the nation (or world), but the Bay Area for this veteran/newbie is dead. You can make a living, but like anything else you need to know the right people. And all the people I used to know over 10 plus years ago are gone.

New Availability; ALL day M-Th. :)

Can any of you San Francisco Bay Area types reccomend a rental house that deals in consumer cameras? I wanted to shoot some tests a couple weeks back, but didn't want to shell out $250 for a day rate prosumer camera. At the same time I don't want to buy a $500 tiny consumer hi-def camera that I'm probably only going to use once. Thanks for any feedback.

Movie Magic. It keeps track of characters, scenes and a whole host of other things. A fun feature is that it'll read your script back to you.

I'm not a big fan of slasher and/or horror flicks, but, technical aspects aside, you also need to have something to say in your film. Really succesful films, even B-grade slasher flicks, have some kind of message or underlying theme to them. Otherwise all you wind up shooting is a bunch of scenes strung together. Make sure you have a solid script, and take David's advice about reading that cinematography book.

What kind of lens?