Brian Dzyak

http://www.filmtools.com/matscisclamw.html Or you could hide it ABOVE the drop ceiling, letting the light through, if your shot shows the ceiling. I had to use this very clamp last week to hang a backlight. :)

A 1K still isn't enough for most bright day exteriors, particularly if your background is lit up. Unless you have access to large units (plus the genny and the people) and permits to use them, your better option will probably be to use shiny boards and try to redirect any natural light you can.

Well, that's because your union reps aren't wussies like the one's for the Western Region. The NY and Chicago guys should run workshops on how to get sh** done.

There's a very well known, very successful DP working in Hollywood who wanted to begin directing for a living instead. He worked hard to convince studios and Producers he had worked with before to allow him to direct a movie. During that time, he also wanted an Agent to represent ONLY the directing portion of his career. He already had an Agent to represent him for the camerawork, but he wanted a separate Agent to exclusively handle the Directing work. The last I checked, he never found any takers. All of the Agents he interviewed wouldn't take him unless they could have the DP work as well. He didn't want that because those Agents would most certainly sit back and take the guaranteed bigger paycheck from his established DP career instead of lifting a finger to help him develop the new directing work. Much like Hollywood unions, Agents are not in the business of GETTING people work. Their primary purpose is to negotiate contracts with studios and Producers. An Agent might give you more credibility, which could help, but I've heard enough anecdotal tales of the opposite. Lower level projects get scared away by a DP who has an Agent because they assume it'll cost them more. Unless you've got a skill that makes you irreplaceable or your best buds with the Producer or Director, an Agent taking 10% of your earnings won't really come in handy until you're making bigger movies.

You beat me to it. ;)

:) I don't have and don't "deserve" to have any say in Canadian politics, the way international interests are now allowed to have in the USA. I wouldn't presume to suggest that I should have a voice in what your government chooses to do. What I think your nation and other nations should do is "protect" your own internal film industries and those who wish to work in those industries. Limit the number of "foreign" movies that are shown on your screens. If the government wants to hand out bribes, then only do it for Canadian films and not foreign projects. Develop your own internal industry instead of having "filmmakers" relying on the government to bribe foreign (US) Corporations to bring work to them. Why is that such a difficult concept? Is it just that much easier to rely on government bribes? Maybe it is. But isn't that just laziness?

That's just not entirely true. In regard to rates, one of the points of a national union (IATSE, TEAMSTERS, DGA, WGA) is that everyone who is part of that union gets the same rates and benefits. A movie shooting under contract will pay the same rates and benefits no matter where it shoots in the USA. And that IS a big part of the issue when we talk about movies that shoot in places like Prague or Budapest or Australia where those workers CAN afford to work for less than US workers who have a higher cost of living. This problem extends into non-movie industry jobs where much of US manufacturing (some 41,000 factories since 2001) has moved over the borders and overseas specifically because those Corporations can get much cheaper labor elsewhere. Asking US workers, who have a higher cost of living to slash their own paychecks by half or more is unreasonable, particularly when those at the top are NOT taking the same cuts. In fact, since 1979, the bottom 90% of people in the US have seen their incomes remain relatively flat (a modest 14% rise, on average). But the top 1% have seen a whopping 281% INCREASE in that same amount of time. It's clear that this economic model is causing US workers to fall way behind but is enriching those at the top by a staggering differential. As far as location shooting goes, I have mentioned that of course this issue doesn't necessarily apply when a movie is in need of a specific location. But cities/states/countries ARE being chosen NOT because of the location, but because it's just cheaper to shoot there BECAUSE OF these tax incentives/bribes. It has nothing whatsoever to do with location fees or rates and everything to do with the "incentives" offered by governments. Of course you'll go shoot in the desert or in NYC or the Badlands or anywhere else that cannot be duplicated on stage, but a vast amount of stage work IS being shot in places that A) are not really built with the infrastructure for movies and B ) places that don't have the depth of crew (numbers and experience) that Los Angeles has. Many government officials in "tax incentive states" are finally sitting up and taking notice of this as they realize that the jobs are NOT necessarily going to local residents because LA-based crew are flown in on a regular basis to fill those slots. This not only does NOT help those locations and their permanent residents, but it also puts an unnecessary strain on those LA-based crew who are leaving their family and lives at home just to make a living, one that they USED TO be able to do at home. Yep. There's a reason the movie business took root in LA. And there's only one reason that it has been leaving: Tax Incentives. Well, yeah. But ads for movies don't include a "Made in the USA" label in the trailer or the newspaper. An audience as to wait until the very end of the credits to learn if they just consumed a product made somewhere else. Although, I do recall that about ten years ago, that idea was floated around. I think it was in response to the movie "RUDY!" which was shot in Canada and not NYC purely because of incentive money. http://actacting.com/acting-studio/rudy-to-be-filmed-in-canada-2188030.html All true. But it's not just that Corporations can spend unlimited amounts anonymously on candidates or issues or policy... but ANYONE in the world can, thanks to the Citizen's United case coupled with "Corporate Personhood" mistakenly being applied in 1885 in Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad. What this means is that, say for example, if the government of Iran wanted a politician who was favorable to Iranian politics, Iran could conjure up a fake Corporation in the US, then funnel as much money as it wanted into that election campaign to both laud the achievements of the candidate Iran favors AND roll over the opposing candidates and issues it doesn't like. The problem is, that most people aren't aware of the complexities of what CONservative ideology is doing to undermine their own country and ostensibly, the world both in terms of the economy and politics. Tariff "penalties" used to be the law of the land as well, but those went away too with policies like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act being undone. States also have the ability to impose a "Corporate Death Penalty" for Corporations that are deemed to be acting AGAINST the public interest and/or in a dangerous manner. But of course, in our predominately "pro-business" environment, Attorney's General aren't likely to impose that penalty anytime soon. :) I work quite a lot, but it is worth the time to attempt to "educate" others as to the realities of what is really going on out in the world. I believe that for too long, this economic ideology has wormed it's way into the public consciousness to the point where people really aren't aware that it hasn't always been this way and it does not have to continue being this way. In the US, CONservative politics have undermined the economy since 1980 and only now, people are poking their heads out of the sand to ask why. These issues we are feeling in the movie industry aren't new to other industries, like textiles and automobiles which have experienced the same kind of outsourcing for decades now. What you label as "bickering" I appreciate as a necessary discussion. Richard B. has his valid POV coming from a nation that doesn't have it's own behemoth movie industry, therefore crews there rely on their government to bribe US Corporations in order to make a living. I get it. I do. But every movie or TV show made elsewhere solely because of the tax incentive scheme means that industry professionals in a place like Los Angeles DON'T have a job that they would have had otherwise. This scheme dilutes the workforce and undermines pay and the taxbase for the government. It's good for the Corporations that make more money by saving on taxes, but ultimately, the nation loses by losing work and/or needed tax revenue.

:) Just curious... you've mentioned that due to some kind of "deals," that US films dominate the Canadian screens ...and that is what you use to justify Canadians poaching work from US film crews with taxpayer supplied bribes to US Corporations. I'm curious if you or anyone has attempted to alleviate THAT primary "problem." Have you or anyone else even attempted to restrict the number of US "Hollywood" movies that dominate your screens at all? Or do you just accept it as inevitable then turn to the Corporate Bribes as the only way to fight back?

WHOA.... I never ever "admitted" that I would "happily work on a film in the USA that was using a state tax credit as part of the financing." Typical CONservative to twist facts just enough to attempt to prove a point. What WAS said was this: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=49710&view=findpost&p=346147 It was YOU who "happily" agrees to bribe money paid for by taxpayers to American Corporations to enrich YOU: YOU are happy with the bribe situation so that you can profit from it while so many others here scrounge for work in an industry that they worked hard to become a part of. That, to me, is a sad commentary on the cold hearted attitude that so many take toward others. :( But, whatever. How long til Canadian taxpayers catch on to the scam? Some of our US States have. It's only a matter of time. Well, that statement alone pretty much clarifies how "management" feels about workers, doesn't it? BS? Really? I don't have the exact quote available at the moment, but it has something to do with a Screenwriter who was being fired (or ignored, or something like that) by a "famous" Director who decided that he didn't need the Writer. The Writer responds by throwing a blank sheet of paper at the Director while exclaiming, "DIRECT THIS!" What is it about people "in charge" that makes them think that "labor" is inconsequential and expendable deserving of little respect and less money than they ask for? I'll never get the CONservative mindset, I guess. Why do I care? Because foreign money is being spent to bribe US Corporations which directly affects the lives and careers of people who BUILT lives and careers in a specific industry. What a silly question. But beyond that, EVERYONE should care how taxes are spent. In the same way I don't want my tax dollars to be spent to finance a tyrannical dictator, I prefer that my tax dollars not be spent bribing for-profit Corporations particularly when I (and my city/state/nation) isn't a profit partner. Afterall, handing out "tax incentives" or outright subsidies should automatically make the government (therefore, the People/taxpayers) co-Producers thus guaranteeing them a share in the gross profits. But how often does that ever happen? EVERYONE should care how their tax dollars are spent and the way it looks, non-film industry Canadian taxpayers are footing the bill to provide extra profit to US Corporations and to provide a scant few jobs to a few Canadian film crews. Like the original post of this thread suggests, that economic model is NOT beneficial to anyone in the long run except for the Corporations who are taking the bribes to enhance their own profit margins.

I don't intend to make this about individual careers or lives, but in this case I do wish to ask Richard if any of his projects benefit from the tax incentive programs offered by a Canadian local or nation government? Additionally, I would like to know what the rate card for my "IATSE brothers" says as of March 2011? Are Canadian IATSE members undercutting the current US IATSE rates in addition to taking advantage of government bribes to Corporations (paid for by Canadian taxpayers)? In other words (currency rates excluded from this conversation although they are relevant), is this a level-playing field for ALL workers everywhere or are Corporations taking advantage of "desperation" on the part of labor (film crews) and, of course, currency valuation differences on top of the incentives/bribes/subsidies they get from taxpayers? THAT is the question here. In regard to this: I would like to ask how good you feel about your own ethics knowing that you're taking income away from otherwise hardworking people in the USA who built lives around an industry just so that YOU (your countrymen) can have a job. Why not fight to change the trade/screening regulations/laws/restrictions in order to build up your OWN industry (that would give your citizens work) instead of relying on your taxpayers to bribe US Corporations for temporary jobs? It's a bit like fixing a bleeding arm by taking a skin graft from your leg. Yes, the arm may stop bleeding, but you'll have trouble walking from now on. Why not fix the arm independently of destroying something else? Is that such a crazy idea?

Perhaps. :) But the serious question for anyone like you whose local, state, and/or national government hands over tax "incentives" or subsidies to motion-picture production companies is, would your career exist without those bribes to for-profit Corporations on behalf of taxpayers, most of whom DO NOT see any tangible benefit from their money being used that way? For all of the CONservatives (in the USA, anyway) who are so adamantly opposed to "Welfare" for the poor, I wonder why the double-standard of hypocrisy is allowed to exist that essentially gives welfare to Corporations and workers who RELY on "incentives" and subsidies that are provided by taxpayers? The "Canadian problem" as I understand it is that "Hollywood" has effectively shut out most Canadian content and to people like Richard, this situation justifies the incentive situation to take work away from US workers because otherwise, aspiring Canadian workers wouldn't have the opportunity to have a career. Have I boiled that down to the core correctly? Because Canadian content is shut out by a bad "trade" deal with "Hollywood," Canadians should be allowed to poach work from US workers as a sort of "payback." And that happens ONLY because Canadian taxpayers are subsidizing this industry even though A) the profits return to the USA and B ) these incentives only benefit a scant percentage of the population at great expense to everyone else. And this is a good situation, how exactly?

Thank you. Yes, I've already spoken with officials there and we'll be off the beaten path, so to speak. :)

This August, my family will be taking my father on a surprise trip to the USS Intrepid museum. It'll be his first trip back to the ship since he served in the 1960s. I'll be documenting his visit on camera as he walks through reminiscing with his children and grandchildren. The plan is to use something like a Canon 7D or some other small camera (with wide lens). Audio will likely be a lav plugged directly into a recorder that he'll wear to avoid having to use RF. I'm wondering if anyone out there has shot on and inside the Intrepid who might have advice and/or warnings, things to watch out for, etc. Is the lighting too dim at any point inside? Thanks!

Yes, I read it all. Thank you again for your concern. And AGAIN, at what point has anyone here been defending "Obama"? I'm confused by the distraction techniques. The bottom line (with this topic) is that too many people are now relying on bribes by their own governments to for-profit Corporations to enable their careers. That has not always been the reality nor does it HAVE TO continue to be the reality. I appreciate that Canadian "filmmakers" now have a way to earn a living because their governments are willing to heavily bribe US Corporations, but the fact remains that A) tax incentives/bribes are not inevitable nor should anyone rely on them to support their own career indefinitely (particularly in such a volatile industry) and B ) tax bribes are a NEGATIVE for the tax-payers who are footing the bill to provide a scant-few people careers. In other words, why should a city/state/nation have to subsidize a for-profit Corporation (like a movie production company) just so that someone like Richard (and the Corporations) can become rich? What's in it for the taxpayers who are subsidizing those bribes? The answer, of course, is Nada. It's a scam, one that just a few people are profiting from. And when those bribes/incentives dry up, we see rallies and "letters to the Editor" from lazy "filmmakers" whining that their government won't continue to bribe those Corporations anymore.

I understand that some people who are getting rich off the current situation have a vested interested in convincing others that the current situation is "the way it works" and anyone (like me) who doesn't agree with it must not know what they are talking about, but that doesn't make people like Richard correct. His "hardly" comment was quite rude and unsubstantiated as he has no idea what I know or what I don't. He is clearly enjoying the current situation as he and his country is able to take advantage of the economic paradigm that has been manufactured so he has a clear incentive to keep the status quo so it doing what he can to discredit anyone who argues against it. I get it, I do. But that doesn't make him or anyone like him inherently correct.

:) Just because I don't subscribe to the brainwashing of "how things should be" doesn't mean I don't know how it all works. Economic ideologies are political choices, not absolutes. Our economy does not HAVE TO rely on exports. Milton Friedmanists WANT the world to work that way, but it doesn't have to. That's what (I presume), people like you can't comprehend. Life is what we make it and it doesn't have to be this way.

I know plenty about it which is why I've come to my conclusions, but thanks for the concern. :)

I have no problem with that. I have no problem with that either. We've all spent too long relying on fossil fuels and not investing enough into renewable energy. Perhaps SUPER high costs would be enough to spur humanity into investing in the R&D that is long overdue. This is a lie. Sort of. Your statement is the standard CONservative argument that this situation was "inevitable." It wasn't. It was intentionally manufactured without any real cause and nobody was asking for it. NONE of us "had to" compete with China, India, or Indonesia until tariff restrictions were lifted. That was a manufactured situation designed by "free marketers" who desired cheap slave labor in locations bereft of environmental and labor/safety regulations. So yes, we are "competing" with people who can survive on a dime a day, but we shouldn't have to and we DON'T have to. It's easy. Just slam Corporations with the tariffs we used to have and those 41,000+ factories that have left since 2001 will come back almost overnight. Your last statement about what people will pay is a bit humorous in that you're comparing what someone will do in the current situation with what they would do if they had their well-paying job back. People HAVE TO look for a Walmart deal (shirts for $10 bucks) because their jobs were shipped overseas so they are subsisting on less than minimum wage and paying through the nose for health insurance and other "benefits." BUT, give them that great paying job back and not only will they be able to pay more for clothes, they'll have income to buy lots more stuff too, which as we all know, stimulates the overall economy because jobs are created by demand by those at the bottom, not by rich people at the top. It's just common sense, which evidently, is a misnomer since most people don't seem to have any.

Well, it seems clear that our US CONservatives are determined to take us back to days of Aristocracy. :( Was someone here defending Clinton or Obama? :unsure: They are just Republican-lite. The US hasn't had a real Liberal in office for decades. Not sure how it can be rationalized that the US has gained the most from FTA/NAFTA/GATT. We've lost 41,000 FACTORIES since 2001 taking millions of jobs with them. While the CEOs are certainly profiting quite well by outsourcing for the cheap labor, no regulations, and lack of tariffs, the working class here definitely hasn't been benefiting.

I merely asked why I was wrong. Eagerly awaiting the reply! Thanks! :) I did indeed move to So Cal BEFORE all of this nonsense began. Like so many before me and a few after. Incentives/bribes are wrong for everyone and nothing will ever change that. If I moved back to the Midwest, I'd put myself at the whims of the government in charge, begging them to continue to bribe Corporations so that I could perhaps continue to earn a living. But for the record, I do okay here. :) Yes, some of the jobs do indeed take me out of town (and out of the country on occasion, usually because of the incentive/bribe situation), but I'm doing okay, thank you! :) My concern is for the general well-being of everyone and our nation that is being undermined by this ridiculousness. Ross Perot was 100% when he said that we'd hear a great sucking sound the minute NAFTA was enacted. It has done NOTHING positive for the US economy. People "complaining" may not get change enacted, but saying nothing certainly won't achieve solutions either. CONservatives WANT people to sit back and say, "Oh well, there's nothing I can do about it." If everyone did that, then we'd ALL still be serfs of the British Crown, wouldn't we?

How so? You're suggesting the Canadian provinces share in the gross receipts of the movies they give bribes to? :unsure:

Soooo, Canadian provinces LOSE tax revenue for the entire community so that a few random workers can profit (not to mention that the profits for the entire project are kept in the coffers of USA CEOs and Producers?) Shouldn't any government (local, state, federal) that gives out incentives and subsidies be considered a profit partner to share in the Gross? Just like every state in the USA, Canada essentially is losing money by handing out these bribes. Why are you happy about that? :huh:

I mainly use a SPECTRA incident meter like this one http://www.clubfree.com/spectra/images/classic1.gif to help light greenscreens evenly. I only measure footcandles, using my 1K Arri openfaced with a Chimera as the base then basing the other light levels to that. Otherwise, with video, I use my zebras set at 70% to get an idea of where I'm at exposure wise, but I don't generally light according to numbers on the meter, preferring to light to my eye instead. I also have one of these http://harrysproshop.com/Sekonic_Meters/L-758DR.jpg but don't use it very often. When I do, I tend to use it for the spotmeter function when I'm "trapped" behind the camera.

http://www.freep.com/article/20110310/OPINION05/103100421/0/search/Guest-commentary-Film-credits-not-worth-their-cost?odyssey=nav|head

There is no golden ticket or easy way. You just volunteer at first and build experience and a resume. Over time, you'll meet people, make contacts, build a reputation. Some people rise more quickly than others out of sheer chance that they've shot the "right" project or met the "right" people. It has very little to do with skill and talent. Of course you need those things, but all too often, it does matter who you know and what you work on. So the "trick" is to work on as many things as you can and meet as many people as you can in hopes that at least one of them will "hit." There's no way to know who or what will be "the one." You just keep at it. A key element in being able to do that is to keep your financial overhead low so that you are free to do ANYTHING that comes along that seems promising. So many working DPs began shooting low-budget/no-budget movies and managed to shoot one that just happened to get an award or get noticed somehow. It's the luck of the draw really. Some very talented people never "make it" while some mediocre DPs do. All you can do is just keep at it, keep your enthusiasm up, and persevere.