Brian Dzyak

Yes, my thoughts are A)what do you mean by "event photography"? and B )Potential clients generally tell YOU which format they need in the non-narrative "video" world so you use whatever camera it takes on a project by project basis. Most of my clients ONLY use HDCAM for their biggest jobs. Smaller projects (or longer term) will use something like an HDV or EX3. Some "event coverage" shoots actually still use BetaSP. The point is that if you purchase a camera, be prepared for it to sit at home while you go rent whatever camera you really need.

Five Points has a lot going on (sort of like Venice, CA - lite). There are a lot of great restaurants (and shopping) up in Buckhead. The Aquarium is AMAZING!

If I had a nickel for every Panaflex Operator who offered to trade places with me (because I have a lighter camera). Sure! I'll happily take two minute takes and be able to hand it off to an AC and never have to pick it up or move my own lighting gear and everything else around and concentrate on everything that's happening everywhere on set and off... and get hours for health insurance to boot. Sounds like a fair tradeoff to me! :) I think my longest "take" was about 50 minutes on an F900/3 handheld. My longest non-stop Steadicam shot (Digibeta) was 42 minutes. That stuff hurts! And you don't just do it once and go home. That's ALL DAY LONG.

Yes, it's a library, but what ABOUT the library? What time of day is it? What mood should your LIGHTING help convey to compliment the point of the scene? If you just want to illuminate the set to boost the exposure, then just bounce your lights into the ceiling to give that generic wash. But if you want to actually LIGHT the scene, then you need to understand the mood and tone that is intended then use the lighting to help tell that part of the story.

Is it fair to blame Universal for the state of the industry today? BY DREW MCWEENY - As they shut down 'At The Mountains Of Madness,' what does it say about our business? http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/motion-captured/posts/is-it-fair-to-blame-universal-for-the-state-of-the-industry-today

It all depends on the situation. One example off the top of my head involved a couple of friends of mine who were asked to shoot the wedding of a major movie star. They went to scout the location, which was at her beach house in Malibu. The ceremony was to take place with the bride & groom overlooking the ocean at twilight. They determined that to do it RIGHT they'd have to light the event to have a chance at a real exposure against the bright sky. The actress/bride refused to let them use any lighting at all. So, they chose to say "thank you" and didn't do the job. It was a setup for failure and the distinct possibility that the client would have been very unhappy with the final product and not pay them for the work. So it was best for their careers to NOT do that job. It's one thing to be innovative and figure things out when you don't have all the proper tools... but it's another to be put into situations that are nigh impossible, like the one above. What if the Director really wants a super wide shot of a gothic church interior with sharp beams of light cutting through the smoky air... and all you have to light with are two 1Ks and a Litepanel? Sometimes the appetite of those in charge is bigger than what they can afford and if they seem like unreasonable people who will put you in impossible situations AND blame you for it, then it's best to not even get involved in the first place or graciously walk away when it starts to go south. Choose REALISTIC projects that have goals that are in line with the budget, schedule, and manpower... and the SKILLS of the manpower you have available. Not all crew are created equally so you have to know the limitations before asking too much.

Safety Passport is alive and well. I have classes I need to take before July to stay current. I left a job a long time ago, which is something I NEVER do. But, it was a low-budget indie movie. Everything was rush rush rush and the DP was a hack. The Key Grip wasn't much better and frequently overlooked basic safety measures. Amongst the daily problems I ran into, the following week was going to include helicopter work. I had realized by that point that if I couldn't trust this production with basic production safety, there was absolutely no way I was going to trust them to operate near a helicopter. I was nice and gave the UPM a few days notice to find a replacement. As I recall, the day after I did that, the entire Electric Department decided to leave without warning. So it wasn't just me. It really is up to everyone to watch out for themselves and for others. Accidents do happen, but usually only when there is intentional neglect due to that attitude of "rush rush rush" or trying to do something on the cheap.

Well, most parents don't really understand those of us who want to do this sort of thing for a living. Most parents grew up at a time when THE THING to do was go to college or go through the military, then get married, pop out two or three kids, get a mortgage, load up the 401K, then retire living happily ever after. A freelance life in the professional film industry isn't anything like that for most people and it's difficult for "traditional" parents (or anyone else) to understand. But not much has changed as I'm sure that parent's of circus performers likely went through the same concern for the welfare of their children. What's really important is what YOU want. It's YOUR life and YOUR decision. With that, of course, comes the responsibility. If you succeed, then you can be proud of your accomplishments in the face of almost impossible odds. If you fail, then at least you know you tried. But if you never even try out of fear or because of pressure from parents, then what did you live your seventy-ish years of life for? Nobody knows why we're here. We're born without an instruction book so everybody just makes it up as they go. The best any of us can guess is that everyone deserves the opportunity to pursue happiness and if being a "filmmaker" is what inspires you, then NO ONE has the right to tell you not to. They have their own life to live in misery in they choose to not follow their own dreams and passions. Parents want the best for their children and that shouldn't automatically mean a "stable job" with a retirement plan and marriage. What's "best" for some kids is off that "boring" "traditional" track. It's not that you CAN'T have marriage and a mortgage and a retirement plan if you work in the movie business. In fact, you SHOULD think about financial safety, but that shouldn't be the primary goal. Follow your passion, be excellent at what you do and that financial success usually follows.

So, Ontario (it's people who rely on tax revenue) is the sucker in this scenario? They keep subsidizing a for-profit industry at a loss but claim it as a positive because a few jobs are "created" for a couple months at a time?

Ah, so tax incentives are NOT such a great thing IN THE LONG RUN after all. Eh? :) The "Hollywood" circus arrives every once in a while, gives some temporary jobs, doesn't really contribute to the Canadian society (because the tax breaks outweigh the employment income and other ancillary benefits), then "Hollywood" leaves until the next time IF the tax "incentives" are still in place. Who are "Incentives" helping again?

Another piece of advice is that you invest as much time as possible EDITING. Not just telling someone else where to put shots, but actually get in there and push the buttons yourself. Editing your own footage as well as footage from others will teach you immeasurable amounts about what works and what doesn't.

So, you want to be a Director instead of DP?

The key statement is above. You should be aware that NO school will "land you a job." It doesn't work that way. At best, you'll leave film school with three things: 1) more knowledge/skill regarding what you want to do than when you began 2) MAYBE some classmates who you keep in touch with who will hire you or who you will hire after school 3) Debt Oh, and #4 would be some type of diploma, but nobody cares about that so it's not important. Almost everything you need to know can be learned at home from the myriad of books and DVDs that are available for far less money than you'll spend at a formal school. A school can give you hands-on experience with "real" tools (cameras, lights, accessories) on "real" sets on student productions, but the key to truly learning how to light or edit or anything else is to just do it a lot and for a long time. A formal school can give you a foundation that you will have to build upon on your own over time as your career progresses. So, before you commit to any kind of formal filmschool, really think about what it is you PRECISELY have as a career goal and then go to a school ONLY IF that school will help you learn the things you need to reach your goals.

Wealth redistribution? When MORE of the money goes to Corporations than goes to the Middle/working Class, that's hardly wealth distribution. Somebody had a great analogy for this yesterday. It goes something like this: A CEO, a Tea Partier, and a Union worker are at a table with ten dollar bills on it. The CEO takes nine of them, then looks at the Tea Partier are says, "Hey, that Union guy wants to take yours!" That's pretty much what's going on with the big picture. The Corporate class is taking MORE than their fair share, then suggesting to everyone else that they should A) fight over what's left and B) be happy with it because, well, at least they have something. Tax credits/subsidies/incentives take more OUT of the system than they put in. Sure, working people have temporary income for a couple months which makes them feel better for a little bit, but the community at large is having MORE money siphoned out that goes directly into the wallets of the wealthy elite. It's unsustainable economic model that says "Hey townspeople! We're going to give Corporation A $10 million dollars and in return, they're going to give us back $500,000 in jobs and extraneous revenue! Let's rejoice because at least we have SOME jobs for a short period of time." The math doesn't add up in any way shape or form.

Ideally, ANY lighting a Cameraman does will be "invisible." I'm often asked to "do something" to a background to make it look better, but the LAST thing I want to do is to toss in unmotivated light or color. The idea behind a DP is to LIGHT a set and characters and not merely ILLUMINATE to get an exposure. To truly LIGHT a shot means knowing what story is being told and using light and camera movement and lens choice and focus to achieve that goal. The point isn't to just make a shot look "cool," but to tell a story in a way that isn't obvious. Just like Visual or Special Effects, the best lighting is the lighting you don't even realize is there. The only shots I can think of that are NOT lit (but "lit" with natural light") are wide Day Exteriors, where it would be essentially impossible.

We had that situation prior to Reagan who lowered taxes on the wealthy and Corporation but RAISED taxes on everyone else. The lore of Reagan always manages to ignore that fact. I apologize that I can't remember nor find the specifics at the moment (I'll keep looking), but in one state right now, incentives were given to the tune of something like $3 million per employee for a company to move their operations there, only the employees will only be paid about $50,000 a year. The math just does not add up in any conceivable way. The situation that has been CREATED over the past thirty years is that the top 1/10 of 1% is making more than the bottom 90%. While Middle Class incomes have remained relatively flat since 1980, the top 1% have seen their incomes rise some 281% in that same amount of time. The result is that wealth is being accumulated at the top at an unprecedented rate. Some of that has to do with the incentive scheme in tandem with international trade policies.

In the USA, it's all about Corporate Welfare disguised as "Capitalism." Essentially, Reagan began the anti-worker/labor effort which was amplified by Bush, Clinton, and Bush. Obama isn't doing much to help either. NAFTA and GATT put that ideology on steroids which has driven some 41,000 factories out of the USA since 2001. Those industries that say demand incentives/bribes from anyone who will give them, playing cities and states against each other seeing who wants the jobs the most. The film industry has jumped on that wagon with gusto even though it doesn't build expensive long-term factories that any municipality can count on for long-term jobs and tax revenue. Like I've said, it's all a scam foisted upon the public as a good thing when it is anything but that.

Right there is the problem. The government should take taxes anyway regardless of incentives. The incentives should ADD ADDITIONAL revenue to the government that paid the bribe as they are now an additional investor. Writing off that RIGHT that investors have just because there MIGHT be additional benefits is ridiculous. Yes, the crew pay taxes on their paychecks but as many audits are revealing, the circumstantial benefits are being outweighed by the sheer dollars that are being given in Corporate Welfare. Essentially, governments are giving away more than they're getting. In what universe does that make sense?

Ah, but profits are NOT shared. Even though taxpayers are partially footing the bill for a for-profit product, they get none of the benefits back as other investors do. It's a racket. Publicize the costs, privatize the profits. A long time racket. :ph34r:

Exactly. The incentive scheme more or less sets people up to assume that "the government" is going to bribe Corporations into bringing work to any particular area. In my mind, anyway, that's not a very wise way to approach a career. Sure, it might work for a while, but as we've seen time and time again, the incentives DO go away so it's best for aspiring "filmmakers" to establish a life/career where the work LIKELY will be for a long time as opposed to assuming that it'll always be in a location that is only a location because of tax incentives.

Yes, I am opposed to those subsidies. That wasn't a subsidy nor an incentive. That was a bail-out which WAS necessary and was paid back with interest in a time of severe economic crisis. I agreed with that while not loving the situation that caused it to have to happen. No. Your question doesn't seem sincere at all. The accusatory tone isn't necessary. I don't have much of a choice, do I as EVERY movie made now is made with "incentive" money? For that matter, MOST industries in the USA are now operating by virtue of "incentive" money that has been paid by some form of government to get that business to operate there. The CONservative economic system that has been established has given Corporations a kind of stranglehold over local and state governments as they play locations off one another to get the biggest bribe in exchange for the jobs. While one might be able to argue with some sense of validity a local government agreeing to an incentive for a permanent factory (that provides stable permanent jobs), that argument isn't as valid for something like movie-making where the "factory" is extremely temporary. It's not like a steel or automobile plant that will be there for years on end. A movie production is mobile and temporary, not a good investment/bet for any government that thinks they can hand out bribes for eternity. The previous model for filmmaking was better for the industry as a whole and for those who wish to work in it. The reason being that when there are just one or two primary locations where most of the production occurs, it requires that aspiring professionals make the commitment to move there. That's the first "weeding out" step. You truly had to want it to go to where the work is. Now, it doesn't take that kind of initial decision so someone who just happens to be entering the workforce at a time when the roulette wheel of incentives lands on their state thinks they can just stay put and build a life where they already live. But eventually, the incentives WILL go away and production will dry up and that professional will sit there wondering what happened, complaining that the government should continue to hand out bribes so that he can keep working. But if we did away with this incentive nonsense and kept production in just two or three primary places (with location shooting happening as traditionally necessary, of course), then the TRULY committed professionals would know where to go to establish a lifelong life and career and feel reasonably confident that it would last. But now, the bouncy ball of incentives roams around randomly and it threatens to erode the long-term quality of the workforce as no one can be sure if they will be able to create and sustain a viable career. The only one's "winning" in the incentive game are the Corporations who get the bribes. In the short-term, the governments paying out the bribes lose and in the long-term, the labor force loses too. Personally, I took the risk and made the commitment to get off my butt, leave home and establish life where the movie industry is centered (in Los Angeles). And for the moment, I'm doing okay (knock on wood!). But I watch what's going on with other states/nations and get questions from people about what's going on and I genuinely worry for them. It's hard to know what advice to give the new aspiring "crew member" as to where to move to establish a career. This incentive thing is a trainwreck on many levels.

I don't shoot news, but I've run into this sort of situation before where we need a wide shot but also simultaneous close-ups. It's not easy to pull off as the requirements for a "perfect" closeup almost always compromise the wide shot, and visa versa. Features are able to make those adjustments because they have control over the logistics. But a situation like an interview, where you only get ONE chance to capture it all, is different so there is almost no chance to make every shot perfect. You either have to compromise to make all three (usually three... two CUs and one WS) work which means that none of them are "great!" or you make the WS great! which compromises the CUs. To make the CUs great! usually means having gear in the shot (lights, Cstands, etc) which is what I've seen in some of the Sheen interviews. It happens.

That's not an easy question to answer. There are around one-thousand movies made and released every year which means that there is a LOT of production going on. The problem, as I see it anyway, is that that work is too scattered around the world to allow most people to have viable careers. If you happen to live in an city or state that gets one or two of those movies, then you MIGHT be able to make a living if you get to work on both. If you live in a city like LA or NYC, then there are more opportunities (though no guarantees, of course) for working steadily. The "good" news is that many states are now waking up to the fact that their tax "incentive" programs are a losing proposition so many of those programs are being cut back or eliminated. What that means is that production will eventually be consolidated back into a just a couple of locations which makes employment and long-term career viability BETTER for serious professionals... IF they make the choice to move and live in one of those places. The current system which scatters production every which way is BAD for serious professionals as there is almost no way to sustain a viable living in one geographic location so long as the work is dependent upon the whims of politicians who are willing to bribe Corporations to bring short-term jobs. In any case, here is the report from the MPAA for 2010 http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/6a507b67-e219-43a3-a4ce-9788d6f1fb5e.pdf that should give you an idea of where production has been recently. But like I said, things are changing as states change their stance on giving bribes/incentives to the movie business. Look through this category for the latest news on what's going on with the incentive/bribe business http://realfilmcareer.com/?cat=11 . "Better" is a subjective term. For someone living in a place that is giving up on incentives, things will get "worse." But that means that things will get "better" for whichever location attracts the work that would've gone somewhere else. It's like trying to follow a bouncing ball in a rubber room. That's why I personally am against this tax incentive scheme that's been concocted. It purposefully pits cities/state/nations against one another to see who can offer the biggest bribe to a for-profit Corporation to get short-term work in their area. This may SEEM good for workers, but it is BAD in the long term because there is no guarantee that those bribes will always be offered by the local government. So, for instance, all of those people in Michigan who bought into the lie that they would become the permanent "Hollywood MidWest!" are in for an awakening soon as ALL of that work suddenly will go away as the "incentives" are removed from the state budget. There is work out there. The trick is keeping up with it, but more importantly, it's up to YOU to build relationships with a few people who like you and like what you do so that YOU are their first call no matter where the work is. Crews are flown/driven to distant locations all the time so to keep working means finding a way to be a part of those select crew who get to do that. Otherwise, it'a all about hoping that there will be enough work to keep you going all year so you won't have to fill in the non-movie days by having to say "Hello, welcome to Walmart!"

Why would anyone want tax dollars to be used in ANY way to help a private "business" to make a for-profit product? The concern with movies is that what if someone wanted to make something like a political movie that pushed a POV that you don't agree with? YOUR tax dollars are then being used to promote objectionable content. This was an actual issue last year(?) in Texas when a Rodriquez movie wanted a tax "incentive" but there was pushback due to the way the movie would portray Texas. http://www.studiobriefing.net/2010/12/texas-officials-deny-tax-incentives-for-machete/

Well, for me, the first hour was utterly boring. I found myself fidgeting and checking the time. Adding to that were the relentless "style" shots following Natalie from behind and (as a disclaimer), the jerk who sat next to me at the last minute who could not stop f'ing moving or chewing on something or fixing his Justin Bieber hair. What a douche that guy was! Anyway, the second hour kinda flew by. So there's that.