Brian Dzyak

For a list of nominees and winners: http://oscar.go.com/nominations

If it's for the internet, the cheapest camera you can find will do just fine. Why pay for quality images and sound when you don't need them? My suggestion is to check Ebay or the Classified ads to find the cheapest camera you can get then save the rest of your money for when you NEED a quality camera. I'll also suggest that you go to this site: http://realfilmcareer.com/forum/index.php?topic=55.0 and scroll down to "Equipment/Filmmaking Procedures" as this type of question has been asked many times. You'll also find similar answers over at filmmaking.net.

I'd have to go back to check to be sure, but I thought that the clip they showed during the VISUAL EFFECTS award (that Inception won) was a behind-the-scenes shot of a SPECIAL EFFECT (the gimbaled hallway). Chris Corbould was up there accepting the award, but I could've sworn that this was a VFX category.

Was working with a Producer the other day that suggested a new drinking game for every time the camera followed Natalie from behind. :lol: I guess if you think about it long enough in a coffee house with a bunch of beatnicks, anyone can come up with a rational that explains those shots, but if ANY shot has to be thought about that much, then there's something wrong. I'm all for innovative and different from the norm, but when the "style" tears the audience OUT OF the story to the point where they notice the "filmmaking," then it is a bad choice. It's like acting or visual effects. I know they are there, but I don't want to notice them while I'm watching the movie. The same goes for camera moves/frame choice/lighting. If a choice LOOKS LIKE it's trying to be "cool" or "different" then it isn't.

There are often shots I do that I ultimately just have to be "finished" setting up. Not because I can't envision anything better, but because the time and other resources aren't available to make it "better" or "THE BEST!" Often the best I can strive for is "the best I can do given the circumstances and parameters." So, does that means I've settled for "good" or "good enough"? I guess it depends on your point-of-view, but I'd say definitely not. Again, if the benchmark of "BEST!!!!" is 70mm 3D IMAX with Dolby THX Surround Sound, then yeah, I fail miserably every day because I've settled for "good enough." But in the realm I work in, I more often than not DO accomplish "the BEST!" possible given the circumstances. Terms like "good," "good enough," "better," "best" are just so subjective and misleading in that they inherently ignore external parameters that potentially limit what could be achieved otherwise in a different environment with other circumstances and resources. I had a couple of setups over at Fox on Friday that I wouldn't dare put on my reel (if I had one). But under the circumstances, they truly were the "best" possible on that day in that place with what I had to work with. If I did the same thing tomorrow over at Amblin, I'd likely never work again, but I know that my circumstances WILL give me more to work with so I don't have to worry about it. Tomorrow, anyway. Tuesday is another day. :)

What I've seen missing from the discussion is an objective definition of what "good" IS. Who's to decide what good, better, and best is? The benchmark seems to be that "film" is the "BEST!" and everything else is automatically inferior and always will be. Says who? These are all just opinions based on a variety of things, like a person's personal bias, experience, tradition, fear of change, etc. What's ultimately important is the story being told and that the medium used to tell it is appropriate. Maybe film IS the best for many stories, but not all. Sometimes a "bad" quality format is "BEST!" to tell a specific story. Something like "Blair Witch" comes to mind. Yes, we should all strive to achieve the "BEST!" images we can, BUT that doesn't mean "Film!" It means the "best medium to tell the specific story at that time within the given parameters." Film looks good! For sure! But I wouldn't choose it to shoot something like a nightly news report. "BEST" is a subjective idea.

I've been saying that this entire tax incentive scheme is intentionally heading that way. Today it's a 40% tax break. Next it'll be like the way sports Corporations convince cities to build stadiums for them with tax money... I think tax incentives would be fine if the government that hands out the subsidies becomes a profit-partner. 40% subsidy means they get 40% of the gross. Fair? Probably not. :)

He has a better chance of dying from starvation due to unemployment because all of the work is being siphoned off by bribes from other states and nations. :angry:

:P It's really not even close to that bad. Sure, there are some "rougher" areas, just like almost anywhere, but you almost have to go looking for trouble to find any.

Well, most live sporting events are shot with video cameras so that the images can be sent immediately to television. Many have large lens because of how far away they must sit relative to the action: http://www.desinformado.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/sony_hdc-3300.jpg http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://henrygraham.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/camera20football.jpg%3Fw%3D450%26h%3D668&imgrefurl=http://henrygraham.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/6/&usg=__QMtOdOdTb64G8lhlecEEPkd395k=&h=668&w=450&sz=34&hl=en&start=0&sig2=0uQLZQYptT51M4mcp82e5Q&zoom=1&tbnid=hBrgXJW-ogpS8M:&tbnh=153&tbnw=108&ei=eQlpTe7rLYa6sQOk8OWoBA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcameras%2Bfor%2BNFL%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26newwindow%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26rlz%3D1G1SNNTCENUS390%26biw%3D1600%26bih%3D775%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=303&oei=eQlpTe7rLYa6sQOk8OWoBA&page=1&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:0&tx=43&ty=108 http://henrygraham.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/4187486858-soccer-barclays-premier-league-newcastle-united-v-derby-county-st.jpg?w=350&h=449 http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/tv-cameras.jpg?w=420 http://www.crossingbroad.com/2010/10/the-fox-flyover-camera-for-baseball-is-a-terrible-idea.html As far as Panavision and Arri go, there are a lot of differences. The most notable is that Panavision only rents their gear while you can purchase Arri. Apart from that, every camera is just a box with a hole in it that allows an image to be "recorded" onto some kind of medium. After that, the features on various camera types allow the user to do different things in different ways. Both companies have a variety of camera bodies that have different uses, such as high speed or cameras that are very small and lightweight. The best way to learn about the differences is to just browse through their websites and/or visit sales or rental houses: http://www.panavision.com/product_category.php?cat=1 http://www.arri.com/camera/

Ideally, you can live close to where you'll work most, but of course you can't ever really know that. But, it'll be helpful for you to have an idea where the major shooting locations are in town. I suggest that you do an address search to pinpoint exact locations, but in general... Disney and Warner Brothers sit almost right next to each other in Burbank near the 134 freeway. Just up the hill from Warner Brothers is Universal just off the 101 freeway. Over the hill, more or less just south of Hollywood is Paramount which isn't really near a freeway. Raleigh Studios sits across the road from Paramount. Then you have to travel west all the way across town to find Twentieth Century Fox in Century City. Somewhat south of that on the other side of the 10 freeway are Sony and Culver Studios which are near each other. Farther south, south of LAX, south of the 105 freeway is Raleigh studios in Manhattan Beach, where Marvel is. You also may find yourself working north of the San Fernando Valley at a couple of stage locations in Santa Clarita. There are also some "ranch" properties up north along the 14 freeway. I live in Encino, which is more or less where the 405 and 101 meet. That gives me easy access to freeways that get me to Burbank and Hollywood east of me and I'm able to travel south toward Century City or Manhattan Beach and I can get north quickly for those locations. Plus, it's safe in the West Valley and not too expensive if you search around a bit. Just about all apartment complexes have their own parking and if you need extra room, there are Public Storage buildings close by. You won't necessarily get all of those benefits if you live closer to Hollywood or in the LA Basin area. The downside to almost anywhere you live will be traffic. It's almost a given that wherever you settle down to live, you won't be shooting close to there. That's just the film/traffic Gods trying to be funny. :) Oh, and you might care about having a pool once you've lived through a summer here. Unless you live near Santa Monica where the climate is cooler, of course, then you'll be somewhat close to the beach.

Here's a picture of one of my greenscreen setups: http://www.dzyak.com/greensetup3.jpg In it, you'll see the ARRI 1K openface with a small Chimera as the key. I use 2 ARRI 650w units for the greenscreen itself and 1 ARRI 300w fresnel for a backlight. I can't remember offhand what footcandles I light to, but I generally have to toss in double scrims on the 650w to balance the green to the key. In that setup, shooting with a Sony F900, I'm shooting wide open on the lens... a 2.8 I think it is. Here are the units we're talking about: http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&rlz=1G1SNNTCENUS390&q=arri+lighting&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=9521120566439632163&sa=X&ei=sx9nTbXeNYO4sAO65u2mBA&ved=0CFIQ8gIwCA# http://www.filmtools.com/arrilighting.html http://www.arrishop.com/ http://www.chimeralighting.com/

Some of this is going to depend upon the latitude of your video camera. For the type of shot you use as an example above, it means having a larger source backed off (to stay out of your wide frame) shot through a large diffusion frame or Chimera. Again, the type of light unit(s) you use depends upon how much latitude your camera can deliver but it you're talking about a fully sunlit background, it will take at least a 1K to fill in your model while still letting that backlight blow out. IF you wanted to match the key with that backlight, then yes, you'd have to hit her with quite a bit (at least 2K to 5K depending on exactly what the sun was doing back there). I get by with a smallish Arri kit that has a 1K openface, 2 650w, and 1 300w. To do what you did in that shot above, I'd want at least another 1K to cover myself. You can always knock a stronger source down, but you can't get more out of a smaller source if you need it.

I agree that with a genny of some sort and bigger units these issues are important, but for small shoots when we're plugging into house power, it just doesn't come up. The most I can really plug in while shooting day exterior are two 800w Joker Bugs fired through a silk. IF I've chosen my background poorly and have to attempt to balance to daylight, I use a Westcott frame with double scrim behind the talent to take it all down. Perfect situation? No. But unless someone is shooting a feature with a 40 footer, 4 Grips, and 4 Electrics, the fact is that most budgets won't allow for all of that stuff which renders all of "that" technical stuff somewhat superfluous. Again, I'm not suggesting that it's NEVER useless to know and use all of that technical stuff, but if the shoot is small, there simply USUALLY isn't a budget for larger units and all the necessary elements to make them work (people, genny). When working alone, there isn't time or money to bring a genny, set it up, set up the big units, get it all going and maintain it WHILE simultaneously shooting, which is presumably what the Cameraman is there to do. When working alone, we have to find the lighting and camera package that is adequate enough to accomplish the goals while still being logistically in line with the parameters of limited time and budget while working alone. Ryan didn't say that he was looking exclusively for day exterior lighting which is why I brought up the idea of a Diva and the ARRI 1K openfaced (as I use) for a Key. I also noted that he was usually going to be working alone and that most of his shoots would be one subject or just two. Taking all of that into account, recommendations for bigger units (which of course are preferable) aren't really applicable. Most smaller shoots simply don't have the resources to bring larger units with generators where all of that "sine wave stuff" becomes necessary to know.

Are you shooting interviews? I do a LOT of those and do very well by keying with an ARRI openface 1K with a small Chimera. A head & shoulders shot (and background lighting) doesn't require a 40' truck. A simple ARRI kit (1K, a couple 650w fresnels, a 300w for a backlight) is sufficient. I don't know what your goal is or where your experience lies, so ignore what I say if necessary. But I have seen "film guys" who come from that environment thinking that they need a lot of "movie stuff" to shoot simple one-camera shots. There's a time and place for 40 footers and all the stuff in there, but for single camera one-person shots, there's no reason to get into sine waves and all of that. :) Some guys who do this DO use Kino Divas as the Key. I'm not a fan of them, but it is done, particularly if they are shooting all day long, such as for press junkets. Kinos throw off less heat which is a big factor when shooting in small environments for a long time when the A/C has to be turned off for a sustained periods.

I've done a fair amount of this "on the fly" stuff, though not for Reality (so far, thank goodness!) In any case, when there are more than two talent, it's nearly impossible to adequately cover the "scene" with one camera. If you have two cameras, it is almost always preferable to have one of the cameras holding a wide shot the entire time and have the second camera on singles or two-shots. If it's two people talking to each other and you have two cameras, then obviously you each take one of the talent, however, if there is one person who is talking more, the other camera should pull out at some point for a two shot or over-the-shoulder. If it's a big group of people and you have two cameras, and the group is moving around quite bit, it's important for the Camera Operators to work together, communicating in silence, watching what the other is shooting, and adjusting their own shots accordingly. If it's single camera following a larger group, you really have to pay attention to what people are saying and do your best to anticipate who might speak next and be ready to pan over. It's tough, but not impossible, as most people and groups tend to have a pattern to their speech and group dynamics. This type of shooting has less to do with making sure you get WS, then Mediums, and CUS... and more about feeling the flow of the "scene" and rolling with it by paying attention to what's being said and going for the person speaking and getting reactions when appropriate. Often, a discussion will begin strong so you'll be getting those who are speaking, but as the conversation wanes, you can bail from the discussion to get some reactions that can be cut into everything else you've shot. These are situations where you have to "direct" yourself. There isn't time for a Director to tell you where to shoot. You just really have to be listening to the conversations and anticipate where to stand and when to move and what lens to be on. Sometimes you'll miss it by going to someone else, but hang on to that shot for long enough that it won't appear to be a mistake and then get over to the speaker. I don't know how else to explain this type of coverage except to say that you just have to "feel it." Anyone who has shot documentary style films knows that it is the CAMERAMAN who has "directed" the coverage more than any Director who just happens to be there. It's up to the Cameraman to be in the moment and find the flow and get the important sound bites on camera and give enough extra shots that can be cut in later.

In most cases, it's best to use the "rule of thirds" when framing a closeup, getting the eyes in line with the uppermost segment. http://photography-tips.co.uk/images/ruleofthirds2.jpg If you want to include a frame or breasts in a shot, you would want to widen out in order to keep the eyes at that same point in the frame.

Head over to these forums where the Sound guys hang out! :) SOUND LINKS http://jwsound.net/SMF/index.php http://www.coffeyinteractive.com/phpbb2/ramps.php - RAMPS, Sound Newsgroup http://www.coffeyinteractive.com - Sound Forum http://realfilmcareer.com/forum/index.php?topic=14.0

I agree. Cut off the hat and go for the better frame. If the Director wants to see the entire hat, then the shot must widen out accordingly. There are some Directors out there who have no clue.

At the moment, the work seems to find me. But it hasn't always been that way and I can't count it always being that way. There's always more to learn and new people entering the field who will eventually take "my place." I'm definitely not rich and have to keep working to pay the bills, but at the moment, I'm not at the point where I'm wondering when the next job will happen, like it has been in the past.

Aspiring "filmmakers" often need to make their own "workarounds" because the cost of manufactured equipment is too high. That said, for every tool available at places like FILMTOOLS or STUDIO DEPOT, there was someone on a set saying, "ya know, what we could really use in this situation is...." And then someone goes and "invents" it. Then those items wind up on shelves (at admittedly HIGH prices). Invented gear is what drives new innovations (like Steadicam, by Garrett Brown), but in many instances, it's not worth trying to reinvent the world when the item you need is there available for purchase or rent.

It is a general question with quite a lot of avenues to travel to get all the answers. In addition to all of the generic "how to light a set" books that are out there, I recommend that you browse through the book I've written called, "What I Really Want to Do: On Set in Hollywood." Specifically the first FIVE chapters and the entire section on the camera department as well as grip and electric. I'd read those first so that everything else you learn and read will have some kind of context. In general, though, you should know everything you can about basic photography (lenses, depth of field, aperture, effective ASA, color balance, etc.) Those things have to be second nature to you at some point. You also need to know everything you can about lighting... what tools are available to create light and what tools are available to control it. Also, as a Cameraman, you have to be aware of the needs of other departments, like Sound, Production Design, Makeup, and Wardrobe. AND, not least, no matter what level you're at, you must make choices based around the parameters of each project (budget, schedule, weather, etc.) There's a LOT more to being a professional Cameraman than just shooting pretty images.

I look at my job this way... I'm there to lend my skills, creativity, and experience in order to HELP bring a project to life and get it on a screen. I'm there to RECOMMEND the best choices and course of logistical action, but it is NOT my job to make those final decisions. I might walk into a room or on a set and SUGGEST that we shoot one direction or another or light the shot one way or another, but if the Director or Producer chooses to override me, THEN it is my responsibility, not to say "No!" but to speak up with my reasons for my recommendations and the possible ramifications that I foresee. Then the ball is definitely in their court. I've done my job by bringing my suggestions to the floor with explanations for why and why not based on my skill, creativity, and experience. If the Director or Producer choose to ignore what I have to say, then if we run into problems down the line, they can't look at me and claim that I should've known better or get a "why didn't you tell me?!" The only person they have to blame is themselves at that point. Of course, the result could be that they become angry and there are unreasonable people out there who will turn that anger on you or the crew in an attempt to deflect their own failure. But, if you just say "No!" that kind of person would be mad at you anyway so it only helps you to cover yourself by just explaining why you think that their suggestion might be fraught with peril. The other "ramification" is that because of a "poor" decision that results in problems later in the day, they'll be looking at you to somehow "fix" the day which generally results in some kind of compromise on subsequent shots in order to make the day. But again, if you warned the Director or Producer ahead of time, they may stomp around a little in frustration, but the best thing you can do is to refuse to get worked up too. Remain CALM and feign concern if need be, even if you're quietly laughing on the inside. It does no good to anyone or the situation to feed into someone else's angst. PS... one caveat is when technical requirements just won't let me do what I'm asked to do. For instance, a few weeks ago I had to go shoot a famous musician on greenscreen. When I got to the location, the Producer showed me to a room that was just about one inch longer than the greenscreen. I wouldn't have adequate room to hang the green and I would have no room to properly light the green and get camera and other lighting in and do it right. So, I let them know that I couldn't do it there, told them exactly why, and another location was found nearby.

As I mentioned previously over at filmmaking.net, there are a variety of factors that influence Depth of Field. A wide lens (ie 35mm) has more Depth of Field than does a longer lens (ie 150mm). So if the master wide shot is shot on a wide lens, the long lens coverage will automatically have less Depth of Field merely due to the focal length regardless of the T-stop. For a shot to count as deep focus, does everything in the frame have to be in sharp focus even when in the tighter shots? I'm sorry, this question doesn't make much sense. You begin by asking about a single shot, but then turn the question into one that inquires about all the coverage in a scene. "Deep focus" simply means that you can see a lot of the frame "in focus" regardless of the lens or stop you use. Theoretically, with a lot of light, you could potentially get a deep focus shot out of most lens, to a point when focal length begins to override a closed aperture. With LOTS of light, you could potentially get a deep focus shot out of a 50mm stopped down that is similar to a 24mm with a mid-range stop. But most people don't generally attempt to achieve the same amount of DoF throughout an entire scene so it isn't much of an issue. A DP usually picks a stop that he wants to use (based on the filmstock in the camera and the amount of light he can realistically shine on the set)... then lenses are chosen throughout the scene that are appropriate for each shot without a lot of regard to the DoF UNLESS there is a specific reason that a specific shot may need multiple things in focus that are on different planes. Then in that case, the lighting could be increased in order to get a deeper stop which would increase the DoF... or a special lens (slant lens) could be used or a split-field diopter could be used. There are options, but again, those are generally just special shots and not something that is done throughout entire scenes.

As I mentioned previously over at filmmaking.net, there are a variety of factors that influence Depth of Field. A wide lens (ie 35mm) has more Depth of Field than does a longer lens (ie 150mm). So if the master wide shot is shot on a wide lens, the long lens coverage will automatically have less Depth of Field merely due to the focal length regardless of the T-stop. For a shot to count as deep focus, does everything in the frame have to be in sharp focus even when in the tighter shots? I'm sorry, this question doesn't make much sense. You begin by asking about a single shot, but then turn the question into one that inquires about all the coverage in a scene. "Deep focus" simply means that you can see a lot of the frame "in focus" regardless of the lens or stop you use. Theoretically, with a lot of light, you could potentially get a deep focus shot out of most lens, to a point when focal length begins to override a closed aperture. With LOTS of light, you could potentially get a deep focus shot out of a 50mm stopped down that is similar to a 24mm with a mid-range stop. But most people don't generally attempt to achieve the same amount of DoF throughout an entire scene so it isn't much of an issue. A DP usually picks a stop that he wants to use (based on the filmstock in the camera and the amount of light he can realistically shine on the set)... then lenses are chosen throughout the scene that are appropriate for each shot without a lot of regard to the DoF UNLESS there is a specific reason that a specific shot may need multiple things in focus that are on different planes. Then in that case, the lighting could be increased in order to get a deeper stop which would increase the DoF... or a special lens (slant lens) could be used or a split-field diopter could be used. There are options, but again, those are generally just special shots and not something that is done throughout entire scenes.