Brian Dzyak

My personal worldview wonders why we need a global system that is set up this way that pits workers against each other as Corporations shake down governments for bigger and bigger bribes. In the case of WETA, yes, they had some temporary jobs, but what happens to those workers when that job is done or the tax incentives run out? As the report above indicates, the current incentive packages are already a negative for the governments that give them out. So when a "hot" production area suddenly runs out of incentive money, what happens to those workers who set up shop and lives (with families) in those places? Are they expected to pick up and move to chase the incentives around the planet? Or maybe they petition the government to give bigger incentives to for-profit Corporations to ensure that the world stays put. If that's the case, how much is too much? If New Zealand offers 45% back, then Canada counters with 50%, will Budapest trump them with 75%? At what point will a government actually agree to FINANCE a movie just to have the chance to have a movie made there and have their local workers have jobs? Then isn't that the very Socialism that all the righties are whining about in the first place? All I'm suggesting is that we, as Earthlings, decide that there are places where we do things. We make cars in Detroit. We make movies in Southern California. We make really good steaks in Argentina. We make cheap vending machine toys in Shanghai. Etc. Then, people who want to DO those things can make the choice to actually move there to live life doing those things instead of trying to eak out a living on the road always wondering what "foreigner" is going to agree to work for a wage that is cheaper and cheaper. A pipe dream? Maybe. But every nation was more or less set up that way before the Milton Friedman/Globalists got into power so if they want it this way, then the entire paradigm needs to change with it. Which means, a one-world currency, the freedom for workers to move and work across borders, and dedicated production centers where workers could build lives as well as careers. Because the way things are going now, wages are being depressed, families are being torn apart, and only those at the tippy top are raking in the financial windfall leaving people and governments in the dust.

Hiring the devil you know instead of the unknown you don't has at least some measure of security. From my experience, it seems that established "hirers" only go outside their known pool of talent when absolutely forced to (because everyone asked is busy or says no...). People in this business have to understand that it's nothing personal to not be picked first or ever if the new client doesn't know you at all or very well. That's just human nature to seek out the comfortable even if it's not perfect.

I wasn't suggesting that the USA "scares" anyone at all. It's simply a matter of "protecting" your own citizens/taxpayers a little bit. The fact is that in order for any civilization to operate, it needs a government to run it and taxes to pay for infrastructure and other things that people usually take for granted. CONservatives don't want to tax rich people enough and they don't want to tax Corporations at all. The poor don't have enough money for anything. That leaves the Middle Class to pay for just about everything. But when rich people in power enact policies that undermine basic employment of those Middle Class citizens, then there won't be a functioning economy as the only people who DO have money are the wealthy, who get to hoard almost everything they have. Economies can't function under those conditions and subsequently, neither can civilizations. Economies fall apart and then society itself is threatened. And why? Just so that rich people can "not be punished for their success"? Anyway, my point is that in this global environment, there must be some kind of middle ground. Allowing transnational corporations the right to troll the planet, using trade policies and currency differences against workers and governments is insanity. The endgame is that wages everywhere will be suppressed and work quality will go down. And there is no reason for prices of goods and services to sink with the lower costs of manufacturing. I mean, let's look at filmmaking for a second. Tax incentives are, supposedly, sought out by production companies in order to keep costs down. Okay, so they get cheap labor, cheap locations, and tax subsidies which lowers their entire bottom line. The product was manufactured for less than it presumably would have been had it been made in, say, Southern California. So, how about those lower ticket prices at the box office, huh? Since filmmakers can get, what is it, around 40% off just by moving their production to Canada, shouldn't consumers expect to see a 40% reduction in the price of those tickets for those movies? No? Okay, so the producers walk away with 40% MORE profit because Canada (for example, I don't mean to just pick on Canada) has given away either direct subsidies or tax rebates, which is all revenue that the government COULD HAVE if it didn't give this bribe to the filmmakers. But it did give that "incentive" (a loss of revenue to the government/people) and the filmmakers now have a 40% increase in their profit. So, why aren't the people of Canada entitled to a share of that profit, since they were, in effect, partial Producers on the project, giving financial assistance that got the project made? It doesn't happen that way. Why not? And since it doesn't, and transnationals are free and clear to roam the globe looking for the biggest bribes and cheapest workers, we see how the long-term effects on governments and civilizations are headed the way of other ancient civilizations that ran their course. We all have to find a way to stop this Reaganomics insanity or start learning to speak Chinese. And quick! :blink:

Well, this is where fair-trade policies USED TO kick in. I'm simplifying this a bit, but prior to the Fascist Conservative takeover of the USA with Reagan (arguably, it began before then), tariff policies were designed in such a way that encouraged US Corporations to manufacture their products in the nation where those Corporations, and the people who ran them, were. Bottom line was that if a US company could make a widget here, but chose to do it in a foreign land, then the tariff on that import would be such that any economic benefit of making it somewhere else (due to cheaper labor, etc) would be negated. That kept manufacturing by US based Corporations within the US, thereby ensuring that US tazpayers would have viable jobs with which they could pay taxes with. But as we all know, the CONservative agenda in the US sought to undo all of that and more which has been the direct cause of just about every financial woe we have currently. They want to have this developed society, but with workers not being able to contribute to the tax pool as much as before (due to outsourcing) and tax breaks for the wealthiest and Corporations, there just isn't as much money in the pot as there needs to be. Local governments are feeling that very directly, as the accurate report states above and the nation (the USA) is feeling it as our deficit clearly indicates. The solution to this problem for the US is indeed, a return to sensible trade and tariff policy which would return and keep more jobs within the borders of the nation where the Corporations are. But Richard is likely correct. Allowing transnational Corporations to cross boundaries without penalty isn't likely to stop anytime soon. But, even so, Canada would still be playing the incentive game with nations in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, Australia, and New Zealand. All the while, the US-BASED Corporations would be seeking out bigger and bigger bribes from the most desperate nations while taking all of the profits back home to the USA where the stash it all away because of the tax breaks here too. Seriously, when does this madness stop? How FEW people have to have all of the money before the rest of the world is so impoverished that they finally revolt and storm the mansion gates? :ph34r:

Hmm, I'm not sure how to address this exactly. First, you'll notice that I merely posted the report without additional commentary on my part, so I feel that I couldn't have been more objective right then. :) As far as my personal feelings toward tax incentives go, they are formed BY the facts as evidenced in the report, not necessarily from any animosity because production is not taking place where I reside. If I saw proof that tax incentives for ANY business were in the best long-term public interest, I would support the concept. But there is no sound argument that supports the idea that handing Corporations subsidies or tax breaks is in the public interest. The bottom line on any of these schemes is that the costs are "publicized" while the profits are "privatized." What private for-profit business WOULDN'T accept taxpayer money in the form of subsidies (Socialism?) or tax breaks (ie. decreased revenue for local, state, and national governments) with no financial strings attached? Perhaps I could support such a scheme IF the public was given a share in the profits. Afterall, since tax payers are either giving money outright to for-profit Corporations or are losing revenue in the example of "incentives," then that means that the general public is as much of an investor in that for-profit product as anyone else is. Right? Shouldn't the citizens who are handing out, in essence, financing that allows a movie to get made be entitled to share in the box-office profits? Why don't we hear anyone suggesting that in the public arena? Now, regarding any un-objective feelings I might personally have toward the entire issue, yes, it all seems a bit unfair. Generations of aspiring filmmakers and other industry professionals picked up everything they owned and in some cases, their families, to move TO where the majority of production was taking place. Necessary location shooting aside, the "factories" for movie production were built, primarily in Southern California and thousands of people moved there over the years to live lives and raise families doing the jobs they loved. There was a bit of sacrifice and risk taken on their part which in many cases resulted in a successful career. But with advent of Corporate Welfare in its various forms, people in many different industries across the nation are being forced into unemployment lines as their jobs are outsourced to other states or other nations where the local governments are handing out money to for-profit companies at taxpayer expense while those companies keep all of their profits to themselves due to tax breaks. It's an amazing scam that somehow or another has been sold successfully to the workers of the world as being not only valid, but the best way to do things. It's astounding that so many people can be fooled by the wealthy elite so effectively year after year. So, just like many people in the textile industry in NY or the auto industry in Detroit, those professionals in Southern California who had the cahones to GO to where the "factories" were built are now being told that those jobs are now going to places which hand out the biggest bribes. They are offered the jobs MAYBE, but that means spending days, weeks, or months away from their families... this, an ideology coming from the political Party of "family values." :rolleyes: The hypocrisy of the CONservative agenda is mindnumbing sometimes. But anyway, my personal opinions aside (because they're not really relevant), the facts are that Corporate Welfare is BAD for the overall economy and ultimately, bad for just about everyone. Well, except for those at the very tippy-top of the economic ladder who benefit most due to massive tax breaks and other sheltering schemes that keeps their wealth safely locked away from general circulation. An economy only works when currency is flowing through it so when so few are allowed to hoard so much, the machinery stops working. And after thirty years of "Reaganomics" and "Milton Friedmanism" foisted upon the planet, that's pretty much what we've got now. And while tax-incentives may seem to be a positive thing in the short-term, the governments who have been offering them year after year are now looking at the numbers and realizing that it is all a negative sum game for them with any potential benefits going into the pockets of just a scant few in the private sector. Bush Sr. (in a moment of weakness?) even publicly called this entire economic ideology "Voodoo Economics" way back when because it was clearly a shell game. He knew it. So do most of the leaders in our governments around the world. So when will the taxpayers figure it out and demand that this nonsense of Corporate Welfare stop?

Subsidy report Read the entire report at http://www.cbpp.org/files/11-17-10sfp.pdf

I think that Karl and Francesco both make excellent points and I have to agree. I also agree with your CAUTION when evaluating who will shoot your projects or not. But, as mentioned, there is SO much more to being a DP than whether that person has rolled film through a gate before or not that it would just as irresponsible to ONLY consider a "film guy" at the expense of considering the rest of that person's experience and skill just because he has "film" experience and someone else doesn't. And like I've suggested before, BECAUSE film tends to have more latitude, it tends to be more forgiving IF there are exposure errors, within reason, of course. But video tends to have less latitude so it is MORE important typically, for a "video guy" to pay attention to lighting. There is this perception out there (a holdover from the days when the only people to use video cameras shot news) that all anyone has to do to shoot video is to turn the camera on and a picture pops out the other end. Sure, that's possible, but as a friend once said, there is s difference between just illuminating a shot and actually LIGHTING one. It's THAT skill that I'd be prone to look for in a potential DP much more than worrying about whether they've rolled film through a gate before or not. In both realms, you still need to understand all of the basics of photography (iris, shutter, frame rate, lens choice, effective ASA, etc). The only thing that a "video guy" might not know about is A) which film stock to choose and B ) how to use a light meter effectively. BOTH of those are very learn-able things which can be dealt with VERY quickly with just a couple of film tests... which established DPs do anyway to figure out which stock will be best. So yes, while I can appreciate your hesitation to hire a DP who hasn't shot film before, I don't agree that hinging employment on that one aspect is the best course of action. I mean, it's kind of like saying to the DP who has only shot romantic comedies that he is ineligible to shoot your action movie because he doesn't have the experience with that genre. Maybe that is true, that someone who has never shot an action movie can't shoot a romantic comedy (or visa versa), and experience with particular skillsets does and should be a factor, but making it a deciding factor at the exclusion of all else doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Any technical skill can be learned. But as Franceso mentioned, a DP's greater responsibility is to "direct" the crew and the lighting and the camera work within the parameters of time and budget. I would have to think that a "video guy" who has shot multiple MOWs and the like would probably know how to manage those things more than adequately. If he's good at that stuff, then I'd just "insist" on him taking a camera (and an experienced FILM crew) to shoot a test, both for him to "learn" and for you to see. But that's just me. :)

My intention isn't to attach blame but to point out that Richard is attempting to draw a correlation between perceived "discipline" (which I take to mean the action of cutting camera after EVERY take) and someone who has learned "cinematography" primarily with electronic acquisition tools. He is suggesting that A + B ALWAYS = C where A is a Cinematography student and B is a video camera and C equals someone who is undisciplined therefore un-hire-able by himself or others "film traditionalists." There are multiple errors in drawing such a correlation, but one of the more important ones is that it isn't usually the Cameraman's responsibility to say "roll" and "cut." So by suggesting that someone who is spit out the other end of "filmschool" having rolled no actual film and assuming that he/she is ALWAYS undisciplined is absolutely unfounded and ridiculous. And again, the ultimate point is that ideally, in today's world, it's not fair to dismiss Cameramen who primarily use electronic cameras as being unqualified to shoot a narrative project. The ability to do so means knowing the tools (which may or may not mean knowing filmstocks and cameras) as well as how to light environments and people and how to do all of that within parameters of limited time and budget. Richard suggests that he'd automatically hire a kid out of school who has only shot on Super8 while passing up the twenty year veteran who has only shot with video cameras. A reasonable Producer wouldn't accept nor dismiss either of them outright based purely on their individual experiences with rolling film through a gate, but Richard's hypothesis suggests that candidate B is merely an undisciplined hack while candidate A is worthy of shooting a multi-million dollar epic. A "film school" that purports to teach students how to shoot a movie should be teaching them BOTH film and video as well as how to light a variety of situations with a variety of tools all within a variety of budget and time ranges. It's not all about whether someone has touched the Holy Filmstock or not. At least it shouldn't be. :)

When I was working on NYPD Blue a number of years ago, it was not uncommon for me to load and unload 25,000 feet of 35mm BEFORE LUNCH! Was that the fault of the DP (Lex) or was it the fault of the "undisciplined" for-hire Directors? Like I said, I've seen "film" Directors also who don't hesitate to "keep the camera rolling!... Go again!" to keep the momentum going. So, the question becomes, is it the medium that causes "undisciplined behavior" or perhaps is it just people in general? What I see here is the standard superiority complex of so-called "film snobs" (the traditional label that has been applied for decades, not my words) who are trying desperately to maintain some kind of arbitrary "wall" over what "they" do (as artists?) and what "everyone else" does (as makers of hack products). I have another question. The movie State of Play was shot with TWO formats. All of the Russell Crowe scenes were shot with 35mm. All of the Ben Affleck scenes shot electronically. The question is, is Rodrigo Prieto an artist because he shot film or is he an undiscplined hack because he also shot with "video." And more importantly, is Rodrigo to be credited or discredited at all in that this decision of two formats likely wasn't his at all? And, if the DIRECTOR is the one who chooses to "let the camera roll" whether it's tape, film, or on a harddrive, then is that the fault of the Cameraman? Should he or she be blamed for being "undisciplined" or is that the fault of the Director? A person like Richard is blaming "filmschools" for turning out CAMERAMEN who are undisciplined because all they learn to shoot with are video cameras. My question is, is that fair given the facts that A) it is the DIRECTOR'S decision to let a camera cut or roll and B ) there are plenty of FILMED projects where cameras are left rolling too. Point being, whether someone learns with video or film, it is the PROCESS that teaches discipline or not and it has NOTHING to do with the medium involved. Sure, videotape is cheaper than filmstock (arguably in the long run, it is a wash), but someone is either ready to shoot or they aren't and no matter what format is running past the lens, that person will either be efficient or they won't be. Blaming "video" for someone being "undisciplined" (whatever that means) is just downright silly.

How is that "proof"? This isn't a forum dedicated to aspiring Directors and Producers. It's one dedicated (the name itself says so!) to aspiring and current "Cinematographers." By definition, NOBODY here is necessarily seeking out a career that "produces feature films to get them into mainstream distribution." Maybe you are the only one here doing that, but boasting such a thing is like me entering the Miley Cyrus teenage fanclub forum to boast that I'm the only one there who has shot her backstage for her television show. That's not what that forum is all about as this one isn't populated by aspiring Producers and Directors. At least I assume not. :) So anyway, I still haven't seen proof that "video" people are any less "disciplined" than "film people." I suspect that this assertion derives from a more "bigoted" point of view from those who fear change and progress more than actual reality. This isn't new. There has always been a prejudice against those who shoot electronically. I'm sure that comes from the PAST when the vast majority of those who used video were indeed shooting news or other topics that didn't require care and "discipline." If you haven't noticed, news is NOT the only thing that "video" is used for anymore AND the technology HAS changed for the better. Not only is "electronic acquisition" used for news, it is used for all kinds of marketing, industrials, HIGH END Corporate projects, music videos, television shows, episodics, sit-coms... and yes, even (gasp!) FEATURES! :o For a parallel example, how many professional Sound Mixers are out there complaining about the changing technology. (ie, "New hack Sound Mixers who are less disciplined will just turn on their harddrives and let them run while people like me will continue to use the NAGRA because we are more disciplined.") To be fair, we should monitor the Sound forums for a while to see if those differing points-of-view actually exist, but I suspect not. Sound folks embrace changing technology and recognize the pluses and minuses without intentionally insulting or denigrating those who choose the newer methods/technologies. So why do those on the picture-end of movie-making choose to do so? A camera is just a box with a hole in it. Knowing the VARIETY of tools available to use for DIFFERENT PURPOSES is the job of the professional Cameraman. Whether that person is "disciplined" or not is an entirely different discussion apart from the acquisition medium. More than that, it is hardly EVER the choice of the Cameraman to "keep the camera rolling" or to do extra takes. That is the choice of the DIRECTOR, so if anyone has any issues with a lack of "discipline" on a set, they should be taking it up with the DIRECTOR, NOT the Cameraman who may or may not have ever rolled filmstock through a gate.

I have to agree with this. I can't recall a FILM project I've worked on where I've seen any more, or frankly, any less "discipline" than on any "video" shoot. In fact, I think I've heard the phrase, "It's only film" far more than I've ever heard that applied toward video. Or the famous one, "Film is cheap" or "Film is the cheapest thing on set." The fact is that someone who is undisciplined in general regarding the elements of production isn't necessarily going to magically become a film-scrooge when shooting on film as opposed to video. For the most part, NOBODY rolls film or tape until all of the elements are properly in place in front of the lens. Then, when rolling film or video, most Directors will do as many takes as it requires to get the performances and camera moves correct. I suspect that Richard may be referring to the bad habit that SOME people have to just allow tape to roll instead of doing a traditional "cut" and resetting. While that happens on rare occasion, I have seen that in film environments as well when a Director is hoping to keep "momentum" going to keep Actors in the moment, or what have you. While I can appreciate the idea behind Richard's theory, I haven't seen enough proof of it in the real world to support the conclusion that those taught in the video/electronic realm are any less disciplined than those who grew up in the film environment. It sounds like one of those things that could be true, but I just haven't seen evidence to support it. If Richard or others ARE seeing such undisciplined behavior from those they work with, I suspect that perhaps they're hiring the wrong sort of people in the first place and the result has very little to do with the shooting medium at all. But who knows for sure. Perhaps there is an opportunity for someone to get a grant to conduct a research study about it someday. :)

I concur. Which only supports the idea that electronic acquisition isn't any more or less valid as a way to learn than film would be. For my money, what matters MORE would be having a camera and lens package that allows one to manually control EVERY aspect of photography just the way someone using film would. ALSO, it would be important to have tools that at least come close to the type that one will be using in the professional realm. What I mean by that is that while something like an EX3 might provide an "acceptable" picture for a student project, the ergonomics of using such a camera isn't necessarily emulating the "professional experience" that students SHOULD BE getting as they are supposed to be learning what to do after they leave the school environment. It's one thing to get a decent picture, but it's another to obtain it within the "working style" that is expected in the working world. While using something like a Sony F900 (or the like) isn't the same as using an Arri SR, it can come closer to the experience (with the normal package of AC accessories and operator amenities) than something like the EX can. Anyway, the point of all of this is that there is more to learning or doing "cinematography" than having the "right" camera. It's about lighting and lens choice and knowing how to construct a scene out of many shots. It's about knowing the variety of tools available to mount and move the camera. It's about knowing the tools that make using the camera easier for the Operator and the Assistants. And those things are what a quality school should be focusing on more than being concerned over which box-with-a-hole-in-it the students are using. If a school does that, then professionals like Richard can hire them with a little more confidence even if the school environment hasn't let them run film through a gate. :)

Well, that's a subjective opinion, isn't it. :) If only there were some empirical test to prove beauty, but I'd have to wonder how many filmstocks would be "proven" to be unworthy of use because they're not as empirically beautiful as others. ;)

The last time I checked, a camera is merely a box with a hole in it that allows light in to capture an image on SOMETHING. Everything else is just bonus features to help make the process "better." The art of "cinematography" has less to do with any specific medium and more to do with the Cameraman knowing how to use WHATEVER image acquisition medium is chosen. Whether one captures the images on film stock or electronically, he/she still also needs to understand how to light a set (and people) within the parameters of the chosen medium AND know how to manage the logistics of a budget and the crew. There is nothing particularly more difficult about shooting film than "video." Arguably, because film (at present) tends to have a wider latitude, it is EASIER to shoot film than "video" because exposure ratios don't have to be as carefully maintained than one would have to watch in the electronic realm due to the inherent limitations of that medium. So, while traditionalists will stubbornly hold on to the idea that film is inherently better in every way than any type of electronic acquisition, the reality is that what truly matters is that the story is being told with the most appropriate tools available within the parameters of aesthetic and budget for any particular project.

Well, most "film schools" are guilty of false advertising and have been for quite some time. :) Please read this for a better insight into what I was trying to impart: http://johnaugust.com/archives/2009/media-mcgyverism

Well, let's at least be honest about the whole topic regardless of the medium it's taught in. The fact is that most so-called "filmschools" shouldn't be called that at all. Instead, they should be called "story telling schools." The point is that the medium, whether it's film or video or claymation, is irrelevant. What IS most important to the technicians and to the business people is the STORY that is being told. THAT is the "art" AND the element that brings in revenue. So, who truly give's a crap about whether an image is captured on film or electronically or in some other medium? A true "Cameraman" will learn the art and craft of whatever medium he/she is asked to capture the story in. Film isn't what makes a movie a movie. The story is and only a true Cameraman will be willing to learn the medium that is necessary to tell it. As far as using the term "filmmaking" to refer to the process of making movies with media other than film, well, that's a whole other discussion. :)

On a UNION (IATSE) set, the Unit Still Photographer A) should be on the Roster and B ) IS the only one truly authorized to be snapping stills on set. The reality is that there is no true enforcement of this. Union Representatives are RARELY on set or even aware of who is hired on any particular movie... and the Unit Publicists don't generally care so long as the "product" it obtained (whether or not the photographer is union or not) .... I just came off of a movie where I was frequently competing with crew people for space to cover a shot/stunt and I WAS that authorized EPK guy. The authorized Still Photographer ALSO was fighting for space with crew members AND one of the actor's "personal photographers." It's ridiculous. SO, if the crew TRULY cares, then it means doing this: 1) get the name of the guy/gal who is shooting stills on set 2) contact CONTRACT SERVICES to inquire about that name and whether that person is A) on the roster and B ) a member of IATSE Local 600. 3) VERIFY that this person is being paid per the IATSE contract AND that that person's HOURS are being reported properly to the http://www.mpiphp.org. Simply ASKING someone on set if they are part of the union isn't good enough. This includes the EPK Cameraman. If you REALLY care about union issues, then it means asking the RIGHT question and VERIFYING the facts. If you don't care enough to verify, then don't waste anyone's time.

I talked with a Director once who began his career as a Grip. He admittedly said he was terrible at it. :) Anyway, he got his first job by saying that he knew what to do when he didn't, figuring that he could figure it out as he went. Well, at some point in the morning, he was asked to go get an apple box. For a newbie, that sounds like an odd request, but he went looking for an apple box anyway. Not really knowing what that was or what it was used for, he finally ended up at the caterer and asked them for one. He returned to set with a cardboard box that presumably held fruit at some point. :) The moral of this story? I don't know. Beyond being funny because it WASN'T a joke being played on him, it's a good lesson in that there are lots of strange things on a movie set that a newbie wouldn't know right off the bat.

Well, it does say "scheme." :)

The vast majority of my own work is done under the "independent contractor" category (invoices and 1099s). Only if I am asked to work under a contract* am I placed on payroll for a production company and only then am I considered an "employee." *currently, IATSE has an EPK contract that specifically is only for Eastern and Central regions while excluding the Western Region. Why? I have no idea. No one will answer that question.

I'm not from there, but I try to keep up with what's going on around the world. Info about your area at http://realfilmcareer.com/?cat=23 :)

Applications for the 2011 Directors Guild of America (DGA) Assistant Director Training Program are now available! The DGA AD TRAINING PROGRAM is a two-year professional apprenticeship training a select group of people to become Assistant Directors in motion pictures. Trainees learn on-the- job as paid employees supervised by DGA members on film productions (features, film TV series, and commercials) shooting primarily in New York City. Successful program completion results in eligibility for membership in the DGA as a Second Assistant Director. More details at www.realfilmcareer.com

my first question is, what do you really want to do and why do you need to go to school to do it? NO school anywhere will ever truly help you build a viable career. It can be a jumping off point, but living your life actually shooting movies means getting out there and doing it. That gets your name out there and you build to bigger and bigger projects. No diploma from any school will help you become a working cameraman.

Is it possible to perhaps edit the title of this topic to be somewhat grammatically correct? :)

I'm a Videographer (using video cameras for my work) and have NEVER used any kind of autofocus. Suggesting that "videographers" use autofocus is one of those unnecessary deprecating put-downs intended to only attempt to artificially elevate those who claim to only use film as an acquisition medium. Sort of by definition, if you're not "recording" to actual film, you're a "mere videographer" therefore anyone using a 5D is slumming in the depths of the camera arena with the rest of us. I'd write more, but since I only use video, you know that I have a wedding to go shoot and I should make sure that my autofocus is working and that my Tota with umbrella is set up. :rolleyes: