Brian Dzyak

Living in Oblivion And God Spoke The Big Picture

Straw man arguments. OF COURSE locations matter in the film industry. No argument there. But presently, production companies and studios BASED IN LA will choose somewhere else to do their stage work ONLY because of tax bribes offered by other governments. Yes, a movie goes to London or Alaska or wherever when the script demands that locale, but stage work can be done anywhere. It used to be done primarily in So Cal where thousands of people (crew) lived and built families and lives. This IS where the stages were built as well as the infrastructure (vendors, etc) set up shop to support this industry. Yes, there have always been other areas where SOME production took place, but the primary origination of the film industry has been in So. Cal. But, tax "incentives" entice TRILLION DOLLAR Corporations into taking that work away from the experienced crews who have built lives in a specific place. Karl suggests that there is some kind of similarity between a social ssfety net that helps suffering poor people in need get basics like food... and trillion dollar Corporations that are just seeking greater profits for their already wealthy stockholders. Those are apples and oranges and it's ridiculous to even consider any kind of similarity. Corporations that are already making millions, billions, and trillions in profits have no business receiving tax incentives. I don't care if it's the film industry, the oil business, automobiles, or anything else. They don't need bribes like that and governments that DO need the tax revenue shouldn't hand out bribes like that. It's just common sense for those municipalities so they can receive the funds they need for their own infrastructures. The alternative is taxing the Middle Class and Poor at higher rates or just cutting social services (like education) altogether. All so that billion-dollar Corporations can hand out bigger bonuses to their already wealthy executives. So yes, by all means, a movie should film wherever it needs to, but governments shouldn't be handing out bribes to wealthy Corporations that hurt their own interests and ultimately the employees in the film industry.

Does it really matter what the content of the movie was? The bottom line is that Governments (Local, State, National) are handing out Corporate Welfare to Corporations and companies that don't really need it to produce their products. In other words, they are publicizing the costs, and privatizing the profits. I have to wonder, for every government that hands over cash and incentives/bribes, are those municipalities considered investors thus deserving of points on the back end? I haven't heard of that, so I wonder, "why not?" A government gives a gift of tax incentives to a Corporation to create a product, but sees NONE of the benefits/profits from the generous gift. Why is that? As the continuing research illustrates, tax subsidies/incentives DO bring work to places that wouldn't ordinarily have it, BUT when running the numbers, the net result is typically a net LOSS to that geographical location. In other words, the Corporation that took those incentives makes off with the profits while the municipalities that gave the bribes are left with debt AND less tax revenue (that is desperately needed for things like schools and infrastructure). Of course, Libertarians and CONservatives like to say that CHARITY is the way that "social issues" should be funded, but should our children and elderly (and those who are "outsourced") be forced to rely on charity in order to survive? For US, the actual people in the trenches, it means having to chase the "incentives" just to get work in order to raise our families and pay our bills. The film industry IS based in Southern California and that is where MOST of the most experienced people are based and have homes and raise their families. So, why do CONservatives, who claim to care about "family values," support policies (like Corporate Welfare) that drives wedges into families that drives them apart because people in the film industry are forced to travel to distant locations for weeks and months on end? It doesn't matter what the content is. What matters is that the film industry was based in a specific location and people who built their lives around that location are forced into struggling. The only reason for that is greed. Corporate greed chases the government that offers the biggest bribe which in turn negatively affects the municipality that doesn't get the necessary tax revenue from that Corporation. So, while the movie production company walks off paying less taxes, the employees (crew) aren't entitled to the same "incentives" and wind up paying MORE in the end to keep government and civilized society functional.

Realfilmcareer.com More at http://www.realfilmcareer.com

There's more to the job of "Loader" than loading and canning out film from magazines. Also, the job of Second Assistant Cameraman is different than that of a Loader. Sometimes, on lower budget productions, they ask a single person to do BOTH jobs, but you need to know that these jobs are distinct even if you are asked to do both simultaneously. As mentioned, the best way to learn how to load and unload mags is to go to a rental house that has many different types of magazines and just sit there and do it all day long. But also as I've said, there is much more to the job. Too much to post here. It's for that reason I wrote it ALL down in the book "What I Really Want to Do: On Set in Hollywood." I URGE you to find a copy and read chapters 1-5 and then the ENTIRE Camera Department section AND at least the Script Supervisor Chapter. Yes, you need to know how to do the actual loading/unloading part, which is arguably the MOST IMPORTANT job on set (yet, ironically, not the highest paid), but as a Loader (and/or the Second AC) there is so much more you MUST KNOW if you want to have a viable career. In addition to the book I mentioned above, you should also read books regarding Camera Assisting, which are excellent. http://www.amazon.com/What-Really-Want-Set-Hollywood/dp/0823099539/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1286976632&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Camera-Assistant-Complete-Professional-Handbook/dp/0240800427/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1286976644&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/Camera-Assistants-Manual-Fifth/dp/0240810570/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1286976660&sr=1-2-spell ALSO, I urge you to browse through the countless resources listed in the forums at www.realfilmcareer.com.

This sums it up no matter what department you're in.

It's not a bad idea, but it isn't a likely scenario that an established DP would agree to or be allowed to have a student shadowing him/her on a movie set. A lot of "mentoring" comes about while someone is working on set in the camera, grip, or electric departments. You learn by observing and carrying out the instructions in whatever job capacity you have obtained. And, of course, the apprenticeship isn't going to directly lead to work. An established DP may be able to recommend you to others, but you still need experience and a body of work as a DP yourself which means going out and doing it on smaller independent and student films. There is a lot you can learn by watching a DP in action on a real set, but unless you feel like you really need that extra "education," you just need to get out there in the world and start shooting, building a name for yourself and a reel to show. Getting your own hands dirty moving lights around and making mistakes is going to be the best education you can get. If you can find someone, or a few DPs, who are willing to "mentor" you for a short time, then absolutely take advantage. The more people you spend time observing, the better so that you can see how similar problems are solved differently. But don't spend an inordinate amount of time with that when you could be out shooting on your own.

SOUND LINKS http://www.coffeyinteractive.com/phpbb2/ramps.php - RAMPS, Sound Newsgroup http://www.coffeyinteractive.com - Sound Forum http://audiotuts.com/mixing-mastering/how-to-process-vocals-for-an-amazing-professional-sound - How to Process for an Amazing Professional Sound For anyone looking for ANY industry resources, I urge you to start your search at http://realfilmcareer.com/forum/index.php. And if YOU have a genuinely helpful resource that you'd like others to know about, feel free to post it on the forums at the provided link.

Well, you need what you need, so it becomes a question of packing it all into fewer, but heavier, cases... or in lighter, but more, cases. For my everyday work, I prefer fewer cases and make due with their weight, but I know guys who prefer to have a gazillion cases and bags and crates that are lighter. And when having to travel with this stuff, it's kind of a wash... more cases (that are lighter weight) will cost in baggage quantity overages. Fewer cases, that are heavier, will get charged for being overweight. The only way out of the extra cost when traveling is to compromise on what you take along (which could compromise your shoot) or you rent when you get to your destination.

1) For this type of shoot, it's generally just me and a Sound Mixer. I carry all of my lighting and camera stuff in my truck and the Sound person arrives separately with his gear. For MOST instances, I have packed my gear in such a way that I only need one trip into the location. This is important because the Producers usually set the call time to about an hour prior to our rolling time. I don't have a lot of time to lolligag around trying to be an pretentious artist/cinematographer about the shot or spend time going back and forth to my truck for extra things. So, I have my Arri Kit in one of those big gray Arri cases. It weighs in at around 96lbs when I have it fully loaded. My stingers, an extra OMNI light and other grip/electric odds & ends go inside a medium sized Pelican case that weights around 45lbs or so. Those go on my magliner along with a small "cage" that I put four c-stands in along with the tripod. The camera, batteries, and monitor all fit on the pelican. A few sandbags slide onto the handles to finish it off. In the event of greenscreen as seen in my photos above, it's a rather long unwieldy thing, so my Sound person may carry it in or I'll manage to balance it on top of the magliner. I like using the green seamless as opposed to the fabric types because I can just insert the tube onto my Calumet backdrop stand, roll the paper out, weigh it down with grip clips and it's done. No having to tie it to a frame or deal with wrinkles. With limited time, the extra inconvenience of carrying the seamless is paid back in the actual setup. Given a room that isn't too problematic (ie, excess furniture, windows, etc.), I can have that basic setup off the cart and ready to roll in 25 to 45 minutes or so with just a bit of help from the Sound Mixer. Most of the work is just getting things out of the cases and roughed in. After that, I go about tweaking the lights and levels for another few minutes. While I'm doing that, the Sound Mixer is setting up his things and bar-ing/toning a tape. 2) I have few cases, but the tradeoff is that they are heavy so flying them "as is" can be a problem. I DO take that basic kit on trips with me after I've taken a few things out to get the weight down to 75lbs or so. Generally, the production will pay those overages. As pricey as it could be, it's still cheaper than renting gear and hoping that they have what I want and need. Like I said earlier, there's a tipping point of gear you NEED to have before the goal of the shoot is compromised. Particularly with something like greenscreen where you have to have enough light for the screen and your talking-head, there aren't a lot of acceptable shortcuts you can take without upsetting someone down the line in post.

There's already a great thread about Generators! http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=43584&st=0&p=310099&hl=+balance%20+generator&fromsearch=1entry310099

Equipment you own really doesn't matter. What you need to determine is how you wish to proceed with your career. Do you want to work your way up to being a DP through the camera or electric departments? That would take years (decades in fact) with no guarantee of every achieving the goal. Or do you prefer to just jump in and sell yourself to the world as a DP knowing that you will start small, likely working for very little or no money, and still maybe never being able to achieve a viable living. There is no good or bad time to move to LA (or any other place in the world where production is happening.) You just have to decide to go and expect to invest a lot of time working for free while keeping your overhead expenses low in order to keep your options open. The last thing you want to do is have too many bills which would necessitate having to take a "real job" that takes away your freedom to go do free or low-budget gigs. It's all about time... meeting people... building a resume/reel and being out there so that you make a name for yourself. There are no shortcuts unless you happen to be the son of someone famous and established. :)

This isn't a mirror-shot, but one shot that caught me off guard was the opening shot of "Life as a House." The camera moves slowly toward a house, enters a window, goes through a room, then exits out a door. I saw the movie on DVD so the second that the camera left the room through another exit, bells went off in my head and I interrupted the movie-watching experience to go back and watch the shot frame-by-frame. I'm sure that the "specialness" of that shot didn't even register with the vast majority of audiences, but I give kuddos to the filmmakers for that one. It is very very cool. :)

The two that come to mind are: CONTACT - girl runs up stairs to open vanity mirror INCEPTION - Ellen swings open mirrors that should reveal the camera that is shooting all of this, but there is no camera.

A much asked and answered question. :) Try these posts first: http://www.filmmaking.net/discussion/forums/go/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10374 http://www.filmmaking.net/discussion/forums/go/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10197 http://www.filmmaking.net/discussion/forums/go/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9790 http://www.filmmaking.net/discussion/forums/go/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10032 http://www.filmmaking.net/discussion/forums/go/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9852 There are also some threads on this forum addressing the same issues. I also highly recommend that you visit http://www.realfilmcareer.com and look through the countless resources posted in the forums there. The basic message you're going to hear is that filmschool will NOT necessarily help you reach your goals and it can be very expensive. You're better off learning all you can on your own at home by reading the myriad of books on the subject (of directing, cinematography, editing, etc) for a much lower price and then putting your savings into making short movies on your own.

Well, no. You mentioned that you had been an ASSISTANT Director, a Script Supervisor, in addition to performing some other post-production duties. Then you mentioned camera and grip equipment before asking how to become a "good film maker." That's why I asked what SPECIFICALLY you meant by "film maker." The path for an Assistant Director doesn't lead toward directing so much as producing in that it deals with logistics. As mentioned, the road toward DIRECTING is varied. Many aspiring directors "get in" as Writers. Others gather the resources to make one or several short films on their own. Of course, as you likely already are aware of, the more you know about every job on set and off, the better Director you may be as COMMUNICATION is probably the number one most important skill a Director can have as the job really is all about directing/guiding the creative and technical skills and talents of others toward a common goal. It's not necessarily about imposing your "vision" upon a project. :)

No one else here has mentioned that that rate works out to $200/10hrs ($20 per hour) .... but we all know that a movie shoots at least 12 hours a day AND I presume you're on a location which means that you're not getting any per diem not to mention any prep you have ... and what about post? I only bring this up because doing what I do (video for studio marketing, mostly), I'm generally making $600 to $700 per ten hour DAY! In just two days of shooting one or two interviews (which may only take a few hours), I can make just as much or MORE than what they're asking you to work for in six days. Maybe it's worth it for you. Maybe it's not. I just want to ask if it's worth it AND want you to ask yourself and them if you're being taken advantage of?

The big question before ANYONE can answer is what do you mean by "film maker"? Which specific job do you want to do? If you want to be a Director, that involves a very different path than a Director of Photography or anyone else on set might take. Arguably, EVERYONE on set and off are "filmmakers." So which SPECIFIC job are you interested in working toward?

What is your end-goal in terms of career? Just know that a degree in film production, or film studies, or photography, or cinematography truly means nothing when it comes to building a successful (economically viable) career. In other words, nobody cares what degrees you hold. They will not just hire you to shoot their movie just because you have a Masters which, I assume, is meant to "prove" that you know how to shoot a movie. The professional industry just doesn't work like that. What counts is what you can do and who knows you. So while a formal education can certainly help you learn the basics of photography/cinematography, there is so much more to shooting a movie than just knowing the technical aspects. There are logistics and politics involved which most film schools/workshops won't teach you. I'm not suggesting that you DON'T go to school, but I am just tossing it out there that you really investigate what you think you'll get out of it before you invest all of that time and money.

How on earth could you act cool with something like that?! It's one thing if, say, the Executive Producer or Director tries something like that, but some other schmuck who isn't even a professional?! I would've swung the camera around, bopped him in the head, told him to quit f'ing up my shot, then go back to doing my job. That was entirely unjustifiable and unforgivable.

There are likely a number of reasons for this, but one of the more prominent one's that I've seen frequently is simply a limitation on time. It takes far less time to have a zoom lens on the camera on a wide focal length to get the master, but then just "punch in" for the closeup instead of taking the time to move the camera and change the lens. On a feature, where the schedule allows for one scene a day, the DP has time to make every shot "special." An episodic doesn't have that luxury of time where the schedule may call for up to four scenes a day or more. So, you'd slap a 4-1 on the A-camera, an 11-1 on the B camera and start rolling as soon as rehearsal is done.

I found this from a while back:

My understanding of this is that when television converted from b&w to color, the frame rate that was standard for b&w introduced audible noise into the signal that was sent to homes. So, they discovered that by changing the frame rate to 29.97 the audible noise went away. I maybe oversimplifying it, but my understanding is that this is the gist. So, because the frame rate was not a "whole number" (like 30fps), they had to "invent" dropframe timecode to adjust for the fractional frame rate. That' pretty much it in a nutshell. Because of AUDIO problems, they were not able to keep the frame rate at a whole number so that led to the necessity of drop frame timecode.

So you're thinking of using the 300s for the green and one of the 650s for the key? Or are the two 650s for the green? That would leave you with only the 300s for the key and backlight. Let me just reiterate that anything less than a 650w fresnel won't give you a wide enough spread to light enough of a greenscreen for the standard head & shoulders interview shot. You could back the 300s up to get that spread, but you'd lose intensity quickly not to mention that to get the light even, you'd have to shine the units directly into the subject you're interviewing. I suppose you might get away with using a 650w and a 300w to light the green, using the 650w on the lead-side and the 300w on the short side of the frame, but you'll still be having a hard time. If anything, you'd do better with 3 650s and one 300. Or give up a 300w and add the 1K. The extra 300 and the 150 won't be very much help in most cases, in my experience. Yeah, those extra lights do come in handy from time to time, but for a general all-purpose kit for most interview situations including greenscreen, you really need at least 2 650s and then something comparable or better for the key. Just my humble opinion. :)

I do carry a roll of ND.9 as well as a Westcott ScrimJim frame kit with a 2 stop net for these situations. Even with those working, an 800w JokerBug is barely enough. Knowing that, I always have to wonder what on earth the purpose of a 200wHMI could possibly be. It's a cheaper HMI, for sure, but so what if you can't use it to gain the exposure you need? The ND gel I do carry around isn't pristine so I use it mostly for BEHIND blinds or when I can keep the frame tight so as to not see any wrinkles. If I had to gel a massive window, then I would have production purchase the necessary rolls and adhesive to accomplish the task correctly. But, if this situation does come up, then we are usually into larger budget situations anyway (than my normal), so I'd likely have a grip/electric crew who would do that work. And if that's the case, then again, we're into larger units anyway and not even talking about scraping by with 800w or less HMIs.