Brian Dzyak

Conservatives have been conditioning people to be psychopathic for decades so it's no wonder this story appeals to so many.

Why are you buying a camera at all? If you want to be a working DP, you should be selling YOURSELF and your skills and talent. IF you get hired to shoot movies/TV/commercials/music videos, you should be allowing the requirements of the PROJECTS drive the decisions on what camera(s) are necessary for that specific project/shot/budget. As soon as you purchase a camera, you're now looking for jobs that ONLY will use THAT equipment you've purchased (so you can pay it off). For the most part, the only segment of the cameraman industry that uses the same "camera" enough to make a specific investment worthwhile are "videographers" you shoot enter entertainment or corporate or industrials. The workhorses that lasted a long long time used to be BetaSP. That shifted to Digibeta and now tend to be the Sony F900R. In some areas, the EX3 has taken over the projects that used to rely on Beta or Digibeta (and in some cases, even the F900). These are typically "run & gun" type cameras that are useful for a variety of project purposes from running around to sitting on tripods of dollies. But regardless of what kind of projects you shoot, the CLIENT typically has a major role in deciding which format the project will be shot on. Budget is obviously a big factor but so is post workflow. You could very easily decide to invest in one expensive camera that delivers a specific codec et al, that the Producer decides isn't going to work for his project. Then what? Your camera sits at home while the production is renting the appropriate equipment for three months. Owning a camera won't make anyone an instant DP. Cameramen are hired because of their skills, talent and personalities, not because they own equipment.

A couple hundred. Plus the profits aren't going to the rank & file. They got their reduced wages already and are looking for other things to work on, though it's hard because of the vast amount of production that flocks to "incentive" States and nations. The bulk of the profits don't filter down from the top 1% who will use their winnings to buy new mansions or the next Italian supercar. Interesting that the world economy worked pretty well before this "globalization" scam was started. I'm pretty sure it'll work well once it collapses.

They were called TARIFFS. Since George Washington, tariffs protected US manufacturing jobs. that is, until Reagan and his disciples took control of the world. "Incentives" are a race to the bottom for wages and quality of work. Tariffs are a disincentive for corporations in any nation to move their operation somewhere else.

They were called TARIFFS. Since George Washington, tariffs protected US manufacturing jobs. that is, until Reagan and his disciples took control of the world. "Incentives" are a race to the bottom for wages and quality of work. Tariffs are a disincentive for corporations in any nation to move their operation somewhere else.

I find it hilarious (disturbingly so) that in our CONservative America where "government is a bad thing," that so many people are FOR taxpayer dollars going to fund private sector products. Tax "incentives" or outright subsidies (either way, it is revenue that a government is giving up) are bribes handed to a private sector business which results in absolutely ZERO profit-sharing on the back end. Can anyone name ANY other instance where an investor would just hand over cash to a business and not expect nor ask for any of the profit that comes of it? This is an example of CONservative ideology which freely uses taxpayer cash to fund private sector products and receives ZERO in return. Sure, the Corporation pays taxes as do the temporary employees... but they were going to do that anyway regardless of these tax bribes/incentives/subsidies. Somehow, the idea of contributing to the betterment of society via taxes got perverted to mean that just offering a few jobs is the "cost" a business is willing to risk to operate in a city/state/territory/nation. Yes, a company SHOULD pay taxes anyway just for the privilege of operating wherever it operates. But as soon as the government hands over "incentives" or subsidies, the taxpayers have become defacto INVESTORS in that product and should see some profit-sharing from the gross profits. Does Canada do that? Do any States in the US do that? Hell no. This "incentive" thing is a racket to publicize the costs and privatize the profits no matter how much paint someone throws on it. Real tax incentives should be applied toward products and services that truly enhance the public good, such as alternative energy. It's a difficult argument to make that the standard "Hollywood" movie is enhancing the public good enough to justify taxpayer investment in a product that they never see any profit-sharing from.

I understand all of that. What it looks like is that the Corporation is paying zero tax to the city/state/territory/national government that it exists in. All taxes to keep the infrastructure of the nation intact are paid for by the employees...while the Corporation rides off into the sunset with any and all profits. The government that forked over the taxpayer provided subsidy sees zero return on its investment into a private sector product. Right?

So, this means that labor pays all the cost for running government while the "corporation" skates off without paying a dime for the privilege of running a business with the benefits the government provides AND the "corporation" runs off with all the profit, giving not a penny to the government or anyone else? Sweet deal for the wealthy business owners. No wonder the Middle Class is vanishing across the globe while the wealthy just get wealthier.

Real question here, if Canada continues to hand out Corporate Welfare like this, how will the tax-starved provinces and nation pay for all the socialized services you currently take for granted? Certainly any income that Canadians earn in those temporary jobs can't possibly make up for the millions (billions?) in Corporate Welfare/Bribes that are handed out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/til-bunny-dead-german-celebrity-rabbit_n_1346941.html BERLIN — An earless baby bunny that was a rising star on Germany's celebrity animal scene had his 15 minutes of fame brought to an abrupt end when he was accidentally stepped on by a television cameraman. The fate of 17-day-old Til, a bunny with a genetic defect, was plastered across German newspapers on Thursday, the same day a small zoo in Saxony was to have presented him to the world at a press conference. The cameraman told Bild newspaper he hadn't seen Til, who had buried himself in hay, when he took the fateful step backward Wednesday. Zoo director Uwe Dempewolf tells Spiegel magazine Til didn't suffer: "It was a direct hit." Germany has been home to several global animal celebrities in recent years, including polar bear Knut and Paul the prognosticating octopus.

Now, if we could get the US States to do this: http://realfilmcareer.com/europe-rethinks-film-subsidies/

I assume you've researched renting these: http://www.backscatter.com/hostedstore/products/canon5Dhousing.html

GoPro is pretty inexpensive and has the waterproof casing sold with it. The odds are that someone you know has one that you could borrow for that shot.

I have a forum going for every job on and off set (at www.realfilmcareer.com), but it is not visited yet, so posting questions to Editors wouldn't result in productive answers. <shrug> Try this: http://www.norman-hollyn.com/ You might be able to track down some info here as well: https://www.editorsguild.com/index.cfm?

I began my illustrious career as an editor. Nothing fancy working at a PBS affiliate, but I likely had hundreds upon hundreds of time logged in the edit suite before I left to move to Los Angeles. I began shooting during that time as well so the two combined helped me learn what worked and what didn't so much better than reading any books might have (no internet then). I believe that you really have to put in the time in the chair punching buttons, ideally with someone else's shot material so that you can see how difficult the struggle is to make something work if the shots aren't there. Sometimes it's about shots that were done, but they are not at optimum angles or size and other times it's about shots that were missed. To have that experience sitting there in the dark trying to make it all come together is the best education a cameraman can have.

The real answer to this question is much to long to explain in a forum format, which is why I wrote the book "What I Really Want to Do: On Set in Hollywood." Once you read it, you'll understand how the industry works and then you'll get a better idea of what jobs MAY help you become a working Director and which jobs won't and why they won't. But I'll try to summarize a bit. First, ANYBODY from anywhere has a shot at building a career as a working Director. It doesn't matter if you went to film school or not. Some things can help, like being a whiz in film school, but even that is no guarantee. Many working Directors either begin that way directing a short film that gets attention somehow... or they fall into a directing opportunity coming from other jobs in the industry, such as Screenwriter, Director of Photography, First Assistant Director, Editor, Production Designer. Those jobs in particular are perceived as "artistic" in some way plus they have direct access to studio executives and Producers who have access to the green light. The problem with trying to work their way up through the ranks as a crew person is that you are seen as a non-artistic cog. This isn't to say that you can't make the leap to Director from Grip or Camera AC or anything else, but the odds are less than if you make a first impression on a Producer in some other artistic way. If directing is what you really want to do, then you are best off just trying to start off that way by making a movie. Or if you are a great writer, try to get into the industry as a Screenwriter. There is no one way to do this, but there are things you can do to improve the odds and first is understanding how the industry really works.

Locations Manager - You can't shoot if you don't have a place to shoot Director Cameraman Sound Mixer/Boom Operator Production Designer IF made to choose only five, those would be mine. However, it is important to understand that even if you just have a five person crew, ALL of the other jobs still need to be done even if there aren't specialists to do them. Those five above would be wearing MANY hats which would likely impact productivity and quality. There is really no such thing as an "unskilled" person on a film set. Some may say "Production Assistant" but even they must know the mechanics of how a professional production day runs and the "set etiquette" required. I suggest the book, "What I Really Want to Do: On Set in Hollywood" which will explain every job ON SET, what they all do and what it takes for them to get there. http://www.randomhouse.com/book/44440/what-i-really-want-to-do-on-set-in-hollywood-by-brian-dzyak/9780823099535/

The best thing for any prospective student to do is to contact each school directly. Asking for specific advice from a forum won't necessarily get you all the information you need. Look through each school's website first, then contact those that seem to be relevant to what you're looking for. Ask LOTS of questions because any school will try to sell you on why they are the best choice even if they are not. Don't stop there... ask about alumni and try to contact some of them. Once you've whittled the list down, actually go and visit the schools and try to talk to current students about their experience. Remember, YOU are the customer and are paying for a service. It's important that you are getting the "product" that you're paying for so it's up to you to do the homework to find out first what's best before you make any decisions that will cost you in money and time.

Here is a list of schools in Canada: http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com/Countries/Canada.htm Or if you are able to go elsewhere: http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com/Filmschools.htm

I'm fairly certain you can accomplish this with QUICKTIME. Go to FILE then OPEN IMAGE SEQUENCE. Make sure all of your frames are in the same folder in sequential order first. Then you click on the first image in the folder. At some point it will ask you about frame rate then it will go about assembling the sequence into a movie. Just like that! Good luck!

I think it boils down to the story that someone is trying to tell and how best to tell it. Some stories "demand" that the "mood" be set by a variety of things including, perhaps, lots of shots and edits to perhaps heighten "drama." Other stories are inherently "slower" and more "thoughtful," so a lot of coverage and cuts wouldn't necessarily be appropriate. I think that some of the "Olden Day" movies relied on less cuts because the equipment was more cumbersome which impacts schedules and such. If it's hard to move a camera and arc-lights around, then a Director simply won't have the freedom to put six cameras on a shot and get fifteen setups a day. So dance sequences (Fred Astaire, for example) are best shown in one or two wide shots to tell that part of the story. But something like Fast & Furious would be ridiculous in wide masters with few cuts. It always comes down to the story being told. If the story demands coverage, then you get it. If it demands less coverage, then you shoot only those shots needed.

One of my favorite scenes is in Raiders of the Lost Ark. It is just after Indiana's meeting with the government guys at the school. We are now at Indy's house and Brody arrives to tell him that "you've got the job!" What's great about that scene is that (if memory serves correctly) it is one shot with zero coverage. The camera points at what's important throughout eventually landing on the gun as Indy says, "Besides, you know what a cautious fellow I am." Naturally, shooting an entire scene like that takes guts and confidence in knowing that it will work and that it works within the context of the entire movie. Then, of course, schedules and budgets and resources can have a lot to do with the question of "how much coverage should be shot?"

No, thank you! If you have other questions that aren't answered in there, you can check for additional resources at www.realfilmcareer.com forums (http://www.realfilmcareer.com/forum/) or email me directly. Good luck!

I wish that question had an easy answer. It doesn't which I was I wrote an entire book about it! :) The basic gist is that there is no one way to "make it" (whatever "making it" means to you because it is different for each person). The "trick" is to learn HOW the professional industry actually works and that knowledge helps you make wiser choices so that you're prepared when opportunities present themselves. I recommend reading the entire book (of course), but you definitely should pay special attention to chapters one through five and the entire camera department section (followed by Grip and Electric). Good luck! http://www.randomhouse.com/book/44440/what-i-really-want-to-do-on-set-in-hollywood-by-brian-dzyak/9780823099535/

Uhhuh. Read this: http://www.amazon.com/Threshold-Western-Culture-Thom-Hartmann/dp/0670020915 and this: http://www.amazon.com/Last-Hours-Ancient-Sunlight-Revised/dp/1400051576/ref=pd_sim_b_1