Low/No Pay projects

[Michael LaVoie]

If your skillset as a DP ever seems "beside the point", it's probably a case where the director has a background as a DP and can shoot the film but they need an operator for convenience sake and to manage the camera team. However finding an operator for free is difficult, where finding a DP for free is easier.

 

So they'll advertise for that when it's really just an operating position. Easy to spot those situations though cause they all seem way more concerned with the gear you're bringing. Nobody is really that clever or discreet about it. haha. It's a courtesy they can't afford to be bothered with.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Michael LaVoie

[John E Clark]

 

Don't need any stinking lights. I'm going to build myself one of these. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edison%27s_Black_Maria

 

Yeah, but do take care on continuity with shots that include the outdoors beyond the windows... I'm pretty sure it would break people out of the willing suspension of disbelief to see the backgrounds change from shot to shot, despite the lighting remaining the same...

 

On the other hand if you rigged up a tower like this one, you could have sunlight all day... well, provided it was not heavy overcast...

 

Edited July 1, 2015 by John E Clark

[Rakesh Malik]

If your skillset as a DP ever seems "beside the point", it's probably a case where the director has a background as a DP and can shoot the film but they need an operator for convenience sake and to manage the camera team. However finding an operator for free is difficult, where finding a DP for free is easier.

 

So they'll advertise for that when it's really just an operating position. Easy to spot those situations though cause they all seem way more concerned with the gear you're bringing. Nobody is really that clever or discreet about it. haha. It's a courtesy they can't afford to be bothered with.

 

I think that's the less likely case. Based on my experience and what I've seen of what the indies especially around here are making, they just assume that that the DP's job is to point the camera and press the record button, which is easy. They assume the gaffer's the one deciding how to light the scene, and that "camera operator" and "director of photography" are synonymous.

 

They're often more concerned with what gear the "DP" is willing to lend them than with that person's reel...

Edited July 1, 2015 by Rakesh Malik

[JD Hartman]

They're often more concerned with what gear the "DP" is willing to lend them than with that person's reel...

 

The same could said to be true of the Gaffer, "Hey what gear can you bring? Any HMI's?"

[David Mullen ASC]

I sort of avoided all of that by never owning any gear...

 

My general rule when talking to indie productions was whether I could contribute anything beyond mere technical competence, i.e. did they need me in particular? I didn't want to be a mere button-pusher and I didn't want to work with a director who thought of a DP as one.

 

Now today the environment is different than it was when I graduated film school in 1991, when most independent features were shot on rented 35mm equipment. A smaller percentage were shot on 16mm, often by owner-operators, and I debated with myself whether to invest in a Super-16 camera, if only to be able to shoot my own projects. But I realized that once you invest heavily in something, you end up serving the needs of that investment, you look for work for your equipment. But this was a time when film equipment was quite expensive to own, it's not like dropping less than $10,000 for a digital camera today.

 

I don't know what I'd do today because it has become more common for beginning cinematographers to be expected to own their own camera, and then you fall into that trap of rapid digital camera equipment obsolescence. You buy a Sony F3 and soon people expect you to own an FS7, etc. To some extent, you almost can't expect to see a return on the investment, it's a bit like film school, you just hope the camera allows you to build a reel and resume to the point where you'll be free of having to own a camera (or can afford a better camera.)

 

But I still think it is a good thing to stick with working for filmmakers who appreciate what a cinematographer can do for you. If a director thinks cinematography is just having enough light to shoot and then pushing the "record" button, odds are low that the resulting imagery is going to be good for your reel or is going to help further your career.

[Rakesh Malik]

But I still think it is a good thing to stick with working for filmmakers who appreciate what a cinematographer can do for you. If a director thinks cinematography is just having enough light to shoot and then pushing the "record" button, odds are low that the resulting imagery is going to be good for your reel or is going to help further your career.

 

I agree with that. I didn't buy the gear with the intention of marketing my gear, I bought it to build a reel... so for quite a while I didn't include much info about my gear in my profiles, but instead concentrated on building and sharing my reel... and constantly, I got queries about what gear I had. Sometimes it was reasonable queries, like we need wireless lavs, do you have them and if not, we'll rent some, but most of the time, they just wanted to know what kind of camera and lenses I had.

 

I've been fortunate to find several directors who don't care what I'm shooting with, and in some cases chose to work with me based more on my stills than on my film reel, but these folks are also just getting started, and so are also trying to find ways to generate money to fund projects, so they can't pay either... but at least they're leading to stuff that's worth putting in my reel.

 

The rest I'm just staying away from.

[David Peterson]

Now today the environment is different than it was when I graduated film school in 1991, when most independent features were shot on rented 35mm equipment. A smaller percentage were shot on 16mm, often by owner-operators, and I debated with myself whether to invest in a Super-16 camera, if only to be able to shoot my own projects. But I realized that once you invest heavily in something, you end up serving the needs of that investment, you look for work for your equipment. But this was a time when film equipment was quite expensive to own, it's not like dropping less than $10,000 for a digital camera today.

 

I don't know what I'd do today because it has become more common for beginning cinematographers to be expected to own their own camera, and then you fall into that trap of rapid digital camera equipment obsolescence. You buy a Sony F3 and soon people expect you to own an FS7, etc. To some extent, you almost can't expect to see a return on the investment, it's a bit like film school, you just hope the camera allows you to build a reel and resume to the point where you'll be free of having to own a camera (or can afford a better camera.)

Yes the rapid depreciation of cameras can be a bummer.

*OR* you can look at it from the other perspective and make it work to your advantage! ;-)

 

I'm an aspiring DoP who has been shooting with Blackmagic Design cameras and mirrorless/DSLRs,ranging from US$150 (prime example of the benefit side of depreciation!) for the still quite excellent Panasonic GH1 all the way "up to" the "expensive" (well it was for me by the time I finished kitting it out) US$500 Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. I've been shooting anything and everything that I can (and along the way got to experience shooting with many other cameras too. Such as C300/RED/GH4/BMCC/FS700/FS7), and happily working in other positions too (such as 1st AC, gaffer, location sound), even doing paid acting extra work just for the money and extra experience on set.

 

Then yesterday I purchased a Sony F3 for not much more over one thousand dollars, I find it astonishing I got such an amazing camera for so dirt cheap! (Though I did invest a *LOT* of time into what camera to get next from the multitude of camera options on offer, and in hunting down deals. Hundred plus hours easy. But I'm still a newbie and learning, so my time is cheap)

 

This should last me for a while as I work myself up and develop my skills. Then I'll be earning more, and prices will have come down so I'll be able to afford an on sale or second hand Sony FS7, Kinefinity KineMax 6K, or BMD URSA Mini 4.6K

 

So I look at it from a positive angle, and as I'm starting out I am using fast falling camera prices to my advantage! :-D

Edited July 1, 2015 by David Peterson

[AJ Young]

David is right in avoiding owning gear. It's more difficult these days because of how cheap digital cameras are.

 

LA, in particular, has an over abundance of RED cameras that owner/operator DP's almost always rent for way below market value; just to get the job. In essence, they're giving their camera package to the film for free or their giving themselves to the film for free.

 

Low end level producers today are looking for DP's who own big budget cameras and will only want to pay the DP his/her rate (for example, $500 a day) and expect the camera to come for free.

 

It's a side effect of "cheaper" technology. A complete RED or Alexa package is quite expensive; getting a decent return on your investment is almost impossible.

 

One thing to keep in mind about productions looking for DP's with cameras is that they actually don't want a DP, but their camera. If they want to cheap out on their camera package, what else will they cheap out on?

 

I've found it increasingly hard to get work as a DP who doesn't own gear, but it's not impossible. It takes a strong hustle, frugal personal budget, and a pound of luck.

 

Film schools today often set up expectations for students. They expect a full crewed film with top notch equipment. Sadly, starting out is never the case. Most micro budget films would be lucky to use anything more expensive than a DSLR (if they're paying crew properly, have insurance, decent catering, etc). You can't blame lack of equipment or crew as lack of quality in your work. A DP has to adapt to their situation, not adapt their situation to their expectations. (Look at Anthony Dodd Mantle, DFF, ASC, BSC for example)

 

The best thing to do is shoot, and shoot a lot. The only way a DP becomes a DP is by shooting. Yes you can climb the ladder, it happens. But if you never shoot, you'll never be hired as a DP. Producers hire DP's, not DP's. Of course, DP's will put a good word in for you, but you can't wait for someone to give you the green light. You have to shoot.

[David Peterson]

David is right in avoiding owning gear. It's more difficult these days because of how cheap digital cameras are.

Which "David"? (kidding! I know you mean David Mullen not me :-P )

 

I think once you reach a certain level (such as David Mullen, who is waaaay more skilled than I am), not owning your own gear is no longer a hindrance. Problem is anybody starting out is a long way from that point, then the analysis to own vs not to own becomes tougher. And leans much more heavily in the direction of ownership, IMHO.

 

The best thing to do is shoot, and shoot a lot. The only way a DP becomes a DP is by shooting. Yes you can climb the ladder, it happens. But if you never shoot, you'll never be hired as a DP. Producers hire DP's, not DP's. Of course, DP's will put a good word in for you, but you can't wait for someone to give you the green light. You have to shoot.

The "shoots *LOTS*" (which I agree with) and the "don't own gear" (disagree) I find to be very contradictory statements.

 

By having your own camera and other gear, you'll be able to shoot at a drop of the hat, and to take on interesting projects that you'd have to otherwise turn down.

 

I do agree with the sentiment "don't waste money on extravagant gear".

 

The issue is finding the optimal balancing point between owning nothing at all and having your own personal stable of Phantom Flex 4K + Arri Alexa + Octocopter + Ronin + Technocrane + etc... !

 

Rare is it a person starting out will find their optimal point to be at either of those two extremes (though the longer you work at this, the more likely you'll find one of those two extremes can work out best for you).

 

Thus you need to find out where your personal threshold level is at, and where your optimal point is at.

 

For some people this means merely a secondhand Panasonic GH1 from eBay, for somebody else it means a Blackmagic Cinema Camera, for somebody else it means a RED, for a few (rich trust fund kids whose personal value of a dollar is less than it is to me??) it might even mean an Arri Alexa!

 

I believe for 80%+ of people the minimum threshold point is owning at least a Panasonic GH1 (or similar, such as a Sony NEX-5N. Either of these go for US$150ish for the body on eBay), together with a couple of prime lenses and a monopod or basic shoulder rig. Total cost? Under US$300.

 

This is an extremely minimal amount to invest into your career, so at least you don't need to say a flat out "no" when an opportunity pops up to shoot. As you said, the more you shoot, the better!

 

I reckon even people like writers or actors should consider doing this (though with smartphones being so good, they can work as a substitute for them instead), they might have a little short they want to shoot but can't due to no connections. Well, now they've got no excuses stopping them!

 

And for a person who specifically aspires to being a DoP, I reckon they should likely set their minimal threshold at a little higher, say the BMPCC level. But this very subjective! And will vary a lot from person to person. For one person a GH1 will be right, for another a RED might be right. You need to access your own personal values and circumstances to work it out.

 

I myself started out with a GH1 (it was a bit more expensive back then, but still a very cheap buy! Thus is appropriate for me at the time as a complete newbie, with a tiny budget), then later moved "up" to a BMPCC as I got more experience and could afford it. Then yesterday I got a Sony PMW-F3 (which for me personally right now, likely is moving past that "optimal point"... but hey, I got such a good price for it I couldn't resist!).

Edited July 2, 2015 by David Peterson

[Aapo Lettinen]

I usually buy only gear that is impossible to rent from anywhere around me (like Konvas, Krasnogorsk and Bolex cameras) or gear that I use all the time (like GH4, H6 tripod and few basic lights).

It is usually not a good idea to buy very expensive specialty equipment like Phantom unless you already have the customers or you want to start a mid size rental house with multiple cameras. Otherwise you just have to lower the prices way below those the real rental companies would ask because you don't have all the inventory the customers need and they have to rent some of the gear from other places.

 

I'd say one usually needs one usable quality video camera which is small and versatile (like GH4 or BMPCC) and usually a stills camera for scouting and tests. It is ideal to have a lens set which fits to them both (or if you are using a dslr you can maybe manage with single camera). If you're not using some piece of equipment at least weekly it may be better to rent it when needed, then you can also change it to other type of equipment if the production demands it.

 

For example buying a full set of Compact Primes is complete madness if you only need them twice a year. It is much cheaper to rent for example Master Primes or anamorphics and you still save quite a lot and don't have to pay for full time insurance and fear that someone stoles the equipment, etc

[David Peterson]

I usually buy only gear that is impossible to rent from anywhere around me (like Konvas, Krasnogorsk and Bolex cameras) or gear that I use all the time (like GH4, H6 tripod and few basic lights).

Exactly, that is a very logical approach which I'm advocating for.

 

It is usually not a good idea to buy very expensive specialty equipment like Phantom unless you already have the customers or you want to start a mid size rental house with multiple cameras.

For sure, I just listed a Phantom as a more extreme example. Which as a person becomes more experienced and established will happen more often than amongst newbies, as some of those will go on to establish a rental house. (which would be a stupid idea for a newbie just starting out to do)

[Bill DiPietra]

Now today the environment is different than it was when I graduated film school in 1991, when most independent features were shot on rented 35mm equipment. A smaller percentage were shot on 16mm, often by owner-operators, and I debated with myself whether to invest in a Super-16 camera, if only to be able to shoot my own projects.

 

I do own a lot of gear, but I purchased all of it with the intent of using it for my own productions. And it has definitely paid off. When I purchased my Arri-S (almost 10 years ago) I got it for $4500. Since it is an MOS camera, it kind of forced me to concentrate of the visuals of my films, which is how I believe all filmmakers should learn. But when it comes to working on other people's projects, no one makes silent shorts. Most projects that I see being made these days are very dialogue-driven and the visuals are something of an afterthought - the complete reverse of how it should be. I really think that if people learned how to tell their stories visually, they'd be far more effective.

 

In the end, I think I made the right choice with this project. Thanks again for all the advice, everyone.

[Rakesh Malik]

I purchased my gear with the same intent; to work on my own stuff. I'm building a reel with it, and also a stock media archive, so it's helping. I am looking at it as a long term investment, though.

 

A lot of scripts these days are largely dialog, for sure. It's frustrating, because it makes for weak storytelling, but in one community that started up recently, there's been a lot of noise regarding the dialog-oriented nature of the scripts so that's starting to change for the better. At least it's a start.

 

Now to get them to understand what the difference is between a DP and a camera operator...

[Phil Rhodes]

And if one finds oneself working in an environment where nobody either appreciates or expects to get good camerawork?

Perhaps it's that I'm currently spending some time in Los Angeles and the achievement offset between here and home is particularly hard to ignore, and I know I've moaned extensively about this in the past. But when even quite high end stuff in London is shot so badly, with so little regard for looking good, is difficult to raise any motivation to work on improving one's technique. About the only people who have any interest in attractive cinematography are music videos, and I doubt anyone anywhere in the UK has been paid to work on one of those for a decade or more.

Otherwise, in the sordid world of short film and spec commercials, standards are so low that ability behind the camera is almost irrelevant. Naturally people will be able to come up with a few isolated counterexamples, but expectations in general are so limited that even being involved with one of those few winners means very little simply because nobody cares one way or the other. Or at least, they may care, but years of having their ambitions crushed by the swingeing mediocrity of the the British independent film scene has made that pain one they're used to ignoring.

As a result it's difficult to distinguish oneself by ability. Most productions - at least most productions accessible to those of us at the bottom of the food chain - don't expect and don't get good results even if they can afford them. It's absolutely miserable.

As ever, it's possible to buy work by giving away gear, but in these circumstances what's the point, seven if that were a workable long term plan?


P

[Rakesh Malik]

I've been feeling the same way where I am. Most of the talented folks here on both sides of the camera are moving elsewhere for that reason. The community's exceedingly low standards makes it difficult to keep improving because the community itself is striving to drag everyone involved down with it instead of working to get better.

 

Most are heading for LA. I'm heading to Vancouver. (Can't quite bring myself to leave the Cascades just yet, but I'll probably wind up spending a lot of time in the Range of Light after relocating.)

[Satsuki Murashige]

Phil, I would think that living in a place where the standards for work are low would actually make it easier for a talented cinematographer to excel and be noticed. I mean, sometimes all you need is a good location and a beadboard...

 

As for owning gear, it definitely pays to make friends with the local rental houses and get an insurance rental policy so that you can sub-rent what you don't own as needed. Using that philosophy, I have slowly built up fairly complete camera accessory package where I can just sub whatever camera body makes sense for the job. You'll always need lenses, filters, tripods and support, matte boxes, follow focuses, handheld rigs, monitors, sliders, a few lights and some grip, etc. It took a long time to get to this point though, about 10 years. When I was starting out, my peers were buying HVX200s and later, Red Ones. I avoided all that and just borrowed their cameras for my projects until I got a 7D. Some of them did very well after a few years and others just faded away. So simply owning gear won't make you successful even in today's market but it does offer you more opportunities to shoot and build your reel. Making friends who own gear with whom you can trade favors is even better if you're starting out.

[Mark Dunn]

I think Phil means that standards are so low that no-one would think of paying more for better. They wouldn't notice.

Looking at repeats of 'Inspector Morse' (1987-2000) make one nostalgic for what's been lost.

Forgive me for being melodramatic, but

 

Ensanguining the skies
How heavily it dies
Into the west away;
Past touch and sight and sound
Not further to be found,
How hopeless under ground
Falls the remorseful day. (A.E. Housman).

Edited July 3, 2015 by Mark Dunn

[Rakesh Malik]

That's what I'm dealing with. The standards here are painfully low. In a local group that formed recently in an attempt to revive the film community, we had a bunch of short films shot, one of them done (and won a contest, earning a screening at SIFF -- I was DP). I think there are another four or five that haven't seen the light of day yet, and two one-scene "short films" that were intended to showcase two actors' acting skills. In both of those shorts, the speaking character even when dominating the frame was out of focus more often than not (well over half of each film), and one of them had serious logical mergers...

 

The community thought they were great...

[Phil Rhodes]

Morse? Don't recall it being anything special. The usual flat, grey, dull stuff that's common to more or less every detective show (and they are legion) in the UK.

 

Otherwise, yes:

 

 

 

I think Phil means that standards are so low that no-one would think of paying more for better. They wouldn't notice.

 

Clearly you know exactly what I'm talking about. It's difficult to complain about this without being seen to set oneself up as a misunderstood genius, which is, needless to say, not my intention. What's more, ability has only ever been a part - probably a minority part - of the equation, although that line of inquiry leads irresistibly down the train of thought that deals with how miserable british people generally are and how difficult it is to match the requisite level of dour-facedness on a day-to-day basis, which is much more important.

 

 

 

The community thought they were great...

 

I'm torn between liking the pleasant level of human interaction created by the everyone's-a-winner society, and despising it for the falsehood it very clearly is. At the end of the day, though, people drink diet Coke.

 

P

[Tyler Purcell]

This is the problem…

 

 

CINEMATOGRAPHER WITH 2-4K CAMERA NEEDED

This is a unpaid job

Independent short film is in need of a cinematographer. Must have his/her own 2K-4K camera (ie. Black Magic or Red, etc.) The film will be submitted to Sundance, Aspen Shorts, Toronto, Cannes, and a few others. This is a micro (I repeat-- micro) budget film completely funded by the Director/Writer. Really looking for a local newbie or film student who wants a great story and great shots to help build their reel. OR a vet that is interested in working on a small but interesting/beautiful film.

 

Because you really need a 2k or 4k camera to tell a story. :blink:

 

So even the "volunteer" gigs have gone nuts on equipment requirements.

 

I've said this before and I'll say it again… Digital cinematography is the final nail in the coffin for this art form. Why?

 

In the past, cinematographers were craftsman, understanding the mysterious of professional equipment and how lenses and celluloid reacted to light. This required education, on-job training, experimentation and most importantly, since celluloid is expensive, it required a patience you don't see in today's filmmaking. With digital technology, anyone can look at a monitor and see exactly what a shot is going to look like. You can nail down a scene much quicker, shoot even faster and move on, without the need for perfecting anything. This 'need for speed' in filmmaking has literally destroyed any sense of craftsmanship. It's brought on by technology and now cinematographers are forced to work faster then ever, with substandard product as the result. Now that there is so much substandard product out there making money, what's the point of taking your time to make something look good? If they made money off crap, why should you do any better?

 

I own everything necessary to make a film, outside of grip equipment which isn't expensive to rent. I invested because I feel it's important to constantly be shooting. The more hands-on experience you have, the better you'll be in whatever position. So there are positives to owning some equipment and likewise, maybe even scoring a few gigs from it. People who spend tens of thousands on personal equipment however, that's just insane. So you can brag to others about being able to shoot in 4k? I honestly think that's really the core issue today. People use catch words like '4k' and don't even know what it means. They think it magically makes them something that looks good and as we all know, it really doesn't.

 

With film, it forces people to go seek money, hire appropriate crew of craftsman in an attempt to make a decent product.

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't know if it has changed all that much. Back in the early 1990's there were plenty of low-budget producers looking for someone who came with their own Arri-SR or Aaton and were shooting their feature in only a few days. I even knew a DP who shot a 35mm anamorphic feature in only four days! Schedules haven't gotten necessarily shorter but expectations on shot counts have risen, but to some degree, that's also due to the rise of two-camera shooting over single-camera shooting. Anyway, there was a lot of poorly-made cheap stuff being produced twenty or thirty years ago. Film technology didn't prevent idiotic producers from entering the business back then.

 

As for beginning directors being obsessed with trends and catch phrases, that's also nothing new.

 

Certainly digital has opened the floodgates for the very bottom of the barrel stuff but as soon as you get slightly beyond that, the problems and the costs of filmmaking haven't changed much, it's not the technology at that point driving costs, the shooting format is a smaller percentage of the overall budget, you're paying for cast, locations, time, crew, food, etc.

 

As for digital allowing or forcing you to not perfect things, I've found it to be a wash between two opposite trends due to seeing an HD image live on the set.

 

One trend is more fiddling and perfectionism than ever, a cinematographer can't get through the day on schedule by just telling a director not to worry, it's all going to look fine when dailies come back or when the film is cut and answer-printed. Many directors have a mild version of OCD and will fiddle endlessly with details that won't be important once the scene is cut; I don't blame them, it's an occupational hazard, this is an art form that is very details-oriented. But having a big, super-clear HD image staring at them on the set can spin and distract some directors who suddenly want all the curtains replaced on the location or now need the lawn across the street to be mowed or gets obsessed over a single strand of hair sticking up on the side of the actress' hair, etc. At least when all the director can do is glance through a camera eyepiece before the camera rolls, or see a fuzzy video tap image, half that distracting stuff isn't caught by them. Of course, the flip-side is that if the operator isn't really on top of things, you get dailies back and see a sandbag just lying their in the middle of the frame, or a water bottle left on a window sill. At least in HD with more eyes watching things, stuff like that gets caught more often.

 

But the other opposite trend is that with a live HD monitor, an impatient director can decide that whatever state the image is at halfway through the lighting set-up looks usable to him and he wants to roll. And with cheap digital cameras, that director can compound that problem of half-finished set-ups by rolling multiple cameras on it. This is where the quality loss comes in.

 

But as I said, they are opposite problems that sometimes cancel each other out, for every set-up you lose time over because of over-fiddling and perfectionism, you make up that time on other shots where you run multiple cameras on very rough lighting set-ups.

 

So things have changed but I'm not sure that overall quality is necessarily lower, I saw plenty of badly-shot low-budget stuff a few decades ago.

 

One thing I do worry about though is that with more sensitive cameras, I see demo reels of beginners all the time who shoot amazing stuff in natural light, but never really learn how to recreate that artificially if needed due to schedule or location or story. You don't always get to call it a day once the sun goes down.

[Satsuki Murashige]

But Tyler, those guys don't have any money and likely never will. They are not creatives who will likely ever be working in the professional world. Like the ad says, leave it to the film students who are just starting out and need to shoot something to get on a reel. I did many of these when I was starting out, we all did. And I was grateful for the opportunity.

 

Sure, I think the 'must provide camera' part is ridiculous but they don't have any money. So if I were a student looking for a project to shoot, I would talk to them about possible options. Using school gear, a cheaper 'HD' camera that you may already own like a 7D, or possibly borrowing a camera from a friend. And if they said no, just walk away.

 

Phil, we have to meet up for a drink someday. It would be a travesty not to experience the full effect in person. :)

[Tyler Purcell]

But Tyler, those guys don't have any money and likely never will. They are not creatives who will likely ever be working in the professional world.

It's true, but you've gotta start somewhere. I've met a lot of people who started doing similar shows and they made it big time.

 

Who the heck has a 4k cinema camera graduating from college anyway?

[Satsuki Murashige]

The rich kids or the older guys who have been working for a while. But do they know how to light and use the camera? Anyway, like I said I would have just borrowed the camera from one of them and taken the job. :)

[JD Hartman]

It's true, but you've gotta start somewhere. I've met a lot of people who started doing similar shows and they made it big time.

 

Who the heck has a 4k cinema camera graduating from college anyway?

 

Trust fund kids.