HockeyFan12

1 hour ago, mercer said:

I thought there was a test performed somewhere that showed no benefit using a Ninja Star over the internal codec?

That's a complicated question. At the highest setting there's a benefit. Whether you'll see it or not is an entirely different question. At high ISOs it makes a difference and with some very high detail scenes it can, too. Below 422 HQ I think AVCHD is better. It's cleaner than the lower prores flavors, that's how good it is, or how bad Atomos' prores implementation is.

You should try both before you buy, because the ergonomics and "feel" are so important. Your beloved t2i has technically terrible video and maybe 8-9 stops of DR, but the ergonomics are good and the feel is good. It's beloved for a reason even if the reason isn't the technical image quality.

If you can, rent or demo both. There's some test on reduser that shows that the Dragon actually has way more resolution, dynamic range, and color quality than the Alexa, but the over/under of the Alexa and saturation rolloff and interface will always be more comfortable to old school film DPs. Specs aren't everything. Personally I like what I've seen from Panasonic more than what I've seen from Sony, but Sony is the technical king.

1 hour ago, kaylee said:

i think you guys should kno that my friend who *cough* works at an  a p p l store said that the new mbps are ALL fucked up in ALL kinds of ways

the 13 and 15" touchbar mbps have been returned for not working for every conceivable reason.... and people have bought them, then exchanged them, not once but twice, only to find that they have problems with a THIRD computer

so: caveat emptor

Yikes. Looks like I'm getting Apple Care after all.

53 minutes ago, Arikhan said:

@Kisaha

I live in Germany near Frankfurt...As I understand, you are living in Greece. But in Greece (let's take my example mentionned, a guy with a FS7) a FS7 surely costs about 11.000$ (without needed basic accessories or lenses)  too, there you have also to pay a rental or the costs for a house or appartment, alike costs for medical insurance, pension, etc. too.

So, 100.000 would be income, not profit. The earning would be about 35% of the income (please consider costs and taxes). Considering the skills a good camera man / DOP has to have and the entrepreneurial risk, I don't think that 34.000$ is a exagerated high yearly profit... ;-)

To compare what other people charge, take a look here...It's about wedding photography, but in this industry people bill reasonably calculated prices more than in other creative industries...

@fuzzynormal

If your creativity is a strong asset and your unique selling point, that's the way to go. My experience during assisting projects: Clients always take used gear in consideration. The bigger the used cameras and more spectacular the gear, the better - clients consider you as a "pro". Clients do NOT associate DSLR cameras with professional filming. Only "serious" camcorder or shoulder cams...I hear many people saying, their clients don't care about gear used by filming team. I can not confirm this statement. There are such clients too, hiring the famous DOP XYZ because of his/her fame...but 95% of  clients take a look at your gear and project their perception of film making on your gear. Big cameras, lenses, etc....

The industry denies this aspect, but it's the reality....Clients are not evil, they just don't have any clue, that a today's 1.000$ DSLR camera would deliver better IQ than a 25.000$ cam from 2008. And most clients still think, filming is mostly a matter of gear (mainly camera) quality...

I was talking about profit, not income. Though in my field (post, dry hire) they are not as far apart as for a cameraman.

19 minutes ago, Neumann Films said:

Ugh.  I would move just for some sanity.  Yeah, at least with purchasing a home you aren't throwing money away.  You can always sell and recoup most of your mortgage payments (barring a '08 esque collapse).  If your rent is $3,000 a month, that's $36,000 down the drain every year.  If your mortgage is $3,000 a month and you end up selling the house eventually (for close to what you paid) you will see a return on most of that $3,000/month.  

I agree, networking is big...as long as you're out there doing it.  If you cast a wider net and network online, you won't be limited to just one city.  

You can't buy a house if you can't afford it in your market. But otherwise, I fully agree.

Luckily I have very low rent for where I live but still about what you're paying for a mortgage. The network thing is real... within a year of moving to a large market, my resume has completely transformed. Unfortunately, quality of life even at twice the pay is not different and it's not even that rates are better, just that there's more work. I think the only advantage of a big city is networking and that's pretty meaningless unless you're out doing it.

The more successful people I know run their own production companies in smaller cities and enjoy a higher quality of life. Their networking options are limited, however. 

7 minutes ago, Neumann Films said:

The biggest asset we have is an online audience.  You could probably make it work without one.  The main thing you lose is connections and networking but if you build an audience of any kind you can find them that way.

Live just outside of the city limits and advertise yourself inside of it.  Then commute.

I live in a city with bad traffic. As in... the worst in the world. :/ Even far outside city limits a small two bedroom house is $600k.

I suppose if there's anything to take away from this discussion it's that the one advantage of a big city is the network. 

5 minutes ago, Neumann Films said:

The beauty of the internet is that you don't have to live in the big cities anymore.  I enjoy smaller towns and wouldn't move if I had to.  My wife and I bought a house on the Oregon Coast, the mortgage is $1,600 a month and we rent it out on AirBnb when we travel for filming.  That ends up covering the mortgage.  So we live for free in an area that we like and we travel to the bigger cities for work.

Obviously won't work for everyone but...there are ways to make any situation work.  You just gotta be flexible.

This is a very good way to approach things if you can make it work. I wonder sometimes if freelancing in the big city is a bad idea. Maybe it makes more sense to try to get in with the biggest agency possible full time in a big city despite the lower wages, work locally with a low standard of living, network to the top, then quit, move to a small town, and freelance from there.

Sounds like you skipped a few steps, but arguably there's no need to take them. 

12 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

@Arikhan Where do you live?

I am checking the forum mostly on mobile, so I do not know everyone's country, it would be nice to mention your country, city, so to get an impression of your market.

Obviously is different to work in Greece, where there is 30-60% unemployment (depending the age group), and almost 10% of the higher educated work force is an economic immigrant, different to work in Finland, different in Mumbay e.t.c

In the end, everything is a life choice, I choose to do what I like and what I have invest on (I have 2 diplomas on this field, a bachelor degree from a UK university, and 17 years of experience), and I was a mechanical and electronics engineer in the energy department but I couldn't pretend to be something I wasn't feel like. My choices were only 2, immigration, or staying put (unlike 90% of my friends) and try to do my best in a ruined economy.

I would like to earn 100.000euros per year.

Well.. this is unachievable!

I try to be smart, not over invest, and try to cooperate with the "right" people and rent the "right" equipment, my wife does something completely different, and we both help one each other.

That sounds like a good situation. I considered learning programming and moving to the Bay Area but there rent is $3000+/month for a one bedroom in a bad location.  A friend is a young multi-millionaire having studied at MIT and Stanford, and selling a successful company in her 20s, and has still yet to buy a house as they are too expensive. I have friends making $40k/year and living very comfortably in less expensive cities. The US is quite diverse and much of it is a matter of social capital, not quality of living. I believe one friend there has a house, but he worked at FaceBook before it went public and is a multi-millionaire.

6 hours ago, silvertonesx24 said:

$150k COL you must be either in SF or NYC.

Move somewhere cheaper. So much post work is done remotely these days. Unless you're doing ADR

I'm in a cheaper city, though top three or four in terms of total COL. About $80k if you're frugal, own your own car, have no debts, and have a very inexpensive apartment, as I do, but that's almost subsistence and with no savings. If I want to buy a house I must find a way to get to $150-$200k, or realistically twice that for a decent house. As I am now basically surviving, I need to figure out how.

Arikhan, I wouldn't take that dire a view. Do what you love, either as a hobby or a day job. But I do think buying your own gear in a major city is a foolish decision. As a one-man band in a smaller market it can work out where you simply buy what you need to produce content that is at the level your client requests. But if you are being judged by your equipment you are being used, simple as that. Most red owner/ops in LA and NYC are simply cheap rental options. Don't get used. 

I do know people who have made it in major cities in media simply through education and talent without starting with any connections or having any family money. A grand total of two of them but hey it's something! Neither bought a cinema camera, both worked in post.

6 hours ago, Kisaha said:

the money you are mentioning are just insane. 

A usual working day here is 12 hours, if you can charge 12 X 125 euros (I do not even mention the other crazy number just above) is 1250euros per day! while this is usually the pay for 2-4 WHOLE episodes of a TV production (for location sound) and with no pension/medical insurance/gear money. They just pay for your physical presence, expected to have most of the equipment, and you pay your own taxes. Of course we are talking about the poorest western world country, but still, 1250 euros per day for a technician that is not the chief producer, director, or dp, is unheard of.

The standard rate for a DIT in my market (wet hire with a computer) is $1200-$2000, for reference, $5000 for a DP (dry hire) maybe. But DITs don't get to work every day. 

In light of all the low pay work I've taken on recently, I'm wondering whether to try to bill by the job or just look for a 9-5. Post seems to pay much worse because you can work every day...

6 hours ago, HelsinkiZim said:

I have a contract either signed or by email  or verbally recorded that specifies an (generous) amount of hours dedicated to the project. I specify that before  these hours are reached, they will be informed that they are running out of time  due to contract and must either get their shit together or put more cash in the meter.

The truth is noone is watching what you do in the edit and planning, so  it is always a useful tool for disorganised clients.  sooner or later they see cash flying out the window and you  can all  reset and power on.

I actually got the credit and money promised, I was just faced with so much additional work.

I dunno. In my market you need to make $150k/year to get by. I'm not there yet and I'm worried.

I guess I have to take the risk, brush up on my presentation, put together a website and up-to-date reel, and charge a lot more, $1k/day for post sound right or too low?

Well this is going south fast.

2 hours ago, Sebv said:

I never write scripts i let them do it or explain it to me, than i ask lots of question on (locations, extras, props, transportation,budget ect..)

that way i can find the weak spots, and offer alternative so that everything goes smooth.  

 

 

This is why you'll go far. 100% on point.

10 hours ago, Axel said:

My buddy does have some good clients. One success story was when he invested a lot of unpaid private time in second-guessing the 'corporate identity' of the firm who made the announcement. He met the woman responsible for public relation with concepts ready to present. But he was wise enough to make her feel it were her ideas. They accepted his offer (reasonable, but not cheap) without batting an eye. The communication worked from the start (what's the right idiom? They were on the same wavelength?). He had thought out everything in advance, he could control the situation. The client came back several times despite cheaper competitors. If the client feels you are just some guy with a camera you will not be treated with respect. A successful professional must be a prostitute sometimes. The good ones make their sugar daddies think they love them. 

A friend worked with a high end agency where many of the directors are Academy Award winners and so it's already the upper echelon and everyone pitching for the job is superb and qualified ($100k/day day rate level, probably far more at times). What often gets them the job is remembering everyone's name in the room and treating them with respect and charm. The director who charms the agency will likely charm the client on set. The ad directs itself at that level, to some extent, so having that impressive figurehead and liaison to the client is as important as skill. Guys like Scorsese and David O. Russell will often secure jobs based on their awards. Brands (Scorsese does perfume ads, Russell KFC) want that prestige, and that reputation allows you to act up a bit. But if you don't have it, you'd better be charming.

Yours is good advice; research the company and its corporate culture first and find things you like about it, which impress you, and present yourself as being impressed by them and wanting to be a part of that culture. If it's too far a stretch to do so, perhaps it is not the client for you.

11 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

I can testify to this.  You get what you ask for.

1000%.

But a higher level client might be hard to work for and thus not have vendors on hand. So they're looking for another person to take advantage of. And it's you. But there are ways to leverage a good credit without going straight back to the client who provided it. 

I hope.

10 hours ago, Axel said:

Mutual interests? Labour of love? I hope this won't go sour. Without a contract, anything could happen as soon as creative conflicts arise. Which is not exactly unheard-of.

Fell into it by accident and am trying to make the best of it. We will find out soon enough. Good call, though, I am going to check in about credit and payment asap since delivery is fairly soon.

On 12/12/2016 at 3:20 AM, Axel said:

Your reputation grows by picking the right clients.

I wish I'd learned that a decade ago.

I agree: it's not the work you're doing that's as important as whom you're doing it for. To that extent, this job could be a big "break."

I am currently working on a similar gig that is far too much work for extremely little pay and a lot of stress. It is also for a first-time director; I'm getting railroaded. But now I can bid on a higher echelon of work. That's the plan, at least. :/

29 minutes ago, Axel said:

An understanding how different characters can collaborate successfully in a bloody office was even more helpful to manage conflicts between people who consider themselves creatives. In the modern concept, broken down somewhat for simplicity, conflicts aren't avoided (they are unavoidable anyway), they are exploited for their productive impulses. Psychobabble? Modern platitudes?

Why can't you be fully honest? Assumed that you really want to achieve the best, complete honesty gives you all advantages. Because imo all the deadlocks between him and his clients my friend laments about come from an inappropriate reaction to the conflicts. 

Yes. It's not so much about being in the right, it's about self-esteem, honesty and soft skills.

Because fully honest is, ultimately, either fully selfless or fully selfish. In retrospect, I'm sure George Lucas wishes he had a guy with the guts to admit the Phantom Menace had a bad script. But he didn't, because the guy who had the intelligence and honesty to admit it he fired years ago for standing up to him or he kept that guy on but he learned better than to voice that opinion.

Honesty is is good... in moderation. Pure unbridled honesty is unfortunately either self-destructive or self-absorbed, at least in this industry. I envy anyone who can have that level of fully honest intimacy in their best romantic relationship for even a moment, but in business... it's impossible imo. But when you can find it, cherish it.

That said, I still agree everything bad is bad communication. An honest relationship is perhaps a platonically ideal one. But it needs to go both ways and that takes time. You need both empathy and sympath and to build both until you have a good relationship.

This relationship ain't good. It's gonna take baby steps, not a sudden slap across the face, to make it better over time.

And it needn't ever be perfect. Perfect is something we strive for, not demand. If you are 100% honest and 100% perfect every day of your life and it suits you well, well more power to you, but if you truly believe it I can assure you others aren't being honest with you. Hello, George Lucas (a brilliant creative led astray by bad faith and poor communication).

Everyone makes this mistake and there is no echelon too high for it. “Flat rate” bankrupted Rhythm and Hues. 

Learn that you’re more talented than the upper echelon now. Charge accordingly later. Learn how to charge way, way more so the even higher echelon that awaits won’t screw you over. (They got there by being good at screwing peons over, even screwing over Fincher on Alien 3!) But don’t worry about the credit hurting you. Either the project goes nowhere and no one knows about it or it goes somewhere and it’s a good credit. You’re potentially more fucked, however, if you’re above the line. Drop the directing or producing credit if you have one but don’t want it... but do so carefully. Drop the financial stake immediately.

An artist with a supervising role (one step down from above the line) on a historically top grossing blockbuster and a senior artist on features that have grossed billions told me this about free work (which I don’t do, so I apply this dictum to low rate work, but higher end people often will do free work to curry favor): stipulate a number of revisions and charge way more beyond them, but have that in the contract. If you don't, you'll be working free forever because the contract says you can and you will until you can't unless your client is fucking awesome. I've seen it. At the highest end.

Failing that, if you truly have no leverage, distance yourself and run out the clock. Time is money. If you have a flat rate as regards money, find a way to leverage your time. Don't let others' credits impress you. That's how they know you're a sucker. Deliver slowly. Establish an end date. Then run out the clock.

But also don't let the resentment build up and make things toxic. No, you can't be fully honest, but you need to change the relationship because it's bad to start with. Create a timetable and a reason why you need one (or maybe convince your client to create one around a festival submission or color grading date). Express at least some frustration. Push back. If you don't, your partner will assume you're behind this as much as she is and then you're leading her on in bad faith and that helps no one. It's toxic to you both. Find the leverage you still possess (time and skill are usually it if the contract doesn't specify money per revision or day) and leverage it, but do so honestly. She's not leading you on in bad faith. The real top brass will use the hell out of you, but it sounds like she's merely enthusiastic and naive in this particular capacity. It's not her fault, it's just bad communication.  Make things as good as you can, get what you can out of it, learn, fail, learn more, fail, learn, thrive.

Do so well and in five years you'll be directing Star Wars.