A lot of times, other filmmakers who will ask if I have my own to help them shoot something, and then they seem surprised when I tell them that I normally get another cinematographer or videographer who has their own to shoot. I mean I do that Canon T2i i mentioned on here before, but it's crap.

I own a telephoto lens, but that's because most camera operators do not use them, so I have them use it for telephoto shots I want. I have a crappy DSLR camera from 2010 which I have used for practice, but wouldn't want to use it on other people's shoots.

But does it make a bad impression if I don't have my own camera, when I am trying to make connections and break in? I keep being asked be the camera operator on shoots though, so if that is the job I keep being offered, and I'm trying to get ahead in the industry, should I just bite the bullet and be a camera operator, before being a director?

Directors don't need a camera, you only need one if you're also doing the camera work and even then many DP don't own a camera, they hire them.

You get work where you can get it, if you are being offered work to do camera, at the lower end it has advantages owning your own camera. However, you do need to know if you're getting paid for this and the market you're aiming at.

All this has nothing about being a director, since most camera people don't end up being directors. Documentary and corporate people commonly do both jobs, drama is different, as can be high end flagship documentaries.

The Lighting Designer that does loads of International, megastar shows all over the world is engaged because he's a damn good lighting designer. His role doesn't require equipment. In fact, quite a few professional documentary makers, broadcast stringers and other camer professionals no longer own kit because every project is different. If they need a Red, they hire one in, or maybe an Arri, or a Varicam, or a GoPro.

Your friends ask you because you're probably too cheap. If they ask you to 'direct', they might really just want a cheap video.

This is much of your trouble - you boom, you record audio, you run cameras, you try to direct, you just make movies and you are getting known as a jack of all trades who works for little money and tries to do every single job himself. You could specialise, but you seem to choose not to. If they are surprised when you say you get somebody else in to do these roles, then this type of client will dump you and go to them direct, because they just don't understand how it works and are not expecting a movie, just a typical small business video guy who shoots weddings, graduations and shows. They do NOT want a movie, just video.

Reading his posts I would share the same confusion what Ryan is, does or wants to be. Clearly he likes cinema but that alone doesn’t make you qualified to make or direct a film. I like cooking and enjoy making recipes at home and watching cooking shows but that doesn’t mean I’d be good at working or running a restaurant.

You say you want to be a director but then say you don’t enjoy directing actors and don’t exhibit leadership skills...

You also have tried and not liked doing many of task of making a film. While I can’t blame you it is a difficult process I’m not sure where that leaves you. On your own film you can give yourself any title and delegate everything you don’t want to do but that’s not going to translate well to anything outside of that bubble.

Back to your initial question, the camera is the primary tool and should be provided by whom ever is leading the project either they should own or rent it.

Oh I enjoy directing actors, I was just told that I was not the best at it, so therefore I thought maybe that portion of the directing should be left to a co-director maybe, or someone to get second opinions on for the performances.

I actually do want to do just one main job if I'm not directing and that is recording sound. I have much better audio equipment than video, and I feel I am better at it than video. But if I apply to record sound, like I often do, they will say they have that covered and they just want video instead. But they don't ask me to shoot videos like weddings often. We're talking actual short films here, with actors. The newest one they asked me to shoot is more higher budget with a SAG cast, and the pay is much better, so I wonder if I should take the camera operator position with my camera, if that's what they want, since they turned down my application to record sound, and asked me to shoot camera instead.

Are these people mad? You want to do sound and have to 'apply'??? then they ask you to do video, which you're ill equipped to do? It really sounds like they're incompetent. If we assume they are effective and knowledgeable, then they will have sought out the best people for each role. Do they want YOU, as Director, or you as somebody who has a camera that nobody else has?

You need to actualise this - WHY do they not want you to do sound, but they want you do camera op, when you are ill equipped and have already had so many issues with cameras that you want to give up and do audio - which you also seem weak on.


I really don't understand Ryan. Best advice is always to play to your strengths, yet you are about to expose your weaknesses all over again.

It's higher budget - enough to pay union rates to the actors, what about the production crew? Will you get an appropriate camera op fee AND they pay for the equipment hire?

I smell a rat being played on you again. Please stop accepting being taken for a sucker. If the sound recordist has his own equipment of a suitable standard he's going to be expensive - so probably what? $400 a day (difficult for me to swap UK to US) What's a camera operator worth with no kit? probably broadly similar. Specify a nice camera, lens and grip package and see what they say/

Well they said they already have the sound equipment and will do it, but need someone to operator camera. That is what they said. As for the equipment fee, I didn't go over that with them yet, cause I didn't say yes yet, but I could go over that first, without saying yes.

they are as mad as a box of frogs!

It’s clear to me they are hiring people based on the equipment they own. They don’t have a camera so if Ryan brings in a camera he can be a camera operator. They must have already found someone who owns their own audio equipment.

Yeah that's what I thought to, but at the same time, I am trying to make connections, and there will be actors and other crew there, plus it's higher paying than I've worked before, so a part of me says go for it maybe... They the same people who hired me to do their short films before, and wanted me to do camera mostly. They actually wanted me to do sound last time, which I preferred, but then that day, before I came I got a message asking if I could bring my camera and do that instead.

Ryan - HUGE alarm bells should be ringing. You say they have money and are hiring actors who are in the Guild? Paying real actors rates?

Yet they behave like college students, hiring people for their equipment.

If they have money - do they also have contracts, accounts that tax authorities would work with, insurance, money actually in the bank? Do they give you a proper clear paperwork pack with times, duties, roles, sundry item recovery information, or is it Hi - Ryan, can you bring your camera and we've found somebody else to do sound, so we'd love to have you and your equipment for $x for a few days, details to follow?

Ot sounds terrible to me. Amateurs with money are the worst people to work for.

Yes they definitely put more money into the acting talent compared to the crew talent.

Ryan, buddy...regardless of budget etc. these are garbage projects. You might want to start posting the email chains/communications you have about upcoming/potential jobs, and people here can start telling you if they're dumpster fires you should avoid (so far, all seem to have been).

Like they said, just 'cause they have money doesn't mean it's not a waste of your time. You want projects on which you can GROW and LEARN. These are not them.

Several hints that you are about to join a dumpster fire:

-people suddenly ask you to completely change the role youre doing for them (“can you shoot instead of doing sound?”)

-people ask you to provide gear not associated with your job title, i.e. directors would not typically need to provide a cam unless they are also the DP and those things will generally be done by separate people in all but the lowest budget projects

Seriously, start posting all their responses so people can tell you "yes this seems legit" or "no, run away and change your address". Hell, post ads youre thinking of responding to but havent yet, so you dont even waste your time to begin with.

That's also, of course assuming that these are REAL projects and not complete scams (there's a scam going around Houston, where I live, right now involving a company called Umoon Productions. There may very well be a real Umoon productions based out of Thailand -- they have a Vimeo page with samples etc. --- but that is not who is actually contacting people). So that's another fun thing to watch out for.

Just make your movie. The T2i is fine.

Ryan, buddy...regardless of budget etc. these are garbage projects. You might want to start posting the email chains/communications you have about upcoming/potential jobs, and people here can start telling you if they're dumpster fires you should avoid (so far, all seem to have been).

Like they said, just 'cause they have money doesn't mean it's not a waste of your time. You want projects on which you can GROW and LEARN. These are not them.

Several hints that you are about to join a dumpster fire:

-people suddenly ask you to completely change the role youre doing for them (“can you shoot instead of doing sound?”)

-people ask you to provide gear not associated with your job title, i.e. directors would not typically need to provide a cam unless they are also the DP and those things will generally be done by separate people in all but the lowest budget projects

Seriously, start posting all their responses so people can tell you "yes this seems legit" or "no, run away and change your address". Hell, post ads youre thinking of responding to but havent yet, so you dont even waste your time to begin with.

That's also, of course assuming that these are REAL projects and not complete scams (there's a scam going around Houston, where I live, right now involving a company called Umoon Productions. There may very well be a real Umoon productions based out of Thailand -- they have a Vimeo page with samples etc. --- but that is not who is actually contacting people). So that's another fun thing to watch out for.

Okay thanks, but I also want to make other connections though. I've met other cast and crew that I worked with as a result so far, so I thought that even a garbage project is good for that, if you can find other good connections...

Plus they are also tempting me with higher pay than other projects I have worked on before. Right now the current project has a budget of 50K, and investors may give them 4 million after the promotional trailer is shot, or at least they said.

Plus they have a named actor attached, so maybe it will turn out not half bad, budget, wise, if they have named actor attached?

Here's the thing, people ALWAYS say that stuff. How often is true? Pretty much never. Somewhere along the line, people starting telling filmmakers to "sound bigger than you really are", so everyone feeds everyone else a line of BS about how they're in talks with this network or that studio, and have this actor attached. If that stuff has any truth to it, it's the barest thread of a hint (i.e. they sent an email to someone at a newtork, or sent a script to that actor's agent). Anything that isn't 100% verified is highly suspect.

I still say based on everything you've said in every thread for that past year that you've so far attached yourself to garbage projects with clueless people attached to them. Yes, there is something to be said for networking, but the problem is this is the only stuff you've worked on, so you come away with these crazy ideas about how things can/should/could be done.

I think you should PA or intern on a real, honest-to-God budgeted project with an experienced crew/director etc. for a month or however long it lasts. I don't know how to tell you how to find those, but here's a hint: again, based on everything you've told us, if you're qualified for anything more than PA or intern on a project, it's probably not the right kind for you. The "real" ones don't just ask people to be sound guys or cam ops, they hire experienced, specialized folks for that stuff. Even the assistants to those people have to know their jobs/related gear inside and out. *I* would not be qualified to do anything more than those jobs on any set (unless it was insanely down in the dirt low end), and I feel like I'm at exactly your level as a filmmaker.

Not trying to be jerk here, but I have read most everything you've written on here and I feel like I know what I'm talking about.

Yeah I know what you mean but since I met the named actor with them that they talked about, I know that part is true... About the 4 million. Is it bad to ask for some proof on that before signing on? I've done PA on some feature film and short film shoots so far as well.

Named actors have to eat. Ian the diary is empty, then assuming they can be assured the movie will not paint them badly, they'll do it for minimums, or even less if convinced it's worth doing.

50K for a movie is not a big budget once they start talking about paying actors, and crew, plus the other stuff that kills budgets. Investors do NOT put in 4 million to a 50K project. it's ludicrous. What kind of people able to invest (not give) 4 million would be interested in people working at 50k levels? It makes no sense.

I'd really want to look into these people's finances before spending my own money. I'd also wonder if the 50K is properly budgeted and controlled - especially as there's no mention of contracts. Let's assume they're paying people at the very lowest kind of rate. How long is the shooting schedule? Have you even got dates? You know the people involved. Can you make the figures work for a paid production?

Dreamers is possibly the best description of them?

Oh they said that the investor is willing to put in 4K because of the named actor being interested now. I've gotten shoot dates so far, yes. And even if it's low pay, it's still higher than what I have had so far. So I thought maybe it's worth it for the money. I also talked them into having me do sound if I were to sign on, since I have better sound equipment and much comfortable in that area, compared to camera.

If you were the producer, how would you select the crew who are critical to the success? What would you put in an advert, what skills would you want, how many successes on the CV/resume? I cannot think of a single time when I asked somebody to do lights and they asked to do sound, or asked a director to run cameras? Huge alarm bells are ringing. In a production shortly I note there is no sound No.1 in the box. Everyone is suggesting good sound folk, but unless we find somebody good soon, the role will go to another sound type, just a less well known and competent one - NOT a lighting or video guy. I am quite comfy with sound, yet nobody asked me to cover this one. The business does not work with generalists. If you have nice sound gear (but can't get your head around boom noises) then would you expect the to trust you based on their historic viewpoint of your skill areas? You're only as good as your last job. A job starting in November has every single technical role going to people I trust. Two of them are not technically strong, but they're reliable and I can cover their weak areas because their benefits in other areas make up for it. None of them would make the list for anything other than what they are known for.

Yep...that right there tells me this is not a legit production. One does not say “can I do sound?” and have that work out well for them. Producers/whoever hires crew would typically start calling down a list of established sound folks with verifiable/legit credits. I know you say you are “more comfortable with sound” but your threads on here tell me you are not the kind of personnel I am talking about.

Well I'd be happy being just a pa, but they are picking me for sound now...

That probably means you won't be learning anything (useful) on this project.

You learn something useful on every project. Since this has turned in to career advice, money in video comes from commercials, corporate (love corporate, conferences and training) and (ugh) weddings. Do mainly that. Making movies is more like amateur theater. It can be fun. Why not forget about money from this source (at least for now) and just enjoy making some movies. Join your local movie making network. Get some creds from local and maybe national festivals, (local, helps if the organisers sister is in your movie, among my creds is 2007 Film Networking Industry Association Best Short Film, meaningless, from an entry of half a dozen, but looks good on a CV, and you get some trophies. Get on the mail list for your State Film Industry Office and go to their functions. Note some of these are lucky if they can attract one production annually, and that hires hardly any local crew. Or go to film school. You make lots of movies and get some contacts.

Oh okay, and the reason I do it for others is to make connections, when they work with new people and all.

People say I should send my last short into festivals, so I can try a few with that.

Actually for the first shoot, they tried doing audio themselves, but they said they cannot do it at all, and want me to do it now...

Actually they shot their first sequence, which is a scene at a campfire. However, they didn't use lights, and just used the campfire, but they said it turned out really good so far. I haven't seen the footage yet. But is it possible make a campfire look good without lights, when it is just a fire, or does it sound like they are doing things badly?

Perfectly possible with the right equipment and techniques, but based on what you've said so far, I suspect perhaps less success than claimed.

How good a camp fire lighting the scene looks depends on the dynamic range of your cameras, how acceptable any clipping is to the DP and the director and how close the subjects are to the fire. It's the sort of scene that film was better at than video because of the highlight handling, but with 14 to 15 stops now available on some digital cameras, it should be manageable with care.

However, in this case, it may be be just the thought they could do it. This isn't anything new, it's more how good the flames look in their scene.

In a way, the only killer would be noise in the blacks. It's the kind of scene that can have over saturated face tones, over bright flames and deep shadows, and the audience almost expect it. If they see people speaking who are soft, sparkles in the noise and critical things unlit - they notice those, so one of those scenes where less than ideal technical issues can be masked.

Were you not supposed to be doing audio?

Like all lighting, it's a balance between your highlights, the shadows and placing your subjects correctly.

Kubrick Candles - YouTube

In a way, the only killer would be noise in the blacks. It's the kind of scene that can have over saturated face tones, over bright flames and deep shadows, and the audience almost expect it. If they see people speaking who are soft, sparkles in the noise and critical things unlit - they notice those, so one of those scenes where less than ideal technical issues can be masked.

Were you not supposed to be doing audio?

She didn't call me for that scene and said no audio was necessary for that scene since it's a flashback done over narration, she said. I got the message from her later. She was using a Canon T3i, or T4i, or one of those types of models. I guess I'm just impressed, cause for me to get a fire that bright in the camera, you would constantly have to be spraying the fire with something flammable to get it bright enough it seems...

But they haven't asked to do the audio for the remaining shoots. I think what happened was, and this was just a guess, is that they are not getting me in order to save money, since they may not be able to pay me the wage they had said before. But that is just a guess.

A large enough fire will produce sufficient light, you don't need to add accelerants to the camp fire. just make sure that the subjects are at an appropriate distance.

Days of Heaven Campfire Scene - YouTube

Walk away Ryan - they're just wasting your time.

For what it's worth, NEVER put actors near a naked flame source and use accelerants. It's extremely dangerous and needs people who really understand how this works. As it happens, today I have been filling in the licence form for the pyros I'm using next month. As it's in a sensitive area, they want details of every item, how explosive it is, what it's stored in, who will be the person responsible and even transport of it is mentioned. The days of squirting lighter fluid on a bonfire are thankfully behind us - apart from idiots, of course!

Yeah...I was gonna say...T4i, lighting fire scene only with fire, telling you AFTER the shoot that they didnt need you and decided they wouldnt henceforth either...this sounds like the kind of garbage project I mentioned avoiding earlier.

Bet they did it hand-held too!

I don't know, I didn't see any of the footage.

Sorry Ryan - it was irony, not a question!