Bill Davis
Forum Replies Created
-
I think what John is saying (and an approach I heartily agree with, for what that’s worth) is that you don’t want to position ANY fixture such that if the white board was a MIRROR – you could see the lit face of the instrument itself. That’s what leads to “hot spots.”
Instead, you use your lights to light up a REFLECTIVE SURFACE – in this case the large sheet of foam core – which then becomes the surface reflecting light onto your scene.
This hopefully makes for a very large light source relative to the white board and provides a very diffuse, even light without the aforementioned hot spots.
Then you add the talent key from a position where it falls on the talent but NOT on the whiteboard. Essentially a “side key” positioned so that the talent faces it and therefore it brings the presenters face up so that the audience can read expression and take visual cues from the presenter without spilling light onto the white board.
That help?
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Conner
-
Make the environment irrelevant by using a headworn mic like a Countryman E6 or less pricy equivalent.
Superb voice pickup – little to no effect of the space surrounding the mic.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Conner
-
Maybe try this.
Just say “I’ll happily to rip off this music, but first you’ve got to give me a copy of your car keys.”
They’ll ask “why?”
Reply that if you’re going to be forced into a game where it’s cool to steal from other people merely because it’s easy or convenient, you’d like to be fully prepared when the game moves to the next level.
😉
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Conner
-
That’s very smart.
But the OP specified that there was no written agreement in this case.
All sorts of “breech of contract” possibilities come into play if you do have a contract.
Without one you largely have conjecture between two parties unless you opt for court and have witnesses.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Conner
-
Actually, in my experience a “crunching” sound coming from a tripod head has NEVER been anything but a bad thing.
Ever.
Period.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Conner
-
What mark says…
Plus, considering that humans come in a pretty astonishing range of skin tones – which vary depending on small things like how much time they’ve spent outdoors in any particular month – trying to do makeup with less than a decent pro makeup kit is an exercise in frustration.
Also, trust me you don’t EVER want to get a call from Talent B that they’ve picked up some kind of transmittable infection because somebody screwed up and didn’t know how to keep their makeup tools sanitary between actors. This is NOT home makeup. It’s a business investment.
My 2 cents.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Conner
-
Mark,
Look, I agree that the camera guy has absolute ownership rights. That’s not in dispute.
What IS in dispute is whether he has any SENSIBLE path to recourse. And I’m sorry, but the legal system of 2011 in America, is NOT kind to small claims like this.
Sure he can sue. The American system of jurisprudence allows anyone to sue anyone else for darn near anything. But in what court, for how much, and at a cost of how much grief and hassle?
In small claims court he can likely even get a judgement. (Heck, sometimes the other party doesn’t even show up!) Which yeilds a summary judgement and a lovely piece of paper from the court. The problem is that in practice, there’s really no mechanism for FORCING someone to honor such a judgement even after it’s issued on your claim. You can’t attach wages or do anything other than spend even MORE money on further litigation trying to leverage the money out of the deadbeats.
If this is a big bill (above the small claims limits – then you’re even MORE screwed, since you pretty much HAVE to invest in legal help in order to navigate that system. Which means you’re likely throwing MORE money after the original bad money.
The real point of all this is that if you have even the slightest inkling of the tiniest possibility that someone isn’t going to pay you for your tapes DON’T GIVE THEM UP UNTIL YOU’RE PAID. Period. Full Stop. End of sentence.
That practice is the single dependable piece of free leverage you will ever have in a pay dispute at this level – cuz once you surrender the goods – you might as well kiss your money goodbye IF that’s what the other party intends.
It’s a harsh lesson. But I bet virtually everybody here has had to learn it the hard way along their career path.
My 2 cents anyway.
Again, the guy who shot the stuff is absolutely in the right. But being right is NO guarantee that you’ll get your money in the end.
Hopefully, this will be the exception and it’s just a communications snarl. But in a bad economy like this – so many people are scraping by that not getting paid by a middleman is becoming more and more prevalent.
Forewarned is forearmed and all.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Conner
-
The camera guy has all the “moral leveragel” he can get people to react to – because he absolutely owns the rights to the footage.
The problem is that “moral leverage” is generally worth squat in business disputes.
The problem is that he has no functional pre-emptive way to prevent his footage from being used in any way shape or form. The footage cat is out of the bag. Once he turned it in to the client – all his leverage disapeared.
In order to prevail, the camera guy can only threaten, cajole, and use the ‘court of public opinion” to prevail.
The other side needs a single lie – “he said we could use the footage” – and they’re golden unless he can PROVE otherwise.
Sucks, but there is is.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Conner
-
In FCP-7 if a clip needs primary rendering (red bar), it will not play out period. You must render it fully if you want to see what that section of the timeline’s output actually looks like.
In FCP-X if a clip needs primary rendering – the software presents a a functional copy to the user for evaluation even if the complete render is not complete.
When processor cycles are available (generally triggered by a user defined “mouse idle” threshold time) the software automatically goes back to “finalizing” the stream and continues until all assets are optimized to the timeline standards.
The functional difference is that while you can work with, change, basically judge, and try alternatives to your hearts content (unlike FCP-7) before “finalizing” — you can’t actually output a master of your project until all the background rendering is complete.
Hope that helps.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Conner
-
Generally a bad idea unless you’re going to key things.
Look at the framing. Any vignette applied to the entire frame will shadow the head of the subject as well as the background.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Conner