[John Sharaf]

Dan,

In all likelihood your insurance will not cover the loss, because your equipment was under the custody and control of your client/producer. Contact your insurance agent immediately, file a police report and then read your insurance contract very carefully (as you should have done already).

It is very important that you have your client provide you with a certificate of insurance for both misc. rental equipment (loss) and liability and in addition, have them sign a rental agreement specifying that they will pay the deductible in case of loss.

There are certain clients, namely the major news networks, who will not provide such certification, as they are essentially self insured, and require the crews to insure themselves. This gets a little more dicey.

Finally, if it turns out that your insurance does cover the loss, at least request that your client pay the deductible, especially because as you describe it, the producer was negligent in not controlling the case with the lens in it.

Las Vegas is notorious for having video gear stolen. I lost a camera in a crowd there many years ago. If nothing else, the loss should make you more vigilant as regards the control and custody of your equipment when on location and exposed and more insistent and persistent in requiring proper certs and agreements from clients even on a one day job.

JS

[John Sharaf]

John,

I appreciate your calm tone and reasoned logic, and you’re right this is a good discussion!

Furthermore, you’re absolutely right about the pressures on established rates due to the state of the economy, low ballers, bottom feeders and cheaper cameras, but I believe the pendulum is always in motion and even though it looks bad now, I do feel that us old timers may have our day once more and see our experience reflected in enhanced rates, in fact, it’s in our power to structure the deals we make to do just that.

I know for sure that I do command a higher rate when I work with my Cine Altas or Varicams than I did with my Betacams, but I do wonder what will happen with both labor and equipment rates once the PDW700 settles in as the camera for all seasons. As I’m sure you know, it costs a little more than half of the Varicam (original price) and about half of the Sony F900R, so I suspect the package rental will end up close to what Betacam was, especially as it becomes adopted by most freelancers, and I believe it will be by virtue of it’s acceptance by CBS and NBC and it’s ability to shoot both 1080 and 720, as well as SD in NTSC and PAL, etc.

I know that folks are getting disproportionate rental rates for HDX900’s (as we know it’s an under $30K investment for body and vf) vs. over $50K that many of us paid for the Varicam three and four years ago, and these inflated rentals will not go on forever. The economics of HD camera ownership require early adoption to allow enough time to turn into profit and there’s always the chance that premature obsolescence will rear its ugly head.

What little I do know about salesmanship and negotiation, I learned on the only “real” job I ever had, and that was one summer when I was in film school many years ago, as a Good Humor man, selling ice cream from a truck. I learned right away to ask my young customers as they raced up the truck not what they wanted, but how much they had to spend. This is a strategy that continues to serve me well to this day with film and television producers.

My only advice is to structure the deal to take all of their money by discounting the gear as much as you have to, while retaining the labor rates and conditions to our advantage. This strategy assures the maintainance of a respected position for the cameraperson and their crew, while letting the producer still feel that they’re getting a good deal on the gear; as good if not better than the dry hire rates from a competitive rental vendor. Everyone gets what they want/need.

JS

[John Sharaf]

John,

I don’t want to get into a pissing match, but the reality is that when this client negotiates with the next cameraperson (for whatever reason) the first thing they’ll say is the last guy didn’t charge them overtime and they will not pay overtime. I’ve seen it before, many times, even as regards negotiating a 12 hour deal at a 10 hour rate, and the subtleties of portal-to-portal, and on and on. We cannot fault the producer for doing their due diligence and trying to save their precious budget.

Of course we all want to make our clients happy, and appreciative of our service, but overtime especially is a long fought term which can easily erode, especially for the rest of the crew, who are not benefiting from the rental aspect of the business.

Obviously this job has already been codified and I’m not suggesting that you try to modify the terms, just keep a mental note how it works out for you and the rest of the crew and you might reconsider this stance next time. For myself, overtime is sacrosanct and it’s the least I can do to protect the rest of the crew as I negotiate the deal for all of us.

JMHO

JS

[John Sharaf]

Chroma means color and the fact is that you can “key” with almost any color as long as it does not appear in the foreground object. Green is most popular because it is never in skin tone and rarely in wardrobe; if it is simply choose another color (blue obviously is the second choice). Furthermore green is chosen because it is so “bright” and requires the least amount of lighting to bring it to the stop under foreground exposure which is ideal.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Now, you’re talking dangerous precedents. If you do not charge for meetings and prep, overtime, extras that they ask for, you’re not only ruining it for yourself but for others. Overtime in particular is a very sensitive area; it is the only way we have to keep the producer honest and not abuse the crew in lieu of union contracts and universally accepted terms.

The broadcast news networks have long established five-for-four and seven-for-five rental weeks that are quite fair and still advantageous for owner/operators (even if they have to go out and subrent at a three day week they can still make money). In addition it minimizes the difference in cost between dry hiring the gear and hiring an operator with out gear.

In addition in these ling term assignments there is often travel and layover involved, so again the four or five day rentals advantage the owner operator and preclude having to agree to half day rates for travel, and renegotiating based on changes that inevitably occur in longform production.

As the economy sours, we must all make an effort to hold firm on these terms (5 for 4, 7 for 5, overtime, pay for prep/meet/travel, etc.) and if necessary negotiate the daily rate and not these hard fought terms. Ultimately it will benefit everyone, even the producers who find comfort in at least being able to accurately predict their costs.

JS

[John Sharaf]

I don’t mean to gloat, but it looks like I was correct vis-a-vis the timeframe for the full-on 24p PDW700. Sony is now saying June 2009 delivery of 24p “software key”.

JS

[John Sharaf]

Dan,

It’s quite common for owner/operators to discount weekly or longer rentals on the basis of five for four or seven for five. Of course if the producer was renting the gear from a rental house they could get a three day week or even better if more than a month long term, but a cameraman’s kit is usually cheaper because the package price is still less than the a la carte total of all the parts you’d include vs.a rental company, even less the nominal 30% discount and three day week.

Furthermore, a cameraman’s kit is less of a liability in terms of loss and damage, because to a certain extent the cameraman himself is responsible not to loose or break his own gear. Of course you must get a certificate of insurance from your client for liability and misc. rental equipment because your insurance will not cover you when you are working for, and under the control of a producer.

JS

JS

[John Sharaf]

The real issue is the color space; 601 vs 709. This is reflected in the matrix and really has effect in the matrix off or zero positions. That is to say that there would probably be a good color match between HDX900 in SD gamma and SDX900 where both matrix’s are off. Once you turn on the matrix and “paint” a picture all bets for color match are off. Furthermore the SDX900 gamma would need to be a in similar setting, namely not filmlike, probably most bland setting. The acid test would be to monitor the two outputs on a waveform/vectorscope whilst looking at a DSC Chroma du Monde Chart and observe the match carefully. At this point you can easily make the necessary adjustments to gamma, matrix, etc/

JS

[John Sharaf]

Bob,

Simple is the key; either a 2′ or 4′ Kino Flo or similarly sized Chimera as the key light. No backlight, to keep it looking less lit and ambiance on the back wall or another simple wash from the same direction as the key.

As far as filtering, it’s hard to judge with a .jpg or even any reproduction on the internet. If shot HD, I suspect there is no filtering at all, just maybe nominal detail or slightly reduced. If SD then the most common diffussion is Schneider Classic Soft 1/2. Netting like Christian Dior or Fogal is reserved for aging Diva’s like Barbara Walters, although, like I say, when we shoot her in High Def (with Varicams) we use no filfers at all.

JS

[John Sharaf]

For a start, at least relamp the store with all of the same kind of tubes. They are cheap and it will only take a few minutes to do. If there’s daylight coming into the shop (either from windows or skylight) I’d get cool whites or preferably daylight balanced (6000 degree Kelvin) photo grade fluoros or if not them 3200 degree photo grade tubes. Gelling with plus green never seems to work from my experience as you’re making a green light not a green spike. The best solution and most elegant is as was suggested in the first reply, namely to “poison” a flour set of lights, usually four-foot kinos with the same globes as are in the overheads and white balance. Voila, no gels, no mismatch and very little fuss and bother.

JS