Wages Of Big Hit DP's

[Stephen Williams]

i assumed it since this is the reduser forum. and the price tag makes a little more sense and not so extravagent for a show reel if you include red plus other stuff.

Hi,

$10,000 a day DOP's don't very often have equipment, in any case they would charge for it above their day rate. The vast majority of high end commercials are shot on film usually with an Arri 435, if one really wants to get into that league shooting a cheaper more affordable format is probably not the way to go. The people you want to impress are not looking to save money, if they were they would take a DOP charging $3,000 or less!

Stephen

 

[DanWood]

So, my plan is to invest a min of $50k -$100k wisely in a demo using the red entirely of course. I would however only do this if I had a pretty good chance I could charge 10k/day as a DP. Of course I understand even after my 100k reel investment I need to get some big jobs under my belt first. Perhaps 15-25 commercials?
Is this realistic or am i living a dream?
Also I have heard some of these ASC guys can charge 30k per day for commercials. Is this true?

I would say, $500/day is more realistic.
If you wanrt to work on a low budget feature film, for experience, e-mail me mathew@consultant.com

 

[laguun]

Hi,
$10,000 a day DOP's don't very often have equipment, in any case they would charge for it above their day rate.

Many of the $$.$$$ dps i know, and/or work with together, do own lots of gear (including post). In fact, some even have their own production companies. This is especially true for automobile commercials and promos.

The vast majority of high end commercials are shot on film usually with an Arri 435, if one really wants to get into that league shooting a cheaper more affordable format is probably not the way to go.

my experience with $$$.$$$ and $.$$$.$$$ budget commercials is different.

The people you want to impress are not looking to save money, if they were they would take a DOP charging $3,000 or less!
Stephen

Hm, while there are money-doesnt-matter jobs, they have become quite rarer in the last 15 years, espc. since & after 9/11.

Many top-end money-waster companies and networks went bankrupt and were bought by more cost efficient competitors. And i am pretty certain that the buyers i know from the automotive industry in germany would rather smile if they read that they spend money to "impress people".

In fact many buyers today spend $$.$$$ for production security, for quick turnarounds, splendid service etc. Many car manufacturers also try the short route, cutting the agency out for many films (trade shows etc).

I however agree that the types of job you describe is absolutely existing still and has its niches. But profit became -much- more important meanwhile, and many large brands (deutsche bank, masterfoods (aka catsan etc), daimler, nike, to name a few from the usual suspect industries) are certainly neither impressed by $$.$$$ figures nor do they like to cut them off their profits.

And red does and will see its use in top-commercials, several examples can already found in the footage forum here.

However, to be completly honest - i prefer to stay away from the advertising world. Its an interesting playfield, but i honestly dislike many of the archetypes... "truth in advertising" is a nice short to sum up several of them

if you dont know it: HIGHLY recommended:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Go_VtqtxCHY

 

[Joe D'Arcy]

Each to their own. There are no certainties. Whether it means throwing out $100K or doing it all for free, it all entails risk and luck. My personal path would be to follow adobeone konobis' suggestion. Given that you are knowingly taking the risk on a living project and not on a contrived reel.

 

[Stephen Williams]

my experience with $$$.$$$ and $.$$$.$$$ budget commercials is different.

Hi,

You're saying most high end commercials are shot on video then?

Stephen

 

[M Most]

Hi,

You're saying most high end commercials are shot on video then?

I don't know about Europe and other world markets, but in the US, that is most definitely not the case.

 

[laguun]

Hi,

You're saying most high end commercials are shot on video then?

Stephen

No.
Its any format today.
DV, S16, HDCAM, 35mm, Nikon & Canon DSLRs on MoCos, and yes, even mobile phone cameras. Anything which makes sense.

Its about creativity and success today.
Not about the format. That is secondary.

In the PAL/NTSC TV space 30sek+reminder shortforms we still get most stuff on 35 (however less every year).
image & corp we get more HDCAM than 35mm, especially for these ($).$$$.$$$ large multi-screen venues. In fact -all- trade shows projects / digital signage we have done in the recent 5 years were HDCAM.
For virals we see everything.

HDCAM originated commercial TV-Stuff i personally did have a role in in the recent years was FIFA, SIEMENS, Anna Netrebko, City of Berlin, NIKE, FERRERO, DAIMLER, ADDIDAS to name a few international A-Brands.

Finally, it highly depends on your location.
Here in Berlin, the industry aims to be recognized to offer excellent pricing, highly talented and qualified craft, with a relaxed and very quick turnaround and implementing cost advantages for the producers - and certainly not by trying to impress people with extremely high wages.
This might be one of the reasons why this area gets more and more top-class work, from A-budget fullfeature to international campaign.

Finally:
While there are almost endless long list of excellent 35mm, its rare to get world-top-class red DPs yet.
So i certainly would recommend to -emphasize- that heavily sought after qualification. Remember, you already find Apple, Ford etc shooting commercials on RED, with footage posted here on reduser, and there are -few- car or phone specialist who master red, many who know 35 - yet.

I think RED will do the same to the TV agency world what the DSLRs done to the printcampaign agency world.
Why loose time in the lab, why risk an wrong exposure due to stock/lab issues, (just recently Tom Cruise lost -days- of shooting as Kodak/Arri destroyed his footage) etc. Time and turnaround are critical factors in many areas of agency work, especially with product launches, and films slow workflow is a problem for this kind of work. Since a (i wont tell who, but one of germanys 3 largest) lab screwed us 6 reels of original negative 35mm stock in 2000 for a mercedes SL spot, i am became pretty immune to any "35mm is it for commercial" discussion. wishful thinking imho.

 

[Stephen Williams]

No.
Its any format today.
DV, S16, HDCAM, 35mm, Nikon & Canon DSLRs on MoCos, and yes, even mobile phone cameras. Anything which makes sense.

Its about creativity and success today.
Not about the format. That is secondary.

Hi,

Are you talking about commercials where the DP is earning $10,000 a day, or just generally?

Stephen

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Film is not particularly prone to be ruined any more than a digital shoot has problems that make footage unusable. Mistakes happen, but on average, film is pretty reliable or else insurance companies wouldn't let people use it. I shot about a million feet of film on "Big Love" and had a technical problem on one shot in the course of seven months of shooting, and even the one shot ruined had an alternative take that was fine.

On my current feature, we tested a new digital camera (won't say which one) for some specialty shots alongside a film camera... and now we have to schedule a reshoot for the digital test because there is something wrong with the footage that can't be fixed in post (a pattern problem that is visible in the blacks). And this is after I assured the studio that it was safe to shoot some of the movie digitally on this camera. Luckily it was only a test.

On the other hand, I heard yesterday that a studio division has also been exploring the idea of requiring that their medium and small budget projects shoot entirely digitally, not for reliability, just for the cost reasons, which is a new trend -- however, they are picky about which digital camera systems you propose to them (they feel comfortable with the Genesis, for example). But so far, half the producers and directors that are making movies for the studio have argued successfully to let them shoot on film instead.

But I don't really buy the notion that film is too unreliable to shoot, nor that mistakes never happen with digital in comparison. As long as movies are made by human beings using machines, there will be occasional problems.

Shooting major commercials on film in the U.S. is not "wishful thinking" it's standard operating procedure these days.

Personally, I think the everyday fear of sending your film to the lab will be replaced someday by the everyday fear of dumping the contents of your on-camera recorders to LTO tapes and hard drives and hoping seven months in the future or so when you do the D.I. that all the footage is retrievable and convertible from RAW to RGB...

 

[Stephen Williams]

Shooting major commercials on film in the U.S. is not "wishful thinking" it's standard operating procedure these days.

Hi David,

Than you for confirming that.

Stephen

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Obviously there are smaller commercials and local spots in the U.S., most of which have gone over to shooting digitally. Just as most content for TV is shot digitally... yet most major network and cable dramatic TV shows in the U.S. are shot on film.

 

[laguun]

Hi,

Are you talking about commercials where the DP is earning $10,000 a day, or just generally?

Stephen

any.

for TV-commercials most high earning DP i met or work with use with 35mm.
for tradeshow/fair/product launch most high earning DPi i met or work with use with HDCAM/video
for the hip-"director" genre, where DP i secondary, i see them using anything.

creativity first, format second. and certain formats are suited better for special purposes than others. car shooting, as example, was not very good with the low framerates of the 1st generation hdcams, not with red its interesting. Or the venue we are doing right now in 8K (or 8*1920*1080, to be precise) is better suited with red than any other format etc.
many agencies here understand these things meanwhile.

however, as i mentioned, your mileage will vary depending on your local circumstances, i just can comment on berlin and several parts of germany.

 

[laguun]

Personally, I think the everyday fear of sending your film to the lab will be replaced someday by the everyday fear of dumping the contents of your on-camera recorders to LTO tapes and hard drives and hoping seven months in the future or so when you do the D.I. that all the footage is retrievable and convertible from RAW to RGB...

Already here since 2002... however -perfect- backups and -perfect- on set monitoring are instruments one should use to overcome such problems. Also they help to avoid the mentioned mistakes which forced you to improvise, as they do cost time and money - check on set and backup is paramount for us.

 

[ac/jc]

Finally:
While there are almost endless long list of excellent 35mm, its rare to get world-top-class red DPs yet.
So i certainly would recommend to -emphasize- that heavily sought after qualification. Remember, you already find Apple, Ford etc shooting commercials on RED, with footage posted here on reduser, and there are -few- car or phone specialist who master red, many who know 35 - yet.
.

What are the obstacles that would prevent a "world class DP" versed in 35mm from transferring his skills, (ie: compositon, framing, lighting, mood, running and organizing a large crew/set, working with the director.) to the Red camera? Is there a learning curve, etc? New tools are always showing up and I think any artist will treat it as a new paintbrush and implement the use into their toolbox. I know that so far here in Canada, there are a couple rental houses that will have red packages available, so work won't be limited to owner/operators for long, it will become a "proper tool for the proper job" situation much like happened with HDCAM. Also, what is "red qualification" ?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Either a DP is good at what they do (making images) or they aren't -- the particular piece of equipment used is secondary, though of course you have to learn how to use it. But there are no "Red DP's" anymore than there are "Kodak DP's" versus "Fuji DP's" versus "HDCAM DP's" versus "DVCPRO HD DP's" versus "HDCAM-SR DP's" versus "Viper DP's" versus "Phantom DP's" -- either you are a good DP or you aren't.

Obviously we are at too early a stage for there to be a high experience level using the RED camera for many top industry cinematographers. It took years for many cinematographers to do projects on HDCAM, for example.

But the line between people who shoot digitally and those who shoot on film has been blurring for a decade now. For most of us in the middle range, and for those up and coming, it's inevitable that we have to learn to use both technologies and all the new ones that come along.

 

[Greg M]

The typical rate for a DP on a 35mm commercial shoot in the U.S. ranges from $3,500/day to $15,000/day. Obviously you get what you pay for, but from my experience you can still find many great DP's in the $3-5k range. Just finished a job w/ an outstanding DP who is at the upper end of the pay scale and he has no shortage of work.

 

[ac/jc]

Either a DP is good at what they do (making images) or they aren't -- the particular piece of equipment used is secondary, though of course you have to learn how to use it. But there are no "Red DP's" anymore than there are "Kodak DP's" versus "Fuji DP's" versus "HDCAM DP's" versus "DVCPRO HD DP's" versus "HDCAM-SR DP's" versus "Viper DP's" versus "Phantom DP's" -- either you are a good DP or you aren't.

Thank you David, you made the point I was getting at much more clearly. My typing never emphasizes my tone of voice.

The Red camera will be welcomed into the fold of technology available to every DP at some point. I've strayed way off the topic of this thread.

 

[laguun]

guys, i agree with mmost what was written in the posts.

please keep in mind that it wasnt -me- who recommended to shoot everything in one format.

s. w. did that. I said that creativity first, format second as general methodolgy has arrived also in the commercials business and i dont have any shortage of willig film/mchanical cam dps here, but indeed one of red/digital dps. Your locaal producers POV might vary.

 

[J.R. Hud]

Either a DP is good at what they do (making images) or they aren't -- the particular piece of equipment used is secondary, though of course you have to learn how to use it. But there are no "Red DP's" anymore than there are "Kodak DP's" versus "Fuji DP's" versus "HDCAM DP's" versus "DVCPRO HD DP's" versus "HDCAM-SR DP's" versus "Viper DP's" versus "Phantom DP's" -- either you are a good DP or you aren't.

Obviously we are at too early a stage for there to be a high experience level using the RED camera for many top industry cinematographers. It took years for many cinematographers to do projects on HDCAM, for example.

But the line between people who shoot digitally and those who shoot on film has been blurring for a decade now. For most of us in the middle range, and for those up and coming, it's inevitable that we have to learn to use both technologies and all the new ones that come along.

I have always said, that Janusz could take a candle, a firefly and some tinfoil and create a masterpiece while others could screw it up with a entire grip truck.

 

[Stephen Williams]

Hi Laguun,

When? I was never speaking about everything!

Stephen