Off with the old and...never mind

[Eric Toline]

Oh, I think I can top these. Or, at least match them.

A few years ago I was starting a small straight-to-video film. The production company had rented some office space in a building on Magnolia Blvd. in Burbank that largely serviced the entertainment industry. The previous client in that suite had been another film production company or an editing client. In any event, the largest room was dominated by a six-plate KEM that had yet to be moved out. I made a comment to the editor about cutting on a KEM and he didn't know what I was talking about, didn't know what a KEM was. I then referenced the gigantic beast dominating the very room where we were sitting. (truly the elephant in the room) He replied that he didn't know what that was.

David Waelder

Imagine if there were movieolas instead of Kems or Steenbecks.

Eric

[EricL]

That's sad, i've only been out of film school for 5 years and the first thing they made us do when we started shooting film and sync sound was transfer nagra to mag stock, sync the sound on a steenbeck, send the reels off for marking (i can't remember what it was called now but where they print the matching numbers on the edge of the film so you can cut it all up and have the right sound and picture matched, anywhoo) then edit the film on the steenbeck.  Maybe i was just lucky and went to a school that cared to expose you to it all.  Oh well.

Eric

[RPSharman]

I am very lucky to have a dear family friend who has been a successful editor for over 40 years.  When I moved to Los Angeles in 1986, everything was still film.  I was fortunate enough to be able to visit her editing suites and see all the 35mm film EVERYWHERE.  It was very cool.  She reluctantly switched to computer editing mid 1990s, but quickly embraced its flexibility.  She did say that working with film made every decision a little more "permanent" and therefore required greater thought and consideration.  Directors and producers wouldn't come in and ask to see what would happen if she shaved a few frames here and added a few more there.

When my friend Steve Morrow and I produced our short a few years ago, we only performed the edit on computer.  We did a complete 35mm work flow, including a negative cut and multiple film prints.  These days, most festivals available to the average citizen wouldn't know what to do with a film print.  It's a real shame.

Robert

[Eric Toline]

That's sad, i've only been out of film school for 5 years and the first thing they made us do when we started shooting film and sync sound was transfer nagra to mag stock, sync the sound on a steenbeck, send the reels off for marking (i can't remember what it was called now but where they print the matching numbers on the edge of the film so you can cut it all up and have the right sound and picture matched, anywhoo) then edit the film on the steenbeck.  Maybe i was just lucky and went to a school that cared to expose you to it all.  Oh well.

Eric

You had it right. It was called edge numbering. I believe it was a number every 24 frames (1 second). After the work print and the mag track were edited it went off to the negative cutter who matched the negative to the work print by matching the cuts based on the edge numbers: i.e. 12 frames after # xxxx cut, then splice to 6 frames after # xxxx) a very labor intensive, critical job.

Eric ( the other one)

[Philip Perkins]

We've been over this so many times, I guess it doesn't matter any more.  But shooting in film DID make people more attentive to what they were doing.  Exposing film was expensive and irrevocable, one was ready before it was rolled, paid fanatical attention during the roll, and seriously considered whether more takes were needed.  The responsibility laid on each department was MUCH greater to avoid causing the need for retakes due to their error.  In MY film school we not only shot film (and not much either), we processed and printed it as well--so we REALLY thought about what we were doing....  There was an aspect to the crafts of filmmaking that was much more akin to that of live theatre than the way video is shot now, and I must say I miss that.

Philip Perkins

[RPSharman]

Having done many projects on film as well as on video over the last 5 years, I must agree with Philip.  Shooting on film makes a difference to everyone on set, even if it's on a subconscious level.  I like to believe I try equally hard regardless of the project.  I believe that although a $100k HD indie might not "matter" as much to everyone, it matters a lot to the person putting up the money and it matters a lot to the filmmakers who are getting their break or trying to make something happen for themselves.  It's my job to do the best I can to help them with their project.  But that said, there is just a different feeling when you walk on set and see a film camera instead of a RED or some other video camera.  There is simply no denying it.

Robert

[John Blankenship]

It's a Yoda type of thing.  As Yoda said, "Do or don't do, there is no try."  But, with video you commonly hear, "Let's try one."  With film, you "do" a shot -- because every foot is precious.

Part of the magic of film comes from the fact that it is for real.  With video you can record again on the same tape or reuse the hard drive, but with film it is permanent -- etched for the ages, so you'd better mean it.  It makes a huge difference.

Of course, the holy grail of video is to look "just like film."  I contend that nothing looks more like film than film.

Like Robert said, film creates a different vibe on the set.  Yes, it really does have a "magic."

John B.

[soundtrane]

key code. still a very much required entity with film.

-vin

[John Coffey]

FWIW, as a mixer, I would want to maximize my investment more too.  However, over-all, today's prices are much less expensive than 20 years ago, especially when you factor for inflation.  As a retailer, I'm a bit biased (buy, buy, buy...whoops, sorry about that), but I'm also always amazed that we get such good quality at these prices.  Especially since most of the gear we use, is sold to such a tiny specialized market.  Actually, what amazes me is how much mixers are now willing to spend on the metal cart itself.  Now that has skyrocketed.

Facts:

More than 15 years ago, I sold Crew his Nagra IV-STC for far more than any recorder costs today (except the French one).  The fact is that all the American and Japanese made recorders are much less expensive now.  DAT was cheap, but file-based recording has already outlasted that short-lived era.  Many production sound mixers never even bought a DAT recorder at all (darn).

More than 15 years ago, I sold a quad box of Audio Limited for 20 grand.  The wireless today are cheaper and pretty damn reliable. 

More than 15 years ago, I sold Cooper mixing panels for far more than most mixing panels today.

Dems da facts

[RPSharman]

Recorders were a great deal more expensive, considering inflation, as were the mixers.  But I am curious what the rental was 15 years ago, as compared to now, and 15 years ago we did not have side letter agreements and low budget contracts.  I'm sure that the investment in a Cooper and a Nagra and a quad box had a faster rate of return in "those days" than today's investment of 8 wireless systems, back-up recorders, multiples of everything, etc., especially with the need to constantly upgrade to the latest version.  Components may indeed be less expensive (except microphones), but we simply are required to have more of them and replace them more often.  Good for retailers ;-)

[Mick]

Back in "the day" you didn't expect the the equipment you spent so much money on to be obsolete in less than a year. It's not the price comparisons that matter so much as the so called advancement of the technology that drives most of what we use these days, with some exceptions. Even if a nagra cost more than some of today's digital machines, it had a shelf life of more than twenty years in some cases. I bought my first Nagra in '88 and used it continuously until three years ago. That's value. I'm sure that some guys out there used their Nagras for even longer than that. The only expense I incurred with mine was to convert it to time code. My whole problem with gear today is the expectation that it will have a short life span. If you factor that into the cost then the "then and now" comparisons are meaningless, because if you have to spend ten thousand dollars for a recorder, and then, in order to stay current, spend the same amount and sometimes more several times over the next year or two, then the cost differential is substantially more than... you get the picture.

Oh well, sign of the times. It applies just as much to cameras so we're in good company.

MIck

[RPSharman]

It seems along with 35mm, gone is on-set protocol.  It's been touched on in the thread about two beeps to signify a cut.

It's becoming increasingly rare on some sets to hear a 1st AD call "ROLL SOUND", repeated by a PA or two - then we wait for the boom operator to say "SPEED" - then the camera operator indicates to the 2nd AC to hit the sticks, which is traditionally preceded by "MARKER" or a calling out of the scene number (depending on where you live).  It's not like "speed" means any more than "ready", but shouldn't they wait for "ready"?  And if that isn't confusing enough when it doesn't happen properly, directors are neglecting to call "CUT" at the end of the take, often times just wandering onto set, or leaving an actor waiting to know if they are supposed to be doing something else.  Even worse is the "KEEP ROLLING" instead of the cut, as they charge onto set to give some notes.  Editors must love watching background resetting, props re-propping, directors directing - and obviously they didn't like the take they just finished, so why not have it tacked on to the front of next take which they might actually want to keep.

Whew...that was fun!  Go gray, turn 40, get grumpy - not necessarily in that order.

[studiomprd]

"More than 15 years ago, I sold Crew his Nagra IV-STC for far more than any recorder costs today (except the French one)"

right, and how many years did it serve as his primary (and only!) recorder (sure, backup was nearby, but we only ran one recorder routinely!)

" Even if a nagra cost more than some of today's digital machines, it had a shelf life of more than twenty years in some cases. "

exactly, consider the cost/year to be properly equipped in this business

[John Coffey]

consider the cost/year to be properly equipped in this business

It's not all quite that simple.  A lot depends on at which point someone jumps into new gear.

 

For example, Time-Code Nagras made our perfectly fine 4.2 Nagras obsolete.  I remember the huge resistance to that technological change over.  I was one of them.  I hated that we got no benefit from buying into it.  However, many who jumped in early, convinced producers to pay them more. I re-call that David Kirschner was one of the first to get a Time-Code Nagra at $7,500.  As they saturated the market, Nagra kept jacking up the price, eventually up to $16,000+!!! 

Still others, danced around long enough to never have to buy a STC Nagra and made an early transition to DAT.  Many of them were able to convince producers to pay more for the DAT rental, until enough mixers had them as an ordinary part of their package. 

And others hung onto their STC Nagras and never got a DAT machine.  Then, they jumped into the first Devas.  I know that as early buyers, they were able to convince producers to pay more for the post cost benefit.  I am sure that Sean Rush and Glen Berkovitz were able to pay off most or all of the extra cost of a Deva to their packages before file based recorders saturated the market.

There are some sound mixers who immediately purchased all the top of of the line when they begin mixing and still have not had to upgrade anything.... and might make it for 10 seasons before needing to.  Donavan Deer on CSI: Miami is a classic case.

The problem with equipment rental rates is a whole other topic, but in a nutshell, mixers need to hold firm or their rates will continue to crumble.  The one thing I know from my thirty years is that once a rental rate drops, it never comes back again.  I remember when TC slates first came out and we got $30/day and $120/week extra for them.  They had 8 week payoffs, the best rental in history.  Then, mixers started giving them away with the package.  For awhile, we still got it for a second and third slate, but that's being eroded away now too.  Comteks were also a fantastic rental, but then mixers started giving those away, and that profitable rental situation is in danger of being lost. 

Sometimes mixers are simply flat ass undercutting and others honestly believe they should not charge extra for keeping a top notch package.  At least those guys usually negotiate the highest rates for the whole top of the line package.

As technology changes, it is important to pitch the producers on why you should get a bump on your package for that new piece of gear that isn't just pretty, but has a unique technological function that will benefit them.  For an instance example, if a very difficult show like a Southland, Entourage or Amazing Race, constantly has actors on the fly, in situations that are almost impossible to get a track, then a $250/week bump for a couple of wireless with recording cards might be agreed upon.  Conversely, should you buy them yourself without getting a bump, maybe not.  Then just let them know the company can always rent them as an option. 

[studiomprd]

" It's not all quite that simple. "

of course not...

it would make an Economics professor crazy, but JW asked me to stop discussing with Dr. Wally (see old thread "2 camera RED shoot")

it is, as you note a rather complex, and costly, situation.

" Time-Code Nagras made our perfectly fine 4.2 Nagras obsolete "  and then technology (Mike Denecke and Neil Stone) came up with a way to extend their useful lives

" As they saturated the market, Nagra kept jacking up the price, eventually up to $16,000+!!!  " a lot of the blame actually belongs on the poor performance of the US$ during that time-frame.  BTW, I bought one at right about each of those price points you mention! (Grrr!), but they were both excellent investments that made money for me.  Actually it was my poor timing in acquiring a brand new 4.2 that didn't end up being fiscally sound! (pun intended)

as was noted, it was the Denecke TC slate package (with sync-box and comteks) that paid off well in rental $$$; as a day player, I got $50/day/slate.

" still have not had to upgrade anything.... and might make it for 10 seasons before needing to. "  generally, early adopters tend to pay a bit of a premium, but if they have had multiple solid seasons of premium employment, they have, of course, also seen their investment well rewarded.

and...don't even mention Walkie rentals, once gravy, now a PITA with few mixers still involved!

" are all of these recording systems equal in rental price?  "

no, and this is not judging a mixer (person) by his mixer (equipment!)

this does add to the complexity of the problem, though.

certainly the sound rental ought to be based somewhat on the capabilities (tracks, wireless, playback, deliverables, etc.) required by the production but with so many acceptable equipment options, "standardized pricing" is near impossible. some of us might bring our really complete heavy duty package to a more basic shoot, and there might be times that we get our standard rate...

Also consider: in today's tough times more producers are cutting back on rental rates whenever than can, although in the past I know some of us actually had UPM's "help us out" on rental rates! once again, position on the so-called "food chain" may play a part in our getting our "standard" full package rate, or having to take a hit for the "talking head" gig.

One natural equalizer seems to be that the folks (usually higher on that "chain") who get the top "premium" rental rates, most of them, tend to keep their packages state of the art, and fully equipped with what are, for them, the best premium toys available for the job.  As I noted before in the "judging a mixer..." thread, if  one gets a steady gig on something paying a good rental, (moving up that "ladder") they usually upgrade to what they feel is better, premium equipment that they have been drooling over (if they don't already have it!)

certainly from a producer's POV, the real ones!  want the best results for the best price, and they are well aware of what the going rates are in their realm, be it union "Basic", union "Tiers",  union "sideletters",  reality, or non-affiliated medium, low, and even no budget movie-making...

[old school]

I got a year and a half out of my stereo tc Nagra before DAT became the standard. It sits in my home studio as pretty as ever, hardly used.

I know of many in the LA commercial market who undercut package prices thinking it will get them more work and it may well do that with production company's that play that game. I stick to my price regardless of the company and I get it or pass on the job. This is often the same company Dave Dropprice is giving his gear to at a lesser rate. Does it put pressure on me? Sure, but I won't join a race to the bottom. Once He drops his price, he will never get it on "the next one". I don't judge a mixer on his choice of gear, but I do judge him on how he conducts his business.

CrewC

[Richard Lightstone, CAS]

As much as I'd like to negotiate my sound equipment package rate up -- because I've got the newest or latest "hot" piece of gear, Producers, (read the UPM) are only repeating a price from a budget line.

John's point about pricing when a piece of gear was rare to when it was available by all, does not factor in today's world of episodic television.

The best example I can give is Disney's policy where you can get $2000/week for your package in the first season, but the second season they state they will only pay you $1850. What changed? The package might be identical, or you might have invested (heavily) in to new gear.

Yes, I/we have been able to say the T.C. slates are now an additional $150/wk. -- We can say this because Production believes that the slates are more valuable then your Venue, or Deva, Fostex, Cantar -- you get my point.

Bottom line is Production has no clue what you are using and couldn't care less. They are only concerned that; will dailies sound good, will it sync up and will the Mixer and his/her crew not be a royal pain in their ass!

Negotiating your deal is much like playing Poker (John and several others will like this analogy). It takes skill and some bluff and of course knowing when "to fold 'em".

It is up to all of us to stick to our principles and our rates -- because next season they'll try to offer you $1750/week -- then what?

On another note, I have to thank John and Coffey Sound, LSC, etc for working with us and faxing their "fair market" prices for our packages when we are forced to do the "3 vendor bid" dance with Production in order to use our "Loan-Out" Corporations to bill for our Sound packages.

It's important for Mixers to keep networking -- especially places like this, so as to stay abreast of the latest Production canard in screwing us while we bend over to pick up our dropped cell phones!

Cheers and Semper Fi,

RL

[RPSharman]

It has become "standard" to have 2 slates, 6-8 wireless, at least a dozen Comteks and two file-based recorders - at least for television.  Although it is well documented {understatement - LOL} that I use a Mackie, I do have ALL of the above, including portable mixer for cars, matching pairs of 50s and 416s and a new 8040, a CUB01, and all the gadgets for mounting plant mics, cables, EVERYTHING one would need for a big TV show or movie.  Fox has a mandated maximum of $1750/wk with the daily rate being 1/5 of that.  No additional rate for a day player.  They don't care what you bring.  A friend of mine was doing a Fox show a couple of years ago with 2 DATs, one non-TC, a Mackie, a quad box, some Octavas.  A very economical package.  On Bones, they mandated a Deva, but with no extra rental.  I have heard of weekly rates as low as $1250/wk on union TV shows.  $1750 has become typical.  Some get $2000, but it's increasingly rare, especially on anything other than big network shows.  Features are a different story.  I have been getting around $1750 there too.  These shows are lower budget and have fixed budgets.  They don't care what the mixer brings, as long as the job gets done.

I would love to invest in "fancier" gear and be able to charge more, but the reality is that no more money would be paid.

Robert

[studiomprd]

" the second season they state they will only pay you $1850. What changed? "

let's see: they have to pay the Actors more...

they have to pay all the Executive producers more, and they have added more of them to pay, too!

besides, you got your 3% rate increase...

yeah, it is pretty rough out there...

and

" I would love to invest in "fancier" gear and be able to charge more, but the reality is that no more money would be paid. "

while that is true,  I'll bet if you got on, say, a TV show paying "basic", you'd soon upgrade...

and keep in mind, that even if you get the same rental rates, there are tax advantages that will allow you to keep more of the rental $$$, thus paying for the upgrade

that's how it works for many of us.

[Guest BobD]

I got a year and a half out of my stereo tc Nagra before DAT became the standard. It sits in my home studio as pretty as ever, hardly used.

I know of many in the LA commercial market who undercut package prices thinking it will get them more work and it may well do that with production company's that play that game. I stick to my price regardless of the company and I get it or pass on the job. This is often the same company Dave Dropprice is giving his gear to at a lesser rate. Does it put pressure on me? Sure, but I won't join a race to the bottom. Once He drops his price, he will never get it on "the next one". I don't judge a mixer on his choice of gear, but I do judge him on how he conducts his business.

CrewC

Like Crew,  I stick to my price or watch the Jetsons....  I too will not involve myself in reduced rates or crew rate clusterF--cks....    I will stick to this program until I am dead one way or another...  Starvation, maybe... But this is the busiest year in my career... go figure....  I must be doing something right.... 

  Giving away my farm is not on my program....  It should be fought at all costs...  At least people should calmly try to talk them out of it before simply caving into their whims....  They will always try, you must as well... what do they have to lose....  Just try your best, it's all you can do....

[Noah Timan]

More than 15 years ago, I sold a quad box of Audio Limited for 20 grand.  The wireless today are cheaper and pretty damn reliable. 

More than 15 years ago, I sold Cooper mixing panels for far more than most mixing panels today.

OK, I'll bite.  Slightly less than 15 years ago, I bought a quad box of Audio Limited for 25 grand and a Cooper mixing panel, for far more than most mixing panels today. 

The difference?  That quad box and that mixing panel are still sitting on my cart working as we speak.  I think it's safe to say that neither today's far cheaper mixers or wireless will be on ANYONE'S cart in 10 to 15 years.  As someone else noted, we'd be lucky to make 5 years with any of it.

On the other hand, there's a difference between actual obsolescence and frequent upgrades.  I bought my 744T in 2005.  By 2008, it had been "replaced" with the 788T, and I sold it.  But it didn't exactly become obsolete, as a Nagra, DAT, or FAT-16 Deva II did -- I just wanted the extra 4 tracks and to dispense with an external mixer.  I certainly could have continued to use the 744T if I wanted to in today's workflow without problem.

[Noah Timan]

This then begs the question, are all of these recording systems equal in rental price?  Should a mixer who has paid the price of joining the Zax-Net be paid the same rental as someone using a Mackie mixer and recording with Metacorder.  

Are you asking "should they", or are you asking "will they"?  While the first question might be up for debate, I think we all know the answer to the second one.

[Jim Gilchrist]

OK, I'll bite.  Slightly less than 15 years ago, I bought a quad box of Audio Limited for 25 grand and a Cooper mixing panel, for far more than most mixing panels today. 

The difference?  That quad box and that mixing panel are still sitting on my cart working as we speak.  I think it's safe to say that neither today's far cheaper mixers or wireless will be on ANYONE'S cart in 10 to 15 years.  As someone else noted, we'd be lucky to make 5 years with any of it.

On the other hand, there's a difference between actual obsolescence and frequent upgrades.  I bought my 744T in 2005.  By 2008, it had been "replaced" with the 788T, and I sold it.  But it didn't exactly become obsolete, as a Nagra, DAT, or FAT-16 Deva II did -- I just wanted the extra 4 tracks and to dispense with an external mixer.  I certainly could have continued to use the 744T if I wanted to in today's workflow without problem.

I'm in the same boat, and happy to have paid to refrequency the quad box and upgrade my mixer. They are both systems that are both repairable and upgradeable, and as such a great value both then and now.

My 744T is still working nearly every job, but mostly because I don't really need the 788T as yet since Boom Recorder and an interface serve the same function for the moment.

Best regards,

Jim

[Scott Smith]

Maybe we should all just offer to go back to using our Nagras when the UPM says they want to drop the rental rate. After all, they are perfectly good machines, and deliver a fine track (of course, they will probably have to pay through nose to have all those tracks digitized in post, but screw 'em!) Need more tracks? Rent them a second machine!

While I'm being a bit facecious (but not much!), I think it is time that producers understand how much time and money they save a result of our investment in equipment, for which we have not seen any increase in rates for in years (I know guys who worked back in the late 60's who got $2K a week for a package, for crissakes!).

The last time someone asked me to drop my rental rate, I offered them a basic package with DAT. They didn't bat an eye. I decided it was not worth the grief, and took a pass.

(As Richard points out, kudo's to Coffey Sound, LSC and others who have helped support independent mixers in keeping rates fair).

--Scott

As much as I'd like to negotiate my sound equipment package rate up -- because I've got the newest or latest "hot" piece of gear, Producers, (read the UPM) are only repeating a price from a budget line.

John's point about pricing when a piece of gear was rare to when it was available by all, does not factor in today's world of episodic television.

The best example I can give is Disney's policy where you can get $2000/week for your package in the first season, but the second season they state they will only pay you $1850. What changed? The package might be identical, or you might have invested (heavily) in to new gear.

Yes, I/we have been able to say the T.C. slates are now an additional $150/wk. -- We can say this because Production believes that the slates are more valuable then your Venue, or Deva, Fostex, Cantar -- you get my point.

Bottom line is Production has no clue what you are using and couldn't care less. They are only concerned that; will dailies sound good, will it sync up and will the Mixer and his/her crew not be a royal pain in their ass!

Negotiating your deal is much like playing Poker (John and several others will like this analogy). It takes skill and some bluff and of course knowing when "to fold 'em".

It is up to all of us to stick to our principles and our rates -- because next season they'll try to offer you $1750/week -- then what?

On another note, I have to thank John and Coffey Sound, LSC, etc for working with us and faxing their "fair market" prices for our packages when we are forced to do the "3 vendor bid" dance with Production in order to use our "Loan-Out" Corporations to bill for our Sound packages.

It's important for Mixers to keep networking -- especially places like this, so as to stay abreast of the latest Production canard in screwing us while we bend over to pick up our dropped cell phones!

Cheers and Semper Fi,

RL

[Scott Smith]

David's comment is truly a sad statement about the state of the industry (as most of us knew it).

While I certainly didn't know about every piece of obsolete film and sound equipment when I started work in the film industry in my late teens, I sure as hell knew what an optical dubber and recorder was, and how films were recorded, edited and mixed prior to mag.

I made it a point to learn at least the basics of sound recording technology going back to the 1940's and earlier, even though I never had occasion to use it (except when I worked briefly at GM Photographic in Detroit in the early 70's, where they still had two fully functioning Scully lathes with Westrex feedback cutting heads, and a forward-only interlock re-recording system!). I didn't consider my knowledge unusual (at least in that respect!).

Nowadays, nobody even tries...

--Scott

Oh, I think I can top these. Or, at least match them.

A few years ago I was starting a small straight-to-video film. The production company had rented some office space in a building on Magnolia Blvd. in Burbank that largely serviced the entertainment industry. The previous client in that suite had been another film production company or an editing client. In any event, the largest room was dominated by a six-plate KEM that had yet to be moved out. I made a comment to the editor about cutting on a KEM and he didn't know what I was talking about, didn't know what a KEM was. I then referenced the gigantic beast dominating the very room where we were sitting. (truly the elephant in the room) He replied that he didn't know what that was.

David Waelder