C300: Tampa Orlando Steadicam Reel 2017

Eric Coughlin

Eric Coughlin

Veteran
Here is an updated Steadicam reel I just put together.

Comments and constructive criticism welcome.



It's 2:51 seconds now; I may want to trim some shots out to get it closer to two minutes, so let me know which shots you think could be taken out if you think shorter would be better.

This was all shot with the Steadicam Zephyr. Photos of a lot of the setups for the various shots can be found here: https://www.tampasteadicam.com/photos/

Here are time-stamps of the camera, resolution shot at, and lens used.

0:00-0:22: C300 Mark II (4K), Canon CN-e 24mm T/1.5
0:22-0:29: C300 Mark II (4K), Canon 15.5-47 T/2.8
0:29-0:36: C300 Mark II (1080), Sigma 18-35 F/1.8
0:36-1:00: Red Epic-W Helium (8K), Canon 15.5-47 T/2.8
1:00-1:27: C300 Mark II (4K), Canon 15.5-47 T/2.8
1:27-1:37: Red Scarlet Dragon (5K, Canon 15.5-47 T/2.8
1:37-1:47: C300 Mark II (1080), Sigma 18-35 F/1.8
1:47-1:56: Red Scarlet Dragon (5K), Canon 15.5-47 T/2.8
1:56-2:09: Red Epic-W Helium (8K), Canon 15.5-47 T/2.8
2:09-2:18 C300 Mark II (1080), Sigma 18-35 F/1.8
2:18-2:21: C300 Mark II (1080), Canon 15.5-47 T/2.8
2:21-2:28: C300 Mark II (4K), Sigma 18-35 F/1.8
2:28-2:32: C300 Mark II (4K), Sigma 18-35 F/1.8
2:32-2:38: C300 Mark II (1080), Sigma 18-35 F/1.8
2:38-2:42: C300 Mark II (1080), Sigma 18-35 F/1.8
2:42-2:47: C300 Mark II (1080), Sigma 18-35 F/1.8


For reference, here is my previous Steadicam reel from 2015 which was shot with the Canon C100 Mark I and II with the Glidecam HD4000 (handheld or with the vest and arm).

 
overall the pacing is nice, i feel that you linger abit too long in the walk and talk shots, i find that you can easily shave a few seconds off there easily!

the jedi shots have barely any movement, you can cut it out, also some of the slo mo walk and talk seems repetitive towards the end, again i believe you can cut it out.

do you grade any of your shots? the opening sequence is the best one i think, perhaps you want to put that at the end? btw you should include some amira footage in there lol ;)
 
Nice Steadicam work Eric. I will be brutally honest though. As a producer, I want to see about :60 tops, too long, too much stuff. People have short attention spans today, I don't think anyone's reel for anything should be more than :90, past that, it's never going to be seen. When you have to screen ten or twenty in a day and make a decision, I often only watch the first :30, I can usually tell if the person has what I am looking for for the project. Also, FWIW, the music in the opening sequence is fighting your kids trying to escape with the flashlights, it feels like it should have a some Wes Craven like orchestral stabs with busy percussion bubbling underneath, not thoughtful piano apreggios and pretty strings, major disconnect for me. Also, you are showing a whole multi-shot sequence here. Because you are putting this out as a Steadicam reel, I want to see variety of shots, not well connected sequences. Show different talent, settings, lighting, lots of them, in the first :30.

If I were shooting in Florida and needed Steadicam, I would call you. But because I know you here and your work you have shown here over the past few years. if I didn't know you from here, this reel would go into my "maybe" pile and I would keep looking and it's not because your shots aren't good, it's because the way the reel is edited and it's length. Real world (no pun intended), only the first :30 of your reel, if that, is actually going to get looked at when a producer, assistant or PA are going through them to cull lists. Your work is good and your reel is not edited in a way that gets me excited as a viewer about your work in the first :30. If you edited this yourself, I highly suggest you go back and give the material to an editor who is experienced in cutting commercials and promos, make the first :30 blow people away with depth and breadth, not a mini short film sequence, that doesn't matter to me and most producers. FWIW, I go through the exact same challenges with my own reels, I have tried editing them myself and I have had really good editors cut them. You cannot be objective about your own work, it's almost impossible for most of us, we know things that we factor in that will mean zero to potential clients. Also, real world, I NEVER get work because of my reel, perhaps once or twice in the past twenty years. Reels are kind of becoming pointless in my world, I get hired strictly because of relationships and usually seal the deal, once they are interested by just pointing them to some clips from our Vimeo page. To a point, reels are dead IMHO, at least for me, but of course, you have a different job in a different market so YMMV.
 
Last edited:
A lot of good points in puredrifting's post above and I concur completely that the first :30 are the absolute most important to get the conversation rolling. And it is important to hear a producer’s perspective on this. My perspective is that of a director and DP, but it is admittedly tilted in a certain way because of my background, thus I am aware I am looking more specifically at things that many directors or DP’s don’t notice.

Reels are far less relevant than they were once upon a time, when you had to ship a VHS or 3/4” and later DVD’s to someone (I still have unopened bricks of 10 minute tapes, cardboard mailers etc in storage). It can be “easier” to point someone to a site that has multiple clips on it and they can roam around. However, I still believe that a single strong sizzle reel is the best way to sell oneself because as puredrifting notes, producers may have to weed through many of them in a row and a distillation of your best work is crucial.

The wisdom that I and many others have ascribed to in the past 15 years or so is that the first 30 seconds should be a quick-cut sizzle of your absolute best moments, showing variety, scope, production value and frankly, flash. You want to show that you have worked on a lot of different types of jobs from narrative to music video to commercials to broadcast events. It is hard to communicate the specific skills of Steadicam in a 75 frame cut but often this will convince the majority of the viewers that you are at least a contender. In larger markets, this is where you showcase the name actors you have worked with, or recognizable movies/TV shows and that usually seals the deal right there. In smaller markets you usually don’t have that luxury, so you want to show that you have worked on jobs that have some budget to them (or at least that appear to).

After that exciting sequence, you can then let the shots breathe a little to demonstrate your actual ability. Order them from your absolute best on down. Remember that if they are still watching, they probably won’t get through it all so there’s no “leaving the best for last”. Be extremely selective, objective and tough on your work. Go for your most flawless operating above all else. I’d rather see great operating on lesser projects than the other way around.

To that end: I have a little shocker for you. I would have been more likely to hire you based on your 2015 reel than your 2017 reel. I promise I will elaborate further when I can get back to this.
 
What I look for in a Steadicam operator’s reel is a mastery of both the mechanical skill and filmmaking instinct. The former includes horizon control, smooth pans and tilts, dolly-like motion (no footsteps) and a sense of control and finesse from super-slow to fast moves. The latter includes framing choices, timing, transitions between beats in a scene and a sense of overall shot design. Once the mechanical side is mastered, the rest becomes a daily challenge with each shot bringing its own problems to solve—which is why being a Steadicam operator is so much fun!

Again: the eye that I look at Steadicam shots with is not the same as all DP’s or directors. Or even Steadicam operators, for that matter. I would not describe myself as overly critical, but I know what I like and I have regular conversations with old friends and colleagues who are flying the rig daily about what is and isn’t good in a shot. As a further caveat: unless one is also directing and/or editing a given piece, chances are good that any given take may not be one’s best work. Every operator I know has had to deal with the odd wobble or misframe ending up in a finished piece because the actor’s performance was better or just as likely, no-one noticed or cared about the camera fumble. Watch the opening titles of “Big Love”…see those little bounces when the crane lands in the first shot, just as I started to push in on Bill Paxton? That was the result of me having a bad crane dismount—I begged the director to do post-stab on it if they used that take, which would have been incredibly easy given that it was shot on green screen. He agreed, but then forgot. And for three seasons I grimaced every time that opening ran.

So yes, many a producer or director or DP may overlook the type of issues I give below…but some won’t and that may be what costs you a job. I actually think that with the advent of gimbal rigs which tend to deliver very rigid horizons, Steadicam operators have an even higher bar to meet in this regard. For those who are having a hard time detecting what I’m pointing out, the best place to look is at the top of the frame, where you can really see what is happening with the geography of the set and any angular deviation is easier to spot.

On at last to Eric’s’ 2017 reel!
 
00:00 While this is pretty looking footage, I would definitely not lead with it because it is not the strongest from an operating perspective. The opening shot is late on the left pan. It’s always best to start these kind of pans before your body gets there—pivoting around the corner and keeping it in frame feels more natural and leads the viewer’s eyes more efficiently. With an earlier pan, you would have kept the little girl in frame. There’s some clipped headroom on the boy, and the final lockoff is wobbly. 2nd shot starts a little restlessly. In the 3rd shot, the initial pan to door feels aimless as we lose both characters momentarily. Probably would have been better to pan with the boy, let the girl enter the frame and then go with her as you did. I would have suggested a boom down during that initial pan to better include the girl in the frame, which also would have helped you on the pan back to the mirror (since she is taking over the shot at that point, would have been nice to have had her a little higher in the frame). Horizon is pretty active throughout this shot, although understandable as fast pans and stops are very challenging in this regard.

:22 Pier shot is fun and colorful but still some horizon issues.

:29 Forest shot. Currently you are cutting in just as the camera is finishing a tilt up and then it immediately begins tilting down, which feels erratic. And the tilt is very slow to start then seems to shift gears. I’d start it no earlier than :32 as a result. I do like the horizontal branch coming into frame towards the end.

:36 guys with guns and masks. The business at the car feels protracted—it’s what we describe as “shoe leather”, where there is a laundry list of actions to cover which slows down the pacing. If this really had to play out in one shot, I might have suggested starting from the left side of the trunk and rotating around the three as they put on the masks and pick up the guns, to keep the perspective changing. And I think it might have been just as interesting (potentially more so) to keep rotating around to the right and hinge them up the stairs as you stayed on ground level. Of course I haven’t seen the finished piece so I don’t know where this cuts to and from energetically, but in this context it feels like the camera goes up the stairs mostly for the sake of just doing it (it’s rarely interesting visually to look down at people climbing stairs). And the execution isn’t bad, this is again a very tough shot to pull off especially turning a corner as you did, but still has some bumps and headroom issues. Believe me, I was never great at stairs myself compared to many operators, but I often felt that there was more interesting ways of shooting those shots anyway. If you must keep it in, perhaps start the shot at :42 so you don’t have the repetitious tilt and the foreground guy blocking everything with his arm.

1:00 walking into the studio shot. Overall I like the construction of the move, it establishes the space nicely and the arc around the director is great, using his energy to bring you around. I would have liked to have seen the guy on the ladder clear himself better, you draw attention to him by tilting up yet we don’t get to see his expression to justify that moment, and a few more foreground crosses would have helped the set feel busier. Mostly though: I’m starting to feel a little bad here but Eric buddy…horizon is all over the place. And the main reason I bring it up is that I saw stuff on your 2015 reel where it was really solid. More on that in a bit.

1:27 Pullback from the guy is nice but the move to the drawing is rough—hitches in the middle and lockoff is swimmy. I’d say lose this shot.

1:37 roundy round on the guy walking. Just when you guys were thinking I hate everything…this shot is GREAT. Really nice use of negative space, excellent headroom and overall control. These type of comearounds are not easy shots to execute and you nailed it.

1:46 walking dialogue may seem to some like a boring choice in a Steadicam reel, but probably half of Steadicam shots done in narrative consist of exactly this, so it’s good to include. I would use 1:49 - 1:55 as that is the cleanest chunk, before the little correction to the left.

1:56 guns in pockets. I’d use it from the head to 2:01. The third passby feels redundant, and the sped-up sections that follow accentuate some sliding horizon.

2:10 roundy round of kissing. I’d remove the beginning up to 2:12 or 2:13, as when you started moving they slid pretty far to the left in frame. I do like the deceleration though.

2:18 these next few segments may not be flashy, but in terms of operating, they are all very solid. Your headroom on the woman descending the steps is nice. The guy in the garden is fine but if you have to lose one, that one is probably it.

2:38 this is an example of a shot that is far less “sexy” than guys with guns or chase scenes or hauling ass up stairs, but it is actually a very challenging shot and you killed it. Some of the hardest shots to perform are where the camera is moving and the actors aren’t (or are distant), because there’s little else to distract the eye, so any wobbles or bumps becoming far more apparent. The pullback has consistent speed, the horizon is dead on and it is all but indistinguishable from a dolly shot. I recommend putting this close to the beginning of your reel for that reason.

2:44 slow motion of the women walking. Doesn’t really show too much Steadicam, but sometimes a reel needs a little visual spicing up (breaking up multiple scenes of guys in a row, for instance). Just keep it short.
 
Last edited:
Now on to the 2015 reel. Here is a list of the shots that I liked from this one:

:14 boxing guy
:31 to :46 four gorgeous architectural shots in a row. As in 2:38 in the other reel, nothing to distract the eye and horizons are dead on. I do have to ask though…is the one in the pool not a jib shot? appears to fly out over the water.
:59 event shots—unless you are appealing directly to broadcast/event producers, this kind of stuff may be a deterrent (possibly worth having both a narrative and a corporate reel for your market)? however, operating is solid.
1:08 - 1:16 all good and solid little beats
1:18 another tough 2:39 shot, you held him really nicely as you arc’d around.

My recommendation is to not worry about your updated reel containing all new material. Pick the best moments from your old one and keep them until you have enough new good stuff to push them out the other end. Don’t include a shot just because it was complicated or clever if there are headroom or horizon issues; remember that the viewer doesn’t know or care about the backstory. For a shot to overcome those in a reel, it has to be essentially legendary!
 
Thanks Charles. This is very educational, and I neither own nor operate a Steadicam.

Also, for some reason I cannot explain, I liked the images in the old reel better than the new.
 
Amira-user said:
overall the pacing is nice, i feel that you linger abit too long in the walk and talk shots, i find that you can easily shave a few seconds off there easily!

the jedi shots have barely any movement, you can cut it out, also some of the slo mo walk and talk seems repetitive towards the end, again i believe you can cut it out.

do you grade any of your shots? the opening sequence is the best one i think, perhaps you want to put that at the end? btw you should include some amira footage in there lol ;)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the tips.

Yeah, I graded them.

Seems to make more sense to me not to put the best shot at the end, as viewers often don't make it to the end.

I shot two projects with the Amira. The first was a short film which was shot primarily handheld. There was one particular walk and talk shot in the short film which I would have really liked to do Steadicam for; it had cool lighting, location, etc., but we were pressed for time since it was 1 or 2am at that point and the actors were getting tired, and I hadn't tried the Amira on the Steadicam yet so wasn't sure of what mounting options I'd have, etc., so to save from a possibly 30 minute or so Steadicam setup I did that shot handheld.

The second video was a generic corporate shoot, where I did setup the Steadicam to film a few shots of a seminar in a class/office space. Nothing reel worthy, and the client/producer had me delete my copy of the footage as they didn't want it going out. I did get some low quality phone pics with the Amira.

JaBgn8n.jpg


eryIAz9.jpg


If I buy an Amira soon I'll of course have plenty of opportunity to use it with Steadicam. It is a bit on the heavy side for my Steadicam Zephyr, which supports up to 24 lbs, but is certainly managable. The Amira is about 9 lbs, but I don't think that includes the viewfinder and baseplates. Here's a photo I took of it on a scale with the viewfinder, baseplate, and top handle, which put it at 13 lbs 14.9 oz.

UKT7Axk.jpg


There was an Odyssey 7Q attached to the camera which probably at least a couple pounds. It handled the weight fine, but I was using primes on that shoot. More often I use the 15.5-47 on Steadicam.

Add a 15.5-47 at 4.8 lbs, lightweight matte box at 10 ounces, rails and lens support at .5 lb, wireless follow focus at 1 lb, wireless transmitter at .5 lb, and AB battery at 2 lbs, and you're right around the 24 lb capacity. Of course the camera can be powered from the sled with the proper cable to save a couple by taking the battery off of the camera. It's all pretty manageable, just have to be careful not to overload it.

I find the Amira baseplate setups to be not ideal for Steadicam, particularly when trying to save weight, so I'm looking into some lighter solutions which are also quick release. I wonder if an Arca Swiss Kessler setup would be sturdy and practical with the weight and size of the Amira. You could attach a 15mm rail block on the Arca Swiss plate. I like how it is drop down snap in instead of Arri dovetail which is precision slide in, as the latter I find is often tricky to line up right by yourself with a heavy camera. It always annoys me when a camera mounting setup requires multiple people to mount to a tripod, even if there are plenty of ACs sitting around. I know Arri dovetail is common (or even standard) on heavy camera setups, and perhaps I'm just not experienced enough with mounting it, but I found it to be a pain. In contrast, I'm pretty happy with a VCT setup when dealing with heavy camera loads. It can be a pain to snap in sometimes, but can be handled on your own pretty easily without as much precision needed to line it up. The problem with VCT though is a VCT setup with a baseplate weighs about 4-5 lbs, and raises the height of the camera, which are both not ideal for Steadicam, particularly when I'm already nearing capacity with an Amria.

The Wooden Camera Unified Baseplate is also drop in and I've found it to work well with the fully loaded C300 Mark II, so that's another option.

Vocas and Cam-Jam both sell adapters to get 1/4" and 3/8" screw holes on the bottom of the Amira so you can then attach whatever baseplates you want. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1083008-REG/vocas_0490_0010_arri_amira_dovetail_adapter.html

I found the BPA-3 baseplate setup on the Amira we rented to not work well for how I work (in other words, I hated it). Want to put the camera on a tripod? Gotta screw in the bridge plate adapter into the BPA-3. Want to go back to handheld? Gotta unscrew the bridge plate adapter assuming you don't want the metal digging into your shoulder. Want to go to Steadicam? Gotta screw in the Steadicam baseplate directly to the BPA-3. If there's one thing I hate it's screwing around on set. Plus it's Arri dovetail which I just mentioned not being a big fan of. The shoulder pad is also super thin and hard, and thus not comfortable at all. It being thin sort of reduces the height of the camera, but after you put on the bridge plate adapter and bridge plate, along with extra padding (a pad, towel or whatnot) on your shoulder, your height is high again.

Arri also has the WPA-1 baseplate for the Amira which is a VCT baseplate. The shoulder pad is deeper, which is good, but it still doesn't look well padded. Whenever I think of it I think, "How is this better than the Zacuto VCT Pro which has actual comfortable padding?" I believe the Amira one also weighs more than the Zacuto.
 
puredrifting said:
Nice Steadicam work Eric. I will be brutally honest though. As a producer, I want to see about :60 tops, too long, too much stuff. People have short attention spans today, I don't think anyone's reel for anything should be more than :90, past that, it's never going to be seen. When you have to screen ten or twenty in a day and make a decision, I often only watch the first :30, I can usually tell if the person has what I am looking for for the project. Also, FWIW, the music in the opening sequence is fighting your kids trying to escape with the flashlights, it feels like it should have a some Wes Craven like orchestral stabs with busy percussion bubbling underneath, not thoughtful piano apreggios and pretty strings, major disconnect for me. Also, you are showing a whole multi-shot sequence here. Because you are putting this out as a Steadicam reel, I want to see variety of shots, not well connected sequences. Show different talent, settings, lighting, lots of them, in the first :30.

If I were shooting in Florida and needed Steadicam, I would call you. But because I know you here and your work you have shown here over the past few years. if I didn't know you from here, this reel would go into my "maybe" pile and I would keep looking and it's not because your shots aren't good, it's because the way the reel is edited and it's length. Real world (no pun intended), only the first :30 of your reel, if that, is actually going to get looked at when a producer, assistant or PA are going through them to cull lists. Your work is good and your reel is not edited in a way that gets me excited as a viewer about your work in the first :30. If you edited this yourself, I highly suggest you go back and give the material to an editor who is experienced in cutting commercials and promos, make the first :30 blow people away with depth and breadth, not a mini short film sequence, that doesn't matter to me and most producers. FWIW, I go through the exact same challenges with my own reels, I have tried editing them myself and I have had really good editors cut them. You cannot be objective about your own work, it's almost impossible for most of us, we know things that we factor in that will mean zero to potential clients. Also, real world, I NEVER get work because of my reel, perhaps once or twice in the past twenty years. Reels are kind of becoming pointless in my world, I get hired strictly because of relationships and usually seal the deal, once they are interested by just pointing them to some clips from our Vimeo page. To a point, reels are dead IMHO, at least for me, but of course, you have a different job in a different market so YMMV.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input. I'll see what I can do about getting more shot variety in the opening.

I think as a producer (who may also shoot, edit, etc.) reels aren't as important. As a producer you're marketing what your client's finished video will look like, from start to finish. So, they'll want to see finished videos you've done for previous clients. Not reels which don't show how a video as a whole turned out, but instead just show your abilities as a camera-person, which is just one part of the equation when you're producing.

Lately about half or a third of my clients are people who I've never worked with before, often coming in from out of state and wanting to hire someone with gear. These are often from ProductionHub, some from Craigslist, some from Mandy, and on lesser occasions, StaffMeUp. They either found my page on the site, or I applied to a posting of theirs. If I applied, I sent them my reels along with a few finished videos I've done. They're looking through reels and videos of other people, so I'm in direct competition with others. They're not hiring me because of a built up relationship or me being nice guy; they've never met me before and know little about me besides perhaps a bio on my page and website. They're hiring me primarily based on two reasons; my video work (reels and completed videos) and my equipment list.

A lot of my clients start their contact to me saying something like, "We like your work (or reel) and want to hire you."

As I produce and hire cameramen myself, I'm always hesitant to hire people who have no quality work online. How on earth am I supposed to know if they're any good? Because they they talked shop and seemed to know what they're talking about? I've heard plenty of people talk tech talk, sound like they know what they're talking about, and when I see their work, it's terrible. So, that's not always a good gauge. How about they're a nice person? If they're nice, seem cool, are enjoyable to talk to, then their work has to be great, right? Should totally hire them. But no, that's no indication of how good of a cameramen they are. Perhaps they were referred by someone I've worked with before, but often are standards aren't the same so that's not always the best gauge either, plus other factors come into play; maybe they're being referred because their a friend of my co-worker, or because they had referred my co-worker a job, and now he's just returning the favor, even if their work isn't necessarily up to the standards that I want.

So if reels aren't important, and if you meant that further, to also mean, seeing a person's video work isn't important, than what criteria do you use to base your hiring decisions on?

I generally find watching completed videos to be a decent way to ascertain a cameraman's quality, but I also then have to watch a few or several of their videos to get a good idea of their skills. If I watch just one, who knows, maybe they got lucky and had a good crew, location, etc., for that shoot, and it turned out good, while the rest of their work is not good. With a reel, you have several projects right there in one video, such that it's hard to fake camera skills, and thus, saves me as a producer time from needing to watch several videos to figure out how good a cameraman is.

Lately I've also been freelancing more, which means I don't have as many completed videos to show, while still shooting a lot of stuff I can put in a reel. Most of the videos I've produced lately have been passion short film projects, which while it can look good as a shot in a reel, as a completed film doesn't help me too much to land a corporate job.


I also think reels are much more prevalent for Steadicam ops than regular cameraman. A regular cameraman can as mentioned show a completed video to show their camera operating skills, while with a Steadicam op, say a completed short film may only have had 10% of it's shots on Steadicam, so now a producer needs to waste time trying to find which parts of the short film were Steadicam shots to see how good the op is. I'd say most Steadicam ops, particularly those who are not at the top end and cannot just say, "I shot Birdman" to get the job, have reels, while cameramen maybe have reels perhaps 25% of the time.


I'm working on updating my interview demo reel now as well. Perhaps you have an opinion on this before I spend a lot of time on it. My current interview demo reel has about 20 interview samples, with audio, about five seconds per sample, two minute reel. Then my cinematography reel has 15 interview samples in it, without audio, with each sample lasting about a second, so 15 samples in a 17 second period. I'm thinking the new reel to have perhaps 10-15 samples with audio, 3-5 seconds each, having that part take up a minute or a bit over a minute of the reel, and to have the the rest of it (45-60 seconds) flashing interview samples without audio (so I can fit more samples), and perhaps put 100-200 samples as a whole in the reel (say 50 samples at one second per sample, and then speed flashing another 50-100 samples in a 10 second period or something like that), which would show I've done a lot, of whatever quality I'm showing, which shows what quality and variety the client can get.

I recall Ned Miller said not to have audio in an interview demo reel, but I really disagree with that. 90-95% of interviews I do I do the audio for without a sound guy, which is typically what my clients expect, so they often want assurance that I'm capable of getting quality audio. Ned said he thought it was assumed, but I don't think it is; plenty of camera people who are good at camera are not good at audio.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Charles for the breakdown of shots. Looks like I've got my editing work cutout for me. I'll can see about combining the two reels, and I've probably got some other short shots I can add in for more variety.

The shot going over the pool was with a Glidecam HD4000 handheld and inverted with no vest, so I was able to reach my physical arm out perhaps further than what could have been done if I had a Steadicam vest and arm attached. Also, with a vest and arm, particularly with a heavy camera, you don't want it to get too far away from you, while with a relatively light C100 camera handheld, I didn't have to worry about the weight pushing my whole body forward or the Steadicam arm snapping.

I think the 2015 reel had a lot simpler shots in it, so they came across as smoother. A dolly here, smooth wide shot there. Less low mode shots, a lot less people tracking shots, as people are more unpredictable and hard to follow, at varying paces, longer shots, etc. I see your point though about not having shots in the reel unless they're close to flawless, which is more difficult to do with complicated shots.


On the subject of the relevance of reels, when I've gone to your website and try to play videos from it, it says "Plugin not supported" on each video. Is it just me having a tech issue or do you not update your website anymore if the plugins are outdated? Are reels and a website not relevant for you getting work at this point?
 
My .02 on reels and websites: I've made it 20 years without a website and I think I've been asked for a reel twice, which I do not have. I do have a few finished pieces on a Vimeo page, and that was only at the request of a producer/friend who was trying to get me on something several years ago. The vast majority of my work comes from word-of-mouth and recommendations or prior relationships. I don't advertise, so I kind of take the stance of, "You called me", because someone you know and trust told you to call me.

That being said, I keep debating whether to create an on-line presence with a website, FB, Instagram, etc. But like I said, my world is mostly "word-of-mouth", my clientele aren't searching the Internet for photogs like someone searching for a restaurant or a plumber.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Thanks for the input. I'll see what I can do about getting more shot variety in the opening.

I think as a producer (who may also shoot, edit, etc.) reels aren't as important. As a producer you're marketing what your client's finished video will look like, from start to finish. So, they'll want to see finished videos you've done for previous clients. Not reels which don't show how a video as a whole turned out, but instead just show your abilities as a camera-person, which is just one part of the equation when you're producing.

Lately about half or a third of my clients are people who I've never worked with before, often coming in from out of state and wanting to hire someone with gear. These are often from ProductionHub, some from Craigslist, some from Mandy, and on lesser occasions, StaffMeUp. They either found my page on the site, or I applied to a posting of theirs. If I applied, I sent them my reels along with a few finished videos I've done. They're looking through reels and videos of other people, so I'm in direct competition with others. They're not hiring me because of a built up relationship or me being nice guy; they've never met me before and know little about me besides perhaps a bio on my page and website. They're hiring me primarily based on two reasons; my video work (reels and completed videos) and my equipment list.

A lot of my clients start their contact to me saying something like, "We like your work (or reel) and want to hire you."

As I produce and hire cameramen myself, I'm always hesitant to hire people who have no quality work online. How on earth am I supposed to know if they're any good? Because they they talked shop and seemed to know what they're talking about? I've heard plenty of people talk tech talk, sound like they know what they're talking about, and when I see their work, it's terrible. So, that's not always a good gauge. How about they're a nice person? If they're nice, seem cool, are enjoyable to talk to, then their work has to be great, right? Should totally hire them. But no, that's no indication of how good of a cameramen they are. Perhaps they were referred by someone I've worked with before, but often are standards aren't the same so that's not always the best gauge either, plus other factors come into play; maybe they're being referred because their a friend of my co-worker, or because they had referred my co-worker a job, and now he's just returning the favor, even if their work isn't necessarily up to the standards that I want.

So if reels aren't important, and if you meant that further, to also mean, seeing a person's video work isn't important, than what criteria do you use to base your hiring decisions on?

I generally find watching completed videos to be a decent way to ascertain a cameraman's quality, but I also then have to watch a few or several of their videos to get a good idea of their skills. If I watch just one, who knows, maybe they got lucky and had a good crew, location, etc., for that shoot, and it turned out good, while the rest of their work is not good. With a reel, you have several projects right there in one video, such that it's hard to fake camera skills, and thus, saves me as a producer time from needing to watch several videos to figure out how good a cameraman is.

Lately I've also been freelancing more, which means I don't have as many completed videos to show, while still shooting a lot of stuff I can put in a reel. Most of the videos I've produced lately have been passion short film projects, which while it can look good as a shot in a reel, as a completed film doesn't help me too much to land a corporate job.


I also think reels are much more prevalent for Steadicam ops than regular cameraman. A regular cameraman can as mentioned show a completed video to show their camera operating skills, while with a Steadicam op, say a completed short film may only have had 10% of it's shots on Steadicam, so now a producer needs to waste time trying to find which parts of the short film were Steadicam shots to see how good the op is. I'd say most Steadicam ops, particularly those who are not at the top end and cannot just say, "I shot Birdman" to get the job, have reels, while cameramen maybe have reels perhaps 25% of the time.


I'm working on updating my interview demo reel now as well. Perhaps you have an opinion on this before I spend a lot of time on it. My current interview demo reel has about 20 interview samples, with audio, about five seconds per sample, two minute reel. Then my cinematography reel has 15 interview samples in it, without audio, with each sample lasting about a second, so 15 samples in a 17 second period. I'm thinking the new reel to have perhaps 10-15 samples with audio, 3-5 seconds each, having that part take up a minute or a bit over a minute of the reel, and to have the the rest of it (45-60 seconds) flashing interview samples without audio (so I can fit more samples), and perhaps put 100-200 samples as a whole in the reel (say 50 samples at one second per sample, and then speed flashing another 50-100 samples in a 10 second period or something like that), which would show I've done a lot, of whatever quality I'm showing, which shows what quality and variety the client can get.

I recall Ned Miller said not to have audio in an interview demo reel, but I really disagree with that. 90-95% of interviews I do I do the audio for without a sound guy, which is typically what my clients expect, so they often want assurance that I'm capable of getting quality audio. Ned said he thought it was assumed, but I don't think it is; plenty of camera people who are good at camera are not good at audio.
Click to expand...

That would the takeaway from the whole discussion. Focus your reel on the first :30, put a wide variety of shots, and as Charles said, only your most perfect shots should be on your reel. Make your reel much shorter, :60 is a good target but :90 might work. You're in a different market and yes, I agree, Steadicam Ops seem to have different requirements to get hired.

As far as hiring people, how many people do I hire who I need to see a reel from? I usually hire one of my five DP friends if I am not DP on a project, no reels needed there, I've worked with all of them on many projects over the years. Gaffers, Grips, PAs and Sound Mixers generally don't have reels and I have a regular roster I like to work with in most of those positions. If I were hiring a director, I would want to see their reel of course, but once again, :60 is optimal and I rarely hire directors. When hiring actors, I much prefer to work with a casting agent and make them screen all of the reels. We then usually shoot our own auditions and I view those. If I was hiring a Steadicam op, I would hire by reputation over reel in the sense of I have hired plenty of crew who had good reels and they were difficult to work with and I never hired them again. Reels can show your work but they tell a producer nothing about what it is like to work with you. if I was hiring someone like Charles as a DP or Steadicam Op, I wouldn't even look at a reel, his IMDB credits would speak to his qualifications. I would meet with him and tell him what we needed to accomplish and listen to his answer about how we would accomplish it more than wanting to see his reel. I've seen a lot of his shows/work as a viewer so I would hire Charles pretty much based upon his rep and credentials over seeing his reel.

As far a interview reels, I have seen good ones with sound and good ones with just a music track and sfx. If you are an excellent dialog editor, you could take a montage of funny, interesting and compelling soundbites and assemble a pretty interesting MadLib, which I think is cool as long as you don't have to stay on any one interview subject more than a few seconds. Same deal though, I want to see a montage with MANY shots and looks to open it. Because I have lit and shot literally thousands of interviews, I can tell if I like what a DP is doing in less that six shots over about :10-:15. So in a way, for me, I would love if everyone's interview reel was :30 long, that's all I need. But others take longer but you are balancing that fine line of boring them, making it too long and not paced correctly. That can actually bite you where someone sees the first few shots and likes what they see, then as your reel goes on and on and on for two or three minutes, they begin to pick you work apart (wow, can this guy do anyting but flat, soft lighting, does he ever interview anyone I have heard of, wow this music track is obnoxious, etc." See what I mean? We are all at least somewhat in the entertainment business, even if all you do is corporate. What is the first axiom of the entertainment business? Right, always leave them wanting more, don't overstay your welcome. I have personally done this where the first :20 or :30 kicks butt but as the reel goes on, I begin to like their work less and less, not because it isn't good but because I "got them" already and now they are Gilding the Lilly http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/gild-the-lily It's human nature. I've even moved people from my "must call, I want to work them pile" to the "Maybe if I am hard up and cannot find anyone lese who is available" pile when their reel is not good but their skills are up to snuff or when their reel overstays its welcome.

When I am watching an interview reel, I would always automatically assume that each interview, other than run and gun in the field perhaps, was recorded by a professional sound mixer, it would never occur to me to ponder if the cameraman recorded good sound. It is assumed that in professional level productions, a professional crew is used, which is typically a camera person and a sound mixer at minimum. I shoot plenty of OMB interviews but I would never want to trumpet that I recorded this good audio, as you are then already dooming yourself for the producer to NOT hire a sound mixer, not give you at least a PA to help you. I hate OMB shoots, to me, as a pro, they are a failure, you are giving what should be another $500.00 per day rate minimum back to the producer/client to cheap out and make you work harder on something separate than what they should be hiring your for. I do them because they are a fact, but I am never complacent about voicing that even on the smallest shoots, we should have a sound mixer and a PA if we are doing this as pros. Sure, you may not really NEED the soundmixer for a single subject in a quiet room. But if you condition producers to that mindset/workflow, they begin to think of you as the OMB guy and they hire a "real crew" when they need something done with a real budget that is higher profile. I've seen it happen and it's happened to me.

Don't be OMB guy, except under mild protest. You'll get pigeonholed as a low end videgrapher. Also, I have been on OMB shoots where there are audio challenges, noise issues, at the same time as there are lighting and camera issues. The latest trend is I will set up an interview with nice, elaborate lighting. We shoot three interivews, we have three more to do. Then the producer asks, "What would it take to flip the key so our next three interviews are biased toward the opposite side we have been shooting? Our next interview is arriving in 5 minutes." You and I both know that flipping the key, in a small room or office especially means you are going to have to completely relocate, at a minimum, three to four lights, any flagging and you'll probably have to adjust the BG lighting and composition too. If you don't have a sound mixer, that means you need to also move and re-rig your boom mic, possibly re-route cabling, etc. My little OMB shoot just turned into a stressful nightmare because I don't have a sound mixer and a PA to help me completely rearrange the setup quickly and we like to accomodate producers and what they want because then they want to keep working with you. OMB shoots are a balancing act and it's easy for circumstances beyond your control to mess up your balance. As a pro, assume that any shoot, short of a b-roll only shoot, walking around gathering b-roll, should have a sound mixer and preferably a PA. You can act surprised when asked to OMB and even mention, "I thought we were going to do this professionally?", in certain cases where you think the producer is merely "cheaping out" to put more money in their own pocket. As a producer, I never hire OMB to shoot interviews or do anything with sound because I know it can quickly turn into a disaster when the situation changes rapidly. Just like on a 200 person feature film set, people not in the business always wonder why it takes 200 people to do the shoot. If you've crewed on a few, you know that many positions are there for the sake of the company move and other than that, they are sitting around. But when the company move happens, those extra people just saved tens of thousands of dollars by minimizing down time so it is totally worth it. This is the same thing on a micro level.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
On the subject of the relevance of reels, when I've gone to your website and try to play videos from it, it says "Plugin not supported" on each video. Is it just me having a tech issue or do you not update your website anymore if the plugins are outdated? Are reels and a website not relevant for you getting work at this point?
Click to expand...

Ugh. Yup, that site is effectively dead. It's not even funny how long it's been since I updated. My agent has more current work on their site but I have been trying to cut new clips forever and create a new site. That's actually my next project now that I'm between shows. I started shooting Key & Peele 6 years ago and nothing on the site! Shame on me.

Tell ya what--I'll revive my final Steadicam reel from 2009 from the dead and post on Youtube for you guys to rip apart!

I mentioned above what I think is a good format: :30 of sizzle, then a minute or two of more extended scenes. On the site I also had a series of complete longer shots as separate clips. The huge benefit of websites is that you can offer a deli platter of options. Many people will just want to see the sizzle. As is obvious, I'm looking deeper into a Steadicam operator's work when looking to hire than most people, so for me a quick cut short reel doesn't tell me enough. I actually don't see any reason why a reel has to be as short as possible, people will click off it when they are done watching. The key once again is to front load it with the best material.

On the concept of not needing reels. We went through an era of that in the Steadicam world years back where it was kind of cool to say "I'm too busy working to make a reel". The ready availability of inexpensive (and now free) editing software and posting videos on the web brought it back around. The last time I hired an operator in another city who didn't have a reel turned out to be a mistake, one I won't make again. Even if one doesn't have a reel, at the very least they should be able to point someone towards a clip online.
 
puredrifting said:
Don't be OMB guy, except under mild protest. You'll get pigeonholed as a low end videgrapher. Also, I have been on OMB shoots where there are audio challenges, noise issues, at the same time as there are lighting and camera issues. The latest trend is I will set up an interview with nice, elaborate lighting. We shoot three interivews, we have three more to do. Then the producer asks, "What would it take to flip the key so our next three interviews are biased toward the opposite side we have been shooting? Our next interview is arriving in 5 minutes." You and I both know that flipping the key, in a small room or office especially means you are going to have to completely relocate, at a minimum, three to four lights, any flagging and you'll probably have to adjust the BG lighting and composition too. If you don't have a sound mixer, that means you need to also move and re-rig your boom mic, possibly re-route cabling, etc. My little OMB shoot just turned into a stressful nightmare because I don't have a sound mixer and a PA to help me completely rearrange the setup quickly and we like to accomodate producers and what they want because then they want to keep working with you. OMB shoots are a balancing act and it's easy for circumstances beyond your control to mess up your balance. As a pro, assume that any shoot, short of a b-roll only shoot, walking around gathering b-roll, should have a sound mixer and preferably a PA. You can act surprised when asked to OMB and even mention, "I thought we were going to do this professionally?", in certain cases where you think the producer is merely "cheaping out" to put more money in their own pocket. As a producer, I never hire OMB to shoot interviews or do anything with sound because I know it can quickly turn into a disaster when the situation changes rapidly. Just like on a 200 person feature film set, people not in the business always wonder why it takes 200 people to do the shoot. If you've crewed on a few, you know that many positions are there for the sake of the company move and other than that, they are sitting around. But when the company move happens, those extra people just saved tens of thousands of dollars by minimizing down time so it is totally worth it. This is the same thing on a micro level.
Click to expand...

I've gotten tot he point I turn down OMB interviews. An audio op isn't just there for audio(at least not in the context we're talking about). I received a call a few years ago for some sit-downs at a college conference media day. They wanted OMB because "it's just putting a lav on the subject". AND there were going to be about 20 or so interviews. I quoted the producer(probably associate producer) a two-man crew rate. Never heard back and never lost a second of sleep over it, either. Had a stupid request earlier this year. OMB, two cams, outside shoot. Foreign entity(US crewer). Thankfully I was not available, but the crewer knew it was a ridiculous request and asked me to quote the job just so they could show their client what their expectations should really be. I quoted it as a two-man crew plus extra gear plus a "PITA charge".
 
I'm not so sure about 60-90 second reels. When I watch ones that short I'm often left wanting more. I'd say the average Steadicam reel is around two minutes. I recall Mike McGowan, a Miami Steadicam op, seemed to recommend two minutes to me when critiquing my original almost five minute 2015 reel on the Steadicam forum, before I edited it down to a bit less than two minutes. Perhaps Charles has an opinion on length of reels. (EDIT: Just read his post where he says his opinion on length of reels)

Maybe I just don't relate to feeling worse about a person's work as a reel progresses. If it drags on, I often start skimming it, and sometimes quit it before it ends. But I don't know that I really feel like, "Well, now that I got bored half way through, I think this camera person bores me, so, next." Of course reels can be overly long such that it adversely affects the viewing experience and chances of getting hired. I guess the trick is finding that sweet spot. Maybe 60-90 seconds is ideal. I could certainly see an interview reel getting away with a shorter length as you can put many shots in a short period; a Steadicam reel on the other hand often relies on longer takes to show one's capability with longer takes, hence, less shots, and more need for a longer run time of the reel in order to fit a variety of shots in it. What are the thoughts of others on reel length?

MadLib is something I've thought of, but it seems like a good amount of work, which could distract from the content (quality of lighting, framing, audio, etc.), so I'd lean toward just random sound glibs.


Regarding the, "you need to also move and re-rig your boom mic, possibly re-route cabling" argument. I was recently doing a OMB interview where the director asked to flip key side, so we did all of that. Told him it would take around 5 minutes, maybe up to 10. Flipping the boom mic and re-routing cables takes what, a minute or two. Now, maybe some clients are fine with paying $650 for a sound guy and $250 for a PA so they can save those two minutes of the videographer doing the work on their own. Maybe they've got a big shot CEO they're recording who would be annoyed if they wasted two extra minutes of his time just to save $900. So some dumb math, this CEO must be making $450 per minute for those two minutes to be a financial loss, which is about $54 million per year. I guess I just don't work with people that rich.

Obviously there are other benefits to a sound guy and PA than saving two minutes; I was mainly picking on that point you brought up. Most of my clients wouldn't mind two extra minutes if it means saving a fair amount of money.

Most of my clients have a budget. Well, all clients have a budget. Sometimes it's a big budget, but it's always a budget, one way or another. If a client comes to me with a $3000 budget for an interview, and I can give them say myself as a OMB, two C300 Mark IIs, two cinema zoom lenses, lighting, audio, etc., or I can give them one C300 Mark II, no cinema lenses (L-series instead), but then budget in a sound guy, PA, and maybe a lighting guy, from a financial perspective I'd much rather work as a OMB since I'm getting around twice as much money going to me instead of to a crew.

From a quality perspective, I feel I can also provide better quality as a OMB on that budget since the two cameras instead of one, as well as the cinema lenses, will increase the production value more than I feel the crew would in that situation. Whatever lighting guy I hire is probably not better at lighting interviews than me, the sound guy has a Sound Devices, so the audio may sound slightly better than my Schoeps going straight to my C300 as a OMB (though I feel I could manage a Sound Devices too if I owned one, while perhaps not mixing as precisely as a dedicated sound professional who doesn't need to pay attention to camera, etc.), but I'd say that improvement is not as noticeable as having a second angle, and the PA speeds things up a bit. Most of the time I have adequate time for setup and breakdown, so speeding things up is not so important to me really. At the end of the day as a OMB I make more money, and deliver better quality in that budget type of situation. So, I often market myself as a OMB. I don't mind doing extra work, carrying extra stuff. I'm still young.

Now, if they come to me and say, "We don't care about budget, give us the best you got," then sure, bring a full crew on board, book me with the best gear I have (or gear I don't have if mine isn't good enough for the quality they want), etc. But most of my clients don't come to me with bigger budgets like that.

But who knows, maybe by marketing myself as a OMB, I miss out on some $5k interview budgets with crew, and get stuck with lower budgets wanting a single C100 and no cinema lenses, which I do a lot of as well.
 
Last edited:
Run&Gun said:
I've gotten tot he point I turn down OMB interviews. An audio op isn't just there for audio(at least not in the context we're talking about). I received a call a few years ago for some sit-downs at a college conference media day. They wanted OMB because "it's just putting a lav on the subject". AND there were going to be about 20 or so interviews. I quoted the producer(probably associate producer) a two-man crew rate. Never heard back and never lost a second of sleep over it, either. Had a stupid request earlier this year. OMB, two cams, outside shoot. Foreign entity(US crewer). Thankfully I was not available, but the crewer knew it was a ridiculous request and asked me to quote the job just so they could show their client what their expectations should really be. I quoted it as a two-man crew plus extra gear plus a "PITA charge".
Click to expand...

Amen. The OMB is not a good thing for our industry. Before the DV revolutuion, it was quite a rare thing (I can't recall ever doing that when I was shooting Betacam or S16 film?) but it seems like as soon as DV cameras came in, everyone decided one person could do it all. As we always say, video/TV/filmmaking is a team sport.
 
OK Eric...dusted off the last reel, from 2008. It's an epic 6+ minutes for some reason! Looking at it now, I can see what I'd cut but hey, not looking to pull a George Lucas and revise history (I'd be re-digitizing footage forever at higher resolution, for one)! I added four one'rs at the end which I had as separate clips on the site. There are definitely a few instances where I prioritized name actors or projects over operating quality on a case by case basis.

https://vimeo.com/232104743
 
Last edited:
Nice reel! Thanks for sharing!

But at 6+ minutes I think we can all see what happened here. Producers got bored after the first couple minutes, as Dan said, "[liking] their work less and less." Next thing you know, you gave up Steadicam work and became a full time DP. :P


Funny that Balls of Fury are the second and third shots in your reel. For the 48 Hour Film Project this year (a month ago) we did a ping pong movie, so while we were writing the script I had Balls of Fury on my laptop on mute for some inspiration. The director/writer guy we were working with often does over the top and goofy comedies, but Balls of Fury was certainly more over the top than what we typically do.

I notice in the opening you took some short segments which were later repeated in longer segments in the later part of the reel. Do you find that advisable, or better to not repeat anything later in the reel?

So for a new site you'd make a new DP reel then? Do you edit your reels or hire an editor to do so?
 
I don't know how often Balls of Fury is used as an inspiration...!

As far as repeating shots from the opening 30 later in the reel, it may be better to avoid but honestly I feel that only a few people ever watched much past the opening and if they did, they probably skipped around. Don't honestly know. If I was doing it again today I would probably limit that to where it really was necessary, and re-cut the section after the montage down to about 2.5 minutes.

To reiterate: the montage is good for those who want to get a sense of what kind of jobs you've done and aren't going to spend much time on any given reel, so it's all flash and thunder. For the lesser percentage that want to see things in depth, the rest of the reel can feature longer segments that show off the finesse. And for those who are really critical, the complete shots from start to end have their place as separate clips on your site, or as a secondary compilation clip.

I'm not entirely sure how I'm going to go about the new site--each project will have it's own short clip of hero shots but I will likely make a "best of" clip reel at the end of it of my favorite bits. That one will likely require constant updating so I have to conjure up a flexible way to do so without it being a PITA. And yes I do generally edit my reels but I may job some of this out because of the scope of work on this one. In the past I attempted to use different editors but wasn't able to find someone who I felt did a great job so it ended up not worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top