4 ms·
A friend of mine is a camera operator for a small production firm. They have some really old equipment, including tripods that aren't safe to use for their cam
by dvtv75 8y ago
A friend of mine is a camera operator for a small production firm. They have some really old equipment, including tripods that aren't safe to use for their cameras, but they still cheap out on them anyway.
He gets paid about $16/hour to stand by the camera for up to 20 hours a week to make sure it doesn't fall over, which costs around $10k/year. A new tripod would cost $1500 and could last for a decade, so $it's 100k vs $1500.
Justify that, if you can. I can't, and I'm not being sarcastic or bitchy, I really want someone to explain it.
- groby_b 8y agoMany possible explanations. One of the most common ones is cash flow. If you're somewhat at break-even, there just isn't any $1,500 around, but there are enough jobs to pay $320 a week, and do that every week. (This is by the way the same reason poor people often make "stupid" decisions) This is the most common case for smaller companies - it's all hand-to-mouth, and you barely squeak into profitability, so you minimize one-time expenses that shorten your runway. (What we around here like to call "Ramen profitable") There's also the fact that even with a tripod, you probably want somebody around - assuming they use high-end movie gear, a camera runs between $100k and $500k. Spending $10k a year on somebody who catches it in case of accident makes sense. I'm sure there are other explanations. I'm sure there are places that make stupid decisions, too :)