Peter Jensen

Los Angeles company training techs for virtual reality camera platforms. The work includes prepping the equipment and operating it on the set. Techs would be employees of the production company and would work at "tech daily" rate set by IATSE Local 600. Contact: Peter Jensen pcjevo@gmail.com Evo Stabilized, Inc.

I was operating Steadicam on a scene with several dozen archers jumping off their horses and firing arrows. The director told them to aim over the "right shoulder of the Steadicam guy". The stunt coordinator said this was a safe shot because the archers were skilled stunt men. Being hit by an arrow was bad, but if I survived I would always be known for the rest of my life as the Steadicam operator who was dumb enough to do a stunt like that. So I didn't do the shot and they moved a dolly in but the stunt coordinator thought that would be dangerous because a stray arrow could ricochet off the dolly into the extras and we ended up shooting imaginary arrows that would somehow be digitally animated.

Janice, Great thoughts. Yes, there is often a fine line between what is dangerous and what is not. And you are so right that there is nothing as exciting as doing a shot that is on the cutting edge. I think I confused the point, or I'm confused or something. Operating Steadicam was no more hazardous for me - when I was doing it - than conventional operating. If I ran with the Steadicam I knew that would increase the possibility of falling, but when I did go down I fell forward and it was pretty harmless. The dangerous stuff might be filming around unpredictable things that can go very bad if you are wearing a Steadicam on a vest if you are on the ground with wild animals, vehicle stunts and people shooting with things like bows and arrows. You wrote: <<6) No, not all accidents are publicized, I thought more would be with the internet. It is our job to talk about them.>> Yes, you are so right. I think it would be great if we could share our experiences if they can provide reference points to each other about making the right decisions about doing a shot. Peter

<We've all had to say no at some point in our careers and if we felt it was unsafe we said no. If they replace you fine. Not the last movie ever made, and you did what you thought was right. I say you do some stuff with calculated risks that's exciting so that you have great stories to tell. > But there are accidents. We don't hear much about them, maybe. Horrible crane accidents, cars, falls from scaffolding. Deaths and close calls with helicopter accidents. Why don't we hear more about them. What about the helicopter incident in Michigan when a helicopter on a big, big show snagged a power line. The crew survived - barely. We don't hear about these things, or share information about them. I remember being asked to do risky shots. On a show in Vegas I was asked to do a shot in which a swat team van busts through a window and stops just short of the camera that I was asked to hold. The stunt director, one of the best, demo'd the shot, said the shot would be safe and they could stop on a dime. We were one day from going home, I was looking forwards to seeing my family back in LA. I didn't do the shot, and the van driver overshot the stop mark, I would have been crushed between the front bumper and a cinder block wall. Instead of driving back to LA, I would have been shipped back. When we're asked to do something risky there is often the sense that it's our professional responsibility to take risk. A good number friends of mine - have had close calls or been badly injured on jobs. Today there are many great remote heads that can be used for these risky applications. I personally believe that the argument that an operator filming in the circle of risk can get a better shot no longer makes sense.

I'm developing some advanced capabilities for shooting on the ice that make ice shooting much faster and with much more visual with remotely driven robotic camera dollys - because these drones are unmanned they can turn tighter corners and glide across the ice with unmatched control, speed and grace. They are powered by four linked direct drive torque motors that cling to the ice, the fact that the camera operator is not on board means that it is free of g-forces that would otherwise limit its agility. They use electronically stabilized pan/tilt heads (two per dolly) so it's possible to break away from the wide angle shots and lock in on longer focal lengths. Feel free to contact me, Peter Jensen Palos Verdes, CA 310-791-7010 twintrees@cox.net