2015Legal / Business Practices forum
Appropriate operating rates for Movi and gimbal work compared to Steadicam rates
DisputedParticipants disagreed and reached no conclusion. Read the findings as positions, not as an answer.
What the thread found
- Movi operating requires different physical demands than Steadicam work, with weight carried primarily in the arms rather than distributed across the body through a vest system.
- Movi operating demands specific skills for choreography, framing, and shot composition, though the technical skill set differs from Steadicam operation.
- A graduated rate structure may be justified, with Movi operating rates potentially set between standard operator scale and full Steadicam rates, or matched to Steadicam rates depending on operator proficiency.
- Movi and gimbal equipment accessories and maintenance costs can be substantial and require continuous reinvestment as technology evolves.
- Operators new to gimbal work may lack the same proficiency as their Steadicam capabilities, making lower rates initially appropriate until skill levels match.
- Setting Movi rates below Steadicam rates risks driving down overall Steadicam operator compensation if producers view gimbals as cheaper alternatives.
- Operator experience and problem-solving ability in framing and adjusting shots in real-time are valuable regardless of equipment type and justify premium rates beyond scale.
Depends on
- Discussion reflects individual operator perspectives and market conditions from 2015, which may have changed.
- No consensus was reached on appropriate rate structures, with operators advocating different approaches based on proficiency and business philosophy.
- Rates appear to vary significantly based on individual operator skill, equipment investment, market region, and project type.
- Limited discussion of how union agreements may regulate these rates in different jurisdictions.