Jump to content

Good God- 16mm Camera value plummets in the last year...


Kirk Anderson

Recommended Posts

Back to the OP as we digressed there. 16mm has never been cheap. I started out in the days of 16mm lore and up until just recently, camera prices held their own. An Arri S for example with 3 lenses, two mags, a VS motor and batts went for around 3500 USD and remained about that up until around two or three years ago when they started nosediving.I saw one fully loaded go for 500 bucks last week. They were prized possessions as were Bolex Rex's, Beaulieu R-16's, Eclair NPR's and ACL's, hell even an old Auricon in 1975 would set you back over 2 G. Proportionally speaking, however, film, processing, printing and such has always been expensive. In the 70's the avergae cost of having a 16mm production done (usually it was an industrial, corporate sales film,educational/training or promotional type production)started at 1000 bucks per production minute, thus a 20 minute film's budget STARTED at 25G and went up from there depending on how involved the production was. Your 25G usually got you a producer/director(who was also usually the editor or at least supervised the editing), cameraman/DP, soundman, grip/AC,as many as 3 or 4 main actors(it wasn't hard to get extras and non speaking parts for free), and as much help they could hire for minimum wage or less, stock ( usually shooting ratios were around 8 to 1 or slightly better)and lab work that took you to answer print stage, at which point you were at the lab's mercy for internegs and release prints.

 

What do you suppose a production like that, all things being equal would go for now using prosumer HDV gear? Something to ponder. I know for a fact production values in these venues(which is why I can relate to Adam's lament/rant) dropped significantly over the last three decades. Yet in looking at the way business has changed, companies learned that they didn't need such high production values to get their messages across. When I had my production company in the 80's(16mm started dying fast, replaced by 3/4", sometimes 1 inch and later Betacam video and VHS release), most of my clients would say, "We don't need Hollywood, but we don't want home movies either".Now in most cases, if an industrial video is done with remotely similar production values, the average running time has dropped from 20-40 minutes to 3 to 5 minutes with the rest of the presentation being done with Power Point and IMAG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

All I'm saying is that electronic distribution has opened up and has the potential to open up more avenues of exhibition for filmmakers that stretch beyond the theatrical. Is the guy who makes avant garde films on super 8 not a "filmmaker"? Look at the number of documentaries that pop up from folks who just want to make a statement. Brian Fleming's "The God Who Wasn't There" comes to mind as well as "Zeitgeist" and a host of others. Granted there's a lot of crap out there, Hip Hop Gangsta comedies and such, but quality is a subjective on many of these venues as I mentioned before.

 

Can you really say that these people would not be making films without the internet or digital video? The guy who makes avant garde films on super-8 was making avant garde films on super-8 before the internet, and digital video is irrelevant in that case. Indie docs were being made long before digital video. These technologies may have changed the look of filmmaking a bit, but at it's core people who make good films make good films regardless of what it takes. How have these technological advances increased the number of people making good films? Do we really think that people who are able to make good films were somehow prevented from doing it before digital video? I know your not the one who said that indie film didn't exist before digital video, but this is the core of my argument and why I think we may actually agree here.

 

 

 

Not yet, but who says to be defined as a "filmmaker", the person has to make feature narrative films? You got folks out there who just want to make a statement, grind an axe or preach a sermon and they use film (OK video) as a delivery medium. Yeah, much is crap, but some have won awards for their work such as conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. While I'm not saying I buy into his stuff, he has won film festival awards for his docs.

 

First of all I don't consider people just making a statement, grinding an axe or preaching a sermon to be filmmakers. That's just not film. That's more in the realm of commercials or PSAs. Yes, the internet has opened up avenues for that, but that is something different.

 

You mention film festivals here. Once again something that existed long before the internet and digital video. But the sad truth is that everybody and their uncle has a film festival these days. I know plenty of terrible films that have won awards at film festivals. The director goes around telling everyone it is an "award winning film" but what he is hiding is that it won an award at a little fly by night film festival that has no real standards and his competition was other terrible films. If "award winning" is going to entice you to see a film you need to check where it won awards before taking that seriously.

 

Seriously if you want to have an "award winning" film I can show you how to win some random award. The problem is it may impress John Q. Public (sometimes) but most people in "the biz" see through it and it can in fact backfire and make your film look bad.

 

 

 

Here again, we don't really disagree on that much and I wasn't accusing you of being myopic. Yet myopia is a part of the business, it's a part of every business because every business's main concern is the bottom line which makes it difficult for anyone to branch into it. I suppose the best analogy I can use here is the difference between a fiddler and a violinist. They are two entirely different discipines that stem from different roots and backgrounds, yet they both utilise exactly the same instrument. Both artists are equally talented and equally satisfy the demands of their customers and patrons.

 

No, no, you didn't accuse me of being myopic. You accused studios and producers of being myopic. I think they should be myopic quite frankly. I don't blame them for not hiring a corporate video maker to direct a feature film, nor do I blame them for not hiring a grip to direct either. Only certain people have the talent, drive and creativity to be a director, and I don't see why it's unreasonable for them to have to prove that they can actually direct.

 

To continue the analogy here: You are correct, both use the same instrument and both satisfy their intended audiences. But both also require different skills, talent, and experience applied to that same instrument. You would not call a fiddler a violinist, and you would not hire her to play violin unless she could demonstrate to you that she could play violin.

 

 

 

I'm not disagreeing with you at all here. In fact I'll even go you one further and say there are alot of filmmakers out there who shouldn't call themselves filmmakers. Having worked on the distribution/exhibition end I've seen some junk hit the screen that should've never made as whoever did them were clearly unqualified. "Open Water" comes to mind, which wouldn't even have qualified as a student film in my opinion. I'll also agree with you that the technology revolution has given many an unrealistic view of the requirements of making a film. This has been going on since 16mm and small handheld 35mm cameras have existed. It's a glamorous business and it attracts more people than who are qualified to work in it or will have enough positions to satisfy those that want to work in it. That's just the reality. I'm just a little confused as to just where you draw the line on what constitutes a "filmmaker".

 

I agree with you here.

 

Where I draw the line? Purpose. Filmmakers have a specific purpose. And that is to create something with artistic value for an audience. So this excludes commercials, corporate videos, PSAs, etc. And in order to call themselves a 'filmmaker' it should be their chosen career, not just a hobby. I'm not saying that there is no value to making films as a hobby, but I wouldn't really consider that person to be a 'filmmaker'. Given the nature of the work involved in making films I have never seen a film hobbiest make a good film.

 

We've gotten a little confused between the internet as distribution and digital video. I would agree that the internet has opened up some avenues for promotion of a film, and has promise as a distribution medium, and that digital video has created some more shooting options to choose from, but my original point was this: Not digital video, nor the internet has increased the amount of "filmmakers" out there. People who legitimately care about the medium, who focus on it as a career, and care about creating a high-end product. Yes, many of these filmmakers may use digital video or the internet but that same slice of the population was finding ways to make films long before digital video and the internet.

 

Most good scripts in the hands of a good director can find the money to get made. Look at "Thank You For Smoking". Jason Reitman took 7 years to find the funding for that film. He could have just gone out, shot it on digital video, with an underpaid crew, on a low budget that meant cutting corners, and been shooting in within the year. But it would not have been the same film. It would not have been a good film. If anything digital video has harmed indie film by encouraging filmmakers to jump the gun and make the film on a low budget that hurts it in much more severe ways than shooting format. There are films out there that had a good screenplay or at least a good idea, but instead of waiting and putting in the time and energy to find the funding to make it well, they jumped the gun and made it on little or no money. And their film suffers for it. The terrible production values and poorly cast actors turn the audience off long before they have a chance to get absorbed in the story.

 

I challenge anyone to point to a single film that is good, not "ok", actually good that could not have been made before digital video. Yes, maybe it would have taken longer to make, and the number they brag as a budget would not be so low, but it would have been made. Indie film existed long before digital video. And in fact the majority of really good indie films these days are still shot on film with a budget of at least a couple million. Because the real truth is that if your budget is so low that you cant afford film or something higher quality than "prosumer" digital video your film is going to suffer in much, much worse ways than image quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet in looking at the way business has changed, companies learned that they didn't need such high production values to get their messages across. When I had my production company in the 80's(16mm started dying fast, replaced by 3/4", sometimes 1 inch and later Betacam video and VHS release), most of my clients would say, "We don't need Hollywood, but we don't want home movies either".

 

All of this is very valid points. But lets just remember that what may apply to a fiddler does not necessarily apply to a violinist. Indie filmmakers do "need Hollywood" or at least something that resembles the basic quality level of Hollywood to be successful with an audience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this is very valid points. But lets just remember that what may apply to a fiddler does not necessarily apply to a violinist. Indie filmmakers do "need Hollywood" or at least something that resembles the basic quality level of Hollywood to be successful with an audience.

Right, Adam, we really don't disagree. The only point I was trying to make (but apparently doing a poor job of it) was that the new technology has offered cheaper avenues because the exhorbitant lab costs are gone. Yes, I'll agee with you 100% about the fact that we live in an age when any schmuck with a few grand can win some jack leg festival( I sat through one evening of an awful festival in Toronto last year, quite painful) and stroke his ego while his work still sucks.Hell, we live in age when any schmuck with a mail order or online degree can hang a shingle on his door and call himself an expert at something and charge money for his quackery. Yet at the same token I have friends who WERE good at what they did. I know because I used to work with them and they gave up because no one gave them a break and getting money up for their own project was impossible, the same story of not getting a break applies to competent and incompetent as well (yes, I'll agree with producers who won't hire a grip for a DP, but by the same token,have you ever met a student filmmaker or very small budget producer who had such an ego that he expected to hire experienced talent for nothing? I have.). Now 30 years later, they bought a camera and started getting on the crews of small indie films of fairly decent merit. Shorts at first, then some features. I have a friend that did that, although eventually he switched from doing camera work to audio because he said that there was more demand for audio where he is becuase there was less competition. He's doing quite well now and in a short time of less than 3 years, he's managed to get himself a fairly decent list of credits.I also know several producer/director types who couldn't get a project off the ground before HD because broadcast video wasn't good enough and film, with it's high stock costs and lab fees was out of the question.

 

My own definition of a filmmaker is anyone who makes films (or videos). This includes features, TV, shorts, docs, whatever. Some are good, many are garbage. Not everyone who makes films can or even wants to make theatrical features. Standards of quality vary depending on the avenue of distribution.To me filmmaking is an art form, a business and a means of communication. Some can manage all three, as in the case of "real" films like you're talking about, others only go for the small venue and that's fine.

 

No, you won't find too many fiddlers playing Bach's Sinfonia to Cantata #29 in E flat major and you won't find too many concert violinists sawing out Orange Blossom Special, yet have you ever heard of Vasser Clements? He can do both and can even play Bluegrass in a classical style and classical in Bluegrass style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with the original post. Prices for 16mm cameras are dropping quickly and i dought prices for film to HD tranfers are going to drop. I'm shooting a 16mm feature (mos) and started the post production prep. To go to HD it will cost me $62,000.00. The thing that gets you is the color correction and the conforming. And if your edge numbers are fogged or something...forget it. You are automatically paying more cash to fix the issue. I'm going to a traditionaly neg cutter because its cheaper.

 

I learned mixing film and video is a bad idea, because outside of final cut, you need to decide what the end master will be. Film or video. Then you have to do conversions.

 

As much as I hate to say, in 10 years, 16mm film is going to be a expensive medium to shoot on with limited post resources (labs and cutters have dissappeared). Digital has taken 16s place and after a while people arent going to know what a "film look" is. They'll accept the look HD has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think whats killed Indie film are the stories. They are the same stories from twenty years ago. Filmmakers now a days have smaller equipment, can edit at home on laptops, yet with all the newest technology, nothing new is coming out story wise or visually.

 

 

 

Can you really say that these people would not be making films without the internet or digital video? The guy who makes avant garde films on super-8 was making avant garde films on super-8 before the internet, and digital video is irrelevant in that case. Indie docs were being made long before digital video. These technologies may have changed the look of filmmaking a bit, but at it's core people who make good films make good films regardless of what it takes. How have these technological advances increased the number of people making good films? Do we really think that people who are able to make good films were somehow prevented from doing it before digital video? I know your not the one who said that indie film didn't exist before digital video, but this is the core of my argument and why I think we may actually agree here.

 

 

 

 

 

First of all I don't consider people just making a statement, grinding an axe or preaching a sermon to be filmmakers. That's just not film. That's more in the realm of commercials or PSAs. Yes, the internet has opened up avenues for that, but that is something different.

 

You mention film festivals here. Once again something that existed long before the internet and digital video. But the sad truth is that everybody and their uncle has a film festival these days. I know plenty of terrible films that have won awards at film festivals. The director goes around telling everyone it is an "award winning film" but what he is hiding is that it won an award at a little fly by night film festival that has no real standards and his competition was other terrible films. If "award winning" is going to entice you to see a film you need to check where it won awards before taking that seriously.

 

Seriously if you want to have an "award winning" film I can show you how to win some random award. The problem is it may impress John Q. Public (sometimes) but most people in "the biz" see through it and it can in fact backfire and make your film look bad.

 

 

 

 

 

No, no, you didn't accuse me of being myopic. You accused studios and producers of being myopic. I think they should be myopic quite frankly. I don't blame them for not hiring a corporate video maker to direct a feature film, nor do I blame them for not hiring a grip to direct either. Only certain people have the talent, drive and creativity to be a director, and I don't see why it's unreasonable for them to have to prove that they can actually direct.

 

To continue the analogy here: You are correct, both use the same instrument and both satisfy their intended audiences. But both also require different skills, talent, and experience applied to that same instrument. You would not call a fiddler a violinist, and you would not hire her to play violin unless she could demonstrate to you that she could play violin.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with you here.

 

Where I draw the line? Purpose. Filmmakers have a specific purpose. And that is to create something with artistic value for an audience. So this excludes commercials, corporate videos, PSAs, etc. And in order to call themselves a 'filmmaker' it should be their chosen career, not just a hobby. I'm not saying that there is no value to making films as a hobby, but I wouldn't really consider that person to be a 'filmmaker'. Given the nature of the work involved in making films I have never seen a film hobbiest make a good film.

 

We've gotten a little confused between the internet as distribution and digital video. I would agree that the internet has opened up some avenues for promotion of a film, and has promise as a distribution medium, and that digital video has created some more shooting options to choose from, but my original point was this: Not digital video, nor the internet has increased the amount of "filmmakers" out there. People who legitimately care about the medium, who focus on it as a career, and care about creating a high-end product. Yes, many of these filmmakers may use digital video or the internet but that same slice of the population was finding ways to make films long before digital video and the internet.

 

Most good scripts in the hands of a good director can find the money to get made. Look at "Thank You For Smoking". Jason Reitman took 7 years to find the funding for that film. He could have just gone out, shot it on digital video, with an underpaid crew, on a low budget that meant cutting corners, and been shooting in within the year. But it would not have been the same film. It would not have been a good film. If anything digital video has harmed indie film by encouraging filmmakers to jump the gun and make the film on a low budget that hurts it in much more severe ways than shooting format. There are films out there that had a good screenplay or at least a good idea, but instead of waiting and putting in the time and energy to find the funding to make it well, they jumped the gun and made it on little or no money. And their film suffers for it. The terrible production values and poorly cast actors turn the audience off long before they have a chance to get absorbed in the story.

 

I challenge anyone to point to a single film that is good, not "ok", actually good that could not have been made before digital video. Yes, maybe it would have taken longer to make, and the number they brag as a budget would not be so low, but it would have been made. Indie film existed long before digital video. And in fact the majority of really good indie films these days are still shot on film with a budget of at least a couple million. Because the real truth is that if your budget is so low that you cant afford film or something higher quality than "prosumer" digital video your film is going to suffer in much, much worse ways than image quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think whats killed Indie film are the stories. They are the same stories from twenty years ago. Filmmakers now a days have smaller equipment, can edit at home on laptops, yet with all the newest technology, nothing new is coming out story wise or visually.

 

I think this is a problem that applies to all filmmaking, both Hollywood and indie. I wouldn't say there is nothing though. You still see great films both Hollywood and indie, it's just extremely rare compared to several decades ago.

 

It's due to a lack of good screenwriters. There are people out there with good ideas, but few have the actual skill and practice to weave a good compelling screenplay out of said ideas. I'm hoping skilled screenwriting will make a comeback. There are guys like Robert McKee out there trying to do just that. If more aspiring filmmakers picked up his book the quality of the stories would surely improve somewhat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I think whats killed Indie film are the stories. They are the same stories from twenty years ago. Filmmakers now a days have smaller equipment, can edit at home on laptops, yet with all the newest technology, nothing new is coming out story wise or visually.

 

What should? Every imaginable story has been more or less transferred via the medium film. All that's left is copy and paste (and give it a new typeface/zeitgeist). There is not much in addition that people are gonna understand. And there are not many groundbraking things to fight against (i mean from a filmmakers standpoint in addition to that what's already there).

 

These are the ex-citing times. All that is done is citation. Or Post-post modern.

I need a time machine, yuck!

 

Back to 16mm price drops, sorry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with the original post. Prices for 16mm cameras are dropping quickly and i dought prices for film to HD tranfers are going to drop. I'm shooting a 16mm feature (mos) and started the post production prep. To go to HD it will cost me $62,000.00. The thing that gets you is the color correction and the conforming. And if your edge numbers are fogged or something...forget it. You are automatically paying more cash to fix the issue. I'm going to a traditionaly neg cutter because its cheaper.

 

HD transfers are dropping in price. The book rates just aren't dropping. But the final price that you can haggle to is much less than it used to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What should? Every imaginable story has been more or less transferred via the medium film. All that's left is copy and paste (and give it a new typeface/zeitgeist). There is not much in addition that people are gonna understand. And there are not many groundbraking things to fight against.

 

I disagree. Yes there are a limited variety of core stories, but there is always a way to tell it in a new way. No filmmaker is a blank slate, and therefore all films are built on and inspired by films that came before them. But that does not mean they are copy and paste. Yes, unfortunately "copy and paste" aptly describes a lot of films especially indie films, but it is not true for all films. There are skilled filmmakers out there who know how to take inspiration from both life and cinema and weave them into something original and fresh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16mm camera prices may have nose dived, but the prices of film, processing and transfer continue to do nothing but rise. Sometimes I'm tempted to buy something that I would've loved to have 20 or 30 years ago because it's less than 1/5 what it used to cost, but what would be the point if film and lab work are still exhorbitantly expensive? A few years ago, my wife and I visited MGM studios in Oralndo and I saw a display of a couple of mannequins, one with a director's megaphone and the other behind an Arri S with a long zoom. It was out, exposed to the elements, getting rained on I couldn't help but cringe a bit.

 

I hope that the falling prices will inspire some to shoot film, but I don't hold my breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to a traditionaly neg cutter because its cheaper.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=48125&st=100#ixzz15lPbA9c4

 

I'm curious, what are you paying for a neg cutter these days? I used to cut neg (actually about 50% of what I cut was reversal as ECO was still used quite a bit back then)and the lab charged 18 bucks an hour then(1978-80). When I freelanced, I charged by the job, averaging around the same as I counted per cut(average 10 cuts an hour,which calculated around 15 to 20 bucks depending on how big the entire project was, sometimes I charged more, some less). It amazes me that they can do it now without a film workprint, I wouldn't even begin to know how these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16mm camera prices may have nose dived, but the prices of film, processing and transfer continue to do nothing but rise.

 

You are in Oshawa right? So we have access the same post houses. Have you priced lately? Yeah, transfers are not free by any means but the prices are much better than they used to be. They have most certainly not gone up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It amazes me that they can do it now without a film workprint, I wouldn't even begin to know how these days.

 

KeyKode, pull and assembly lists. As long as you have good timecode and a match list, and/or keykode in your Final Cut or Avid EDL they have a very clear list to work from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KeyKode, pull and assembly lists. As long as you have good timecode and a match list, and/or keykode in your Final Cut or Avid EDL they have a very clear list to work from.

I've read about that, but never actually seen someone cut a film from it. Do they cut the scenes exactly where the editor made them or do they pull the scenes flash frame to flash frame and print(xfer to DI) accordingly? I used to cut in A and B rolls to hide splices and make transition effects, how is this done now? I'm still curious as to what neg cutters charge these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are in Oshawa right? So we have access the same post houses. Have you priced lately? Yeah, transfers are not free by any means but the prices are much better than they used to be. They have most certainly not gone up.

No I haven't price processing and transfer in a long time, I just assumed they went up like everything else.That's encouraging, thanks.I know raw stock and chemistry prices haven't dropped.I haven't shot 16mm since the 90's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read about that, but never actually seen someone cut a film from it. Do they cut the scenes exactly where the editor made them or do they pull the scenes flash frame to flash frame and print(xfer to DI) accordingly? I used to cut in A and B rolls to hide splices and make transition effects, how is this done now? I'm still curious as to what neg cutters charge these days.

 

Last time I investigated it it was for a traditional film to film finish, so it was frame accurate A and B rolls. But I'm sure flash to flash would be an option. I don't see how that would save any money though compared to just doing selects from the lab rolls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I haven't price processing and transfer in a long time, I just assumed they went up like everything else.That's encouraging, thanks.I know raw stock and chemistry prices haven't dropped.I haven't shot 16mm since the 90's.

 

Yeah, Kodak seems to raise the price on stock every once in a while by some change per roll, nothing drastic. A DOP told me that if you take into account inflation stock actually costs less than it used to, but I haven't done the math or anything so I don't know if that's true.

 

If you are actually planning to shoot film at any point in the future, there are some good places into Toronto to get verified short ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Kodak seems to raise the price on stock every once in a while by some change per roll, nothing drastic. A DOP told me that if you take into account inflation stock actually costs less than it used to, but I haven't done the math or anything so I don't know if that's true.

 

If you are actually planning to shoot film at any point in the future, there are some good places into Toronto to get verified short ends.

Thanks, Adam. That's actually encouraging. I know Toronto also has LIFT which I plan to join as soon as I get legal here. I still prefer film for things like music videos, which I'm looking to explore more of here as the local music scene is light years ahead of where I came from. Picked up a really nice Yamaha guitar for next to nothing just asking around at the gym and started jammin' again. LIFT has some really good prices on Bolex S 16 rentals for members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Adam. That's actually encouraging. I know Toronto also has LIFT which I plan to join as soon as I get legal here. I still prefer film for things like music videos, which I'm looking to explore more of here as the local music scene is light years ahead of where I came from. Picked up a really nice Yamaha guitar for next to nothing just asking around at the gym and started jammin' again. LIFT has some really good prices on Bolex S 16 rentals for members.

 

LIFT is a great place. Not just for the equipment but the people. It's a really good place to meet people in t.o. indie film. I would recommend going to some of their barbecues, screenings or other events like that. Their workshops are great as well, I have taken a bunch and taught one myself for a while.

 

And yeah the t.o. music scene is amazing. Lots of great artists here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

 

I bought a 1923 Kodak Cine for $12 at a camera swap about 4 years ago. Works great, just needs double perf 16mm which is hard to find. Somehow I think that will keep it's value.

 

Sorry, late-comer to this, but couldn't help commenting. A 1923 Cine-Kodak for $12 is a real steal, and they are doing more than holding their value. Five or six years ago you could buy a clean example for $250. Now they can bring upwards of twice that. Last good one on ebay went for over $600. If collectors get interested in later high-end 16, some prices for cameras previously valued for their utility may go back up on cameras sought for display only. It's interesting that a clean Nikon I will bring upwards of $25,000 from collectors in a world-class auction. The number of the earliest version of the Cine-Kodak Model A's produced is essentially identical, yet these--with an arguably similar degree of historical significance--won't bring even $1000...yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Film Gears

CINELEASE

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...