Phil Connolly

That not ubiquitous, my digital shoots are very serious and we don't have time in the schedule or actor energy to shoot in a 50:1 ratio. I find my digital shoots end up at about 10:1 or 15:1 just by the nature of the schedule and the fact I don't want to burn the actors out. Maybe? Film can also be more stressful Depends on the choice of equipment, also hand-holding /assistance can also result in better looking footage. Its more easier to mess up with film - that could just as easily be argued as a bad thing. There are plenty of badly shot and lit short films on film However I do agree with your argument about the "fun" aspect - there is a lot of magic in the workflow and understand how the process can be a loverly thing. I'm really interested in Mark Jenkins work and his process of shooting 16mm and hand processing really creates interesting films and his love of the format informs his films. I think there are lots of reasons to shoot film. But I don't proscribe to the idea that "film" shoots are more disciplined and digital shoots aren't. When your really pushing and attempting your best work, I take it very seriously - regardless of format.

This is such a non debate - you can't unilaterally claim film is cheaper then digital - without giving qualifiers. At the most base level, look at the pictured digital camera (The VTech Kidzoom). It costs £40 to purchase and will record for several hours on a £30 SD card. The is no film based motion picture solution that records moving images as cheaply. The cheapest film solutions, for the same running time will cost several times more. (no matter what deal you get on equipment, stock or processing - donations don't count). Digital is cheaper, film can not compete with affordability offered by my daughters VTech camera, it also has the advantage of built in video games - try playing "Snake" on an SR3 or an IMAX MSM. (I can legitimately say my kids Vtech camera is better the a 70mm IMAX camera for playing video games and it also records better audio) If we stick to that level of simplicity there is no debate. No film solution is cheaper... Beyond that everything in entirely subjective, shooting formats are chosen for: Cost, convenience, quality, aesthetic considerations, operational factors, availability, record times, size, weight, demands of the client, prejudice, ego, location, production schedule, work flow, low light ability, ease of use. Those considerations very from person to person and project to project. Its not one single thing, its too complex to an issue to even debate which is "better" or "better value" since those terms are subjective based on the fact that we all have different needs. Its better not to be do dogmatic about formats. (I would also throw this dead cat on the table) sometimes digital looks nicer then film...I'll get my coat...

Regardless of cost we can all agree film offers an organic look that digital can't match. I shot this test last month, using 35mm 3 perf Kodak 50D, had a HDR scan in 11K (down converted to 4K) to preserve all the warmth and texture. Overexposed 1/2 a stop to tighten the grain. Look at the grain I think its beautiful, give me this over the cold sterility of digital any-day: I guess I've been converted

Nice - white trainers and black leggings. Great production design What might add to the vibe on the band shots would be some tube camera comet tails on the lights - 1980's concert footage often had the burn in from bright lights - which I'm sure AE could replicate. Also maybe put nets on the back of the lens?

Fight club is great, some iconic stuff in there. For me it was a grower and I liked it more after I read the book. A lot of what makes it good is the construction in the edit, so I wonder if the experience of shooting would give you a different impression of the film.

I quite liked some of the earlier Marvel movies, but they are so formulaic now as the same tropes are repeated again again with a similar character in a slightly different costume. What does surprise me is the level of love they get, I found Avengers Endgame to be disappointing, yet its rated at 8/10 on IMDB and fans were banging on about it being an 'emotional' watch. I was shocked at how bad the storytelling was. On a craft level its spectacular and very well made. But you wonder if rather then churning out so many a little bit more thought could go into the script. Hopefully we have reached "peak superhero" and the world is ready to move on.

It looks like the Alexa classics have come down in price a lot, VMI are pretty keenly priced: https://vmi.tv/equipment/125/arri/987/arri-alexa-hire-london-plus Kind of in the ball park of a Panavision 35mm hire. Alexa Minis are still expensive and the demand for the latest tech as brought the cost of the older cams down a bit. So even if digital is more expensive to hire, its not much more expensive if you stay away from the latest and greatest. If you get a an amazing deal on the stock and lab work and stick to a very tight shooting ratio maybe the balance shifts. But great deals aren't always possible and quite location dependant, e,g if your far away from a Lab it gets harder. Although possible, shooting more cheaply I would still state is the exception, not the rule

and cost

That would be under very specific circumstances and probably a very expensive rental deal on an Alexa. An Alexa body can be hired in the Uk for £300 per day. In most cases the camera package between say film and 35mm would be almost the same. The tripod would cost the same, the lenses, the matt box, the follow focus etc...lighting, grip. On any shoot the cost of the camera body is only a fraction of the overall cost. With Alexa's costing £300 per day and Reds even less. I doubt 35mm bodies are much cheaper to hire and even if they were 50% cheaper, it wouldn't be a massive saving once you priced out everything. A set of S4's costs the same on both a film. A 1000ft roll of 35mm is £387.50 - then you still need to add the camera body hire and lab fee's. Yes it might be possible to bring a 35mm shoot in under an Alexa shoot, perhaps if you already owned the camera. But I suspect you'd have to work to a very tight shooting ratio, use short ends etc... But as I said earlier my most recent digital short would have cost at least £3000 more to shoot on super 16. Based on the amount of footage I shot (which was about a 12:1 ratio). I don't think I could have shot it on a lower ratio without compromising the film. I'm still paying bills on the film, so I'm very clear about what everything cost and film would not have been affordable. 35mm even worse. I'd be interested to see your working out - I'd love to find a more affordable way to shoot film In my case I was able to borrow an FS7 and Xeen lens package for free. I could also have borrowed an SR3 for free, its the stock and lab costs that would have killed me

Same with personal projects. I just completed filming a self financed short film. I ran the numbers on what shooting film would cost vs digital. Super 16 would have added £3000 to the budget minimum. I didn't have that money to hand, hence digital. Perhaps I could have made savings in other areas to cover the cost of film stock. Sure it would have been possible but then I wouldn't have been able to get the cast of the calibre I had. When the film comes out I'm 90% certain the thing thats going to help get it selected into festivals and find an audience is that I got a really excellent cast. All things being equal festivals will prioritise films with marketable cast over films shot on film. If you can afford both, great, but if you can afford one thing invest in good actors. If I was really passionate about shooting film, perhaps I could have waited, raised more money, shot film later. But I have no idea how long that would take. I would have almost certainly lost the actors other products, this film was a case of the actors have a window now, lets take advantage of it. I made the film I could afford to make, which is more useful then not making the film and waiting, my fiction directing career on hold. And in terms of archive stability of digital? I don't really care, I'm not worried about people being able to watch my short in 30 years time. I need it to show my directing ability now, its an investment in my career now. I don't need it to be future proof.

To test the metaphor, digital is a nice pair of "Doc Martins", sensibly priced, versatile, good value for money and looks cool and functional. Film is a pair of "Jimi Choo's", very pretty but crazy expensive and only worn on special occasions, mainly in Hollywood. Nether is a "better" shoe - they both have their strengths. But personally when you've got a lot of miles to walk, in all weathers - I'm most likely going to be putting on my pair of Doc's, I don't have a Jimi Choo budget (and they don't come in size 12). Which reiterates the theme of the thread. You don't see any web forums arguing that Jimi Choo's are cheaper then DM's, mainly because they aren't - that facts are against it. Its no different with film, its more expensive.

Public locations don't technically need permits, its public for a reason. To sell/screen a film technically you do need permits for private locations. However if you "stole" a location its only a problem if the owner finds out and sues. Normally festivals will ask you to sign a doc stating you had permissions - this covers locations, music, actors etc... A small project that is seen by a limited audience on the festival circuit probably wouldn't get back to the owner. It would probably only become an issue if the film was a success and seen by a large audience (unlikely for a short), Even if it does get back to the owner, they might not be bothered to pursue it. E.g the train/subway footage on "Pi" was stolen. Trying to ban the film would just result in bad publicity and little gain. Generally I always seek permission for everything important. I have a couple of music videos with private locations I stole in circulation - its never been flagged by anyone, but if I was asked to take them down I wouldn't be that sad.

In many ways the micro 4/3 mount on the 4k is a bonus over the 6k. It's easier to adapt it to different len mounts.

Its also good to have a smaller camera for those shoots when your own your own. As loverly as the Alexa classic is - its not a camera you can just grab for the run and gun shoots. I'd agree with Robin the Fx9 looks tasty. Having 4K is useful for corporate work and cameras like the FS7, FX9 can be put to use on fiction shoots as well - they totally hold up

I can't comment on the 6K. But I've done several projects on the 4K. The footage holds on a grades really nicely, its a lot more robust then most cameras in the price range. In extreme circumstances you could probably end up pushing it into strange colours and noise - but in general shooting its fine. Colours are nice and it has decent low light performance. The test you link too is interesting, but how often do you shoot 3 stops under and attempt to bring back up to normal. Its not really a thing you'd do. Its an excellent camera for the money and only issue I've found annoying is the poor battery life and needed an external batt. The 6K looks great but if you only have the budget for the 4K I'm sure you'd still be happy.

Yep, I was happy with the price - buying insurance by the day worked out pretty affordable. We had to have public liability insurance to secure the main locations £5mill is demanded by council owned properties. Our actors were with big agencies and a stipulation about adequate insurance cover was included in the contract We also had a couple of camera trainees from the local University and their placement office wouldn't have sanctioned the placement without employers liability insurance. So not just peace of mind, the film couldn't have happened without it, we wouldn't have got the actors or location permits.

Do you have access to any lighting? 200T or 250D is fine on interiors if you light it properly. If you could get a couple of HMI's (maybe 2.5KWs) that would give you a lot more options, e.g punching though windows. It would also help you give your shots a bit more shape and contrast. The footage naturally will look sharper if you light it in a more contrasty way. Your example footage suffers from flat available light. If you had some larger film lights, you could use the windows/blinds to cast strong shadows and put a bit more texture into the image

I've never been asked for a deposit on kit hire. the big companies will just want proper insurance insurance , proof of ID and some cases references. For instance they may want to know that your going to look after the kit, so with expensive cameras/lenses they might want to know who the DOP/1STAC is. As others have said some hire companies will offer insurance at a rate of 10% to 15% of the cost of hire. This is sensible if your overall hire is quite small. But is usually cheaper to get your own insurance cover on larger hires, or get annual insurance cover if your doing more then one project. You ask the hire company what the kits worth and then get an insurance quote to cover that amount for the duration, pretty simple. You don't need collateral, thats the point of insurance. Its not that expensive. The most expensive bit of kit I've ever hired was the prototype Arri D20 and ultra prime set, i didn't need a deposit. Just £300,000 of insurance cover, which cost about £500 for a weekend, which I got through a media insurance broker. I did a short last month - it cost £400 to insure for a 4 day shoot. For that I got £30,000 equipment insurance, £5 Million public liability insurance and £10 Million employers liability, Well worth it and meant was fully covered. Lots of locations will want to see your've got public liability and if you are hiring cast or crew (even if they work for free) you do not want them suing you if they get injured, hence having employers liability. Some smaller places do ask for deposits (in the UK hireacamera.com do). They allow you to hire without insurance but want a large deposit, I avoid them, I don't want a big charge sitting on my credit card and I don't want to risk loosing the money if anything happens. I wouldn't hire kit without insurance (unless its something small i can afford to replace), its not worth the risk. I guess its more expensive in the US, because people are more litigious and more likely to sue you in the event of injury etc... so its probably even more important to have enough cover. With my producing hat on, I sometimes just hire DOP's who have their own gear/insurance as a job lot - its one less thing to worry about and can work out cheaper.

We are in agreement on that, I should have been more specific. They were operationally horrible as well and the DV playback was dropout-tastic. If your digitising a lot of tape, make sure you clean the heads regularity. Old tape is going to shed oxide and clog.

The optional composite in board on the Sony A500 Digi-Beta deck was decent and (in many post houses) the goto way to convert composite to digital SDI. Sometimes you can find a cheap one on ebay. JVC did make a VHS/DV combi deck with firewire out - Although I always found them a bit flaky Cross luma and colour can be minimised by careful use of low and hi pass filters. Although you effectively trade resolution to cut down on chroma artefacts

Its only worth it if the VHS originals were recorded in S-VHS, its a different format. S-VHS is much better then VHS in both colour and resolution. But if the masters are VHS, then any well set up machine would be fine, your not really going to extract much extra quality by playing back VHS on a S-VHS deck (the damage is already done). If i was going to puchase a VHS deck, I would buy and S-VHS, so I have the option of both formats. But if I already had a decent VHS deck, I wouldn't get another one unless I had a bunch of S-VHS tapes. I did get one of the last of the Panasonic SVHS decks when they were selling them off cheap during the rise of DVDr. It was a nice machine, but it didn't magically improve my VHS collection and even my SVHS recordings looked pretty rough next to DV and DVD.

http://www.cineressources.net/consultationPdf/web/o000/304.pdf I found this, some info but nothing about shutter speed. The only reference to exposure I found in the document: "Perfect determination of the diaphragms to be used may be effected by looking at the picture on the film directly through the magnifying glass and progressively closing the iris diaphragm of the lens by means of the diaphragm rod, until the whites and blacks begin to shade off" So good luck with that. It reality it likely to be in the ball park of 160 to 180degrees. Maybe test with a shutter speed of 1/30 per second and take it from there

I guess it would need to be a solid poured floor rather then sheets, maybe some kind of epoxy that could be polished. It might be more practical to use the sheets and paint out the seams in post.

Loads of resources, many technical books focusing on the technical side. And lots of books discussing the craft, this being the obvious starting point: https://www.amazon.com/Blink-Eye-Perspective-Film-Editing/dp/1879505622 Books can help you get to grips with the software, the basic principles of editing can be picked up pretty quickly. I can usually get students from, "never tried editing" to cutting together a coherent sequence in an afternoon. There are lots of established "rules" of editing. Personally its better to hone your instincts, you should be able to "feel" when a cut is wrong and with practice you will get better at fixing it. Couple of tips: Watch your edits with the sound off, do they still flow? When your watching an edited sequence back, either make the video full screen or at least hide the timeline. Watching the edit while you see the playback head fly across the timeline, gives you a false sense of the edit. Be experimental, on non linear editing there's no reason not too try different things, explore the scene, try stuff. Be critical, if you shot the footage its sometimes difficult to be objective. E.g that long tracking shot may have been a nightmare to shoot so you gosh darned want to keep it in. A good editor would only include the shots the best serve the film regardless of the difficulty of getting the shot. Thats why its good for the editor to be a second person. If you are self editing, you have to be extra careful. There are strategies that can help. I'm about to edit a short film I directed. I've purposely not looked at the rushes for 3 weeks, hopefully I can come to the edit with fresh eyes.

Would your 7 year old son actually enjoy and embrace the limitations of super 8 or find it frustrating? I'm a parent of a 7 year old, who's used to the instant feedback of electronic imaging. I suspect at this age it would be hard to get her to buy into film without getting frustrated by the lack of sound, short loads, wait for processing etc.. Maybe I'll look at doing some 35mm stills (build a pin hole camera etc) when she's a bit older. Right now her camerawork is a bit hit and miss - probably not worth the expense of super 8 (I also not a fan super 8 so take my comments with a pinch of salt)