Phil Rhodes

Are people regularly asking for either beyond-4K resolution or full frame? You'll be looking for another hyper-expensive zoom.

I think the issue is that it's not one critical point, it's about a thousand critical points. To cover it all in any sort of depth you're talking about a book's worth of stuff, and it'd require regular updating. Perhaps there's a case for a wiki or something like that.

It changes fairly quickly and is often rather different from job to job, but it's a very broad subject. I'm not aware of anywhere that details it all but perhaps there should be.

Stills zooms are almost never parfocal, so they won't maintain focus as you zoom in and out. It's a very expensive problem to solve, as you've found. There isn't really a good solution. P

I once got an RAF airbase for asking nicely.

You can try. In the end, this sort of thing is very dependent on how the original digital footage is exposed and exactly how the capabilities of the digital and photochemical systems compare. It'll always end up being a bit approximate, and I don't think, for instance, that you'll find there's much value in pursuing an emulation of one particular film stock. If you're trying to emulate that film stock because it was used on a production whose pictures you like, the other things associated with that production - the production design, lighting, and especially grading - are likely to have an overwhelmingly greater influence on what the pictures end up looking like than the minutiae of how one stock looks against another. But given all that, sure. You could shoot some test charts with the camera to establish roughly how its luminance and saturation behaviour work, and mathematically combine that information with the data you have on the film, and end up with something that was, on paper, a film stock emulation. It's not particularly unusual to use generic LUTs to do things broadly like that but, as I say, it's fraught with difficulty and I'm not sure how much value it would have other than as an academic exercise, as opposed to just, you know, grading your stuff to taste. P

Playing around with a prerelease version of the new Panasonic S1H at Hot Rod Cameras in Burbank.

I'm at the launch event in LA. The company showed some very accomplished short films at the Dolby facility on Vine Street in Hollywood which made it look very good. I've got a prerelease model to play with over the weekend, so if anyone is interested in seeing anything in particular done with it, and it's something I can reasonably do from an Airbnb on no notice, let me know.

Even I'm not quite sure what that means, Max. I think what Max means is that if you can get away with charging for it, charge for it. Much of your ability to do that is down to confidence and ability to sell yourself, coupled, hopefully, with a degree of competence. But just the competence won't get you anywhere, so frankly I say go for it. P

I'm usually very cautious about any sort of film school as they're a lot of money and the results are very unsure. As far as I'm aware, Ravensbourne has a pretty decent record of putting people into employment so it may be one of the better choices, but you should still do a lot of research about exactly what sort of job you want to get, and what you will need to get it. I associate Ravensbourne more with broadcast TV than single-camera drama and features, but either way, I recommend seeing if you can get out on any full-size sets and see what actually goes on. Look into what the union has going on for that. I don't think there are any jobs in film or TV that you absolutely must have a college course to do other than some of the electrical roles, and that's not usually a college course anyway (and it isn't that complicated.) Think very hard before you go deeply into debt on this. P

If you want to own something, look at Blackmagic. Also, depending on the desire for 4K, you can go and get something like an old Sony F3, which has a degree of that high-end polish. Less low-light performance than modern stuff and really requires an external recorder, but very capable. P

First of all, congratulations on realising early that this is work and you should get paid for it. It is, and you should. Figuring out what to charge is always tricky, especially at the beginning of your career. Clearly, minimum wage isn't a target, but I'd be aware of it (see here.) It's incredibly easy to end up spending huge amounts of time on something, working out what your hourly rate is, and figuring out you're making less than someone slinging burgers at McDonald's, which isn't really OK. The age discrimination in the minimum wage is downright offensive, though, so I'd use the living wage, which as you're based in London is £10.55 an hour. That's a minimum, not a target. You should factor in something for your camera gear. This company wants £36 a day for an 80D and then there's the lens. As a rough guide, take the value of a piece of equipment (its value now, not when it was new) and divide by 20 or 30, something close to that. Sometimes people do give away gear free or at a big discount when they're owner-operating it, but that's up to you. Make sure you can claim expenses like travel and subsistence (meals, accommodation, etc.) Same deal if you're going to Brighton for the day or the Serengeti for a month. As to permissions, it depends what you're intending to do. My thought is, if you're being paid, you're not a student for the purposes of the job in question. Different councils all over the country have different approaches to permissions for film and TV work. What follows is my understanding of the law which I believe to be accurate but clearly, I'm not a lawyer. There is no restriction on photography in public in the UK, with very narrow exceptions under certain circumstances for military installations, nuclear sites and so on. In short, in public, you can shoot what you like, including people and private property, from a public place, and it's allowed. Beware places that look like public places but aren't. Also, if you start setting up equipment and it is getting in people's way or causing a safety hazard, if you shin up a tree and film someone getting changed through a bedroom window, that's not OK. Behave in a sane manner, though, and you're fine. But. There is currently quite a culture of trying to stop people filming in public. Often people, even the police and particularly private security guard, don't really know the details of the law. Carry a copy of this document which was released by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and advises the police not to bother film crews. ACPO no longer exists but the advice is still valid. If it happens, that's the time to be nice, polite and utterly professional but firm. If someone wants to call the cops for no reason other than you're standing in public with a camera, let them. There are exceptions; for instance, anything involving guns means taking a few extra steps to ensure you're not shot by a police firearms unit - but that probably isn't you at this point. Basically, if it's a tiny thing with you and a few friends with hand-held reflectors and battery powered lights, you should do your own research, but personally I'd just go and do it. If you want to start setting up gear, maybe have a look at the local council website and see if they have anything to say about it. Depending where you go they probably haven't even given it any thought. Finally, if you're really serious about getting into this, look into joining BECTU, or at least be on the student register. If you want to get into any sort of camerawork there are apprenticeships and schemes for new entrants. I'm a member of the camera branch committee for the London production division. If you really want to get into camera, particularly big films and TV shows, there's never been a better time in London. - Phil

Stops above native, whatever native is for that camera. Stops double the amount of light every time, so 800% is three stops above 100% (200%, 400%, 800%.) Er, I think.

Good question. That's one of those things where you raise a finger and say "Ah, you just want to get a..." ...then you realise there isn't anything. How on earth is it possible that this doesn't exist. Anyone?

Telecine to an intermediate format then duplication with VHS copy banks - essentially the same process that existed for the popular life of VHS. The very earliest telecines would have used specially-struck low-contrast prints. Since these would have been colour-corrected in the same way as a release print, less colour correction would be applied at the telecine stage - ideally just a set up and let it run. As telecines and the associated technology advanced through the 80s, it became more possible to transfer directly from negative, which produced better pictures but required scene by scene colour correction. When digital intermediate became commonplace, naturally the VHS would have been derived from files, even on film-originated stuff. Beyond that it's been basically the same process up to the present day.