Stuart Brereton

If you want to be equipped for that fickle director, you're going to need those lenses and all that grip equipment regardless of what format you shoot. There is no reason why a 35mm kit has to be any more complex than an HD kit. An Arri IIIC with a couple of mags and a decent zoom is no more complicated and just as capable as a basic HD kit. Let's not have this turn into another Film vs Video debate. The question at hand was whether either format was a suitable investment for a startup company.

Deals differ, but I often get transfers done during the day at a very reputable post house in Soho, with a real colorist, not a runner, for less than £300 per hour. Obviously they don't do this for everyone, but that's the whole point of a deal - it's whatever you can negotiate.

Ballpark figures for shooting 16mm: Camera hire £500 a day (although there are ALWAYS deals to be had) Stock £90.00 per 400' roll (11 minutes running time @ 25fps) Processing £0.12 per foot Telecine £250 - £750 per hour depending on location, machine and facility. Say you shoot a promo in one day, with 6 rolls of stock, and Telecine in a cheaper facility 3 hrs @ £300ph Camera £500 Stock £540 Processing £288 Telecine £900 Total £2228.00 For HD: Camera £800 per day (again there are always deals) Stock £45.00 per 40 min tape Downconversions to SD £150.00 pr hour Grade and Colour Correction £250 - £750 per hour The same promo on HD Camera £800 Stock £90 Downconversion £250 Grade £600 Total £1740 There's a lot that could be wrong with these figures, but they're close enough to get some idea.

In this country the competition is between 16mm and HD. They are much closer in terms of both quality and costs. Although it's true that there are 35mm promos made in this country, it's a very small group of artists who have the budget for it, certainly not enough to build a business around. If you're talking about larger budget promos (£20k+) then it's going to be either 16mm or HD. They both have their advantages, but film is preferred for its' cachet. But, as I've said, they are both huge investments if you want to own the kit, and I don't believe that promos will provide you with enough regular work to make the risk worth taking. If you're determined to buy, then you need to figure out other ways of keeping the camera working, so you're not totally reliant on a rather fickle market.

I've got to be very careful how I answer this - I don't want to start another Film vs. Video argument ;-) HD cameras, like the CineAlta, in Progressive mode, well set up, and well lit, can look very similar to film. They are commonly believed to have a resolution somewhere between 16mm and 35mm, although they lack exposure latitude and color information compared to film. These are not the reasons why top-flight promos use film rather than HD. That is about Prestige. Film has a notion of quality and expense about it, which even these days, when HD is making great advances, still remains. As for which Film camera to buy, money no object? 16mm: Arri SR3 Advanced shooting kit £100k ish 35mm: Arri 435 shooting kit £250k ish Ultimately, if you're basing your income projection purely on promos, there is no point in buying a camera in this price range. I would love to buy myself an older Arri SR, but even at second hand prices it's hard to justify the expense for a camera that you might use twice a month. Now, if you're shooting episodic TV or a long running Doco or something, then you can get back a large part of your investment fairly quickly, otherwise rent, rent, rent, and spend the money you've saved on kit that you can use no matter what format you end up shooting on.

Most UK promos are shot on s16. A few are 35mm. If you find American videos to look sharper that because far more of them are shot on 35mm. 35mm is 'better' than HD in just about every way. It's also much more expensive. As far your investment goes, let's say you spend £80k on a basic package. If you do two promos a month, two day shoot, that's 48 days a year, or £1666 a day for your camera if you average over one year. Renting a camera would probably cost you less than half that. Two promos a month might not sound like much, but it's a lot of work for just two people, assuming that you can even get that much work. £40k promos do not grow on trees any more, and the competition for them is fierce. I don't own a camera, but friends of mine do, and they reckon they need 2 days per WEEK, not per month to make the camera pay for itself. If you can do that, then that's one less thing to worry about, but you'll still have to deal with the fact that with bigger budgets, record labels want film, not HD. Sorry to sound so negative, but basing an investment on projected returns from promos is a dangerous game at the moment...

This is an issue which I often have to deal with, as Music promos form a large part of my work. My first question would have to be: Why buy a camera? In the UK, top end promos are shot on 35mm. Lower down the ladder, around the £30-50K region, people shoot Super 16. There is still a huge demand for film in the promo world. In my experience, any time a budget gets above about £10k, the label will be expecting you to shoot film, and you will have a hard time convincing them otherwise. It's not that s16 is better than HD, it's just that's their mindset. Budgets are being squeezed all the time, and the new arrival of HDV has added yet another variable to the mix. I guess what I'm trying to say is with numerous different formats competing for ever-decreasing budgets, I would be very wary of saddling myself with a £50k + camera that I couldn't guarantee to keep working.

Bear in mind that any lab doing clip tests on recanned stock will be extremely conservative about what they say is usable or not. Understandably, they don't want to get blamed for any problems you might have. If you are going through telecine, you will have a greater range of 'saveable' stock than if you planned to go to print.

Stephen, The shipping was about $80. There was no import duty. All in, for 1 4x3 Softbox, and 1 5' 'Octolume' it was about $160 or £90. I hate it when the shipping is more than the item, but it was still a very good deal. The softbox comes with an eggcrate, two baffles and various light shaping louvres. I believe Chimera charge about £300 for their equivalent softbox, and another £75 for the speedring :-(

There is an in-depth discussion of these issues here: www.cinematography.net/Pages%20DW/ShootingPublicEvents.htm

I don't know if we're ever all going agree on this issue, but even just using your first name and location would be preferable to some indecipherable nickname (not singling you out J-Ro)

When I was doing Focus, I always used to insist on a 2k right next to the lens on night shoots. That way the lens markings were visible from 30 feet away and the lamp kept me nice and warm..... ;-)

Shannon, Contrary to what you might believe, we all care much more about how the Canons' pictures look, than how they are recorded. However, we have all heard so much hype about this and every other HDV camera that we remain sceptical until proof is offered, which, from your own quote above, you could have done immediately, but didn't, hence this four page thread. Sorry if you feel mistreated.

It's not what you say, it's how you say it. The thing is, you come across like either a know-it-all, or someone on Canons' payroll.

'what you did' was join a forum 2 days ago and instantly start telling people that you know better than them. This place is here for an exchange of knowledge (mostly), so we usually like to leave the attitude until we know each other better :-)

Charlie Seper leaves.....Shannon Rawls joins.... the gift that keeps on giving.....

Strangely, I find myself in complete agreement with Phil. This has never happened before, and I'm not quite sure what to make of it.... BTW, nice photo, Phil ;-)

Those 'For your consideration...' ads generally features the same images as are used in the films' posters and other publicity. The Academy is being asked to consider the film as a whole, not just a few stills.

I don't know if anyone else has come across these Softboxes, but I just bought a couple on spec, new, through ebay. The larger of the two is 4'x3', easily as well constructed as certain other expensive brands, and cost me just $16.00. There is a bit of an issue with the speed ring, which I'll need to get an adaptor made for, but on the whole, I'm amazed at how good they are! If you're looking to buy a softbox, and don't want to spend $$$$ (or ££££s) these are a very good alternative.

I would imagine that is the case. We've certainly never been asked to provide them with releases, and I usually try not to delve into legal matters any deeper than I have to ;-)

Release forms are required for actors and extras. In fact, the release forms usually form part of the 'deliverables' in the sense that the Label could refuse to pay for the video if the Releases hadn't been signed. The artist isn't required to sign a release. Their participation in their own video is taken for granted!

Production companies do not automatically 'have' copyright, which they then relinquish to the label. There is never any question that ownership resides with the Record Company. What the contract says is that the Director and Producer will never attempt to assert ownership. It's a subtle difference, granted, but most legal definitions are. It's specific to any production company working under contract to the record industry. Royalties are paid to Copyright holders, whoever they may be, which in this case is almost certainly going to be the Artist or Label. It is possible that royalties may be paid to a third party, but this would be at the discretion of the Copyright owner, and would not imply any transferral of ownership Not hurt.....amused.

The point is that a music video is just a commercial for a product, not the product itself. Any royalties that are paid are paid because of the Music, not because of the video, no matter how good it is. As it says on the VPL website, 'any copyright holder is eligible to join'. A Production Co. is not the copyright holder. Any proper contract will specifically ask for any rights to be relinquished by both Director and Producer. It will also indemnify the record label against third party claims (say, from crew members). Even if you as a Producer or Director don't sign a contract, you still have NO rights to the music and the nature of your 'work for hire' puts any claim of ownership of the images into a very grey legal area. So, if you were Director/Producer of a promo, and didn't sign a contract, and you're willing to pay for a copyright lawyer to find out if you're entitled to a part share in bugger all, and you're willing to fight a record label for it, then go ahead. Otherwise, just enjoy the fact that something you were paid to do has actually made it onto the TV.... I guess I could be making it up, but it's more likely that as a partner in a production company that has made nearly a hundred promos, I have come across this question before.....

Royalties are paid on music video because the Music is being played, not because the video is being shown. Any royalties collected are therefore distributed to the artist and record label. Even if a production company were to retain an interest in a video that it made (which would be highly unusual) they would still not receive royalties as they're are not paid on the Video, only on it's soundtrack.

It's a shame that the one person who spends more time than just about anyone helping people with questions just like yours is probably not going to take the time to answer any of your questions because you won't tell us your name. Is it really that much to ask, considering how much information and help you're asking for?