Marcus Joseph

That doesn't sound like a real name, so I don't think he's being serious, probably just after a reaction.

Short films are a hard game to play, the only good advice is to keep making them cause even if they're terrible as long as you're honest with yourself, they'll get better. And as long as you continue to up your production values, people will start to notice. Most great film directors made tonnes of short films before they got the big break and some of them were genuinely awful. But it wasn't necessarily the shorts that got them that break, it just might have given them the experience for when eventually made it to a feature. Most successful short filmmakers (who make great shorts in big festivals) often never get to the feature length side of things, they sometimes fizzle away or get stuck making commercials or music videos (which isn't a bad way to make a living either). One other tip for possibly getting into bigger festivals is to look for funding (possibly government) and expand your crew size, the majority of the shorts that make it to festivals have high production values and if you read the credits lists some of them are almost as long as small feature films.

If you have no camera experience, then probably try both because it'll be a little tricky to convince a camera crew to pick you up for work completely fresh, even with education it's still very difficult. I wouldn't recommend a long course or university either because it's not really worth it, I recommend something that'll get you doing a few projects, meet a few people and learn a few things which shouldn't cost an awful lot either if you look around for the right course. Anyway best of luck with it.

I agree with George, from those film projection days there were definitely a lot of prints that weren't exactly up to scratch but the majority held so much detail in the image that it was a real experience to scan the frame and take in the whole image. It just looked so good. The last was probably Mission Impossible at the big IMAX in Sydney and that was a pretty similar experience to the film days, but I was just way too close to get a good experience and probably should have sat further back. With all the digital everywhere I don't think I've been as impressed for a while, I'm sure it'll get better, I just think it's been a little rushed into.

Same here, looks very interesting.

Yeah, that may be true, but some of them aren't always the best actors or may not suit the role at hand, which could be just as dangerous as casting a nobody. There's a lot of failure with movies that have big stars in them and I think one reason is because the stars aren't playing a role the audience are used to. But take the success of a very small movie like Gabriel, no one knew the actor's names but they were good in the roles and had a very star like quality. There has been a whole bunch of Aussie movies that bring in pretty well known stars and they barely gross a dime. There's definitely no science towards successful films, but I wish you luck going at it.

Yeah, I believe that may have been a sad compromise and it won't completely realise the potential of 48 fps. Just simply by the look of the slower shutter speeds associated with video. Some people don't mind that look though and Michael Mann certainly explored it with Public Enemies, David Lynch has done stuff with it. I'm not a big fan though.

Of course there is a lot of art, and I wasn't talking about what art is left. I was talking about how much has really survived and in particular, motion picture film which probably can't take a number to anywhere near how much has been lost. A lot of people are trying hard to restore whatever they can and similar people will do the same in the future too. If you want to shoot film, then do it. Maybe you can show the world what they're missing out on? No point just talking about it on an internet forum. Also Kahleem, very nice work with that MMA documentary, you got some really high profile people in there too. I can imagine how effective running around with a dslr can be in those situations.

Just make stuff, no one cares about the format. No average person comes out of Skyfall going 'wow that Alexa was fantastic!' which also for the sake of these arguments has been a very well received/high grossing movie and it was also beautifully shot. And what I find astounding with some of the opinions here is that we can't agree on the fact (be it film or digital) if someone is gonna get good at this craft, they're going to get good at it. How can you question that? Do you think suddenly because digital is around that people will not master something? It's a ridiculous point to argue against. Give an average person with no film experience who wants to make movies a Millenium XL and some Kodak 5219 and you'll end up with crap, give a handycam to a brilliant director and it'll still be far more watchable. The director perfected the craft, like anything this artform takes time & practise. Just like writing, everyone has a pencil but we don't see Shakespeare everywhere. If you have the option to shoot film, then shoot it, but a lot of people are getting into filmmaking via digital who probably couldn't afford film when it was around and some of them will probably go on to have very prosperous and talented careers. And the fact about the 200 years thing, well how much art has really lasted from 200 years ago? How much film will we be restored even today (which we can)? Most probably the classics and even then, it's questionable. And that's the same with digital, the digital classic films will be restored in the future (and they will be everywhere too) and how much of the crap that we make will deserve a restoration? Probably not that much in the end. Just go out and shoot, I'm sick of the elitist notion of the industry that's scared by the amount of people out there. Time and dedication are something that shooting on film requires cause you're chewing through $$, but there are numerous other ways to become skillful and people will do it in digital filmmaking regardless of what you think. Data is the future and soon the new generation will enjoy movies through the cloud, times are changing and we have to adapt. I've also shot with 16mm film and had great experiences with 35mm, but all I can really stress is to accept what's happening and keep making movies.

There were very clearly complaints about the codec and the wrapper, I don't know why you have to pretend nothing negative about this camera was said. And so what if I talk about things that weren't discussed? I'm talking in general, which this is a general forum. I think this camera looks great, they've put a lot of the best of all the worlds into it and it's something to be positive about. I'm not going to argue anymore cause it's pointless, I'll listen to what people here have to say when they've used the camera and talked about the real world experience. Until then, I couldn't really care less.

I'm talking about the format specs which we are discussing, not the camera specs itself, but it gets me on the current crop of 'web filmmakers' that complain and whine about the choices of gear that we have more than they actually go out and get something done with it. We currently have some of the cheapest and most affordable gear around and yet people are still complaining? It's always about something not being good enough rather than actually making something. Why whine about a format that is completely untested and we don't fully understand? All the digital formats we currently have are not the be all and end all, but that doesn't really mean you can't go out and start shooting with them which is the point of what I'm saying. I don't think preservation is much of a big deal for a lot of us here because most of us aren't making cinematic history. And the story is everything, it's not a tired meme, everything comes back to the narrative, even if it's a broken one or pretty pictures, you're still trying to tell someone something and that's what it's all about. That's why we choose particular formats because perhaps sometimes a super crisp 4K image isn't what the story needs. All I'm saying is there's little reason to get into this much complaint when you can simply make something and see how the camera fares. It's just all theoretical until so.

I agree with Vince, all that matters is you can shoot with it and tell a good story. Cinematographers and directors didn't quarrel over the release of a new film camera or stock in the old days, they got on with the job and started shooting with what worked best. If they couldn't afford the best camera, so be it, they shot with whatever they could afford. They still told fantastic stories, there's a huge list of films shot on cheaper, far less affordable gear. There's also plenty shot on the best gear around that aren't worth the time of day. They didn't have to keep up with a new system every two years, but digital is a fast evolving technology and it continues to advance itself, so that's the price we have to pay. Besides that, there's very little to complain about, this looks like the camera that takes the best of a lot of worlds and puts it into one package. These formats will not stop us from getting a story out for people to see, we can always take the footage to intermediates. And no one's forcing you to use the camera or the format, if you don't like it, then don't use it. There's plenty of other options out there. Cameras allow us to be creative, we owe back to shoot something worthwhile instead of worry about the spec sheets.

Yeah I do love having choices for projects, but I find that it takes me a few shoots to get into a camera and start to find its groove and what works best with it. With these upgrades constantly happening it's a longer process and I don't shoot as much as I'd like to, so just like you said as you're getting used to it, something 'superior' comes along. It would be an absolute nightmare to invest heavily in the gear and not long later you have something practically obsolete on your hands. I'm also constantly factoring in post-production when choosing and how to go about doing it, sometimes it's easier and cheaper to go a certain route because of a file format even though it might not be best for the job. I think some sort of standard format would work great, I think that's the way the technology has to head. Anyway, I do love the sound of this Sony F55 and the F5, would love to try them both out. It doesn't look like there's any windowing crap in 2K either, so it'd be a good slow-mo option.

Right in time for the Mayan 2012, we also have The Hobbit arriving at cinemas the day before...

apply for work at a rental house, cheap gear, steady pay and you meet every camera assistant/cinematographer around.