Brian Drysdale

The traditional method would be a rostrum camera. The UK version of Ken Burns is Ken Morse, who's credit appeared on numerous TV productions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Morse https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0607633/ Today, get a high resolution digital copy of the still and use the DVE to create the moves.

The 5th beta of V14,6 is available for download. https://www.lwks.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=19&id=204887&Itemid=81#204887 Lightworks say: "This next version resolves several of the known issues we have been working on. We still have some improvements to add for decoding of HEVC/H.265 once complete, we hope to set a release date of Lightworks 14.6"

After a delay, the 5th beta of V14.6 is now available for download. https://www.lwks.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=19&id=203696&Itemid=81 This has fixes for issues that arose in the previous beta build and adds new features including:the ability to select multiple segments on the sequence timeline right-click and choose 'Add' or 'Remove' (if there are any effects to remove), to lasso clips in the sequence timeline, resize keyframe graphs using CTRL and mouse wheel and others.

I wouldn't bother putting the budget in for a short, unless it's a requirement of the funder in a short film scheme. The extremely low budgets you see for some films should be treated with care, since it may not include the funding required to get the film ready for distribution. That could be a lot higher than the quoted budget.

Remove any expositional dialogue. For example. you don't need to explain the engine is overheating - we see the smoke. "Just Great!" would cover it. Show don''t say is one of the rules.

Steve Hullfish's book "The Art and Technique of Digital Color Correction" is worth looking at

I have charged for my kit at a discount price on shorts, if I'm working on it for free. If they can't find funding, possibly from their own pockets, why should you make a large investment in their project. Electricians don't work for free, so they need to be paid for. There has to be some element of doing something that you don't usually do for it to be worthwhile. Future promises mean nothing, so don't expect anything in that regard.

Short films rarely make a profit, so don't regard them as commercial projects. Studios won't buy a short to turn into a feature film, they may option the rights to the script, so that they can develop it into a feature film, The short film itself doesn't enter into the equation, it's the writer who will usually be involved in that agreement. However, there will a lot of development required to get to the production stages. Alternately, the writer or writer/director will write the feature script themselves and then get production funding, Investing in the short film doesn't automatically mean you hold any rights to the feature film.

Another 16mm stock used at that time was Ektachrome reversal 7255, It was a low contrast 25 ASA tungsten camera stock intended for creating prints. Its replacement (7252) was used to shoot "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" in 1974 Some info on the later stock, which was introduced in 1970.

There appears to have been early experiments with video assist at the time. One was the Arriflex Electronic Cam system, which used a plumbicon tube instead of an optical viewfinder on an Arri 35 IIC in a blimp, this was used in a multi camera setup similar to TV cameras.

Looking at the camera in shot it looks like a video/film system which was around at the time, This allowed you to use film cameras on studio TV camera pedestals as part of a multi camera set up.

These could be post 2" Quad VTR days. I suspect the film was stored separately to the tape, since the BBC film unit was in a separate location to VT, which was part of engineering department. The latter would be responsible for the recycling of video tape.

A friend edits Dr Who and he said that the quality on the 16mm inserts, after being scanned today, are impressive compared to the telecine on the original versions broadcast back in the day.

It still comes down to costs, you can practice more with a digital camera, but using lights and lighting remains the same as 50 years ago. Perhaps it's more complex because of the greater range of lighting instruments and light modifiers available today than back then. You need background knowledge of film lab workflows to make use of a Steenbeck . However, you now need knowledge in how to do these procedures (eg colour grading, VFX etc), which were formerly done by the film lab, when using Lightworks. The main difference is that you needed to be able to pre-visualise what you were doing 50 years ago. Although, the best people can still do that today. Scripts, acting and poor direction have always been the weak spots. There's nothing new in that, the other areas tended to be competent, with the budget being a limiting factor. However, the investment required may have acted as a filter to some extent, although dentists have seemed willing to invest in some poor films in the past.

I''m not sure about that, you still require a high skill set to make a quality film. Bad camera work and bad editing are just the same as they were 50 years ago, it just costs less money to do it.