Brian Drysdale

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.

How C stands came about and other answers from Ed Phillips https://moviola.com/webinar/a-conversation-with-ed-phillips/

The 4th beta of Lightworks 14.6 is available for download. https://www.lwks.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=19&id=200619&Itemid=81 This latest version includes preliminary support for HEVC/H.265 decoding and adds a new timeline menu option for clearing/adding marks & cover art for audio-only clips that support it. Plus fixes This next release of Lightworks (14.6) will be the last that includes a 32bit Windows build.

The third Beta of Lightworks 14.6 which includes some powerful new keyboard shortcuts along with finally introducing start and end clip thumbnails on the sequence timeline is now available. https://www.lwks.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=19&id=200168&Itemid=81#200168 This also includes a number of fixes.

I know people who are very busy with F5 & F55 or the C300 cameras, I notice RED cameras being used BBC natural history docs pretty often, while other high end docs use Arri cameras. It really depends on your local market and the type of work you do.

It really depends on your market sector. With the cost of documentary cameras tending to be lower than in the days of 2/3" cameras (except if you use an Arri), if makes sense to buy your camera if that's the one you mostly use. I used to rent 2/3" cameras because the work was a mix of Digibeta, Beta SP and DVCam, I owned the tripod, monitor and lights. I also had a deal with the rental company on the rates,

The second revision of the V14.6 beta is now available https://www.lwks.com/index.php?optio...emid=81#199690 This has a number of fixes.