Should Kodak Invest in Low Cost Super-16 Camera Production?

[Dan Goulder]

So the question now becomes, why doesn't Kodak pick up the new motion picture film camera torch and design a low cost Super-16mm camera? Perhaps they could even do a special, buy 50,000 dollars worth of film, get a FREE Super-16mm camera!

If you've got a super-16 production spending more than $50,000 on raw stock alone, then the entire cost of the production will no doubt be a multiple of that figure. In relation to all that, camera rental costs would be a drop in the bucket.

 

Somewhere out there are film cameras that have probably pulled 10 million dollars worth of film. Would Kodak flinch if someone said to them, make a Super-16 camera for 5 to 10 grand, and it will pull a million dollars worth of film in it's first 5-10 years, deal, or no deal?

You can already find a good, usable super-16mm camera on Ebay that falls within the "5 to 10 grand" margin. (I imagine Kodak already figured all this out.)

[Alessandro Machi]

If you've got a super-16 production spending more than $50,000 on raw stock alone, then the entire cost of the production will no doubt be a multiple of that figure. In relation to all that, camera rental costs would be a drop in the bucket. You can already find a good, usable super-16mm camera on Ebay that falls within the "5 to 10 grand" margin. (I imagine Kodak already figured all this out.)

 

 

I doubt Kodak "already figured this out". Figured what out? That they shouldn't make low cost fully featured Super-16 cameras because Bolexd sell for a couple of grand on eBay?

 

You can come up with reasons all day long why anything won't work. It's just as easy to come up with reasons why it would work. There are no low cost fully featured Super-16 cameras on the market. Even the Aaton, which isn't low cost, takes a special type of film. (that's all I know about that, if you know more, please explain).

 

Even if video had taken an additional 20 years to arrive where it is now, the blueprint for Kodak's success has been marginalized by the film camera rental houses who can maintain and service a camera for such a long time they don't need to keep making new ones or less costly ones.

 

Lets not lose sight of the Epson printer example that I made in the original topic post. Way more money is made off of the products that Epson printers use, not off the printer itself.

[Dan Goulder]

I doubt Kodak "already figured this out". Figured what out? That they shouldn't make low cost fully featured Super-16 cameras because Bolexd sell for a couple of grand on eBay?

 

You can come up with reasons all day long why anything won't work. It's just as easy to come up with reasons why it would work. There are no low cost fully featured Super-16 cameras on the market. Even the Aaton, which isn't low cost, takes a special type of film. (that's all I know about that, if you know more, please explain).

Please explain why you need to have a new camera. You can pick up a good used Aaton LTR super-16 or Arriflex SR with lenses in the price range you're talking about. Once again, I'm sure Kodak did already figure this out.

[Sam Wells]

Could Kodak realistically design and produce a Super-16 camera for 10 grand that could actually deliver what cameras costing 5-10 times as much could deliver?

 

No.

 

-Sam Wells

 

ps note to TM: you can rent Arri cameras all over the world.

[Alessandro Machi]

Please explain why you need to have a new camera. You can pick up a good used Aaton LTR super-16 or Arriflex SR with lenses in the price range you're talking about. Once again, I'm sure Kodak did already figure this out.

 

 

How many of these are out there? No matter how sophisticated this camera is, a camera made today can integrate modular designs and additional breakthroughs that weren't available when SR's were first made.

 

Motion picture cameras have never gone through the type of metamorphosis that video cameras have gone through in terms of lower price points while maintaining quality. The current generation of Super-16mm cameras still need a substantial crew to operate, that aspect would need to be addressed. Reduced power consumption, quieter, double system sound on the camera, lighter magazines are some of the things that would need to be addressed.

[Tim Carroll]

Motion picture cameras have never gone through the type of metamorphosis that video cameras have gone through in terms of lower price points while maintaining quality.

 

A motion picture camera is a far more complex mechanical instrument than a video camera. Video cameras have come down in price because CCD chips, software, etc. keep getting cheaper and cheaper. The basic design of a motion picture camera has not changed much in almost a century. You still need to move a piece of film a very precise distance (feed), stop it at a very precise place (registration) and hold it in that very precise place while keeping it a very precise distance from the lens flange ((FFD)-which must be accurate to one tenth the diameter of a human hair)), and time it exactly with a rotating shutter (movement) that must open for a very precise amount of time (exposure); and you must be able to do that with an incredible degree of accuracy, 24 times each second. There is no way to get around that basic principle. And to machine and build an instrument that can do that in all kinds of conditions, for thousands upon thousands of feet of film, is an expensive proposition.

 

There have definitely been advances, especially in the area of camera noise. The Aatons are whisper quiet and my one experience with shooting with the new Arriflex 416, I had to keep looking at the running light to make sure it was running, as I couldn't hear it even though I was holding it right up next to my ear.

 

The current generation of Super-16mm cameras still need a substantial crew to operate, that aspect would need to be addressed.

 

My experience with shooting with Aatons and Arriflexs is that the camera crew consists of the camera operator. On a very hectic shoot there may be a loader. I would not consider that a substantial crew.

 

Reduced power consumption, quieter, double system sound on the camera, lighter magazines are some of the things that would need to be addressed.

 

I just don't see it Alessandro. You can do just about the same work with an old Super 16 Aaton LTR or Arriflex 16SR as you can with a new Aaton XTR or Arriflex 16SR3 or 416, as long as you are using the same glass. And you can pick up the LTR or SR for under $10,000.

 

-Tim

[Francis Kuhn]

So the question now becomes, why doesn't Kodak pick up the new motion picture film camera torch and design a low cost Super-16mm camera?

 

Alessandro,

 

Maybe you could ask someone like Jim Jannard what he thinks. He's into cameras and he seems to have a passion for building new toys.

 

Fran

[Terry Mester]

"[CEO]Perez found he had to replace a lot of executives to get the company on a new track. The film-era lifers just didn't get it. Of the company's 21 executive officers in 2003, the year Perez arrived, only three remain. Most of their replacements came from outside Kodak, and most had digital experience."

Thank you for this info. I fully suspected that it is Antonio Perez who is trying to get Kodak to abandon Film. I'm sure he was the one behind the decision to close the Swiss Kodachrome Lab -- which required dumping Kodachrome 40 8mm & 16mm Films. I just hope that Kodak will survive this Perez era.

 

 

There is a different potential way to make shooting 16mm less expensive. I'm not sure if the Telecine systems would allow for this, but if it does you can save money by filming at only 20 frames / second. This will make a Reel last 25% longer. 20 f/s will serve perfectly well for any scene. To convert 20 f/s to 50 Field Video would require every two Frames to be 2:3 pulldown -- providing 25 f/s for Video. If Telecine could allow for this, this would reduce 16mm Film costs by 20%. However, if the production is to be blown-up to 35mm, then you would need to film at 24 f/s. The reason that 24 f/s was chosen as the industry standard in 1928 was because that was the shortest length of Film that provided an acceptable quality Optical Sound Track.

[Richardson Leao]

I also think the CEO cancer is what killing film. I don't see the reason why people is interested in more and more HD because of the price. I was just checking prices for renting a decent digital camera (~1000$/day). Two days of shooting would definitely pay for a cheap s16 camera, ~1h of stock and telecine... I guess it's what most of the 'modern' corporative attitude is doing. Narrow vision and imitation (as if panasonic does digital we all have to follow it) instead of broad approach and innovation.

 

Thank you for this info. I fully suspected that it is Antonio Perez who is trying to get Kodak to abandon Film. I'm sure he was the one behind the decision to close the Swiss Kodachrome Lab -- which required dumping Kodachrome 40 8mm & 16mm Films. I just hope that Kodak will survive this Perez era.

There is a different potential way to make shooting 16mm less expensive. I'm not sure if the Telecine systems would allow for this, but if it does you can save money by filming at only 20 frames / second. This will make a Reel last 25% longer. 20 f/s will serve perfectly well for any scene. To convert 20 f/s to 50 Field Video would require every two Frames to be 2:3 pulldown -- providing 25 f/s for Video. If Telecine could allow for this, this would reduce 16mm Film costs by 20%. However, if the production is to be blown-up to 35mm, then you would need to film at 24 f/s. The reason that 24 f/s was chosen as the industry standard in 1928 was because that was the shortest length of Film that provided an acceptable quality Optical Sound Track.

[James Grahame]

Just to preface - I realize that filmstock is not the major moneymaker for Kodak.

Hang on a moment! I think you're wrong.

 

When I last checked Kodak's annual reports (about a year or so ago), their motion picture film is turning a very healthy profit because they have relatively little competition. The trouble is that this market is going to dry up relatively soon as theater chains migrate to digital and no longer require thousands of film prints.

 

It's very hard to get an accurate reading of Kodak's situation because of the way they lump disparate technologies into categories when reporting financial performance, but their consumer digicam line definitely didn't set the market on fire (their Kodak-branded consumer cameras are now produced by a third party).

 

It'll be hard for Kodak to make inroads into the video market with their digital sensors, because Sony et al will prefer to use their own designs. As for medical imaging and digital projection, who knows what the future will bring.

 

They're in a tough spot.

[Hans Engstrom]

Instead of constructing a low cost S16 camera they should construct a S16 scanner that can handle 400ft rolls and connects to a regular PC. Sitting at home scanning and grading the material without any timelimits would be something I really would like. I allready own a Aaton LTR and some CP Ultra-T lenses but many shortfilmproducers doesn´t want to take the extra cost of a supervised transfer and instead settles for shooting on video even though I tell them that I can donate the camerarent and filmstock if I can shoot it on film instead.

[Alessandro Machi]

Instead of constructing a low cost S16 camera they should construct a S16 scanner that can handle 400ft rolls and connects to a regular PC. Sitting at home scanning and grading the material without any timelimits would be something I really would like. I allready own a Aaton LTR and some CP Ultra-T lenses but many shortfilmproducers doesn´t want to take the extra cost of a supervised transfer and instead settles for shooting on video even though I tell them that I can donate the camerarent and filmstock if I can shoot it on film instead.

 

What if this new Super-16 camera could then run the film through so one could then scan it. The ultra low budget guys would love the option, the higher end jobs would still go to a professional facility.

 

A motion picture camera is a far more complex mechanical instrument than a video camera. Video cameras have come down in price because CCD chips, software, etc. keep getting cheaper and cheaper. The basic design of a motion picture camera has not changed much in almost a century. You still need to move a piece of film a very precise distance (feed), stop it at a very precise place (registration) and hold it in that very precise place while keeping it a very precise distance from the lens flange ((FFD)-which must be accurate to one tenth the diameter of a human hair)), and time it exactly with a rotating shutter (movement) that must open for a very precise amount of time (exposure); and you must be able to do that with an incredible degree of accuracy, 24 times each second. There is no way to get around that basic principle. And to machine and build an instrument that can do that in all kinds of conditions, for thousands upon thousands of feet of film, is an expensive proposition.

 

There have definitely been advances, especially in the area of camera noise. The Aatons are whisper quiet and my one experience with shooting with the new Arriflex 416, I had to keep looking at the running light to make sure it was running, as I couldn't hear it even though I was holding it right up next to my ear.

My experience with shooting with Aatons and Arriflexs is that the camera crew consists of the camera operator. On a very hectic shoot there may be a loader. I would not consider that a substantial crew.

I just don't see it Alessandro. You can do just about the same work with an old Super 16 Aaton LTR or Arriflex 16SR as you can with a new Aaton XTR or Arriflex 16SR3 or 416, as long as you are using the same glass. And you can pick up the LTR or SR for under $10,000.

 

-Tim

 

 

I'm not disagreeing with you. Wouldn't pre-fab parts in this day and age should be more precise than what was possible 20 years ago, no?

[Francesco Bonomo]

I fully suspected that it is Antonio Perez who is trying to get Kodak to abandon Film. I'm sure he was the one behind the decision to close the Swiss Kodachrome Lab -- which required dumping Kodachrome 40 8mm & 16mm Films. I just hope that Kodak will survive this Perez era.

 

Terry, I don't think Perez is to blame for Kodak's difficul times: the market is changing faster than before, and some big companies, due to their size, can't adapt overnight. I shoot a long of b/n, and it saddens me to think that sooner or later it's going to be very difficult to find tri-x o t-max film, but I have to face the fact that traditional black and white photography is not as mainstream as I'd love it to be.

Kodak is not abandoning film, but if the market says that a kodachrome lab is not profitable anymore, then that lab, sadly, has to close down.

 

The company has made mistakes which are not really worse than others made my other companies. It may seem they're slow at adapting to the new digital market, but they're very involved in digital cinema: they missed the consumer digital cameras train at first, but they're very strong in R&D for digital cinema projection, medical imaging (my father is a radiologist and Kodak did a tremendous job in his department), and their film stocks are by far the most used in the film industry.

 

I'm no expert, but I think Kodak's future depends on how well the company will adapt to the possible increase of digital productions and gradual decrease of demand for film, and they have decades of experience in the imaging business, so I think they'll be just fine.

 

It's like the automobile industry: every major company has had electrical powered vehicle prototypes for at least 15 years, but they won't mass-produce them and put them on the market as long as oil is still around (which, imho, is wrong, but it's way off topic here).

Edited January 26, 2007 by Francesco Bonomo

[Alessandro Machi]

Terry, I don't think Perez is to blame for Kodak's difficul times: the market is changing faster than before, and some big companies, due to their size, can't adapt overnight. I shoot a long of b/n, and it saddens me to think that sooner or later it's going to be very difficult to find tri-x o t-max film, but I have to face the fact that traditional black and white photography is not as mainstream as I'd love it to be.

Kodak is not abandoning film, but if the market says that a kodachrome lab is not profitable anymore, then that lab, sadly, has to close down.

 

The company has made mistakes which are not really worse than others made my other companies. It may seem they're slow at adapting to the new digital market, but they're very involved in digital cinema: they missed the consumer digital cameras train at first, but they're very strong in R&D for digital cinema projection, medical imaging (my father is a radiologist and Kodak did a tremendous job in his department), and their film stocks are by far the most used in the film industry.

 

I'm no expert, but I think Kodak's future depends on how well the company will adapt to the possible increase of digital productions and gradual decrease of demand for film, and they have decades of experience in the imaging business, so I think they'll be just fine.

 

It's like the automobile industry: every major company has had electrical powered vehicle prototypes for at least 15 years, but they won't mass-produce them and put them on the market as long as oil is still around (which, imho, is wrong, but it's way off topic here).

 

 

Their kodachrome lab might have been viable if they had offered low cost transfers to video. It could have tripled the income from processing and really opened peoples eyes to how good kodachrome could look when it was processed and transferred properly.

 

As for the car example. How ironic you bring that up. I understand that a camera is not a car, but for 13-15 grand, one can get a car, with an engine, lots of moving parts, a whole car, why not a movie camera?

[Francesco Bonomo]

Their kodachrome lab might have been viable if they had offered low cost transfers to video. It could have tripled the income from processing and really opened peoples eyes to how good kodachrome could look when it was processed and transferred properly.

 

As for the car example. How ironic you bring that up. I understand that a camera is not a car, but for 13-15 grand, one can get a car, with an engine, lots of moving parts, a whole car, why not a movie camera?

 

Alessandro, I'm just guessing, but I think the marketing of a movie camera is a little bit different than the one of a car, simply because is not aimed at a very broad market. The amateur looking for something cheap can find lots of digital cameras that are very affordable, although I totally believe that video quality in the prosumer range is light years away from the quailty of film.

 

The choice of producing a cheap film camera would have been a good choice by Kodak 30 years ago, when video cameras where not as popular as today.

A large company like Kodak could very well manufacture a cheap 16mm camera, but they wouldn't do it unless there was a huge demand for it, and unfortunately there is not.

[Nate Downes]

There are only two companys making filmstock currently, one or both needs to bite the bullet if they still want to be making decent profits off filmstock 20 to 50 years from now.

 

Actually, there are, as of today, 6 major companies making color film. Kodak and Fuji just are the most well known out there. Don't discount Lucky, Mitsubishi, 3M, Solaris and a japanese company bought Konica-Minoltas film division and is putting themselves into the market.

 

For being dead, there sure seem to be a lot more players out there.

[Nate Downes]

No. He's a 25 year veteran in imaging technologies, formerly at HP, and more recently, Kodak.

He's taking the company in a new direction, according to the Business Week article:

 

"[CEO]Perez found he had to replace a lot of executives to get the company on a new track. The film-era lifers just didn't get it. Of the company's 21 executive officers in 2003, the year Perez arrived, only three remain. Most of their replacements came from outside Kodak, and most had digital experience."

 

Source: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...48/b4011421.htm

 

So, in short, he fired people with experience in the core business and brought in outsiders with ZERO core business experience?

 

Might I point out that the Kodak film divisions were the major profit centers for the whole company? Even tho the film market has shrunk by 40% over the past 6 years, the falloff has, effectively, stopped and a slight rebound is predicted for this year.

 

Want to know why?

 

Because digital's hit it's saturation point. People are no longer going into the stores to buy their first digital cameras. They're going in to buy their 3rd or 4th. People that want film, are sticking to film. Hell, Polaroid film sales are up, and digital was aimed right at their core market.

[Francesco Bonomo]

Because digital's hit it's saturation point. People are no longer going into the stores to buy their first digital cameras. They're going in to buy their 3rd or 4th. People that want film, are sticking to film. Hell, Polaroid film sales are up, and digital was aimed right at their core market.

 

that's very true, and that's why Kodak is strongly r&d'ing new cameras in order to be ready to manufacture the new generation of digital consumer cameras. The battle for the megapixel is almost over, and people are realizing that the number of megapixels is not the only thing to look at when purchasing a camera.

 

Let's not fool ourselves though: film is still widely used and it will be for a long time, but there is a reason if Kodak is not going to invest more money into developing a new line of 35mm film for still cameras or if Nikon is not going to manufacture any new film cameras after the F6. Polaroid sales are indeed up, but Polaroid has always had a niche within the market rather than being THE mainstream camera, and its niche has saved it from the digital flood.

[Olex Kalynychenko]

The discussion about low cost Super-16 cameras very interesting from side of film makers and from side of film production companies.

But, we must to take a sober view of things.

The position from film maker.

If you amateur film maker and make the first project, you need study of art sides.

This is similar , if you young writer, and not too important, what pens you use, simply ball-point pen or Parker.

That's why, on first steps, you can use video camera or cheap Super 8 , DS8, D8, 16 mm cameras.

The base idea, you need receive of movie and to appreciate of personal movie at its true value.

Not need to draw attention to idea of movie, not on side of quality.

 

We have many cheap cine cameras.

If we told about russian 16 mm cine cameras, this can be Kranosgorsk-1, 2, 3, Kiev-16 U, UE, Alpha with price $150..$500.

The West cine cameras production industry manufactured many type of 16 mm cine cameras with amateur level too.

That's why,not need wait of new cheap 16 mm cameras, will need choose, what we have around.

 

And i wish underline, we tell about first steps of filmmakers with use of traditional technology of filming with color or B&W reversal film, traditional film editing and show with cine projector.

You can use home film processing of film inside of spiral tanks. This is cheap technology of film production for beginner.

If you will use of video camera, you can edit of movie on computer and show of movie on TV.

 

After you finished of your first project, you can see, what you need more high volume of quality of your footages, more high level of film editing, that's why, you will need modern telecine or film-digital technology of post production.

But, you go to a place of professional film production and must be ready to pay big money.

Not need wait of high professional quality of movie from equipments with amateur level.

You will need buy of fresh films. This is film have high price.

You will need use of modern telecine and film scanning service.

This is expensive service too.

That's why, after you calculate of all costs, you will see, what not need to save money at film equipments, because, the final quality of footages will depend from level of cine cameras and lenses.

You have wide choose of cine cameras and lenses too.

This can be old design normal 16 professional cine cammeras ( Kinor-16 SX, Arri BL, Eclair and other ) with high technical characteristics or modern Super 16 cine cameras ( Arri SR3 and similar ).

You can use of old style profesisonal lenses or modern Super 16 fast speed lenses.

The price of cine camera can be from $2000 up to $60000.

 

That's why, i not undertsand question about create of a modern cheap Super 16 camera.

From one side, Super 16 - professional format of 16 mm filming, use for telecine or film-digital post production and idea of cheap cine equipments and Super 16 format a some not compatible.

 

If you need Super 16 format, you think about expensive digital post production and must be ready to pay a big money.

If you don't have big budget, you can use normal-16 cameras and traditional film editing.

 

You wish ask of companies of production of film to pay of big money on creating of modern cheap Super 16 cameras.

I think, this companies not interested do this.

How many films shoot of amateur and professional film maker ?

The beginner to buy a few 30 m rolls of film and will shoot of a few months

The professional film maker can shoot of 5..6 pcs of 120 m rolls per every day.

What filmmaker better for film company ? Of course, the professional, because, will buy many films.

 

I think, the companies of production of films must be interested on education of more new professional filmmakers, must be sell of cheap film for amateur filmmakers, special discount programm, to sell of equipments for home film production, open a more clubs for amateur filmmakers and more ets.

 

I remember of time of former USSR. We had many childrens clubs with amateur film makers department.

We must have wishes of shoot of films only, the cameras and films give of government, free of money for users.

We make many movies at home, because, can buy spiral tanks and chemistry and processed films at home on bathroom.

This was real people's keenness on home filmmaking.

 

That's why, the companies of film production can think about sponson help of amateur film production clubs, because, they will bring up of film buyers for future.

 

I wish return at question about cine cameras. I think, not need flying on the clouds, not need wait of low cost cine camera with professional quality, need choose a camera, what you can buy and shoot a films.

[Stuart Brereton]

The current generation of Super-16mm cameras still need a substantial crew to operate, that aspect would need to be addressed. Reduced power consumption, quieter, double system sound on the camera, lighter magazines are some of the things that would need to be addressed.

 

A Super 16 camera needs no more crew than video. The myth that 'Film' crews are larger than 'video' crews was propagated by companies like Sony when they were marketing the CineAlta as a replacement for film.

 

S16 cameras like the SR3 & XTR do not have a problem with noise, power consumption or weight, in fact I'd say that a fully tricked out SR3 is still lighter than an F900 once matte box and follow focus etc are attached.

 

As has already been stated, any company that has $50,000 to spend on stock is unlikely to care about a 'free' camera.

 

There are three modern, highly functional 16mm systems readily available for rental worldwide. There are any number of older 16mm cameras available to rent or to buy. The idea of Kodak spending $10 million dollars (not counting R&D costs) on essentially giving cameras away to people who don't need them is ludicrous.

[Patrick Cooper]

"Their kodachrome lab might have been viable if they had offered low cost transfers to video. It could have tripled the income from processing and really opened peoples eyes to how good kodachrome could look when it was processed and transferred properly."

 

Interesting idea but unfortunately, 'low cost transfers' and quality don't usually go hand in hand. There is a reason why transfer houses charge so much for quality telecine - Rank Cinetel and Spirit machines are astronomically expensive to purchase and maintain. However, I guess Kodak could have had something like an optical printer type of device like a Workprinter that transfers film to video frame by frame. This sort of equipment is not super expensive and the quality is reasonably good. Then again, they would need to employ a colourist for scene by scene colour correction and the costs of this would be passed on to the consumer. Even so, I'm not sure if consumers would get the best appreciation viewing Kodachrome this way since Kodachrome by nature is a very contrasty film stock and a device like a Workprinter would have trouble coping with the narrow exposure latitude, particularly when exposed by novices under the midday sun. So it's back to square 1.

[Sam Wells]

A Super 16 camera needs no more crew than video. The myth that 'Film' crews are larger than 'video' crews was propagated by companies like Sony when they were marketing the CineAlta as a replacement for film.

 

I've somehow managed to shoot film for years without bringing a DIT along :D

 

-Sam Wells

 

 

 

 

Instead of constructing a low cost S16 camera they should construct a S16 scanner that can handle 400ft rolls and connects to a regular PC

 

Kinetta is working on that.

 

-Sam Wells

[Andrew Martin]

Actually, there are, as of today, 6 major companies making color film. Kodak and Fuji just are the most well known out there. Don't discount Lucky, Mitsubishi, 3M, Solaris and a japanese company bought Konica-Minoltas film division and is putting themselves into the market.

 

For being dead, there sure seem to be a lot more players out there.

 

 

Who said film was "dead"?

 

Film is alive and well, and I want it to stay that way forever.

 

I have never heard of these companies making motion picture filmstock.

I think it is Kodak or Fuji that needs to lead the way.

 

When I am much older, I want film to still be an option because I know I will always want to shoot on celluloid for some projects. I think if they provide film to students for much less and establish a market with young filmmakers, it will help ensure that film will progress right along with HD technology, and that both will be available to filmmakers.

[Andrew Martin]

BTW - The cost of Film cameras and accessories is negligible. Film processing, TK etc is what makes film so cost prohibitive.

 

I know some have been arguing this point to a degree, but this is the matter that really demands attention. Kodak?s current solution is the student 16mm film kit, which is great but it is still cost prohibitive. Prices need to be lower for students.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I strongly object to the idea that film requires no more crew than video. To achieve a comparable level of ease and convenience, any film shoot needs at least one more person, a focus puller/loader.

 

Phil