odie

Stock and cameras can sure be acquired these days at absolute bargain prices...but processing and Telecine?  

Would be very interested to know if you have found a source of affordable process and transfer rates for students (or general indie projects). Those costs seem to be the unavoidable sting that prevent many from shooting film over digital these days (sadly). Would be interested in knowing if any financially viable solutions anymore for students...or any indie filmmaker. It used to be possible to get bestlight transfers for a reasonable rate, but now with the decline of labs and facilities I'd shudder to think how much a wetgate to 10bit transfer of 5000 ft would cost these days, compared with shooting digital media.    

200asa film kicks the ass of any iso 20 000 camcorder when it comes to DR.

Get hired - don't buy lol ? So cant wrap my head around why anyone invests in visual transient tools, when the client pays for them anyway ? Just get the job, charge it on, do the next one, when camera +1 comes out?  I may be simple, but all my colleagues who shoot all the world class shit,  hire the operators, then prod manager hires the tool as requested, they don't even own a lens never-mind a camera - not one of my director chums who shoot the shit that is beyond global big even owns a single film-making device other than a phone. Like with music - an old analogue synth will not make you the Human League - just get on with the content rather than reaching for association? Was told as a kid people who do do - people who won't talk about it a lot. Who knows eh

Rogue, aside from an underwater scene, was shot on KODAK VISION3 200T Color Negative Film 5213 and KODAK VISION3 500T Color Negatives Film 5219 with Panavision equipment and lenses. In an interview with HDVideoPro, Elswit told Ian Blair that "we didn't consider going digital, as neither Tom nor Chris really like the look. You can shoot digital and find a LUT that will mimic the film look, but they both wanted the real film look. And Tom just doesn't like the way digital capture looks, even when it's manipulated.

“Shooting film also had the benefit of making post ‘far quicker,’” the DP related during the same interview. "It was originally scheduled for a Christmas release, and now it's a summer release. And, in a way, it's easier to find the look of the movie if you shot film initially. It's less labor-intensive in post."

Read more: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/InCamera/Sections/The_StoryBoard/Film_Part_of_the_Mission_Impossible_Dream_Team.htm#ixzz3hVWUn7og

Thank you. 

The £25k is the amount of the fund. I can have less if required, but not more. 

Other companies in my area are using C300, C100, FS7, FS700, Alexa, Amira, DSLR. Not much RED. 

It's very important that my company owns enough equipment as we get a lot of bookings. We do rent lighting and bigger cams often, but because we are doing it so frequently, it makes sense to own this stuff. Loads of rental houses though. 

We rent higher end cameras as said. I do believe when you own a camera, you can get to know it a lot better = better end product. Of course, the ownership has to be affordable but create ROI. 

We are a small boutique. 2 of us do everything - the other one does the numbers. We call on others when required. 

 

I posted a few months ago about a friend who got an investment, and the replies were pretty cool so thought I'd try again - but this time it's me.

I've now got access to a £25k ($38876) equipment fund to move my video business to another level (another level of fancy toys, that is)....and I'm wondering how to spend it. 

Short story... the company I run employs three people, including me. Our work has been historically music video production (exclusively), but we are now in development of making a lot of commercial/corporate work. Not boring talking heads stuff on white backgrounds.... cinematic, edgy, highly stylised videos for businesses who want to be more adventurous. 

We had an equipment investment a few years ago.. iMac, lighting, grip, monitor,cameras. I'd say the only survivor of this investment moving on is the lighting gear. We've sold most of it off and have rented a bunch of stuff since. So we have a lot of areas to improve.

Due to our clear out...we need replacements/additions for A camera, B camera, monitors, Mac, hard drives, lenses, lighting, bits and bobs. We have kept things like our DJI Ronin-M, Edelkrone Slider Plus, 2 x Kino Flo Divas, 3 x Dedolights, vintage lenses. Everything else has gone. (we do have some GH3s knocking about too). 

Lighting is No.1, as always. We know what lighting we want (LEDs and bits) to add but everything else is up in the air. We've kept our good lights but need more, such as Lupolux and Scorpion, to open possibilities and creativity. 

In terms of cameras, we use the FS7 often but certainly are curious about the URSA Mini. It's important to B-cam this stuff, as we will also use these for lower budget stuff as A-cameras. (RX10 II etc to go on grip stuff like Ronin-M).  Lenses needs vary, bit of all worlds required really. 

I've got a solid idea of what I want..... but just for fun... what would you do in my position? 

​

I think it's the robotic quality of the motion (or lack of motion) - exactly how most cgi misses the point since it's often created by people who have little to no experience with physics and the laws of physics.  the lack of limitation within a digital world means the people responsible for having to produce realistic cg means incorrect levels of physical constraint are included in the brief.

IS is a new thing - in film terms (regarding miniature mechanical IS- in lens, moving sensor etc) .  the fact that it's not within an Arri 435, an IMAX camera, Mitchell cameras, Panavision Panaflex's, AATONS, Alexa, F65, Red Epic. or in any of the flagship film making lenses used in Hollywood from day one.  From day one (lets say 60 years ago) the lack of IS (as it is currently implemented in consumer cameras and lenses) has meant film makers have not had it imparting its look onto the picture.  
 

Since we're way past the golden age of cinema - it is going down hill on the whole.  The golden era of hollywood started and died pretty much in unison with when John McTiernan started and stopped making films.  There are some film makers still doing it right, Nolan, Tarrantino, etc but the new kids are coming and making films without doing their homework or paying their dues to the glory days.  Who knows, if commercial cinema continues the way it's going IS will be commonplace in 50 years.  But I know when I'm sat in my deathbed and kids are wondering why films like the Hateful Eight look so much better than the shite we'll be seeing in 50 years only a few remaining humans will know about what kept us in the real world.  Physical objects, with weight and value.

 

I know I'm mad and old fashioned in my views.  But I'm pretty sure Tarrantino would agree if he had the time and desire to talk on forums:)