When you've got no money and you want to make your first short the first cost to cut would on the surface seem obvious - shoot digital and not film. After all digital really has taken over in stills photography, so much so that Nikon have ceased production of film cameras, so it must be the same with moving film cameras - this is not the case.

As a stills photographer shooting digital it seems odd to be championing film, especially as at Sundance Film festival this year over half the entries were shot on Hi Def - what role has film to play in t his world? Well the other half of the entries were shot on film - welcome to the film/Hi Def debate.

It is all terribly confusing. If you are thinking of shooting in Hi Def, what kind of Hi Def? If its a top of the range camera with all the trimmings you are looking at some serious rental charges (if you have the right insurance cover) - plus your DOP will need to be fully versed in how to use the technology - to get the "film look" requires substantial amounts of menu tweeking filtration and lighting expertise.

The poor mans option is HDV and with new cameras entering the market promising 25p progressive scan film look why not go with this - the cameras are coming in at around £4000 GB Pounds - the tapes are £10 GB Pounds- just think of the savings? The problem is this - its the size of that chip that matters. On a 35mm stills camera you are getting 16 megapixels per image out of your chip - on a HDV camera that chip is giving you under 2 meg pixels - the comparison between what is achievable on digital stills camera and a semi pro HDV ends there. The digital revolution has impacted hugely on the stills market - but the cameras aint cheap (£8,000 GB Pounds + with lenses) - you could get the same quality out of a 30 year old second hand (under £100 GB Pounds) Pentax K100 camera plus a roll of 100ASA film - so if you are on a budget the cost of film is negated by the cost of the camera. The advantages of digital stills cameras do not lie in their ability not to shoot film - they lie in the ability to review your work instantly and to deliver to clients in a digital form. Anyway that's a whole separate debate.

One musn't confuse top end digital stills cameras with entry level semi pro HDV cameras. They are totally different animals - to process the amount of information in a moving image compared to a stills would require a serious machine - something like the new Viper cameras being tried out in Hollywood productions which again most of us could not even begin to contemplate using for our first short, or our second, third or fourth.

Which brings me back to film. With 16mm film cameras currently holding their value after a steep decline (induced by the digital revolution) you can currently own a £20,000 piece of kit for around £4,000 - add a good set of lenses (which can be hired very reasonably as can the cameras if you don't want to buy) and you can produce incredibly high quality footage on very simple, easy to use and portable machines - which you can take anywhere (March of the Penguins was shot by a two man team on Super 16 film on an Aaton XTR Prod camera and grossed $77,000,000 at the box office - not a pixel to be seen). The recent advances in film technology means that super 16 film stock produces amazing resolution and phenomenal lattitude - basically top quality images. 35m film stock, especially the new 3 perf Super 35 is waging war with the most highly sophisticated Hi Def cameras as we speak. In the world of cinematography film is fighting its corner very well despite all the predicitons of its demise. Kodak's and Fuji's committment to film is on going. 25 years after the death of Super 8 there are currently over 12 different film stocks to choose from - including a new Ektachrome stock from Kodak. People like to shoot film. There must be a good reason.

There is.

With carefully thought out storyboards and forward planning (essentials of any film production) it is possible to shoot a short on 5:1 shot ratio - (out of every 5 takes - 1 ends up in the final cut) this means for your ten minute short the costs of film are negligible (£500 - £800 depending what deals you can cut) compared to the costs of hiring top end Hi Def cameras which you better be sure you know how to use. If you are shooting HDV - even in 25p - you are not getting the film look, you are getting a downgraded digital version which will dissapoint on the big screen but might just be OK on the internet.

You decide.

Now people rightly argue that its the story that matters, not the technology that created it - this is fair comment, and there are great films being made on digital media (one must remember that many of them are being scanned out back onto 35mm film for projection at huge expense (money most of us don't have) It all depends what you want to achieve and what your budgets are. If you are after a film look cheaply then the cheapest route (I know it seems mad) is to shoot film.

Don't be blind to the hidden costs of Hi Def - its not all about cheap tape stock.

Your 10 minute short or low budget feature will look amazing on Super 16 and the additional costs of film stock and processing will produce savings in other areas - HD post production costs are very high (not HDV - which is not HD) with even major TV comapnies currently down grading to SD to do editing and for broadcasting which defeats the object of shooting HD in the first place (most people don't own a HDTV yet and at £800 + it will be awhile before they do and even then they will have to pay subscriptions to watch HD broadcasts in the short term)

If you are shooting a 10 part drama series for a major TV channel - Hi Def is the way all producers will go for obvious costs reasons (although many BBC dramas are still being originated on Super16 whilst commissioning others in Hi Def) . Rules being set by American networks about Super 16 productions certainly are making people jittery about shooting 16mm for international distribution (apparently its to do with how Super 16 film it compresses for global HD satellite distribution) However currently 90% of quailty US TV production is still on film with the benefits of Super 16 now only recently being discovered. In the last few months Arri has produced a brand new Super 16 camera in response to this growing interest. There could be an HD future built, in part, on film origination. The recent Blue Planet TV series was hailed as an Hi Def victory by Sony and Panasonic who supplied some of the cameras - but if you check out the accompanying " how they made it " book of the series you will see it littered with 35mm and super16 film cameras. Shot on film, broadcast in HD..... the future is still uncertain.

Back to reality for a moment.

For the tiny production unit with no money (I am one) I would recommend shooting film on a film camera. It is simple, high quality and portable. It ensures discipline and forethought and it looks amazing. If you have got £800 to spend on film and processing then spend it on film and processing. You'll get mini DV tapes to edit on and Digi beta tapes to master on (Hi Def as it gets cheaper to post produce). The film itself may never be cut as film but by originating on Super 16 film stock you are still ahead of the game in terms of look and quality. Its not over yet for film in cinematography by a long way. And if you are skint - don't think you are saving any money shooting on a camcorder - you will really wish you hadn't. I bought my own cameras - starting with a Super 16 Bolex (£1500 GB Pounds) moved on to an Eclair ACL (amazing small French camera) ended up with an Aaton. Don't chuck the baby out with the bath water - if you need 30 takes and a 20 part mini series then shoot Hi Def (a Sony Cinealta will set you back £90,000 or £800 + a day if you have all the right insurance). If you want to get out and shoot and want it to look amazing - pool your resources and buy some short ends, think about your shots - and see what comes back. You will not be dissapointed. Its all about the needs of your production - don't be blinded by technology, film has been around for a very long time for very good reason.

Martin Salter

Professional Advertising and Editorial Photographer
Enthusiastic Cinematographer