Dear Santa,

I've been reading the series on making demo videos in some rag called 'Home & Studio Recording'. (I don't suppose you get it up your way.) Anyway, I've got this mate who's in a great band and he wants me to do his video seeing as that I've got this terrific talent for visual ideas. Problem is, no one can ever appreciate my genius as I haven't got any video gear and the world is undoubtedly the poorer for it.

Actually, this is where you come in, it being the season of goodwill and all that, because I thought you might care to help out by filling my stocking with a bit of gear. As you don't get the magazine I don't suppose you'll know much about the scene so I'd better make a little list of what I want:

Sony XC3000PK video camera. (It's their new one, and it's got three CCD chips instead of tubes which makes it lighter to carry about and eliminates 'comet tails.')

Sony Type V edit suite: the V05850 and V05800 recorder and the RM440 edit controller.

I think this lot should just about get me going, although I might want to move up to High Band when the group get famous, because they'll want to show their video on TV. High Band's a bit pricy, though. Better leave that till next year. This little lot will only cost you... er... (Camera £4,900, Recorder £2,900, Edit Suite £7,500)... yes, just over £15,000.

Yours in anticipation, Rupert Beyer

PS. I'll leave the front door unlocked, as I don't think you'll get the recorders down the chimney.



Dear Rupert,

What on earth makes you think I don't receive H&SR here at the pole? In fact I've just recorded a hot little number myself, full of sampled penguins and reindeer with gated iceburg crunches.

To tell the truth, these articles are causing me a bit of a problem because everyone wants me to send them video gear for Christmas. At that price I can't satisfy everyone unless I cut down on the teddy bears, and that wouldn't do at all.

Have you thought about using film instead?

Yours Frostbitten,

S. Claus



Dear Santa,

Using film? You must be joking. I know you're... well... getting on a bit now, but haven't you heard - film's dead! Everyone knows that. It's all video on TV these days.

Let's face it, video is modern. The picture is sharper. They've even got chips in now. Film is so old fashioned: strips of celluloid with little pictures on which you wind over this machine that goes 'clack, clack, clack'. Video's got all that technology behind it, like flashing LEDs and things.

Anyway, the chap in my video shop said that you can't even get film for movie cameras anymore and you won't get parts when the camera breaks down. Absolutely no one uses film nowadays. You're going to have to get modern.

Yours hopefully, Rupert Beyer

PS. Even my Uncle Charlie sold his Super 8 movie camera and bought a video outfit. The only trouble is that we have to watch three hours of rubbish instead of three minutes.



Dear Rupert,

This old man's going to have to put you straight on some things. Don't forget I was around a long time before Mr. Sony first picked up his soldering iron.

You see, there's been a great misunderstanding about film, and a complete mythology has developed around video. Film has been around for a long time, and behind it lie years of technological advancement in both the film itself and the techniques of using it. Video is a relative baby, and in many ways has got a long way to go before it can catch up.

I bet you didn't know that nearly all the pop videos you see on TV are actually shot on film and are only transferred to video tape for extra effects or distribution? Did you know that nearly all TV commercials, all the features and even 'Dallas' are shot on film? You know why? Quality.

That is, quality in both the medium of the film itself and also in the post-production techniques.

The actual resolving power of film is far higher than that of video tape. If you were to measure the number of lines per millimetre which can be resolved at the corner of the picture, film will resolve somewhere in the region of 80. Video will resolve around 60 at its very best, U-matic resolving about 40 and VHS roughly 16.

All film sizes of similar emulsion will have the same resolving power, but obviously Super 8 has to be magnified much more than 35mm, so the quality will depend on the film size.

High definition TV is supposed to be as good as 35mm film, or so the salesmen tell us, but I'd bet my sleigh that I won't be bringing high definition TV sets down your chimney in this decade.

As for quality of post-production, I wouldn't like to have edited a feature film on video, film being so much easier to structure and restructure.

You've probably guessed that I 'm a bit of a film buff. There's not much else to do up here at other times of the year.

Yours Snowbound,

S. Claus



Dear Santa,

You're very persuasive and this is all very well but you can't re-record on film can you, and what about availability and cost? Film cameras are all old fashioned, and I'm not much good at working out exposures and all that sort of stuff.

Yours even more hopefully, Rupert Beyer



Dear Rupert,

True, you can't re-record on film, and I'll be the first to admit that this is the major area where video tape wins. It's very useful to be able to record stuff off the TV but do you want to re-record over your masterpieces whether they're on film or video?

With video cameras and still photograph cameras, a lot of hard work in using them has been removed by automation. It's the same with film cameras. They've kept pace with modern technology. They run off batteries, they have automatic exposure setting, power zoom lenses are used and they can record sound. Many film cameras can run at varying speeds, enabling you to do time lapse, single frame animation or slow motion. No video camera can do any of these. Some film cameras can also do fades and even dissolves or mixes in the camera.

Anyway, let's look at the costs, because this is what we're worried about isn't it?

When the domestic video boom hit a few years ago, many Super 8 users legged it down to their local camera shop and part-exchanged for video gear. At this particular time, Super 8 was at a high stage of technological development. Most top range Super 8 cameras are superb machines, offering all of the facilities mentioned and are capable of surprisingly good results, certainly at a higher resolution than VHS, Sony 8 or Betamax.

Now this means that the shops and cine-magazines are often advertising new or second hand Super 8 cameras at incredibly low prices. £150-£400 could buy a good system new, and second hand gear can be picked up for as little as £50-£100. Projectors and editors can also be picked up for equally low prices.

Film is relatively expensive, between £5 and £8 process paid for a few minutes worth. However, if you script well and tackle the job in a professional manner, you can keep footage down to a minimum. Video tape is so cheap that you can shoot three hours worth for the same price as several minutes worth of film, but do you need to shoot so much?

For a demo video of one number, lasting let's say three minutes and with a shooting ratio of say 5:1, you'd need to shoot 15 minutes worth, and that's £25-£40 worth depending on the film stock.

It doesn't look too bad now, does it? You could then telecine the film on to VHS for distribution and viewing.

Now let's look at the higher end of the market. The standard gauge for broadcast television is 16mm. There are plenty of 16mm cine cameras on the second hand market, from a Bolex for £100 to a Beaulieu for £1,500. Buy a quality film camera and it will last you a lifetime; I certainly couldn't say the same for a video camera. You have two choices of film type: negative or reversal. Most TV companies prefer to use negative, as you can edit a work print, conform the negative and then strike as many graded show prints as you want. Reversal stock is cheaper because the film you run in your camera is processed to become the film you actually edit. However, when using reversal film you could edit a duplicate and then conform your master, or you could transfer the master to video for editing.

The film stock is expensive, reversal costing around £12 per 100ft and the process about £10-£12 per 100ft. So, 15 minutes worth will cost you around £110.

It might look expensive, but that's broadcast quality and your capital expenditure is a fraction of that which would be needed for high band video.

Well, so much for my lecture. The truth of the matter is that! can't shoot video up here; it's too cold and the equipment just won't work!

Yours with icebergs on, S. Claus



Dear Santa,

I see what you mean. It'll cost you less, and I'll get better quality. Does this mean I can have some film gear now then?

Yours Desperately, Rupert Beyer

PS. I can lock the front door now.



Dear Rupert,

Wait and see...