Let’s be clear that we have two separate classes of films being discussed “amateur” films and “non-commercial films”.
The intent of an amateur film festival is clear, it is open to people who make films for pleasure and are not employed in any area of the film/TV industry. They work with limited resources and finances drawn from their own pockets. Although they may have attended classes in film making and talked with professionals they do not involve them in their productions. This used to be relatively easy to define but even then I remember the controversy of 16 mm versus 8 mm; could they compete on an even level?
The world is now very different from those days; all film makers have access to professional level equipment either personally or through organizations such as arts councils. The technical playing field has been leveled, whether people have the skill to use these resources to their full potential is another question but you do not have to be professionally trained to achieve good skill levels. A competent level of film making skill is relatively easy to achieve; obviously a high level is something else.
The rules of the traditional amateur film festivals are framed in terms that reflect a concern with “true amateurism” but they do not actually apply them. Not because this is difficult or impossible to do but rather because it would wipe out many of the award winning entries. It is easy to exclude the professionals and the “semi-professionals”, a simple question, “do you derive or have derived income from your film/video making activities?” If the answer is “yes” than you cannot enter. What is complicated about that?
If you make wedding videos; ads for local TV; corporate training and info films and receive payment then you cannot enter. Being retired is no excuse, if you derived income from film/video then it is fair to assume you have carried your special skills into retirement. It is absurd to claim that because you only make commercials you are actually an amateur when making narrative films; you bring a whole set of skills to bear that the true amateur will lack; EXPERIENCE of the film making process.
I can understand the feelings of a lot of amateurs as they see the awards in their Amateur Festivals go to people who are in fact professional film makers.
A “non-commercial” film can be made by anyone regardless of their status. The basic rule is that it not be made for financial reward. We can argue the detail of what constitutes financial reward but it is simply that no-one working on the production be paid and that there be no future income paid to the makers.
ned c
amateur/n-c films
-
Mike Shaw
Re: amateur/n-c films
An interesting distinction between and definitions of 'amateur' and 'non-commercial'.
Some questions though:
Could a professional photographer be classified as an amateur film maker?
(Skill and knowledge in exposures and etc., from which money was earned). I ask because film making on a professional basis is rarely a one man job - from scriptwriting, music scoring, camera, lighting, props, etc etc etc - whole teams of specialists are involved. Just look at the credits at the end of any film - would they all be deprived of the 'amateur' status if they took it up as a hobby? Each would bring their own paid-for skills to the movie-making equation and each would have to answer 'Yes' to the 'Make an income from...' question. I ask about the Pro photographer because he would have undoubted skills that would set him over and above 'amateur' status when film-making. I personally think that the definition you give here Ned, whilst an excellent starting point', is too excluding.
If an amateur film maker is asked to film a wedding, for which he gets paid, is he really then a professional, to be excluded from 'amateur' status? I find it difficult to accept the premise that, having been paid to do one, maybe two or even three weddings, a film-maker is then a pro and deprived of entry into competitions. Many people look to the enthusiastic hobbyist to 'make a film' for them - because they (the hobbyists) have learned a few skills along the amateur path. I personally don't think that makes them a pro - however good the result of the wedding video or whatever they make. I think they only become a 'pro' if make their entire living at film making, rather than a little pocket money occasionally. I also think the 'pro' status goes on retirement, but that I can see as being debatable. I would love to see an 'amateur' film made by Steven Spielberg - and if it wins, terrific! I would learn from his techniques and capabilities. And that, to me, is what it is all about - learning, raising the bar on my own efforts. In other words, I have no problem with good films - whoever made them - winning awards. It is a challenge for me to try to learn from and match the skills. But, I can quite understand people getting 'miffed' when an award goes to someone who is (secretly) a pro film maker. To me though, they're almost saying 'I'm not up to that standard and I want to win an award...
Maybe the thing would be to redefine entry categories - 1) Absolute beginners, 2)people who have made more than 5 but less than 20 films 3) People who have made 20+ films. That sort of thing.
As for non-commercial - that is a whole new debatable area. I think 'non-commercial means that the film is not sold - or made - to yield profit. Full stop. We are making an amateur film on a subject which has already engendered a considerable amount of interest - people are asking for copies and we're still shooting it (as amateurs). Are we supposed to give them all away at our own expense? I think this category or definition needs further thought as well.
Some questions though:
Could a professional photographer be classified as an amateur film maker?
(Skill and knowledge in exposures and etc., from which money was earned). I ask because film making on a professional basis is rarely a one man job - from scriptwriting, music scoring, camera, lighting, props, etc etc etc - whole teams of specialists are involved. Just look at the credits at the end of any film - would they all be deprived of the 'amateur' status if they took it up as a hobby? Each would bring their own paid-for skills to the movie-making equation and each would have to answer 'Yes' to the 'Make an income from...' question. I ask about the Pro photographer because he would have undoubted skills that would set him over and above 'amateur' status when film-making. I personally think that the definition you give here Ned, whilst an excellent starting point', is too excluding.
If an amateur film maker is asked to film a wedding, for which he gets paid, is he really then a professional, to be excluded from 'amateur' status? I find it difficult to accept the premise that, having been paid to do one, maybe two or even three weddings, a film-maker is then a pro and deprived of entry into competitions. Many people look to the enthusiastic hobbyist to 'make a film' for them - because they (the hobbyists) have learned a few skills along the amateur path. I personally don't think that makes them a pro - however good the result of the wedding video or whatever they make. I think they only become a 'pro' if make their entire living at film making, rather than a little pocket money occasionally. I also think the 'pro' status goes on retirement, but that I can see as being debatable. I would love to see an 'amateur' film made by Steven Spielberg - and if it wins, terrific! I would learn from his techniques and capabilities. And that, to me, is what it is all about - learning, raising the bar on my own efforts. In other words, I have no problem with good films - whoever made them - winning awards. It is a challenge for me to try to learn from and match the skills. But, I can quite understand people getting 'miffed' when an award goes to someone who is (secretly) a pro film maker. To me though, they're almost saying 'I'm not up to that standard and I want to win an award...
Maybe the thing would be to redefine entry categories - 1) Absolute beginners, 2)people who have made more than 5 but less than 20 films 3) People who have made 20+ films. That sort of thing.
As for non-commercial - that is a whole new debatable area. I think 'non-commercial means that the film is not sold - or made - to yield profit. Full stop. We are making an amateur film on a subject which has already engendered a considerable amount of interest - people are asking for copies and we're still shooting it (as amateurs). Are we supposed to give them all away at our own expense? I think this category or definition needs further thought as well.
Re: amateur/n-c films
Ned says : A "non-commercial" film can be made by anyone regardless of their status. The basic rule is that it is not made for financial reward..."Mike Shaw wrote:An interesting distinction between and definitions of 'amateur' and 'non-commercial'.
Some questions though:
Could a professional photographer be classified as an amateur film maker?
If an amateur film maker is asked to film a wedding, for which he gets paid, is he really then a professional, to be excluded from 'amateur' status?
I think 'non-commercial means that the film is not sold - or made - to yield profit. Full stop.
Not a U-turn
Maybe it is time to delete the word "amateur" in names of festivals. Ned wants to tell us this I think. Otherwise we must exclude almost everybody. I remember the making of "Prinsje". Urbain used his "railway line" to make a "rider" as we call it in Dutch or his "crane" to make an enormous "gliding tilt up" from the ground floor of his house to the terrace that he had built especially for his film. I was not jealous at all. I enjoyed seeing it, but I still work with my wheelchair to make riders. Also because I am too lazy and too clumsy to assemble a railway-line. I admired Urbain's ingenious ideas and his energy. Urbain had better equipment than me because he also made commercials for TV, but he deserved his numerous awards in Britain and abroad. Thanks to him I learnt quite a lot. I am not against friends who have better cameras, railwaylines, cranes etc... and I don't envy them. I would not be against Steven Spielberg competing with us even if he uses better equipment. That's my personal opinion and I'm not making a U-turn telling you this.
Maybe I'll have to return my certificates.
Friends know that the first ten years I asked Colin Howett to be my narrator. I didn't have any other choice as I live on the continent. He was the only one that I could find to read my text 12 years ago. I could have given Colin a box of chocolates, but I made a mistake ... I gave him a little money. Now I feel that I should return some of my first awards. Maybe I didn't have the right to take part in BIAFF at that time. I could have read the text myself, but ... I could have done like John Astin for instance. That's one of the British filmmakers I admire most. In Chesterfield my Belgian friend Werner told him that his film about a tourist attraction in the US was wonderful, but he also wondered why John didn't want to ask someone else to read his texts. John said something like "Because I am a real amateur !"'. John was one of the big stars in Chesterfield. I admire his films. I admire him.
Is a professional camera man allowed to take part in our festivals ?
An other example. Everybody knows that my friend Werner Van den Bulck is a professional camera man. Last year he was a final judge at BIAFF. Should we exclude him from taking part in BIAFF in the future? I don't think so. Not at tall. On the contrary. Urbain and Werner make wonderful films without asking any financial reward. Filmmaking is also their hobby.
By the way, two years ago Geoff Harrison of the Preston Movie Makers asked his friend Andrew Smith to be my narrator. Andrew does not want any money for it, but I will offer him a drink at the bar of "The Lamb" next time. He has also done it for Werner. It's good to have good British friends. Peter Rouillard and I myself have made the film "Guernsey, I Love You". A very kind man called Nick Creed from Guernsey has read the text for us without asking any money.
Imagine that we exclude all our friends who make films of weddings and events that have been commissioned. This to earn some pocket-money. These wedding-films are not shown at festivals like BIAFF. The long films about events would not even deserve a blue seal award. So there is no problem. I myself have never made a film to earn some pocket-money but I
There is only one important thing in my opinion : the film must not be sold to yield profit. Full stop. I agree with you Mike.
Willy Van der Linden
Re: amateur/n-c films
I don't seem to be communicating very clearly, so one last try. Defining who is an amateur in film making is very difficult. One wedding, two weddings, 50% income, 20% income, works part time at a TV station, can a cameraman direct, a producer record sound? The absurdity of trying to define who is an amteur is underlined by Mike's question about what is the status of a professional still photographer. So simply delete the word amateur and and ask for entries to be made by people who receive no payment for their work on the film and that it is not being made with the intention of being for sale. Who cares if they are professional/semi-professionall film makers; they have a long tradition of making lousy films!
My point is there are two classes of FILMS,those made to earn money and where the makers receive payment - commercial films; not eligible for the BIAFF and similar Festivals; and those made for pleasure where no-one is paid and the film is not for sale, ie non-commercial.
I will resist the temptation to expand and hope this clarifies what I am trying to say.
ned c
My point is there are two classes of FILMS,those made to earn money and where the makers receive payment - commercial films; not eligible for the BIAFF and similar Festivals; and those made for pleasure where no-one is paid and the film is not for sale, ie non-commercial.
I will resist the temptation to expand and hope this clarifies what I am trying to say.
ned c
Re: amateur/n-c films
Don't try again, Ned. It is a plain as a pikestaff. It is very clear. Even for foreigners whose mother-tongue is different.ned c wrote:I don't seem to be communicating very clearly, so one last try.
ned c
Willy Van der Linden
-
Mike Shaw
Re: amateur/n-c films
Thanks Willy and Ned ... the muddy water clears a little. But only a little I'm sad to say!.
This is the type of statement where I still have a problem - "... and those (films) made for pleasure where no-one is paid and the film is not for sale, ie non-commercial. "
That's the big stumbling block. The film I have in mind for example, is being made for pleasure, not 'profit'. No one is being paid to make it. We each cover our own expenses, and have pooled money into a pot for any joint costs and expenses. The local History society has expressed an interest in the film, and many of their members have expressed a desire for a copy of it when finished. It has also been suggested that other societies will also be extremely interested in our film when finished, and their members would equally want a copy. The BBC have just made a (yet to be shown) film covering different aspects of the same subject. It is a fairly high interest topic.
When made, naturally we would like as many people to see it as posisble - but we are not rich enough to give it away to all who want it. It is not being made for commercial reasons, it is being made because we are well placed (probably best placed) to film it and make it. Because of the requests we have decided to estimate the number of disks required and have them printed and cased for us - then to sell them for the cost price of the printing and duplication. We have two options: amortise the cost so that we recover the outlay after, say, 3/4 of them have been sold, donating all the proceeds from sales of the last 1/4 to a relevant charity, or waiting until all are sold before we recoup the cost of duplication. Either way, we will not be making a profit - or recovering any of the cost of making the film. But we have decided in advance of finishing the film that we will make copies and they will be sold to recover (only) the copying costs.
So, I am now resigned to the fact that, following the above definition as it stands, entering the film into any competition will be a no-no. I would like - dearly love - to get judges' feedback on style, content, scripting, approach etc etc etc. That isn't going to happen under this interpretation of the 'rules'.
So, when made, sadly it seems the only way anyone will get to see it is to buy a copy, or go to one of the 'free' venues where we may be invited to show it. (I think that will happen - we have been invited to show historic stuff we've made using local film archive material, at local libraries, clubs and so on. All totally free of course - we cover our own expenses).
Another question for you though ... does your club charge an entry fee for your Annual show? So, how does that stack up against the rules then? The film maker doesn't benefit from the money. The club does - so someone is profiting from your film. The entrance fee covers the cost of hiring the hall, putting on the show? So absolutely no money is left over to stick in the club's bank account? I wonder.
All this does not make me a professional film maker by any stretch of the imagination. In fact the idea that I could be regarded as a'pro' is quite laughable.
I think the definition of a 'non-commercial' film - 'not for profit' - is fine. The extension to that definition - " - that the film 'is not for sale' " is not so fine. It ought to be (IMO of course), 'is not sold for profit by anyone, except perhaps a charity'. (Our donation of all proceeds - over and above the duplication costs - to a charity would mean the charity does indeed profit from our film. And why not? And I'm sure the duplicating house will make some money on the deal as well. It's their business.
Perhaps the best I can do is to invite some well established judges to view and comment on the film when made. And forget the thrill of entering it into a competition and listening to audience reactions ... that, for me, is the best bit and worth more than money.
This is the type of statement where I still have a problem - "... and those (films) made for pleasure where no-one is paid and the film is not for sale, ie non-commercial. "
That's the big stumbling block. The film I have in mind for example, is being made for pleasure, not 'profit'. No one is being paid to make it. We each cover our own expenses, and have pooled money into a pot for any joint costs and expenses. The local History society has expressed an interest in the film, and many of their members have expressed a desire for a copy of it when finished. It has also been suggested that other societies will also be extremely interested in our film when finished, and their members would equally want a copy. The BBC have just made a (yet to be shown) film covering different aspects of the same subject. It is a fairly high interest topic.
When made, naturally we would like as many people to see it as posisble - but we are not rich enough to give it away to all who want it. It is not being made for commercial reasons, it is being made because we are well placed (probably best placed) to film it and make it. Because of the requests we have decided to estimate the number of disks required and have them printed and cased for us - then to sell them for the cost price of the printing and duplication. We have two options: amortise the cost so that we recover the outlay after, say, 3/4 of them have been sold, donating all the proceeds from sales of the last 1/4 to a relevant charity, or waiting until all are sold before we recoup the cost of duplication. Either way, we will not be making a profit - or recovering any of the cost of making the film. But we have decided in advance of finishing the film that we will make copies and they will be sold to recover (only) the copying costs.
So, I am now resigned to the fact that, following the above definition as it stands, entering the film into any competition will be a no-no. I would like - dearly love - to get judges' feedback on style, content, scripting, approach etc etc etc. That isn't going to happen under this interpretation of the 'rules'.
So, when made, sadly it seems the only way anyone will get to see it is to buy a copy, or go to one of the 'free' venues where we may be invited to show it. (I think that will happen - we have been invited to show historic stuff we've made using local film archive material, at local libraries, clubs and so on. All totally free of course - we cover our own expenses).
Another question for you though ... does your club charge an entry fee for your Annual show? So, how does that stack up against the rules then? The film maker doesn't benefit from the money. The club does - so someone is profiting from your film. The entrance fee covers the cost of hiring the hall, putting on the show? So absolutely no money is left over to stick in the club's bank account? I wonder.
All this does not make me a professional film maker by any stretch of the imagination. In fact the idea that I could be regarded as a'pro' is quite laughable.
I think the definition of a 'non-commercial' film - 'not for profit' - is fine. The extension to that definition - " - that the film 'is not for sale' " is not so fine. It ought to be (IMO of course), 'is not sold for profit by anyone, except perhaps a charity'. (Our donation of all proceeds - over and above the duplication costs - to a charity would mean the charity does indeed profit from our film. And why not? And I'm sure the duplicating house will make some money on the deal as well. It's their business.
Perhaps the best I can do is to invite some well established judges to view and comment on the film when made. And forget the thrill of entering it into a competition and listening to audience reactions ... that, for me, is the best bit and worth more than money.
Re: amateur/n-c films
I don't wish to sound rude, Mike, but this is interpreting the rules to meet your needs. "Not for Sale" in my opinion means "Not for Sale".
Your point about paying to see the Club annual film show is usaually based on peole making a donation to the club; not paying for entry to see films as a different set of rules will apply if showing films with an entry charge. (I know; another bit of rule bending!!)
Absolutley my last on this subject, I promise!
ned c
Your point about paying to see the Club annual film show is usaually based on peole making a donation to the club; not paying for entry to see films as a different set of rules will apply if showing films with an entry charge. (I know; another bit of rule bending!!)
Absolutley my last on this subject, I promise!
ned c
-
Mike Shaw
Re: amateur/n-c films
Not a problem Ned. I've already stated this film will not be entered into any competitions now.
It won't mean that I am a professional as far as the other films I make are concerned.
(Actually, as there is no profit in it, it won't mean I am professional, full stop!).
I'm sure I will be able to find sufficient experienced people to watch it and provide a constructive critique which I would dearly appreciate to have. In fact, it would be good to get such critiques before the final edit is put to bed, so improvements can be incorporated.
Ah well. We're almost singing from the same hymn sheet.
I just think the criterion should be 'not sold for any profit whatsoever', rather than just 'not sold'. (As a pensioner, I cannot afford to give away 200+ copies to people who want a copy to keep ... many of whom do not have PCs or downloading capabilities)
And I do know that some (like MPs over here) work hard at bending the rules to suit their own financial gains. So the rules have to be written carefully.
My last word to go with yours ...
It won't mean that I am a professional as far as the other films I make are concerned.
(Actually, as there is no profit in it, it won't mean I am professional, full stop!).
I'm sure I will be able to find sufficient experienced people to watch it and provide a constructive critique which I would dearly appreciate to have. In fact, it would be good to get such critiques before the final edit is put to bed, so improvements can be incorporated.
Ah well. We're almost singing from the same hymn sheet.
I just think the criterion should be 'not sold for any profit whatsoever', rather than just 'not sold'. (As a pensioner, I cannot afford to give away 200+ copies to people who want a copy to keep ... many of whom do not have PCs or downloading capabilities)
And I do know that some (like MPs over here) work hard at bending the rules to suit their own financial gains. So the rules have to be written carefully.
My last word to go with yours ...
Re: amateur/n-c films
I know I said "no more", but Mike all my comments are just that; "comments" and have no validity whatsoever with the BIAFF or any other Festival so take heart and enter your films in the BIAFF and get judges comments and audience response.
Definitely now shutting up!!
ned c
Definitely now shutting up!!
ned c
-
Mike Shaw
Re: amateur/n-c films
I scrapped my previous post - load of twaddle (and I am allowed to say that!) . And worse, I misread your post slightly. My previous post now completely re-written (but if you didn't see it before the re-write, then it hasn't changed from what it is, but has changed from what it was ... Oh heck. You understand I'm sure!).
I've had a bad feeling all along about entering 'that one' into competitions anyway (hence the attempt at 'rule bending'), as quite early on in the planning it was obviously going to be a very much sought after film. (It chronicles the early life of a very famous local person - literally lived 'up the road' - whose work, even years after death, is still in huge International demand). As I say, the BBC has beaten us to it - but they have taken a different slant on the subject apparently.
I don't think we will be entering it for anything. It would be nice if it could be shown though - maybe there could be a slot at festivals for 'non-eligible' films...
I've had a bad feeling all along about entering 'that one' into competitions anyway (hence the attempt at 'rule bending'), as quite early on in the planning it was obviously going to be a very much sought after film. (It chronicles the early life of a very famous local person - literally lived 'up the road' - whose work, even years after death, is still in huge International demand). As I say, the BBC has beaten us to it - but they have taken a different slant on the subject apparently.
I don't think we will be entering it for anything. It would be nice if it could be shown though - maybe there could be a slot at festivals for 'non-eligible' films...
Re: amateur/n-c films
I just had a bit of a revelation.
I totally don't agree (even with the spirit) of any rule saying no-one who is a professional can have anything to do with your film. The distinction is so muddy that it's just laughable.
However, if you were to say that you can't employ any professional help, i.e. paying an expert to help or paying anyone for their time, then that makes sense. You can use a professional cameraman, as long as he does it for love, and not because you're paying him.
Regarding film selling, anything over £4 a disc, is making a profit. Even I can do you printed discs for £3.50! so you can't claim that £11 covers duplication and administration!?!
Regarding Mike wanting Judges comments, I don't see why you can't enter it, pay the entry fee, and then call up the organisers and say you just want the comments. You might find that they're happy to accomodate you. when all 150 entrants say that, then maybe they'll reconsider, but at the moment, this amateur film making world isn't so big and cubersome that you can't even have a chat with someone on the phone about an unusual request.
I totally don't agree (even with the spirit) of any rule saying no-one who is a professional can have anything to do with your film. The distinction is so muddy that it's just laughable.
However, if you were to say that you can't employ any professional help, i.e. paying an expert to help or paying anyone for their time, then that makes sense. You can use a professional cameraman, as long as he does it for love, and not because you're paying him.
Regarding film selling, anything over £4 a disc, is making a profit. Even I can do you printed discs for £3.50! so you can't claim that £11 covers duplication and administration!?!
Regarding Mike wanting Judges comments, I don't see why you can't enter it, pay the entry fee, and then call up the organisers and say you just want the comments. You might find that they're happy to accomodate you. when all 150 entrants say that, then maybe they'll reconsider, but at the moment, this amateur film making world isn't so big and cubersome that you can't even have a chat with someone on the phone about an unusual request.
I like to make films, this is- my Youtube account. What's yours?
"all of the above is nothing more than nonsensical ramblings, and definately should NOT be misconstrued as anyone's official policy"
"all of the above is nothing more than nonsensical ramblings, and definately should NOT be misconstrued as anyone's official policy"
-
Mike Shaw
Re: amateur/n-c films
Yep. Will probably do just that - for that particular film.I don't see why you can't enter it, pay the entry fee, and then call up the organisers and say you just want the comments.
Thanks for the offer of £3.50 a disk Chris.
However ... We can get disks copied, glossy colour printed, plus DVD case with colour insert ... for just £1.40 all in, inc VAT, and - here's the cruncher - for any quantity from 1 upwards! Its a new place we have just found - how they make anything out of it is beyond me: I reckon that's cheaper than I can do it (and I don't have to spend time doing it!). So your '£4' could easily be £2 on that one!
That £11 a disk you referred to - perhaps you're thinking of the 'Orpington Remembered' archive movie we made for and on behalf of Bromley Local History Studies and Bromley History Society? Not a film in our 'normal' sense since it is from old archive film from the 30s that we had digitized, and includes a 36 page booklet.. Ignoring the huge cost of digitizing (that's another story!), the booklet is where nearly all the reproduction cost was (I believe you quoted us £20 a time for the DVD and booklet? ). We are just about coming to the point where we will recuperate our outlay on that one. Once that is done, anything over goes to Charity. No profit-making for us - but profit for the Charity of course. On one short snippet we had to get permission to use, the current Copyright holder - a major cinema chain - said donating proceeds over and above reproduction costs to a Charity was acceptable within their 'non-commercial use' boundaries.
Which is why I figured that charging only for reproduction costs on 'asked for copies' could fall outside of the 'that makes you a professional - or 'the film is commercial' - description. But I am quite happy to accept that, for the IAC and other such organisations, if it is sold, it is commercial, no matter what the sale cost is for. Like the 'rules' our wonderful MPs stick to (profitably, in their case!), they need looking at, IMO!
No matter.
We've just finished a similar 2 DVD set for Beckenham - which Beckenham and Bromley History Societies/Libraries want. They get the copies for roughly what the duplication costs us - what they do with it then is up to them. Unfortunately, we found this new duplication 'shop' after getting these into the print run. Bah!!
All of that is a bit academic though - none of these particular films is considered suitable for any competitions, IAC or otherwise.
But putting them together in no way makes us professional. Professionals would have charged a fortune to do what we did. Or go bust. And most likely, they'd have done a far far better job. (I'd like to think not, though!)
Re: amateur/n-c films
I'm sorry, I have no idea what Orpington Remembered is.. I thought your film was something about Enid Blyton's family? I thought we were talking abou Rex, which was 11 euros, but I couldn't see the euro symbol.Mike Shaw wrote:
That £11 a disk you referred to - perhaps you're thinking of the 'Orpington Remembered' archive movie we made for and on behalf of Bromley Local History Studies and Bromley History Society? Not a film in our 'normal' sense since it is from old archive film from the 30s that we had digitized, and includes a 36 page booklet.. Ignoring the huge cost of digitizing (that's another story!), the booklet is where nearly all the reproduction cost was (I believe you quoted us £20 a time for the DVD and booklet? ).
And equally, I don't think I quoted you £20 either. I remember having an informal chat about something, but It would only have been a rough figure plucked out of the air to give you an idea, based on the conversation and specifications you gave me.
I'm sorry if it seemed to have offended you!
I like to make films, this is- my Youtube account. What's yours?
"all of the above is nothing more than nonsensical ramblings, and definately should NOT be misconstrued as anyone's official policy"
"all of the above is nothing more than nonsensical ramblings, and definately should NOT be misconstrued as anyone's official policy"
-
Mike Shaw
Re: amateur/n-c films
Ah. Thought you'd seen Orp Remembered. Sorry about that ... you can buy a copy if you like? (?? 
??).
Sorry too about the quote ... it was indeed a serious question - and the price did make us panic . But all's well that ends well...
I'm not in the slightest bit offended. What's to be offended about?
??).Sorry too about the quote ... it was indeed a serious question - and the price did make us panic . But all's well that ends well...
I'm not in the slightest bit offended. What's to be offended about?
-
Dave Watterson
- Posts: 1877
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:11 pm
- Location: Bath, England
- Contact:
Re: amateur/n-c films
It never does any harm to apologise at random for the possibility one has given offence. I do so here and now, begging forgiveness of anyone who has been upset by my words, thoughts or that strange hand gesture I made ...
-Dave
Seriously: the courtesy on this forum is exemplary, thank you everyone for being so considerate of each other.
-Dave
Seriously: the courtesy on this forum is exemplary, thank you everyone for being so considerate of each other.