That's why I'm using both 16mm and 35mm formats. I actually need max. 40 minutes of footage for 15min short film. That's why I said max. 60 minutes even if I need few extra reels.

But, thank you for your concern.

Yes. But global shutter angles are limited up to 180 to max 200 degree open shutter. If I want more open shutter, then I can't retool it to my specifications. Shutter might hit the gate. I did talk with the technicians. Rental companies are not letting me do it. So, I have to use a in-built system which film have. A mechanical movement.

Because, if I somehow remove the global shutter i.e. mechanical shutter from RED, Sony F55 or the Blackmagic Cameras, then it will be the same as rolling shutter effect.

I was also thinking about using new Canon C-series 4k camera which have global shutter. But, it's the same thing.

Don't you think I thought about it before I went to the producers. I just want have a choice of choosing film and digital. Even new iPhone.

But, for 48fps you need mechanical shutter in order to get solid-state movement. And somehow film cameras are the only one right now that can satisfy that technical requirement.

I am not choosing film out of some nostalgia.

No. 15 minute short film. Max. 60 minute footage.

I get your point man. But, imagine if it was 2007 instead of 2017. Can we be still having the same debate? Film and Digital were in perfect balance till 2012. But, then everything changed.

I want experiment with Film and Digital both. But for this one project, I need film and the analog cameras for it's visual and technical aesthetics.

Why do you think Nolan shoot with 65mm or Paul Thomas Anderson uses 35mm format or even Darren Aronofsky uses Super 16mm. Won't it will cheaper for them to shoot Alexa or Red 8k cameras.

I know that film will make my life little more hell than it already is. I know that I can get 6 hours of footage with multiple cameras with Digital and with film I can only get say 1 hour of footage for 15 minute short. I'm NOT Bad Mouthing Digital, but I can't get the same thing visually with Digital.

I might even get paid for first time for writing and directing, if I shoot with digital. But, for that visual medium it's worth sacrificing my money.

Seriously, watch this video featuring Geoff Boyle about resolution of Film and Digital - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkBbOU8Cwhg

And who doesn't love Roger Deakins man. Film or Digital. The guy is genius.

I'm not saying The Hobbit failed because of 48fps. I'm saying 48fps failed The Hobbit. Go on YouTube, watch rolling shutter vs global/mechanical shutter video comparisons. Shoot for yourself to test the theory.

I'm repeating myself here again. I love Arri Alexa. But, this particular project needs film. 16mm and 35mm.

And I am not shooting for an audience 50 years from now. I was just stating the up-scaling of digital resolution and maximum resolution of film.

I know that Digital Cameras are lovely at night. And if the problem of rolling shutter is fixed, I will be the first one to buy or rent Digital camera like Alexa for my project.

Imagine, if Dunkirk, The Dark Knight Trilogy and The Hateful Eight was shot in new with Red Monstro 8K VV or Alexa 65 (65mm). Can you still get the same result visually? Can I still get the same texture?

Also, watch this video featuring Geoff Boyle about resolution of Film and Digital -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkBbOU8Cwhg

'I'm NOT Bad Mouthing Digital.' I'm just saying it's not right for my project. But, I'm being forced only because film is little expensive.

Hey Sir, I get your point. But, the texture of film Negative and Positive is unique, even though it can't reach higher ISOs. It is little expensive but technically film is superior.

For example, 'Avatar (2009)' was a brilliant film, shot in 1080p resolution. But now as the 4k blu-rays are coming up, they can't show Avatar in 4k. Even if they upscale it. But take an example of 'Lawrence of Arabia (1962)' was re scanned in 8k. Remastered in 4k. Or 'The old dark house (1932)' was restored using 4k scans. IMAX can go up to 18K.

Also, digital cameras, even if they have 4k resolution can't handle dynamic range during daylight. Actors faces look blown. Every company has a different color reproduction even if you are shooting RAW.

Also, rolling shutter is a huge problem when you shoot at 48fps, even at 24fps. Because you are adding another 24 frames in 48fps. So, it becomes sensitive. That's why 'The Hobbit' failed in it's 48fps approach.

Yes, there is an advantage to Digital cameras. They are small, compact. You can shoot as much as you want.

But, film teaches you discipline and you plan accurately. And write your script again and again till you get it right, because you know there is money running.

I might shoot 10 short films Digitally in the budget of 1 short film shot on film. But, that won't create any impact. But, instead that 1 film that can create impact which is equal to 10 films.