I hope you're still reading this post, as I'd like you to know I admire you. I've worked with quite a few up-and-comers, and find all of them want the same thing: to get their film out there with minimal hassle. They're not making Star Wars, or Mad Max. They want to film their script, with good visuals and good sound. It's all about crew and trust and script. It's not about cameras or specs or RAW of whatever. It's about a smooth shoot; not camera fuss.
The blame falls completely to your DP and his/her skills at communication with the director. Giving you Youtube links to compare visual quality isn't an answer to shooting RAW or not. Most producers don't care about RAW or even 4K. They see a film like "Blue Ruin", shot on a C300 (not RAW) at 1080p and winning at Cannes, and wonder "Wow, that was amazing! I can make that film!"
Just because you raised $25K doesn't mean it should go to the camera department or grading. It should go to the actors, the locations, and the crew. I support you and understand your frustration. Good luck on your next one!
Considering the price of the C-Fast cards and the space needed for RAW, most people will have to shoot ProRes.
The Mini Ursa looks awesome but I love the size of the Production/Cinema Cameras.
They do have a new 4K Mini camera on their website, but it doesn't record on-board (a studio camera), and their new "Hyperdeck" doesn't do 4K or Raw.
What's going to happen to the Production/Cinema cameras? Are they getting phased out? Will there be new versions with the 4.6 sensor?
I think the spot is great except for one thing: the song. The rights to "I Need A Hero" will cost a fortune for Doritos, especially during the Super Bowl.
Shooting on film is a great experience, allowing you to really appreciate lighting and editing. I shot on 16mm in film school using the Arri SR (a crystal sync camera), sound was recorded on a Nagra; I edited on a Steenbeck. In school we also cut our own negative which is a delicate, risky process. To avoid dealing with a negative, consider reversal film stock (at the time 500 ASA was the highest). If you need sync sound, you'll need a camera with crystal sync (i.e. Arri SR). If sync isn't important, a windup Bolex camera is great; these are on eBay for under $200 with a lens.
The real cost will come with processing and editing; you can edit mechanically or digitally. Having the film lab process the film and give you files (or tapes) is the best option.
CineLab is a popular lab that does processing and transfers to 2K files. Here's a link to their rate sheet:
For 16mm, 400 feet is 10 minutes of recording (one reel), which is around $100. Processing and telecine (combined) is $160. So for 10 minutes it's around $260.
The real challenge is the filming equipment (buying or renting). After that, it's a numbers game.
I'm an AF100 and hacked GH2 owner, and I have used the GH4.
I bought the AF100 when the Canon 5D hit its stride in the market. The 5D image is gorgeous but the camera presents issues with short clips and audio control, which led me to the AF100. A lot of filmmakers trash-talk the AF100, but the camera is fantastic in its portability and professional appearance, especially on corporate video shoots. The camera has also served me well on film projects.
I use Contax Zeiss Primes with the Speedbooster and love the image. By shooting flat, I can get more dynamic range from the camera. Being a beginner, it would be beneficial to get into video with a durable camera that is versatile, where a few cheap cards and batteries can get you through a shoot. Getting the best out of the camera depends on how you use light, what lenses you use, etc. And with great things coming out, getting the camera cheaply is definitely possible.
Here's a piece filmed entireIy with the AF100:
I'm free to answer questions if you have any: firstname.lastname@example.org