This is not to start a debate...

[Kev Owens]

I dunno...
For me film doesn't seem all that expensive.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's always more expensive than video.

Basically, I'd like to work with film, and I intend to in the future. I suppose if I were a DP then that couldn't be the case, but as a budding writer/director then using film would be a great experience, but not essential. Video has given me the chance to see my scripts come to life and allow me to direct them without putting myself into a debt I'm never gonna make back!

The word, filmmaker is more generic these days; I KNOW I'm not using film, but I'm concentrating more on the content of the 'film' than it's format. (Pity more festivals don't do that. )

But, I repeat; I'd like to use film and I respect people like you Nigel who worry about people not using it! [img]graemlins/film.gif[/img]

[Chance1234]

mate, if you are paying your VAT to the Inland Revenue. expect a call from custom and excise.

I think you are in for a shock.

[miker]

Originally posted by Peter_G:
Don't you understand how VAT works? If you charge customers VAT on goods, you have to send it to the Inland Revenue minus whatever you were charged on goods. If you buy more then you sell, which you certainly will in the early stages of a film production company, you get a cheque from the Inland Revenue. In other words, you always stand to gain. The only time you pay vat is when you pay the VAT you collected from your customers, which isn?t your money anyway. If that customer is another company they in turn claim the VAT back. If that customer is a private citizen, he/she just pays the VAT.

The accounts on a low budget film would be significantly easier to do then that of a corner shop. An accountant is not required - just a bit of determination.

As for corporation tax, that would only arise if you actually made a profit. You'd never make a profit without starting your production company because you couldn?t deal with any kind of distributor or whatever as a private citizen. You'd be forced to form a company and buy the film off yourself, sell the film onto the production company and then pay corporation tax.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Final line's is yes there are some advantages, but not in a pink coloured pyschodelic way, where cigaretes grow on trees and whiskey runs through the mountain.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The advantages for anything but an ultra low budget production far outweigh the disadvantages.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">in the UK you have to register with the IR and you should expect to be turning over ?50K a year to be legible. certainly, my accountant advised me that if you are turning over less than ?50K a year then the advantage is slight, if any.

however, I am associated with a company that is VAT registered so guess who bought all those large expensive items for the production?

but, just being VAT registered, or, knowing someone amiable who is VAT registered, still does not make money magically appear. 17.5% of nothing is still, like, nothing.

if i can't afford my public liability insurance, how does registering for VAT help???!!!

[Spunkey1pestic]

-Please excuse my total stupidity here....
Inland revenue?? is that the UK version of IRS?\
-But on the HD note-
I'm not sure where I stand on it- There has been so much hype about it in the last few years, but I haven't seen anything really earth shaking yet...

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 02, 2004 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Spunkey1pestic ]</font>

[jb_617]

Just to add to what is now clearly a debate. This tax junk might not be all it's cracked up to be. At least soon anyways.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/stor...364307,00.html


-----------------------

Thieving government bastards!

[Nigel]

Ahhhh.....The good Ol' Wall of Pictures. We are no closer to it today when people were talking about it 40+years ago. Same as our flying cars and personal jet packs.

HD is still a load of hype and the sales people have done a great job selling their cameras to rental houses. When it is all said and done HD saves you about 5%. That is it. Look at the back end costs on HD and you will see what I am talking about.

We all know that it costs money to make anything and everything. It doesn't matter if it is a Painting, Widget or Movie it all takes money.

If you are going to spen ?10,000 on your video in order to get higher production values on the set--Great. If you are going to spend ?10,000 on film but have shitty production value. Then you are stuck with Shit.

$400,000 bucks on an Indie feature is nothing. Really, you could come up with that in a year of hard work. Plus, how did they spin that $400,000?? Was that for Shooting only?? They had to have spent more than that in Distro. I could say I spent $1000 bucks to make my movie and not lie--But when you look at the bottom line I spent 100,000 or more.

I guess if it is all about the money and what you feel you get the most out of then hey I can't argue. At the same time, until you shoot film don't assume that it is moore expensive.

Good Luck

[Xendar]

I have never really wanted to (or will ever want to) film anything on film. Yes I agree that it looks better, but as already mentioned budget does come into it. Although, even if I could afford it I don't know that I'd go for it. I'd rather spend the money on better actors and kit. A film with crap acting still looks like crap acting whether it's benn shot on film or DV.

Not only that, but DV is a broadcastable format and I have no illusions that anything I film will shown anywhere other than on cable or satellite TV at best. Plus HDTV will really be tsking off in the next 5 years. Coupled to the fact that there are video filters and effects available in post production to give video that film feel do we really need to shoot on film anymore?

[untamed_aggression]

Originally posted by Xendar:
there are video filters and effects available in post production to give video that film feel do we really need to shoot on film anymore?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">*ping*

You hear that noise? That's the sound of a can of worms being opened....

[peter_g]

Yes, you have to register for VAT if your turn over is ?50k or more or whatever the figure is - if you make less you can still register for VAT if you want to. It is certainly desirable to register for VAT if you?re making an independent film with no money coming in for months or years and a lot of expenditure.

Spunkey1pestic: Yes, the Inland Revenue is the British equivalent of the IRS.

Yes, 17.5% of nothing may be nothing, but 17.5% of ?10,000 is ?1,750. If I have to work for a couple of days setting up a company to do all of this, it will still be the easiest ?1,750 I?ve ever earned. Christ, VAT returns are very simple. You can do them over the internet.

Public liability insurance is not compulsory and hardly necessary for such a small business. In fact, public liability insurance would be a waste of money - when would members of the public come on to your premises?

No person who owns a business, no matter how amiable is going to let you claim back thousands in VAT - How could they possibly justify this to the tax man? What use does any business that any one of us is lightly to be associated with have for, say, film stock?

Originally posted by Xendar:
Coupled to the fact that there are video filters and effects available in post production to give video that film feel do we really need to shoot on film anymore?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because it?s not the same.

Originally posted by Chance1234:
mate, if you are paying your VAT to the Inland Revenue. expect a call from custom and excise.

I think you are in for a shock.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don?t live in Britain, you moron. I pay my VAT and all my other taxes to one central tax authority. In an effort to make my post easily understood by a Briton I substituted 21% with 17.5% and Revenue with Inland Revenue. Forgive me for not being intimately familiar with the workings of your tax system.

[Yammeryammeryammer]

The reason that I shoot primarily video is because I am more interested in longform film, and when you have little resources, it is financially impossible to shoot film. Even Super-8. For me, Super-8 is 143 times the price of 3CCD MiniDV. 3 rolls gives me 9 minutes for $185, while $9 gives me 63 minutes of tape. My last big project was 76 minutes final running time. Most of it was dialogue heavy, and so shooting at a very difficult 1:3 ratio would have cost me over $4500. Canadian for stock as opposed to shooting at a 1:7 ratio, which was more than comfortable and having it cost under $80. I am a student, and so my options are limited for time, usually end up being the beginning of summer, where a $4500 debt on a Super-8 feature won't help things. I did use Super-8 for a segment, ended up shooting 3 rolls, and a few minutes appear in the movie. The movie is what I wanted it to be, and wouldn't really have benefited that much just dumping money into it, or shooting on a more expensive format.
I don't want to do a 3 min short on Super-16, because I find that a lot of shorts can be a waste of time or too gimmicky. If I moved up to Super-16 to do a feature, I would need to learn the format more. I own a videography business, and imagine I could learn decently quickly. If you are self financed it could waste a lot of money if it doesn't work out. So, if it isn't a project that you believe in enough to go into debt, you can't do it. I think people are mostly on this board are int he stage of learning, or shooting projects that they believe they can do with what they have, which just happens to be video.