If you had the budget for it...
- Thread starter Zensteve
- Start date
I like the simplicity of the shoot. I'd love to shoot on an HVX200.
Anything larger would be a time/budget hindrance.
Anything larger would be a time/budget hindrance.
I love the freedom of Video...I wouldn't mind stepping up to HD (or RED...although HD res would be fine on that). I've shot precisely 2.5 minutes of actual film (S8 B/W Kodak Tri-ex reversal)...it cost me $25 and still hasn't been processed or telecine'd.
For stock cost alone, I could've shot 5 hours of video...and S8 image quality doesn't generally impress me...Too grainy. Although, if someone could show me an example of non-grainy S8 footage, I may change my tune, but at that cost, it'd have to look like LOTR footage.
For stock cost alone, I could've shot 5 hours of video...and S8 image quality doesn't generally impress me...Too grainy. Although, if someone could show me an example of non-grainy S8 footage, I may change my tune, but at that cost, it'd have to look like LOTR footage.
I'd kill to shoot a national geographic style feature on 35mm film. If cost were not an issue, I'd love to have the lattitude of film; specifically for outdoor shooting. My 2nd choice would be really high quality HD camera; iMax style.
We just shot a few segments on Super-8, using the Vision2 500T. I'll be shooting a bit more, before having it all developed & 'cined, but I'm also curious to see how it turns out.
I'll send you a link when it's done.
At this stage for me, I'd want to go HD. I just lack the hours and the people to manage film.
Just re-read the question...I'm going to expand on my statement a little...I also don't like the workflow of film, Can't do extended takes cause you'll run out of film in the middle of it...I suppose if you were to stagger 2 cameras runtimes, you could get overlapped footage of the takes, but I think that would be too cumbersome to manage as well.
I like the artistic freedom video gives you when working with actors. You can tweak performances right now and just have them redo it without having to go through all the cumbersome cutting and actioning and what not. By the time you go through the litany of starting to film again, the actors can lose their momentum and start to fall back on what they've been doing. If you don't cut, you will run out of film faster and the stress is higher budget wise for the actor to get a nice relaxed atmosphere where an actor can really feel comfortable to explore their part.
Film is dead, long live the new film...I'd still like to move to a format that will transfer nicely to film print (red) and give me real control over DoF (red)...so I guess my answer is still red...but the reasons have been expounded upon.
I like the artistic freedom video gives you when working with actors. You can tweak performances right now and just have them redo it without having to go through all the cumbersome cutting and actioning and what not. By the time you go through the litany of starting to film again, the actors can lose their momentum and start to fall back on what they've been doing. If you don't cut, you will run out of film faster and the stress is higher budget wise for the actor to get a nice relaxed atmosphere where an actor can really feel comfortable to explore their part.
Film is dead, long live the new film...I'd still like to move to a format that will transfer nicely to film print (red) and give me real control over DoF (red)...so I guess my answer is still red...but the reasons have been expounded upon.
I'd shoot either on the HVX200 (in HD mode) or on the Red. And if neither of those was open to me then I'd go with the DVX100A which is still a great camera.
I'd hire a director of photography who knew what he/she was doing and let him/her decide.
Oh, Spat, you bring a ray of sunshine to everything you do. So when can we get back to saving the planet from the evil Homo sapiens? Their numbers are still growing, there is no time to waste!