Alumnus
|
I certainly *prefer* film unless there's a strong reason to use video ('realism').
A-minima is a very nice camera, but the 200' loads will be a bit annoying, you have to use Kodak stock, and it's not quiet enough to make a true 'A' cam in the eyes of many professionals... although subjectively, it's very quiet.
Hell, what do I know, I record simultaneous audio with a Kinor that's rated at 45 dB and is probably quite a bit louder.
If you're doing something really important and you're willing to invest some money to make it a project of lasting quality, use film.
My rule of thumb regarding budgets is that $60/completed minute will generally pay for consumables. My 20 minute short over the summer was about $1200 worth of film/processing/transfer. Props, etc. added another $200 or so.
|
| |
| Posts: 1871 | Location: Gainesville, FL | Registered: April 05, 2004 |    |
|
Alumnus
|
quote: Its faster, cheaper and you can do all the takes you want.
faster: maybe. Since when was that the point? This isn't TV news... cheaper: not sure about that. You have to actually *buy* the video camera and the better HD cameras are not cheap at all. Think several thousand to play. doing many takes: yes, but then you have to upload and edit them. Not too fun when you have twenty hours of footage  I like using film because it forces some element of rigor and craft. It's possible on video also but far more difficult.
|
| |
| Posts: 1871 | Location: Gainesville, FL | Registered: April 05, 2004 |    |
|
© Studentfilms.com, Inc. 2008