Film, instead of digital camcorders?  

Have you seen the latest DV format cameras. Some have either up to 1 million pixels (1 ccd). Or up to 1.2 million (3 ccd x 410,000 pixels). The quality is great and these can easily be line doubled. I'd consider trying one of these babies before messing with film. The tapes by the way have dropped to under $7/tape.

If you'd like an example of what can be done with consumer DV format, take a look at Spike Lee's BAMBOOZLED. He shot the entire movie with Consumer Mini DV cameras!! And looks great for a theatrical release!
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Garde.../genbreath.gif
------------------
Hope This Helps!
>^_^<

[This message has been edited by Blak_Panta (edited 06-06-2001).]

35mm is expensive. No way could you do it for home use, unless maybe youare Steven Spielberg.


------------------
Jeff

Sony SVR-2000
"Let the Tivolution be televised"

Just the material costs alone are probably beyond the amateur's budget -- 35mm film runs about $2.00/foot for the film, develop and make one print. At 96 ft/minute that means close to $100/minute for your footage.

16mm slashes those costs by about a factor of 4 (as you only use 1/4 the film area), and is possibly within reach of the serious amateur.

I have also seen work that was shot in DV (using PAL camcorders at 25 fps then projected at 24fps) and then transfered to 35mm film. While you could see occasional artifacts that gave away the fact that it started as video in general the results were very acceptable on a 50' screen.

Of course getting your video transferred to film will run you $0.50-$2.00/frame (depending on where and how good a deal you can make).

how much would a 35mm to HD transfer cost? I am willing to bet some major $$$$.

Even shooting 35mm isn't like picking up a camcorder. I don't think it is exactly point and shoot.

------------------
Jeff

Sony SVR-2000
"Let the Tivolution be televised"

You guys probably also don't know that with 35mm motion picture cameras, the sound is always separate from the audio. So you might as well count on getting a DAT recorder or digital Nagra and a person to operate it, plus a boom microphone and someone to to hold that.

My guess is you'll need one of those clapper guys too... http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif

Dennis

------------------
Dennis Whiteman
FastPipe Media, Inc.

If you look at the credits on "Bamboozled" after the Sony camera listing is Century Optics. That means they used the Century Optics anamorphic lens. If you ever did any 8 or 16mm film projects then you know what a blessing digital video is.

BTW, today I was looking at the cousin of the controversial JVC JY-VS200, the JVC GR-DV2000, at Good Guys and with the camera switched to their demo monitor and switching between the widescreen setting and the 4:3 setting while pointing at some lettering on a panel. Guess what, I could not discern any difference in vertical resolution between the two settings. Of course this is not a very definitive test because the input was only composite. But the lettering was small and a good opportunity to test detail.

JVC claims JY-VS200 is a "native" 16:9 camera. Usually that is a term reserved for 16:9 CCD cameras. No the CCD is not 16:9 but a megapixel CCD capable of UXGA (1600x1200) in photo mode. Some engineers believe that JVC may be using a trick to get a full 480 lines of resolution when in 16:9 mode. Again the two cameras are nearly identical except that the JY comes with a 16:9 lens shade, black body, and a few additional features. It is also targeted at the "pro" market.

- Brian

well, I knew that. And you just might have to rent a looping studio to get in the mising dialog.


------------------
Jeff

Sony SVR-2000
"Let the Tivolution be televised"