|
|
Posted by Richard Crowley on 10/25/06 11:48
"jho" wrote ...
> I'm sorry i asked. I'm just a small biz owner trying to get
> max quality for a limited budget.
The commercials that are shot on 35mm film have budgets
50x - 500x greater than yours. Stick to whatever you make
money at, and leave the specialty stuff to people who know
THEIR business.
Not clear why you want "max quality" vs. "optimal cost/
benefit ratio"? At least if you want to stay in a profitable
business.
> I'm not an expert in this subject at all. I spoke with a
> tech and he told me that dvcpro50 is a very "high quality"
> format close to 35mm.
Not even close. I would seriously question the motives or
experience of anyone who told me that.
> I thought that it might be a reasonable alternative. I called
> all the necessary people about the 35mm and what I came
> up with is that 2000 ft of 35mm filmed, processed, and
> developed and also a 35mm camera rented for a day would
> cost about $5000, but if
And at least 3-4x that much for all the other stuff you need to
be worth the cose/effort (a cinematographer, editing, etc. etc.)
> I don't pay for the necessary talent I could end up with a
> really big waste of film and money.
Same with video.
> Does anyone know what the next best thing is
> below 35mm and an estimated production cost?
Still not clear what the driving facctor for "maximum quality" is?
> Also Richard why can you see the quality difference
> on tv (ntsc/pal) when using beta sp vs 35mm?
Because when people shoot on large-format film, they also
budget the time/money to set up every shot and block it and
light it exquisitely, etc. etc.
With nothing more to go on but what you have written
here, it really sounds like you have the cart before the
horse.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|