Hi guys. I don't think this has been posted here before, but I'm curious to know, what do you film makers prefer to use? Digital Camcorders or normal Film (35mm for example). I understand using Film is expensive, but I heard people do still use it for independent projects.
I myself use Digital, as I find it easier to produce, edit and what not. What about you guys?
Nobody on this forum can afford a 35mm camera. Hell, just to rent a Panavision package can run up to $250,000; and that doesn't include film stock. Everyone on here (with the exception of the occasional student who uses a film camera from school), uses digital. The board mostly consist of people with DSLR's and camcorders. The cheap stuff, in comparison.
Crazy Eight wrote:Nobody on this forum can afford a 35mm camera. Hell, just to rent a Panavision package can run up to $250,000; and that doesn't include film stock. Everyone on here (with the exception of the occasional student who uses a film camera from school), uses digital. The board mostly consist of people with DSLR's and camcorders. The cheap stuff, in comparison.
Ahh, OK. Thanks for putting me right.
If I could afford film, I'd use that, no doubt about it. Film is much better quality than Digital.
The Red One MX is pushing it. Definitely to the point where I wouldn't say 35mm has "much better quality". Anamorphic 35mm has better quality then any digital device, but the Red One MX competes with Super 35mm for sure. Now the Red EPIC, that could change everything.
Crazy Eight wrote:Nobody on this forum can afford a 35mm camera. Hell, just to rent a Panavision package can run up to $250,000; and that doesn't include film stock. Everyone on here (with the exception of the occasional student who uses a film camera from school), uses digital. The board mostly consist of people with DSLR's and camcorders. The cheap stuff, in comparison.
How do you know that nobody on this forum could afford it lol? You know everyone's financial situation?
The Red One MX is pushing it. Definitely to the point where I wouldn't say 35mm has "much better quality". Anamorphic 35mm has better quality then any digital device, but the Red One MX competes with Super 35mm for sure. Now the Red EPIC, that could change everything.
I've heard of the RED EPIC, yes, that will certainly change everything. But as for picture quality wise, I still prefer 35mm film over Digital. I think Digital has a long way to go to really top the quality of normal film. Now IMAX, there's a thing. If only it was affordable...
How do you know that nobody on this forum could afford it lol? You know everyone's financial situation?
Firstly, I've never seen someone post a video filmed with 35mm film. Kyle Higgens posted a video filmed on 16mm, which he borrowed from his school at the time, and that's the closest this forum's got. Secondly, the average full time working adult makes roughly $40,000 dollars a year. It's probable that nobody on this site has $250,000 dollars of expendable income that they could dump on renting a camera. Thirdly, a lot of members on this forum are young; there's a lot of teens and then the majority of the members on this forum are in their twenties. Unless they had some get rich quick scheme, or inherited a shit load of money I doubt most people in that demographic (which is most of the forum) have $250 grand to spend at their will.
But although this is a conclusion that I've come to after having hundreds of conversations with various members, seeing a lot of videos in this section of the forum, and statistics, this is still an assumption. It's a safe assumption, but an assumption none-the-less and their could be a member who has that kind of expendable income. Although it's highly improbable.
Now IMAX, there's a thing. If only it was affordable...
Affordable, smaller, and it wasn't so damn noisy.
Beats 3D any day.
There not mutually exclusive. IMAX is a film size; 15/65mm to be precis. Modern 3D is merely the polarization of an image and it can be done or shot in any format; Digital, 35mm, or 65mm.
