Towards a Video Look Using Film

[Zac Stein]

Jeff so so true i agree with you there,

I do have the nice printer, and a nice neg scanner, and i really want that extreme film look that yet with digital i can't achieve. For me also it was a cost issue it was $500 for a used scanner or 8k for a fully fitted out digital slr. One thing i do know is that in 1 year my 35mm film will not be out of date and i need to buy a new camera again.

You dig it, also i am mr practical i love to do it in real life vs. digital effects.

Zac

Jeff, btw thanks heaps with all my still film questions you have helped me out a lot.

My credentials list as, "Member of the Directors guild of Australia" And "Founding member of the society of Shloofers"

I know this isn't exactly the suggestion or cure you seek; but have you considered using slide film instead of print film, then scanning the slides in on a high quality scanner and making them into .tiff files you can import into your editing software? The backlighting on slides is much nicer than on prints. Maybe that'll compensate somewhat in what you otherwise lack.

[Don Berube]

just thought I would mention that the new PowerShot cameras with the Digic processor allow 30 seconds per 640x480 video clip and 3 minutes at 320x240.

- don

[Paul Tauger]

Most digital cameras will record short video clips in avi or MPEG. I know the G2 records video and it is no where near the cost of a D60 and a very, very nice cam. Not near the D60 at all, but still nice, especially for the $$. It is a still cam so people will not know if you are capturing video or taking a photo!

Scott and Don, I appreciate the suggestion, but I don't think it's a solution for me. Though I want a video look, it has to be a high-quality video look. I use a VX2000 for my travel videos. The difference between the video that my camera can produce, and a reduced-resolution mpeg (or even avi) from one of the digital still cameras would be at least as jarring as the difference between video and the scanned negative images. I'd also need lots more storage capability than the 15 seconds or so that digital still cameras can provide. Perhaps someday the two technologies will converge, and we'll have a one-camera-does-all. We're not there yet, though.

And a final note -- many of the places I go have different societal standards than North America and Europe. First and foremost, I always respect the laws and customs of wherever I visit. However, even if I didn't, the risk of getting caught is far too great to justify ignoring the rules -- some of these places will confiscate cameras, film, videotape, etc. One place that comes to mind is Thailand. It is absolutely forbidden to engage in ANY kind of photography or videography in the Buddhist temples at the royal palace in Bangkok. There are "no photography" signs that are, literally, festooned with exposed film and video tape pulled out of cassettes -- film and tape that was confiscated by the guards from people who thought they could sneak a photo or two. I don't want to risk either my camera or my footage (though I've contemplated, from time to time, getting a "lipstick" camera and mounting it inside a hat -- I'll probably never do it, though).