using film camera vs. DV

Comments

SonyDennis wrote on 7/9/2002, 1:15 AM
Like someone said above, if you think you have a cost-effective way of getting that 16mm film into digital form, then "yes", Vegas will edit it as video.

On the other hand, if all you're looking for is jittery pictures and scratches, shoot on DV and use Vegas' "Film Effects" plug-in with the "Very Old Film" preset. It does scratches, jitter, hair, flicker and dust simulation.

///d@
Tyler.Durden wrote on 7/9/2002, 7:12 AM
Hi Sir_C,

I suggest you shoot on video in this case. While 16mm film is used for most minor artists on the major labels (excepting the lowest budget & jazz artists), video will be much more convenient and help keep the costs down. You can easily make it look like old film in Vegas (as reported), with much more style control than traditional film. You can also make it approximate modern film well enough to please the typical producer or client.

Video should also be easier to sync. Film cameras should be synced on-set, often with a nagra & smart-slate; the film-to-tape transfer would need simultaneous layback, etc., etc. (kind expensive) With video you can even use a Mini-disk for playback, but in almost all cases be prepared to tweek sync in post (you will likely be using the studio-mix for your track so sync-audio will mostly be used just for reference).

Another big benefit of video is the ability to check-tape in the field. Film needs to be processed to see if the pictures stuck to the film.

HTH, MPH


Sr_C wrote on 7/9/2002, 10:36 AM
That's it.

I now vow to actually read that manual;)

I played around with the film effects plugin on some test files and it gave me excatly what I was looking for!

Thanks again everyone for all your help. -Shon