On Thu, 1 Dec 1994, Jennifer Warren wrote: > I can think of ONE very EXCELLENT reason : If the quality is even > remotely reasonable, then shooting in video for film output would > drastically reduce production costs, allowing low budget filmmakers > access to CGI FX which currently are simply cost prohibitive. I realize > that studio's and giant FX houses have a vested interest in keeping costs > of decent equipment out of reach of low budget filmmakers...but I would > hope that you would at least have something CONSTRUCTIVE to say. > > Jennie Uhm.. sorry if you didn't see it as constructive, but the point I was trying to make is that if your original source is video, who cares what neato special effects you can use, the product is still going to be limited by the extremely low resolution of the video. I mean, if you want to play around with effects, why not stay in video. i.e. sample it digitally and then run it through premiere or use a toaster or something, then print it back to video, then if you just have your heart set on seeing this *video* projected then get a video projector. The point is, if you shoot it on video, you have made a video (not a film), and I don't see the point of wasting the cellulloid (which is photo-chemical not magnetic or digital). Also, what is it exactly that you're saying here?, Do you want to make a feature length film on video (no one will buy it, ever, don't kid yourself) and then transfer it so that it can be shown in theatres. You might also run into the problem that the ratio of video is 1:1.66 whereas film (standard widescreen) is 1:1.85, so then you would have to crop your image, destroying compostitional value. Ian