Your point is understood, but if you know anything at all about film, then you know that not all 35mm films are shot in the 1:1.85 ratio. In fact, very few of them are, since the end product often winds up as video anyway. On Mon, 5 Dec 1994, Ian Noe wrote: > > > 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 >