English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

i would like to make 70 min movie in future.,but i am in bit confuse about camera, to make movie can i use betacam camera or super 16mm camera, is super 16mm camera is better than betacam, if you clearify this problem i will be very greatful to you.
taki

2007-03-07 05:50:26 · 2 answers · asked by toki4000 1 in Consumer Electronics Camcorders

2 answers

Super 16 is probably better in resolution, contrast and color than Betacam SP.

Betacam only has a resolution of 330 lines. Broadcast TV level.

But this resolution holds better over the spectrum than Digital Betacam and Mini DV

Slow speed color negative film has a resolution of between 400 and 500 lines in Super 16 (in 35mm it's over 1,000 lines, because it's the SAME EXACT FILM but with a larger negative size).

Super 16, however is going to cost to in raw stock and processing. About $35 per minute of shooting time SHOOTING TIME.

I repeat SHOOTING not SCREENING

400 Feet of film is clost to $50 or $70 and processing costs the same and then you need work print or transfer to video.

You also need to make an internegative down the line as a camera original can't handle much more than 5 prints struck from it.

Why not rent a pro video in HD format which will transfer nicely to 35mm using a 4 bit system.

You can decide with a pro rig if you want to use the 29.95 format (and then drop frame in transfer) or 24 FPS for direct transfer.

2007-03-08 02:16:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

First of all, how much money do you have? Super 16mm and betacam won't be cheap to use, at least $10,000 (emphasis on "at least"). There are several types of betacam. There's the old betcam, known as betacam, then betacam SP, which is pretty much the same as betacam with slightly better horizontal resolution and recording time, and then there's Digital Betacam, and more recently, HDCAM and Betacam SX. Obviously this route is great if you want to go all digital, but for shorter films, a 16mm camera will provide a natural film-look, and if you can lay hands on free film stock, shooting a 70 minute film on film, with $10,000 isn't as crazy as it seems. However, if you have that amount of money, you might as well check out these cams: the XH-A1, HVX200, and XL H1. These are all HD cams under $10,000, and the first and third are HDV cams. The second one, the HVX200, offers DVCPRO HD and film-look recording for around $6000, and records to solid-state P2 cards. The cards only hold about 8 minutes each, and cost almost $1000 each, but if a film workflow fits you (i.e. changing cards every few minutes), then this is a great way to go, because no other camera in this price range offers DVCPRO HD, which is easier to edit than HDV. Hope this helps!

2007-03-07 21:34:10 · answer #2 · answered by evilgenius4930 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers