Posts: 5895
From: Bristol. United Kingdom
Registered: Oct 2007
posted July 29, 2013 10:38 AM
He obviously thinks it's valuable, but only to the original cinematographer.
Film stock has always been expensive, it's interesting to read the comment about showing it at a slow speed as some shots are quite short.
I noticed this the other day when I dug out an old Standard 8 film I made in 1959 to show my daughter, all the shots were short. There was a comment (perhaps a joke) in "Amateur Cine World" magazine many, many, years ago that an enthusiast had changed his camera's footage counter to read out in GB pounds and decimals thereof.
When viewing much later video footage it is also very noticeable that the shots are much longer on the screen, obviously a reflection of the cheaper cost of video cassettes.
posted July 29, 2013 01:34 PM
Would be interesting footage. I used to shoot a minimum of 10 feet each shot in Super 8. Maurice, the cost of film made us better movie makers; I used to try and edit the film in the camera; I think there was only about 2 occasions when I had to edit something out. In this digital age it's quite rare to see a well made film on Youtube, often the camera moves about so much you feel nauseas
Posts: 4486
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jun 2013
posted July 29, 2013 01:43 PM
Maurice is absolutely right : the cheap price of video tape and now digital ways of recording changed the way of filming. You can see people shooting non ending scenes about anything. Even in museums, they shoot all the windows they can. I always wonder if they watch all that (and if they show it).
Posts: 4837
From: Plymouth U.K
Registered: Dec 2003
posted July 29, 2013 03:57 PM
hehe what a maroon, i guess its old film but rather than pay that for 200ft of home movie we can see it all for nothing on the internet, Even if i sold up all my cine collection and equipment our home movies would never be sold off no matter what, these are personal films of interest only to us, why would anyone want to part with them?