-
December 19th, 2003, 08:32 PM
#11
Inactive Member
Nigel, I get what you're saying about S16.
I'd love to shoot it, I just can't afford it.
I got my camera setup, with 3 mags, a good Canon zoom, 3 ultra primes, 3 batteries, etc., etc., etc., and I'm in for under $2,500-ish for all of this.
A good sync sound S16 camera WITH glass, mags, etc., would easily double this.
If I had the $$$, sure I'd do it.
No question.
But I disagree with you, that someone is better off NOT SHOOTING AT ALL, than shooting on regular16mm.
Matt Pacini
-
December 21st, 2003, 04:46 AM
#12
Inactive Member
I am not saying not to shoot if all you can do is R16--It just seems to me that in the end it is not of value.
Good Luck
-
January 5th, 2004, 11:10 PM
#13
Inactive Member
Well, there ARE things you can do to improve the quality, IF you have no choice but to shoot R16.
For instance, I would argue that my R16 shot with ASA-64 & ASA-200 stock and cropped to 1.85:1 is not any more grainy than S16 shot on ASA-500, which is quite common.
I'm not saying that equals out the difference, because obviously the larger format is always going to be more desirable and give you more options, but the assumptions always seem to be that all things are equal, (shooting conditions, stock, etc.), which is not always the case.
Matt Pacini
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Bookmarks