digital to film

[darthshawn]

Hey guys...

Would any of you know what equipment is needed to transfer a digital film on your computer onto film?

Thanks.

[eddie]

if you havent got much money try 'borrowing' a high quality digital projector and film the screen with a film camera. You will have to run a few tests to get the exposure and film speed right, but it should work fine.

[Chance1234]

Morgaging your house would be a step in the right direction as well

[Yankee Bastard]

I agree with Nigel...the projection thing is a bad idea. I had a friend try it with one of his short films. Didn't work so well. Didn't look so great.

[theosolnik]

I tried the projection thing and it sucked

[Nigel]

It depends on where you live and how much money you have. The best way is to have the video printed onto neg stock then strike your prints off of that. Often this process can get as high as 300 US Dollars per minute--Yes that is per minute! Good luck--I would avoid the projection screen thing--bad news.

[haydn]

it is better to only use transfer for small amounts of special efects .i.e. 2 or 3 mins of a full movie and film the rest useing film cameras. it is too expensive to do a film digitaly and produce it on film. if a film is to be filmed digitaly, where were you planing to show it? on a low budgit film, you wont get a large showing , so why not hire or buy a digital progector (60 mins @ $300 = $18,000+printing i.e. much more than projectors for small screens) cardiff chapter arts (indie type cinema) has a video projector, as do many others. the advantage of film is in the filming quality, rather than projecting.

[shirt]

Here is a good question...

Why do you want to convert digital to film?

[darthshawn]

Apparently to convert Beta to film costs in the neighbourhood of $20,000 American. would it be in the same price range to do so with digital?

[darthshawn]

I'll tell you why

1)No lab fees
2) faster and easier editting
3)Significant reduction in special effects budget
4) easier to produce dailies
5)don't have to wory about loss of generations, or aging film over time
6)Do not have to purchase all that raw stock
7)Answer prints, working prints etc. are done much easier
8)Optical effects and titles are done easily and at no extra cost

All in all this translates to being able to create a feature length film for about $80,000 cheaper than doing it on film. Why do you think?

Wouldn't any one of you want to make a feature length film and know that if you shot it digitally, you've pretty much given yourself and $80,000 head start?