I have read that the concept of the movie's TRT is that the entire movie lasts 80 minutes, no longer than a tape would in the camera.
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I didn't see the movie, but based on the synopsis in the wiki, it > would have had to have been tape. That's the only way that they would > have had scenes from a previous recording. > > Had it been disk-based or card-based, that would not have happened > because there's no "recording over" disk files. There's deleting disk > files so you have more space to record. > > Also, files are recorded in sequential order, so if it were disk or > card-based, all of the old footage would have been first, and all of > the new footage would have been after it. > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Amirault" > <ramirault@> wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Michael Verdi" > > > > > > > They refer to tape in the film, I think, because they use the device > > > of having taped over previously recorded video. That wouldn't happen > > > with a disc based camera. That being said, some of it was shot with > > > the panasonic hvx200 but most was shot with the Sony CineAlta F23 > > > which is not a consumer camera. > > > > I didn't get the impression that we were supposed to believe it was > a disc > > based camera (either DVD or hard disk) . What came to my minds eye was > > something like an XACTI .. a very small, memory card based unit .. > *very* > > rugged compared to either real tape or DVD or hard disk. I think > using the > > term "tape" was more as a convenience. It's the most common term and > does > > not need any further explanation. > > > > If not a card based camcorder .. than a mini-DV unit would be my next > > choice. > > > > Richard Amirault > > Boston, MA, USA > > http://n1jdu.org > > http://bostonfandom.org > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ > > >
