Posted 09 May 2012 - 07:55 AM
I don't have a bulk loader, so there's that issue. It's incredibly more expensive than just shooting. You need to wait for development and no stills lab would be able to run it so now you're limited to cine labs and often they won't do that short of a run-- though back in the day, they would do this all the time for black and white shooting. They'd cut off a frame of the neg and develop it on set, and look @ it ect.
It would be great if you're able to take that with you on your scout and get your lab to run it for you-- that would be fantastic (but might as well just take out an eyemo at that point.)
The point isn't to get it to look exactly as it will on the film but just a rough approximation. When i did it all the time, It was always an issue of, if the DSLR sees it, the film sees it. It's not about getting exact, as it won't be exact (even shooting a still wont be exact as you're not taking it through the full post path-- e.g. into the color suite with your colorist on the calibrated monitors ect..). So if you can only get an approximation anyway, why go through the extra to bulk load? And, what happens when you're on set and you need to see it right now?