Single-camera is more relentless because it's eight 14-hour days no matter how you slice it.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It's a very long and difficult schedule on a single-camera show.
My preference is that, that day when someone sticks a tripod in front of you with a camera on the top, it is not day one.
When you live with a photographer, you never have a day off - it was a nightmare.
I think I've spent more time in front of a camera than off camera. That's just the way it is.
To have an opportunity to get in front of a camera every single day is just priceless because it gets you closer and closer to being less self-consciousness in front of it and really being human and really making choices and standing by them.
Usually for cartoons, I record them in the mornings from 9 A.M. to noon, then I have the rest of the day to do on camera. It actually gives me time to work on my own projects.
That would be getting up at 5 am... I don't understand why film's shoot such brutal hours. I think it'd be worth it to not be so strictly cost-effective and have an 8 hour day. The film's would benefit in the end.
No matter how fast I could do it with the digital camera I don't think I would get the same thing out of it. The passion I have for formulating an idea stands alone. It is the important essence of what I do.
I'm not complaining about doing 20-hour days. It's a joy to be able to work on yet another film.
I feel like if you shoot one scene all day long or you take two days to do a scene, that scene is going to be stale.
No opposing quotes found.