# Why is it cheaper to film a movie out of sequence? **URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-cheaper-to-film-a-movie-out-of-sequence/586217 **Category:** Cafe Society **Created:** [June 20, 2011, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-cheaper-to-film-a-movie-out-of-sequence/586217 "2011-06-20T22:23:19Z") **Posts on this page:** 1 **Page:** 3
### Author: ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie) #### Post date: [June 23, 2011, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-cheaper-to-film-a-movie-out-of-sequence/586217/41 "2011-06-23T01:41:38Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > You’re completely overlooking digital, which can hold hours and hours of footage on a memory card the size of a postage stamp. > [@Capitaine\_Zombie](#): > > That “The rope” is based on long takes, that is scene=take more or less, is a known fact, but were the actual scenes of “The rope” shot in order? > > **P.S: btw the limitations in film camera technology havent much evolved in terms of film stock capacity for cameras. The difficulties encountered by “The rope” would be more or less the same today if you shot it on film**. > [@KneadToKnow](#): > > The original statement was “The difficulties encountered … would be more or less the same today _if you shot it on film_” (emphasis mine). That acknowledges your point about digital rather than overlooking it. You could stock on video back in the sixties too. Hitchcock could have filmed “The rope” on video back then in one film-long take (back at the time, as I said, there were whole live -no single break- theatre adaptations, hours long, with camera moving inside the sets, like it would do in a traditional movie. Basically, the set-up of “The rope”). Of course video was awfully shitty at the time, in terms of image quality. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-cheaper-to-film-a-movie-out-of-sequence/586217.md?page=2)