Well, what's the point of a blog if I don't begin to give my opinion on something to help you be a better independent filmmaker. One of those questions that always comes up is...Kodak or Fuji? Honestly, my first inclination is to say Hi-Def but often times that's not an option. So, if you're committed to shooting 35mm film the question needs to be answered. And, for me, the answer will always be Fuji. Why? Budget, of course! A DP can give me their reasons until they're blue in their face why he or she likes the look of Kodak better but when it comes down to it...Fuji is significantly less expensive. And, when you finish your film, most likely, you will do a DI (Digital Intermediate) which means that you can manipulate the image virtually any way that you want. Also, Fuji's Eterna stocks look spectacular. No, I'm not getting anything from Fuji out of this, I just want to make sure that you have the most money to make your film with.
So, let's say that you get a great deal on Kodak at .50 cents a foot (which is a very good deal) and you shoot 200,000 feet of film. That's $100,000 just for the film! And, what if you get a deal for Fuji around .40 cents a foot. That's a savings of $20,000! That's a lot of money for an independent.
Also, another option for saving money on film, which I'll discuss in another post, is shooting 3 perf...
"3-perf solves the film wastage problem by changing the camera gate and
shutter mechanism so that each frame is 3 perforations long"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_pulldown
which means that you must use a camera that's been re-engineered to bring the film through the gate with three perferorations per frame rather than the traditional four. By shooting 3 perf you will generally shoot 20% less film. The only major draw back is that cameras set up for 3perf can be more expensive to rent.