Of what you have in stock, the halogens will give the best image results. They'll also be very hot if you use enough of them to avoid cranking up the video gain and reducing the video quality (assuming you aren't running some really top-level pro gear). Since this question applies as much to photography as video, I'll make this a one-size-fits-all answer.
Continuous lighting is necessary for video, and has its advantages for still photography. Incandescent light sources are full-spectrum lights, but because they are "pure" black body radiators (for the most part -- there are a couple of weird exotics used in industrial applications that don't follow the rules) they can only emit "whiter" light (light with more amplitude in the blue/violet range) by running much hotter than normal. Photofloods and halogens are good examples; they run in the mid-3000K range (3200-3400), but even a modest light output comes with a huge heat penalty.
That's why LED and fluorescent solutions for continuous lighting make so much sense -- they emit light on a different principle that doesn't rely on things getting super-hot. LEDs are very efficient, but panels that are bright enough and cover enough of the visible spectrum to be useful are prohibitively expensive. Without commercial backing, LEDs are not a practical solution yet (although they may come down enough in price soon -- I remember when the brightest LEDs couldn't be seen at all under sunlight conditions, and now they're being used as traffic lights and brake lights on vehicles).
Fluorescents can be great -- but they have to be the right fluorescents. It's not the color temperature that matters (you can adjust the white balance on your camera, or select film and filter to suit), but the Color Rendering Index. Common fluorescents only use enough different phosphors (the compounds in the white powder coating the inside of the tube that convert ultraviolet to visible light) to allow you to see things, period. High-CRI bulbs (CFLs with a CRI of 90 or better) use a lot of different compounds to fluoresce across almost the entire visible spectrum. (And, as a bonus, they also use high-frequency ballasts and long-decay phosphors to eliminate flicker.)
Many of the usable CFL bulbs are sold specifically as photographic or design professional equipment, and carry (sorry) prices appropriate to that realm. But, really, forty bucks a bulb for 65-Watters isn't that bad over the long term. And there are lower-power bulbs you can buy elsewhere (like at Lowe's) -- the 25W OttLite CFLs are a particular favorite of mine for tabletop lighting. (Oddly, Ott has probably the best spectrum I've come across, but they don't actually state the CRI anywhere on their packaging or ads.)
The 25-cent (or less) Diffraction Spectrograph Solution
A quick test -- grab a CD or DVD, and look at it under the lights you want to use. Make sure that you're using a bare bulb, or for large lights, that you're far enough away from the light to make it a small source. Tilt the disc so that you get that "rainbow" going from center to edge. Who needs thousands of dollars worth of lab equipment when you can do the essentials with a scratched-up old CD? Even if you have to waste a brand-new DVD+R, you're only out a quarter.
If you can see the entire rainbow without any large gaps, you can make the light work. You may have to create a custom white balance (see your camera manual) for that particular light source, but unless your subject is a narrow-spectrum monochromatic reflector/transmitter (like if you're doing cross-polarized pictures of crystals), even a few small gaps in the spectrum won't be noticeable in the final image/video.
If you only see a few bright spots of color, nothing you can do will fix the image properly -- it may be better than total darkness, but not much. If you have a choice, use something else instead.
Keep the disc in your camera bag -- scratches won't affect its performance, and it can help you do a better job whenever you're on location.
