DV or Film?

True about the SFX, and easy to edit stuff...but I totally disagree on DV making it seem more Indy...{Raiders was completely shot on film, and so was Temple of Doom}

Sorry...but lower grade film stock makes more of a grain and "indy" look than anything...for example...Clerks. I love the grain of that movie, and the occasional burn...you just can't duplicate that in DV. Very much like the pops and hiss of an LP compared to a digital reproduction of it on CD...just not the same.

I love film...it's just damn expensive to develop.

No time to post now but expect my thoughts in an hour or so.

Played with both. I love the texture of film, obviously...but the shortcuts of DV are too numerous to disregard. Ultimately, I think if the story is good, it doesn't really matter...that said...DV is an invaluable learning tool. In regards to cinematography and editing not to mention cost.

First and foremost I will admit I have yet to shoot anything on either one. So my opinions have been derived from the facts that I have studied over the past few months and the opinions that have been expressed by others.

Indeed film is still valuable to learn from and does translate a "smoother" image then DV but as the technology progresses DV is better able to simulate the look of film. That being said digital can also provide the filmmaker with far more control of what his vision is then he could possibly get with film including dealing with dallies and such. If he wants to see what he has shot then it is right there for him to look at with no waiting. The cost effeciency of digital is also another incredible advantage of film. An incredible advantage. In fact it puts the ability to make a film(at professional quality) in the hands of more people then film can. In fact it allows people to bypass the studio system if needed. Meaning a filmmaker has more ability to make his own vision come to life rather then face the studio producers who wish to make everything marketable. Granted people need to be lucrative business people as well as filmmakers to make that work. Cost will be the tremoundous issue that will most likely change the face of filmmaking today. There will of course be resistance to it fro the studio system because it does indeed allows people to create their own films with no studio support. Something I look forward to doing btw.

I can understand the loyalty to film but it will indeed lose out in the end mainly because the technology will match the look of film soon enough. Also the ability to not change film cartridges is another plus as well as the longer life and the ease of editing compared to film.

It will be an interesting issue to watch play out as we will see sooner or later how the studios view this. With Robert Rodriquez pretty much oing everything himself on a film people will begin to question why can't they. When that happens it will be really interesting.

And hey it gives the people of Chud the ability to make their own films as well.

You can't go wrong with that!

The big plus for film is film stock. DV doesn't quite have that. Yes, the pluses for DV are overwhelming, but the visual is everything.

All the same, if ya gotta go DV, ya gotta go DV...

To me, it's like DVD vs. VHS.

If VHS is the only format I can get, ok. But man, I'd like a DVD of that.

Right now I am in love with film and the effects that one can accomplish with it. Like messing with the speed of the film and time laspe. So right now Film but I am just starting to experiment with DV and like it just as much.

Where I agree that film still looks better, I think that DV is the wave of the future. I think that it is so much cheaper and that extra money can be put into production. I plan to do all my stuff on DV. Now if I can only afford to get the camera that I want. ARRGGHH!