Well I am no camera expert but I really prefer DV. I love the picture you get. Now I have not tried any film cameras before so I can't help you. I will let the camera guys help you with this one. I am just suggesting DV if you want a good picture with a affordable price. Also if you really like filmmaking you should really jump on it. Try you hand at writeing a screenplay and makeing your own Independent film.

Film: Imagintaion becomes reality.

Film will be ideal and the best. It looks the best. But it is very expensive. You have to buy it by the foot the pay for it to be developed which ends up costing alot. Not to mention you have to find a place that developes film. Which is no problem if you live in a major city like LA or NYC. But if not then you wont be able to find a place to develope it. So go to DV. If you know your editing software it can be easy to make digital look like film. It can be very helpful if you want a unique look like you seem to want. So go with DV. The next step is finding a solid camera. Then focus on lighting. Lighting has a huge effet on teh look of your movie. Sucky lighting can crush a film and great lighting can make it look fantastic. Go to the production forum and you will find alot about lighting.

"Anyone who has ever been privileged to direct a film also knows that, although it can be like trying to write 'War and Peace' in a bumper car in an amusement park, when you finally get it right, there are not many joys in life that can equal the feeling." - Stanley Kubrick

I'm no expert but my gut tells me that if you have to ask you should go wtih DV. It's more forgiving cost-wise and knowledge wise for your earlier projects when you will be learning and trying stuff out.

Of course if you are a film student with access to the equipment and film is your only cost then give film a try.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

Film will look gorgeous, rick with colour and professional. It will also look expensive, because it is. If you want a 'realistic, gritty' feeling to it, then you might as well use DV- it's cheap and it looks very realistic because it's not got the warmth and richness of colour you get from film.

I'm a strong believer in using what you can afford. If you can afford DV, use DV. If you can afford Hi8, use Hi8. Whatever it is that you have, use it. If you learn to work with what you have, you can work with anything. When I started, I used a Hi8 camera, a hand tape recorder as an external mike, a white umbrella for lighting, and Pinnacle Studio 9 editing software. It was no-budget filmmaking in it's purest form. With talent and a vision, you can make your movie look as good as any other. If your movies come out gritty, make your audience think it's supposed to look that way and watch the reactions.

"Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try."

If I where you go with Digital. And if you want it on dvd get a really got camcorda. 3CCD i.e. XL1 pD150.

If you havent got enough for a good camcorda then you with never have enough for film. As film is expensive. And its silent. So you need audio equipment which again costs money and need skill to work it all.

When film is used its used. With digital you can re use
the tape, even if you get 1,000 takes it doesnt matter. But with film you only have one or two takes. Equipment is heavyer too. And you only see your film when processed.

Altough saying all that, film is better and people take you more serously. Dont even start film inless you got 30k or someone has given you 50 cans for free.

Thats my 2 cents.

www.ngmfilms.com "everything you needed to know about"
Feature film now 60% completed. Support indie horror films.
Over 30 how tos: FORUM

It's not reuse that's beneficial with DV, it's the fact that an hour of shooting costs about $2 in tape rather than about $1000 in 16mm film.

As for Hi8, an acquaintance of mine shot a movie on Hi8 that raked in over $200,000,000, which just goes to show it's not the camera you have that matters, it's your marketing plan.

The answer is get a DV camera that shoots in 24p (24 frames a second progressive). The DVX100, DVX100a and DVX100B do this as well as the XL2. Then you will have a film feel for a DV price!

Remember that 24p gives you a "film" look, but post production and skill take the film look to the next level and give you a "Movie look"

The program Magic Bullet and Magic Bullet 2 is very helpful in that department.

If you are serious about a film look, and want to go DV, make sure the camera shoots 24p. Otherwise, it will always be interlaced video. Great for soap operas and reality shows but not great for independent films, in my opinion of course.

Matthew Sconce

"Then you will have a film feel for a DV price!"

Sorry, but 24 frame per second shooting is about the least important part of a 'film look'. If you want your movie to look like it was shot on film, then you need to light it to look like it was shot on film... film has a much higher contrast range than video, and that's very obvious when someone has taken poorly-lit video and tried to make it look like film.

And, frankly, if you can afford to take the time to light the movie properly, you can probably afford to shoot film or high-end HD (which is getting pretty close to film's contrast range) anyway...

I agree lighting is important, indeed, the most important part of giving a video a "Movie look", but when I say 24p gives a film look, I mean that the image "moves" like film. Film moves at 24 frames a second. The human eye has learned that this frame movement is what is associated with movies. Because of our soap operas and reality t.v., and simply the way our eye observes the world, 30 frames a second (60i) is how we view reality. I have studied tests where 16mm cameras are set up on a board with 24p cameras. Their image movement is exactly the same. Which means with correct lighting and planning, you have a film look for a dv price. If you shoot the same with an interlaced (60i) 29.97 frames per second look (you will have a crisper more video appearance. Great lighting can make or break a movie but it cannot change the speed of the frame capture rate. 24fps think Movie feel to frames, 30 fps(60i) think wedding video feel or soap opera. It does not matter, how you would light a soap opera. The frame capture and movement would always feel like a soap opera. Also, shooting progressive gets rid of interlaced artifacts that scream "video". Also, lighting does not have to break the bank, if one is creative is finding cheap lights. Scoop lights, work lights, chinese lanterns, etc. A 24p or (25p PAL) shooting camera is between 2000 for original used DVX, 3,300 DVX100b, or 5300 for the HVX-200 (High Definition 24p camera) This is not high end HD but Pro-sumer. I do not think 2000 dollars is too much to pay for this film-like frame capture.

If you do change the speed of interlaced video and de-interlace in post production while slowing the frames down, you get interesting movement and a worse image. Look at this test done by a guy using a 25pPAL cmaera dn see what I mean. Here is what he says about the test. Read this because then actual page in not in english.

"I did a small test with my DVX100 (PAL) shooting some 25P and 50i footage. With the help of a couple of people we converted the 50i footage to 25P with various software tools, including DV-Filmmaker. On the link down below you'll find:
- a motorway screenshot that compares 25P DVX100 with 50i>25P via DV-Filmmaker
- a passing train screenshot that compares 25P DVX100 with a lot of different conversion tools/methodes
- MPEG2 clips of 25P and 50i>25P converted material using DV-Filmmaker.

So far we can see DV-Filmmaker and Virtual Dub do the best deinterlacing jobs. But the best and most simple way to get filmlike motion etc. you just have to use a DVX100.

It's not a scientific proven test, but it gives a nice quick impression.
DVX/25p (shot on THIN line detail) should be noticeably sharper than 50i footage processed in post.

When shooting progressive/thin you'll get around 500 lines of resolution. When shooting 50i, you'll get a maximum of around 400 lines, and then some of that res will be lost in the process of converting/blending frames to simulate 25p.

Check out the test results at www.orphicfilm.nl/html/25p.html (sorry, Dutch language)
"
http://www.orphicfilm.nl/html/25p.html

Again, this is my opinion, but it based on research and personal observance. Lighting is EVERYTHING in image capture but 24p makes life a lot easier.
I hope I have not offended anyone as it was not my intention.
Sincerely, Matt Sconce "The Perfect Video"

Matthew Sconce