If you gotta ask then you'll probably never know.

What? $1000!! That's crazy talk!!

Good response. Concise. But perhaps I can elaborate.

Being a film person, I'm a bit biased toward film, but I'll try to give as fair an explanation as possible, and see if some video biased people don't jump in here and straighten out my act. Video is changing so fast right now that things I write here may already be obsolete.

The number one reason for shooting film over video (and when I say this, I mean any video-type media) is film's range of exposure. Film has the ability to capture broad range of exposure, from bright white to dark black, and render it back upon projection. With video, you need to make more definitive choices about your exposure so that you don't overload the chips that are taking in the information. Think of it as the difference between setting your computer screen to render in 16 colors (video) or millions of colors (film). More importantly still, if you make a mistake and the video cannot handle the input, it simply chops off what it can't handle, and throws the rest away. You will never be able to view that information again, it is lost, effectively edited out of your movie by a machine. With film, it is possible to change the way you print the film to bring up details that were hidden in deep shadow or in bright highlights. This was evident during the Challenger disaster. NASA had slowly phased out its use of film cameras to track launches and was using video only. When the shuttle blew up, the video cameras were overloaded by the brightness, and all information was lost until the cameras adjusted. By luck there was a film crew there shooting stock footage, and their film gave NASA important information they thought was gone.

Video also has a problem in that it is too sharp. It is difficult to seperate foreground from background or draw attention to one item through use of depth of field. This is being overcome, and has a lot to do with the ratio of the size of the chip to the aperture of the lens. Special fast lenses are being made by companies like Panavision to use with their 24p cameras to give filmmakers that selective look.

On the plus side for video, there is no waiting for dailies (or rushes). What you see on your big monitor is what you get (generally). Film can have technical problems like scratches, exposure, hairs which appear in the gate, or soft focus problems. Generally these issues are not encountered on video shoots.

Video is also cheaper, bringing what is one of the most expensive art forms (up there with architecture) to the masses. Most of the people on this site would not be on this site if video and digital editing had not come as far as it has. Film is just too expensive for most people. A 1000' roll of Kodak film (about 11 minutes of screen time) costs about a dollar a foot just to purchase and process. $1000 a roll. Then there's all the editing equipment, projection time, copies, negative cutting, release prints. Yikes. There was almost no way to get in at the basement level of film unless your basement was cleaned by your maid. With video, there is a basement level, although on high quality shows, costs start to approach film costs.

Finally, there is that film "feel". This is hard to describe, but is very important to those of us who shoot film. While it is getting more difficult, I can still spot an image originated on video. Video just lacks something that is difficult to pinpoint. It is the difference between wooden and aluminum bats in baseball. The difference between plastic sunglasses or glass. Between a new car and one that has been sprayed with new car smell. Most people can sense the difference, even if they can't discuss it. It is the thing that transforms movies from documentaries to stories and brings us into a whole other world-one in which we are able to suspend our disbelief. We can let little boys meet little green men, let couples find perfect love, and let soldiers be more heroic than they ever would be when faced with real bullets.
Why shoot film? Because for now at least, film is better.

I think he just meant filmmaking instead of just film.

I like film because its a great way to tell the story you can show what you need the audience to see and with hold what you dont want to reveal yet, this is far harder with a book or paintings. Also makeing film is a far more social experience involving sometimes hundreds of people so it will be alot more varied than other mediums.

Make Love Not War!

Oops. I think you're right.

As Rosannne Rosanadanna once said, "Never mind."

There are so many reasons why we make films. I could sit her all night talking about it but really it all boils do to one thing. It is incredibly stressful, expensive and time consuming but at the end of the day creating a film with four people, ten people, a hundred people whatever is the most rewarding and creative experience any one could have (in my oppinion). Its wether you can commit to doing it. There are so many people out there who talk about being film-makers...so many wannabies...

If you are kind of interested borrow or get a mini-dv and have a play around. EXPERIENT...I went to film school and I made over thirty short films. Some only three minutes long but its addictive.

At the end of my three years I made a 30min film shot on 16mm. I got a friend who is an animation student to story board, fashion students to design wardrobe, a performance artist as my main protagonist and friends and other people to play all the necessary parts I got a nice location and we shot it in six days.

People always want to get involved and help shot a film.

It still is the best experience i have had since. Eventhough i have worked on other projects since but that one got my juices flowing and now i cant stop.

An army of painters painting one canvas - your canvas.