In my opinon super 16 is more fun, but nowhere near as convienent as digital. I don't really have a whole lot of experience with it, but i think that digital tends to make things look too real, surreal, if I may, while super 16 makes it look mroe real in a real sort of way.

You people have held me back long enough, I'm going to clown college!

yeah, there's a noticeable difference between the two. I believe George Lucas has switched to filming with digital, but i'm sure he's using a $100k camera rather than a lowend $3-5000 model like a lot of indie producers use. I know both Primer and Bullet Boy were both shot using super 16mm cameras and they look amazing. can digital cameras come close to mimicking the look and feel of super 16mm cameras? surely there are lenses that can do this?

Super-16 is expensive and a pain in the butt. HDV may not look as nice, but it will save you an awful lot of money and hassle.

??
please explain. is it an issue with lighting? the loading & constant changing of film?

Film costs about a thousand times as much as DV tape, you do generally need more lights because it's not as sensitive, you have to pay for developing and telecine before you can edit, digital effects cost shedloads of money because you have to scan the film and then print back to film afterwards, you have to pay for a negative cut and 35mm blowup before you can see it projected, and you can't even see what you shot until at least a day after you shot it.

Film is just so 19th century.

The way I see it, Digital is a sort of bastard medium. Being that it produces a pristine, unadulterated, technically perfect image, it doesn't have any sort of aesthetic at all. I use it because I can't afford film (and none of this argument that you can shoot on film for the same price as DV--even if you CAN find short ends galore, that still leaves processing costs and telecine. So no dice there).

Of course, the other non-digital alternative is low-end analog, which I'd be using if I were a brave soul. It certainly has its own unique look and it can at times be quite beautiful, even occasionally looking strikingly like film. Unfortunately, I think another ten years or so need to pass before the stigma against this medium is gone (after all, we suffered under it for decades, so it is often all too easy to call it 'ugly.'

I've never shot super-16, but I HAVE shot a little Super-8, and let me tell you that the minute I can afford it (if that day ever comes), I'll be shooting EVERYTHING on film. There's just no substitute.

-----------------
Andrew Gingerich
Exploding Goldfish Films
Check out my vodcast on iTunes: http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=96931870