Posted by iamafilmmajor at dhcp-70-95.rowan.edu on March 14, 2002 at 22:45:30:
In Reply to: The Art of DV posted by Ezziebaby on March 14, 2002 at 22:14:17:
Without a doubt. I saw a great student film today that was shot on DV and the only reason you could tell was because it looked soft.
:
: It's a matter of how you shoot it, and who transfers it for you.
: -Ezz
: : :
: : : DV is cost efficient, and when blown up to 35mm film, is quite beautiful. Anybody who says shoot film because it's prettier is saying this for a few reasons. One: They have probably already dumped boat loads of cash into that format and wants you to do the same mistake so that they feel better about what they have done. Or it will come from someone who works in a lab and doesn't want to be out of the job.
: : : Digital can look as good and sometimes better than film. To get film to look as good as it does when it's presented in a theatre takes a lot of work and money. And to make it look the way it does on DVD takes a whole lot of technology. time, and more money.
: : : Although, if a studio is backing you, get a film under your belt. But digital is the way of the tomorrow. Especially if your an independent. Also, post a question on the film-411 wwwboard. There are a lot of polite young chaps there who are willing to get furhter into detail with you, this board really isn't that smart. I'll see you over there!
: : : -Ezra
: : when transferred to film. See Session 9 for example. It can be good, but film is still film. I wouldn't say this board isn't smart. There are some cats in these parts that are chock full of knowledge.