film vs. new video

[Andrew Bennett]

i just shot a couple of videos in different digital formats, and after the experience I had to ask, is this really cheaper and faster than film?
The first shoot was for the Dresden Dolls, and was shot on a 2K camera with prime lenses, and went straight out via an ethernet cable to a hard drive. The software was only formatted for a PC so it had to be cut in Premeier, which is another story for another day, ugh. Hours were spent backing up files, moving the computer around wit the camera, and not to mention days in an edit that drove me crazy.
The next video was for Dream Theater and was shot on the P2 camera.
Shooting on the P2 and it's small cards was like shooting on short ends, constantly having to stop to reload cards or wait for the drive to format. Post is also a bit of a nightmare, but again, another story.
We shot with prime lenses, which I mention because this is not a price saver in anyway, same cost as if you were shooting film.
The camera rentals were the same as renting an Arri SR2 or something similar, we still have to pay to have a color correction done, and we fill up hard drives like gas tanks on hummers.
After all of this I would much rather shoot film and put this idea that digital is so much better, to bed once and for all.
So my question is, what do you think?

[greencheesemedia]

I much prefer film over sending files to hard drive. At minium, I'd rather have a tape backup along with a hard drive. Silly me, I just think it is too easy to hit the delete button and everything is lost. Oh, and the cost to purchase one of those electronic monsters is more than a film camera and the lenses - not to mention that the minute you make the purchase it is obsolete. My Arri was built around 1960 and still works great and is probably still worth what it cost in the 60's.

At risk of sounding like I hate technology, I don't. I am fine with doing things digitally, if the end result is the same at a similar or less cost. I've had mission fatal problems in both film and video.

I think the biggest drawback is that people trained on video and the electronic media are generally, lazy. I've seen people let the camera run and walk away. The perception is that "tape is cheap" (or disks) and they ignore the cost. Plus, many of the video techies aren't trained in film, lenses, lighting, exposure, and the like. It's like the technology has become more important than the story being put on film.

My experience is that technology does not always mean it is less expensive or better. We just exchange one problem for another.

[Digiworks.Collabo Channel]

I PREFER TO SHOOT ON FILM, P2 NOT IMPRESSED JUST A MARKETING TRICK TO MAKE YOU SPEND MORE MONEY ON THOSE CAMERAS AND SUPER EXPENSIVE CARDS IT MAKES YOU THINK YOUR SHOOTING LIKE THE PROS ( MOST SHOOTING WITH F-900S AND 24P CAMERAS DIGITAL TAPE FORMAT) YOU SPEND SO MUCH ON EDITING AND DEALING WITH CHIPS YOU DON'T OWN IS A BITCH AND THE 3 CHIP HD CAMERAS WORK JUST AS GOOD PLUS YOU HAVE YOUR MASTER TAPES TO RE EDIT WITH. THE 2K CAMERA LOOKS COOL AND WORKS GREAT WITH MOTION CONTROL . DIGITAL TAPE FORMAT IS THE CHEAPEST