I disagree with film being easier to handle. The reason it is more cooperative, is because there is a lot more time spent to get it right. With DV you do not have to get it perfect the first time, because you can back up and try again at relatively no extra cost. Both take a lot of preparation to get the scene to look right, but film is just a necessity to get it perfect the first time, as so it more likely appears to be more cooperative. Film is tendent to be less forgiving. Of course, we are comparing on a professional level. You can get a Digital camera to do almost anything you want in terms of exposure. Consumer cameras are different in themselves. Of course it's harder to get the exposures right... they just plain suck. You cannot compare those, professionally.BrownCowStudios wrote:Yes, the "film look" (god I hate that term) can be mimicked with filters, lighting, cinematography, and post processes. But you'll still be faced with the problems digital presents. For example, contrast ratio. DV has a terribly difficult time trying to expose to variable light intensities within a frame. If you expose to the highlights, you lose detail in the shadows. If you expose to the shadows, the whites burn out. Film can handle this much easier.
You don't have to mimick ANYTHING for a "film look" with filters, lighting, cinematography, and post processes... That's the art of movie making, whether you are using film, DV, or the movie capture on your cell phone. The film look is a result of the color tones, softness, and grain of the image.
Depth of field relies on the kind of lens you are using. I've seen depth of field go either way for both film and DV. Film may require more light, and therefore a typically larger apature, but it is still all in the lens.BrownCowStudios wrote:The "film look" in general can be mimicked on DV, but film has its obvious aesthetic advantages, and DV has its obvious financial advantages. Film has a major leap in resolution, tonal range, and depth of field.