Tongue firmly in cheek, I though I'd share this silly little exercise with the group.

Enjoy.

I think the same thing can be said about computers.

Hahahaha, thats awesome!

~Gabriel

Hah, I love it! So true, so true.

Yes, I hope I can pick up a used Red Camera one for a cheaper price in 18 months.

is there any reason besides cost to perfer dv over film?

is there any reason besides cost to perfer dv over film?It all depends upon the tastes, methods, and intentions of the person formulating the preference. :)

Yes, I hope I can pick up a used Red Camera one for a cheaper price in 18 months.

is there any reason besides cost to perfer dv over film?

Sure, lots of reasons.

Looking at just a couple might start with with the environmentally poisonous nature of miles and miles of Silver Nitrate film stock being produced, along with the toxic chemicals used to develop/process same.

Getting rid of all of that would be a HUGE major and clear environmental plus.

Also shooting film is a difficult art. You can't really see the actual results you're getting until days later after the chemical processing is complete. Video assist allows some framing judgments, but nothing about the totality of color and lighting choices until long after the fact. With Digital Video, you can actually SEE the precise quality and nature of your shots - on the set - as they are recorded.

The other side of the argument, of course, is that at THIS stage at least, nothing digital really matches the wonderful aesthetic qualities of film. And to get that, you NEED to use all the awful chemical junk.

Like all of life, trade-offs attend all choices we commonly get to make.

Ces't la vie.

Miles and miles of chemical junk?

I vaguely recollect that miles and miles of tape stocks, the coats, binders and plastics which comprise the cassette cases, some of the chemicals which go into the plastic camera bodies and electronic components are not so sweet and benign either.

Film, through its very cost might be a self-limiting commodity in terms of enviromental impact. Tape on the other hand?

The enviromental ledger between film and tape might be less heavily balanced against film than one might initially think.

Just a thought, without any research or published fact whatever, read by me to back up my suggestion.

[QUOTE=Bob Hart;694708]Miles and miles of chemical junk?

I vaguely recollect that miles and miles of tape stocks, the coats, binders and plastics which comprise the cassette cases, some of the chemicals which go into the plastic camera bodies and electronic components are not so sweet and benign either.


Yeah, no question there's a lot of plastics in the process.

But as bad as they are, I don't remember polyvinyl chloride or polycarbonate and iron oxide (essentially rust) being at quite the same level as Silver Nitrate.

Google tells me that the Material Safety Data Sheet for Silver Nitrate found here: http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/S2282.htm and elsewhere is as follows.

Health Rating: 3 - Severe (Poison)
Flammability Rating: 0 - None
Reactivity Rating: 3 - Severe (Oxidizer)
Contact Rating: 3 - Severe (Corrosive)
Lab Protective Equip: GOGGLES & SHIELD; LAB COAT & APRON; VENT HOOD; PROPER GLOVES
Storage Color Code: Yellow (Reactive)

Maybe I'm ignorate and unaware that they've changed the chemistry of movie film. But that's what I remember it to basically be.

So I suspect that the literally MILLIONS of miles of this stuff used over the years to represent a pretty substantial environmental challenge - and remember, that's just the film itself. I don't know the chemistry of developing fluid and the stop bath and the other chemicals used in the film processing chain, but I suspect they might be a bit gnarly as well.

So if we can dial back on the production and use of these, isn't that a desirable goal?

Seems to me that it would be. YMMV.