Well, not only have I worked with 16mm before, but I have also seen the DVX100 blown up to 35mm, and it does come close to 16mm blown up to film.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...ansfer+to+Film

I seriously doubt that Sundance gave the cinematography award to 'November' as a "nod to the new technology". If anything, the award was made in spite of the technology. Nancy Schreiber is an experienced film and video cinematographer who basically enthusiastically embraced and leveraged this little camera's limitations and features.

Bob, I asked this question with the assumption that the same care of proper lighting and filming technique would be given to DVX and 35mm footage. Don't say that DVX footage will be worse just because most people who use a DVX don't take the same time to set up lights and so forth.

To anyone who is anti-digital, I'd like to point out that CCD's will just keep getting finer and more detailed as time goes on, and new formats will be created to facilitate higher resolutions. This is just a function of technology, it's always progressing. It's only a matter of time before digital matches 35mm film. It's not a matter of if, but when.

Anyway, digital gets a bad rap sometimes so I'd like to thank Glenn and the others who actually saw a comparison of the two and are trying to be unbiased in helping me out.

CCD resolution is only one part of the battle. Dynamic range of contrast and color space has not been addressed yet and is even further behind in development than resolution. It will still be years before HD can approach 35mm. In the meantime, 70mm film is showing a spark of being revitalized so the bar could be raised higher once again.

So, at the moment, dv is still a poor third behind 35mm and 16mm and not the preferred medium.