You do have your alpha and beta states mixed up as well as repeating bad information. The video is alpha, film is beta argument came from Roger Ebert at Cannes 1999 mistaking a Jerry Mander’s famous polemic Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television that argued that the different brain states in watching TV vs. film.

Note this study compared watched a small TV in a bright room vs. watching a large screen in a darkened theater. So the study says nothing about if you watch film on a small TV vs. watching HD projected on a large screen in a darkened theater.

Bascially, the whole statement, mixed up or not is bogus and meaningless.

Sure the mediums have aethestic differences. But projection/viewing medium is actually more important than aquistion, in my view.

Arguments about resolutions, frame rates, exposure latitude are way overstated.

It's the craft, skill and creativity of the artist. I would much rather watch anything Stanley Kubrick shot with a Fisher Price Pixelvision video camera than anything Michael Bay puts on 70mm.

Any medium, in the hands of true artists, is a completely valid means of expression.

So get you XL-1, shoot whatever, use any techique, frame rate, plugin whatever - if it helps you tell your story, helps express what you want on screen, go for it. Don't get hung up on DV's inferiority to film.

Furthermore, there have been some wonderful examples of DV projects projected on big screens that audiences response to as film, as cinema. never realizing it was shot on video. Sure, cinematographers and technicians know.

But ultimately it's how well you tell your story and how it touches others. Doesn't matter if it's a 30-second local car commercial or 3 film widescreen epic. To me, they are all stories.

Well personally I care how my image looks. And I like my XL1. But working with film for so long I sometimes look at video and go "Bleh!" I am not comparing any of my arguments to HDTV. I can't wait until HDTV is the standard. I will shoot everything in progressive (if I am allowed by technology to do so). A good director (even Stanley Kubrik) will care about how his final product looks. Only a poor director would say "Ah screw it, get the cheap stuff, nobody will notice the difference since they will be mesmorized by my story and my fabulous directing abilities!" or "People will enjoy it just because of my name recognition, as true moviephiles would never admit to not liking any single thing about my movies!"

If picture quality is transparent to you, then you are lucky. I get annoyed when I see one speck of dirt on a film or a tiny inconsistent pixel in my video. But as for amateurs starting out I would say to just use whatever you have for now. Get used to making movies, shorts, or whatever it is that you want to do. Once you are getting the hang of everything, then start to worry about your picture and sound quality.