Just like to register an opposing opinion to Brian's assertation that HD transferred to 35mm is better than if shot originally in film. It's not even close. I'm a professional out here in that godforsaken wasteland of LA. I work in network TV as a writer/director/creator and have made a film as well; I know what I'm talking about. There isn't a Director of Photography alive who will support Brian's statement. Not one. HD, when lit properly, transfers well to film and in interior situations looks pretty damned good -- but not nearly as good as film. Exteriors tend to be flat and disappointing. Progressive scan will certainly help the situation, and, as the release mediums go digital, more will certainly be shot on HD. But given the budget, film is the choice, particularly if film is the release medium.(posted 8951 days ago)But what about Blair Witch and The Celebration type films? Sure. Content over form. It all depends upon what you want your movie to look like. Better to do it on DV than not do it at all. I'm just saying that film is still the richest and most detailed medium.
A simple rule is this: if you're doing a credit card production, shoot video, post video, then screen your film for distributors. If the content's good enough and they're dying for it, let them pick up the tab for 35mm transfer and the new mix. BUT - if you absolutely know that your project is going to wind up on film, shoot on film. The costs will be roughly equal to the cost of shooting video and then transferring it to film -- and the quality will be far superior.
In television, we've been pricing out the cost of film vs tape for years... it just doesn't add up (although it's getting close).