WHY we love/hate DV equipment. at DVinfo.net

Bill Davis · June 8th, 2007, 04:16 PM

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

Enjoy.

Mark Bournes · June 8th, 2007, 04:19 PM

I think the same thing can be said about computers.

Gabriel Yeager · June 8th, 2007, 04:36 PM

Hahahaha, thats awesome!

~Gabriel

Richard Alvarez · June 8th, 2007, 04:50 PM

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

Sean J. Manning · June 9th, 2007, 10:38 AM

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?

Jarrod Whaley · June 9th, 2007, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean J. Manning

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. :)

Bill Davis · June 9th, 2007, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean J. Manning

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.

Bob Hart · June 9th, 2007, 10:19 PM

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.

Bill Davis · June 9th, 2007, 10:47 PM

[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.

June 8th, 2007, 04:19 PM	#2
Mark Bournes Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Jupiter, FL Posts: 565	I think the same thing can be said about computers. __________________ Mark www.sharkvp.com

June 8th, 2007, 04:36 PM	#3
Gabriel Yeager Major Player Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Washington, NorthWest USA Posts: 788	Hahahaha, thats awesome! ~Gabriel __________________ Gabriel Photography

June 9th, 2007, 10:19 PM	#8
Bob Hart Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA. Posts: 4,477	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. Last edited by Bob Hart; June 9th, 2007 at 10:29 PM. Reason: error

June 8th, 2007, 04:50 PM	#4
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Hah, I love it! So true, so true.

June 9th, 2007, 10:38 AM	#5
Sean J. Manning Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Bangkok Thailand Posts: 35	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?

June 9th, 2007, 10:47 PM	#9
Bill Davis Trustee Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Posts: 1,538	[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.