This article is in response to an article in Wired News. It's the same old shit: indie filmmaker shoots on DV and saves money while making his film. Wow. To which I say: bullshit. Here's the feedback I sent to them:

I am so tired of seeing "news" articles about how new filmmakers are revolutionizing the film industry by shooting full length feature films on DV for a fraction of the cost of a Hollywood blockbuster. The articles are everywhere, but they all seem to glaze over or completely miss two important points.

First and foremost is the quality. A $4,000 digital video camera simply does not produce the quality image that film produces. These articles usually justify the lackluster image by saying a good story makes up for it. However, even a good story can suffer from poor visuals, just like bad acting can overwhelm even a fantastic script.

And just as importantly, where were all these articles 10 years ago? The hype-wagon has been busy praising the invention of consumer digital video and home editing systems, but the truth is this is all far from new. People have been shooting full length features on 8mm film, 3/4" tape, VHS, Hi8 video, etc. I personally shot a 90-minute romantic comedy on Hi8 and had a final edit for under $6,000 -- including the price of the camera -- in 1992. And I'll be happy to introduce you to dozens of other people doing the same thing long before digital videotape and home editing systems hit the market.

DV is just another tape stock. The only advantage is being able to edit at home on your own computer. For my "feature" ten years ago I had to be slightly more creative. All that involved using editing equipment at a public access station. No big deal, and it was free.

This "digital filmmaker revolution" is nothing but hype. The technology to make movies on video and the filmmakers to take advantage of it have been around for decades, and the only potentially real replacement for mainstream films is HD video. And at the moment, it's simply not as good as film, and it's far more expensive than home video equipment.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't use video to tell stories. If you can't raise the financing to do it in film, it's a very viable alternative. I just hate how the media is pretending this is a new thing or is touting it as the clever people vs. the studio ogres who are sticking with old ideas. Video has its place, but I for one am glad that when I pay my $9.00 to see an indie film like "Memento" or a megabuster like "A.I." that the visuals are filmed, not taped.

© 2001, Michael Yanovich. www.mentalsnot.com