I aplogise in advance -- but I need to have a little rant about this subject. (before flying out of the country for two weeks) Not because of the rant -- LOL!
Serious face on!
For indies the format debate is never what it really seems, that is, a technical evaluation of production choices.
This is because the real evaluation isn't about whether the format will do the job or not -- it's about cost.
It seems like everyone spends all their energy trying to make films on the lowest possible budgets.
For indies, if you could make cinema release movies on a $200 camera it would be heaven.
All too rarely do people go -- actually for the look I want with this film, or the way I want to work with the cast in this film I'm going to use X format.
DVC doesn't mean Do it Very Cheap! Although I'll admit that I still suffer from this thinking.
My gut feeling is that playing with DV is a great way of improving your craft.... but when it comes time to make something that you want to play in a cinema, then the mentality towards production has to change.
Where it needs to change most is giving up on the idea that there is no funding for indie films -- there is -- providing the product is right. And that's the core of the matter, really.
Blair Witch showed that if you movie is good enough, no one will give a crap what you film it with.
You see, I completely agree with this statement -- the only thing I'll add is that IF your movie is good enough, then you'll get the production budget to shoot it on the right format for the project!
Biggest problem most indies have is fear of taking their project to the market place, because deep down they believe it's not good enough. [I've suffered from this too] So we don't look for the $3M we need to make the film right, instead we try to make it for less than $1000
[I'm laughing because for the last four months I've been writing a book called "$1000 Spielberg", which explains exaclty how to do that -- Oh the irony!]
Yes, there are always going to be times when you match the production to the budget -- all I'm saying is that it shouldn't be the first port of call.
Let me give you a concrete example -- I've been working on a feature than I intend to shoot this autumn called "Out of the Dark" -- because money has been tight and I'd lost some confidence after No Place, I'd planned to shoot it as a No Budget camcorder movie -- then a week ago I realised that I wasn't even trying to raise investment for the film -- even though I had developed a commercially viable product and an excellent marketing strategy -- in the week since having this epihany -- since I started taking my own work seriously again -- I've found three different routes to fund the project to completion with a $750,000 plus budget -- one or more of them will pan out IF I get the script right -- one of the routes also comes with distribution attached!
Now as it happens Out of The Darks is an under $1M dollar film -- it's that kind of project -- but I'm confident that if it had needed $3M, then if would have been possible to raise it.
Oh... by the way... In case you hadn't worked it out... I'm ranting at myself.
I think it might be the Siberian Ginsing the wife's been putting in my tea! 
about filmmaking again! I wasn't saying you were wrong, just making debate. I still prefer digital for its ability to let me spend my money (hobbyist so far) in front of the camera. I'm a small crew person as well (not a SMALL crew person, but a small crew PERSON). I absolutely agree with your arguments. Format should be a matter of artistic choice, not budget. But if you are shooting without a budget, spend your money wisely...generally you can get footage that reeks professionalism even from a crappy little DV cam if you work within the confines of the format and the camera.
