user6905: I was reading about how slowly a lot of motion picture is transitioning to digital from film and the relative advantages & limitations of each medium etc. 
I was wondering, are there directors who shoot mixed? Like some scenes in film and others digitally, essentially exploiting the best of each medium depending on what the conditions of the actual shot are?  
Or is the logistics of doing such a mix too complicated and not worth it. Is the post-processing flow amenable to mixing film and digital? 

user2836: Never say never, but in general, the big problem with mixing would be differences in the way the footage looks.  You can color grade a lot of that so it is less obvious, but it will still probably be noticeable to a trained eye.
In most cases, similar types of cameras, if not the same exact model, are used for at least every angle in a scene.  It might change between scenes entirely as that would mask a lot of the transition, but the more consistency the better is the general feeling unless cost or environmental factors prevent it.
It takes a very compelling argument to take on the added complexities of mixing footage from different models of camera.  "I like the way it looks" may be a compelling enough argument for some or in some cases, but it generally isn't.

user3908: Not in modern terms, but the BBC did this for years. Many a series was shot multicam video on a sound stage, with any location footage shot 16mm, for portability. The blend was anything but seamless. My take on this was a mock scene from such a series... Woman: "What's it like outdoors?" Man, peering through window: "Hmmm. It's a bit soft and quite grainy."

6905: <p>I was reading about how slowly a lot of motion picture is transitioning to digital from film and the relative advantages &amp; limitations of each medium etc. </p>

<p>I was wondering, are there directors who shoot mixed? Like some scenes in film and others digitally, essentially exploiting the best of each medium depending on what the conditions of the actual shot are?  </p>

<p>Or is the logistics of doing such a mix too complicated and not worth it. Is the post-processing flow amenable to mixing film and digital? </p>
 2836: <p>Never say never, but in general, the big problem with mixing would be differences in the way the footage looks.  You can color grade a lot of that so it is less obvious, but it will still probably be noticeable to a trained eye.</p>

<p>In most cases, similar types of cameras, if not the same exact model, are used for at least every angle in a scene.  It might change between scenes entirely as that would mask a lot of the transition, but the more consistency the better is the general feeling unless cost or environmental factors prevent it.</p>

<p>It takes a very compelling argument to take on the added complexities of mixing footage from different models of camera.  "I like the way it looks" may be a compelling enough argument for some or in some cases, but it generally isn't.</p>
 3908: <p>Not in modern terms, but the BBC did this for years. Many a series was shot multicam video on a sound stage, with any location footage shot 16mm, for portability. The blend was anything but seamless. My take on this was a mock scene from such a series... Woman: "What's it like outdoors?" Man, peering through window: "Hmmm. It's a bit soft and quite grainy."</p>
