March of the penguins

TJIsACoolGuy

TJIsACoolGuy

Active member
I saw it and really liked it. It is very good. Shot mostly on 16mm. I am just wondering...for the underwater shots, why did they go with the sony pd150/170? Why do people choose these cameras instead of the dvx for film-out? I saw open water on the big screen and was a little disappointed with the blow up. That wasn't shot on the dvx either...I think on the little sony's. I was pretty disappointed with the quality of the underwater shots in that movie....Am i to expect about the same disappointment when I see Mad Hot Ballroom in a few days which WAS shot on the dvx? I know I can't expect a miracle...it will never compare with a 35mm film camera. But I still would like to be impressed.... Anyway....I guess my question is.....is it even a little better than what the sony's look like?
 
I haven't seen Mad Hot Ballroom, but I'd say definitely don't go in expecting to be impressed by the cinematography. From what I've heard described about it, it's basically shot with available overhead fluorescent lighting. So that picture's not about cinematography, it's about content, and you likely won't be impressed by the cinematography.

As to why people still use interlaced Sonys for work to be blown up to film -- it makes no sense.
 
not just about the cinematography though.... how much better (if any) does a film blow up from a dvx look like compared to a film blow up from an interlaced sony camera?
 
Barry_Green said:
As to why people still use interlaced Sonys for work to be blown up to film -- it makes no sense.
Click to expand...

I recently saw a feature shot with a PD150.

I finally got what people mean by "film-look" and "video-look".

I wish someone would have just said "80's-porn-look" instead of "video-look". It would have saved me SO much time trying to understand the difference.

Dan
 
GenJerDan said:
I recently saw a feature shot with a PD150.

I finally got what people mean by "film-look" and "video-look".

I wish someone would have just said "80's-porn-look" instead of "video-look". It would have saved me SO much time trying to understand the difference.

Dan
Click to expand...

I haven't seen a porn movie since "Behind The Green Door" with Marilyn Chambers. She could really act!! So saying 80's porn look wouldn't work for me.
 
TJIsACoolGuy said:
I saw it and really liked it. It is very good. Shot mostly on 16mm. I am just wondering...for the underwater shots, why did they go with the sony pd150/170? Why do people choose these cameras instead of the dvx for film-out? I saw open water on the big screen and was a little disappointed with the blow up. That wasn't shot on the dvx either...I think on the little sony's. I was pretty disappointed with the quality of the underwater shots in that movie....Am i to expect about the same disappointment when I see Mad Hot Ballroom in a few days which WAS shot on the dvx? I know I can't expect a miracle...it will never compare with a 35mm film camera. But I still would like to be impressed.... Anyway....I guess my question is.....is it even a little better than what the sony's look like?
Click to expand...
This thread should be called "Why do people shoot with the PD150 (Oh yeah, and I liked March of the Penguins." :cheesy:

I saw it, I liked it a lot. The next documentary I really want to see is Deep Blue.
 
How would people compare the quality/resolution of a film blowup from the pd150 as compared with the dvx? I have never seen a blow up from the dvx myself....but will soon.
 
Noah Kadner did exactly that -- when the DVX first came out, they shot the same short film on both cameras and made a DVD of it. They also blew it up to film. There was a startling night-and-day quality to the difference on the DVD, but as I recall Noah said the differences were much less pronounced on the film transfer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top