Christopher Osborn

Hey thanks for the info guys. That comparison article was a huge help to me. :)

Hey thanks for the reply phil, and i understand it is kind of an unanswerable question. I guess what im asking is, is it really that big of a difference in image quality? I'm not a big fan of video at all, i love film (but who deosn't). Prosumer video is great since its so much cheaper than 16, but even then i would rather shoot 8 or super8. Unfortunately this project calls for video. I feel blindfolded as i have never seen a 24p image. I highly doubt it is even remotely close to film. I mean when magic bullet came out it was all the rage, and personally i think it looks horrbible. So is 24p just another majic bullet, or is it really a groundbreaking got-to-shoot-it technology? Thanks

Lets put it this way, its either the pd-150 and a nice jib arm, or its the 24p with no jib arm. Thanks

Can someone give me some info? I'm shooting a film in August for a director who wants to shoot on a dvx100 24p. I own a sony pd150. I realize the 24p is great for transferring to film. But we are staying digital all the way through the project. We are considering saving money by shooting pd150 as opposed to renting a 24p. Does anyone have any comments on this? I understand most would choose the 24p over the pd-150, but keeping in mind we have unlimited access to a pd-150 and a limited budget, is it worth it to rent a 24p? Is the image quality really that much better? I'd shoot a test but i have no access to a 24p at this time so i thought i would see what you all have to say on the subject. Thanks

I'm shooting a documentary, the fate of which is still unknow. Possibly could end up transferring to film, or might go straight to TV. I have access to both a pd-170 and a 24p. I realize the 24p is the new hot thing because it has the same frame rate to film, but besides this what are the pros and cons of each camera. And in the end, which would you recommend? and why? Thanks

Theturnaround is absolutely right, it was a choice of aesthetics. The film dictated the mediums used. Its not always about getting the best image, but getting the best type of image to tell your story. I thought it was a great choice, and a courageous one at that. He had a lot of people going against him on that miniDV move, but he stuck to his guns. I know a lot of people who love the look of 8mm, they don't pick it apart because of the lack of resolution, but embrace it for it's look. I love cinematography and crave the highest resolution i can get, but its important to keep in mind what its all about in the end, telling a story. I saw the movie in theatres. I was a bit disappointed with the miniDV in the beginning with some of the wide london landscape shots, but as the story took off, i really got a feel for what Boyle was trying to do. I thought it was great. ;)

Doesn't Arri make a 16 wiith out a crystal sunc motor, why not just rent one of those for your shoot, there much cheaper than renting an Arri S, and if you already have the lenses to your Arri then you can save money here as well. Just a thought

What does it mean when a lens has a lousy MOD, and also when a lens "breathes"? thanks