Daniel Moore

Oh, now I think I see my misunderstanding. Wow thanks so much for explaining that. There are a couple things I realize. First, the format is specifically what type of film/tape is shot with. What I thought was the "format" is actually a type of process which the "information" is recorded as, right? I didn't even know there was 65mm film. What type of things are filmed with 65mm....can you give me a couple of examples? Thanks!

Well HVX's also records onto tape as well as cards(specifically I assume you mean P2 cards). What your describing sounds like main functions of each camera, but visually, if I watch 24p footage shot with each camera....will it make a difference in the long run. I would think 24p is 24p, period.....but I'm not sure if just the sole fact that someone films with an HVX would increase any part of the quality of the 24p(or "format" as I noticed people say on this website)....

Hmm okay, I'm just not currently technically oriented, so I guess thats what I missed....but....does what you're saying strictly have an effect specifically on the 24p option, or are you stating that those are the main differences between the cameras themselves?

I've wondered for a while now, what the difference between the "parallels" of brand versus format are. An example is, the DVX-100 and the HVX200 both shoot 24p, although, the HVX has a much higher preference than the DVX. Other than the most obvious reason being that the HVX has more options and so a much higher price, both cameras shoot 24p, so what's the difference between the two cameras strictly within that context(shooting in 24p). Does the difference in brand name have anything to do with it? Unless a technical developer or whatever says "I have an idea to make a camera with more options than the DVX, but I want to use my idea as a catalyst to start my own company....I'll name my company Panasonic"...and there's the difference right there. Can someone explain this?

Hmm I see. Could you give me two reality shows that are shot using HDX-900s? You said something REALLY interesting- so based on just lighting, one can almost manipulate perceived film stocks and camera uses? Also, are you saying that when something is broadcast on television, that the television(whether it be the television itself, the television network, or whatever other factor) can alter the look of the physical film/video, even if the film/video that is being aired is in perfect "archival" and/or "digital" (I'm kind of playing with words here)condition?

I remember hearing that David Fincher's movie Zodiac was shot on the RED, but I'm not sure if that's true. Does anyone know the truth behind that? Also, if anyone can list any major films that were shot on the RED(if any), I would be really interested to see what films would be listed. Thanks.

Whoa. That's strange...for some reason Entourage looks like it was shot with the same camera/film as The Hills.

Ah, so that must be what Entourage is shot on. I'm surprised Barry Lyndon was shot on 35mm, it sometimes looked like it could have been 16mm or something more "real" to the eye and less "cinematic" like 35mm. I still try to figure out what made Barry Lyndon so real to me. Particularly that brief shot of the horse and carriage going down a dirt trail with a building to the left. Maybe it was the locations....not sure. Barry Lyndon even looks more real than some modern day period films to me. Thanks so much for the replies by the way!

Whoa....I just watched some of Pushing Daises on Youtube. It looks like a Tim Burton film combined with happiness or something

I am wondering if there is anywhere or any way(including here) where I can find out specific film and video uses in films. When I watch a movie, a television show, documentary or whatever, I often wonder what camera was used for it, and what film type etc. Is that just about Google-ing the heck out of the particular film until I find my answer? While I'm talking about this, I might as well list the following in case anyone here knows the camera models and film types for the following: Barry Lyndon- I ask about Barry Lyndon because when I watched it, it didn't seem like a regular cinematic(apart from the lighting) film. Either the texture of 35mm has changed for movies since Barry Lyndon was filmed, or something was different....anyone know? The Hills(reality show on Mtv, which also looks the same as the film on HBO's Entourage...is it even film, or video, HD....no idea) Platoon(Oliver Stone's film)- that was also strange looking to me...maybe it was lighting, or something in Post....not sure Religulous(Bill Maher's new documentary)- I know most commercial documentaries are shot on 35mm, but I wasn't sure about this....maybe they used film and video....

Before I ask my question, I wanted to state that I have seen some different footage shot on the RED- some on DVD, and some on Youtube. The RED in my opinion is interesting, but overrated in the context of replacing 35mm which was what I was informed was the purpose of the RED. Some footage from the RED looks like it strangely elusively changes from 16mm to 35mm as I'm watching it....so strange. Anyone noticed this? Anyway, I plan on shooting a spec soon, and I have a choice between a Panasonic HVX200 with P2 cards for HD, or the RED. I'm not sure which I should choose. Does the lighting for each camera have to be set up differently because of the differences in each camera? An example being, if a scene were to have specific types of lights, diffusion, white bounces or whatever for the HVX, would the lighting set up for the RED(strength/effects of the light) remain the same if I were to take the RED away and suddenly put an HVX in, to assume the only different between each camera wouldn't concern the actual required lighting set up because it would only concern the camera itself(including the produced aspect ratio, resolution, definition, or whatever)?