I'm the haloman. I come out at night in my cape and mask and search out the halo aberation.

Watched the Farenheit 9/11 movie yesterday on the big screen. About 50% of the movie was shot with video. Someone else on this forum mentioned the video was shot with a Sony PD150. I thought surely that camera did not have much of a halo problem. Wow, the footage now blow up to the big screen showed severe halo effect on most of the footage. Is this as good as it gets with this camera? How much better quality would a high end studio or shoulder field camera acheive?

Please no politics or opinions about the film content on this thread. Chris Hurd, can we keep this thread if we talk only about the video quality in this movie?

If I recall correctly, none of the original-sourced material in the film--i.e., that which would have been shot on the PD150--was shot at night.

Much of the footage in the film was stock footage, news footage, or shot by various other freelancers/crews and sent to Moore. There's no telling what cameras these other crews used.

The stuff shot by Moore's crew was on 35mm though, right?

I'm assuming the non video parts were shot with 35 mm film. It's an interesting movie because there are high definition and low definition parts to the movie. There is a huge difference between them.

I actually quite liked how incredibly low-fi some of that stuff looks on the big screen, like the green night footage from Baghdad. Its kind of futuristic, almost.

In the background when Lila Lipscomb visits the White House, you can see a female camera operator (presumably on Moore's crew) preparing her video camera.

What was shot on 35 mm in the movie? I can't imagine it. Multiple cameras, running for a half-hour, hour at a time? I think it was all video.

It was probably shot on HD like Bowling for Columbine was. Someone on the dv.com forums mentioned what was shot on what. They used footage from various sources so you might see DV and beta and things like that.