Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted June 14, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 14, 2004 I think this Genesis camera is more than an F900 with a Panavision logo stuck on it, Phil. Basically with 4:4:4 HDCAM-SR, you're getting the same recording quality as possible the Viper and Sony F950 but the depth of field of 35mm plus the ability to overcrank to 50 or 60 fps. To me, that's a step beyond the F900 and HDCAM. I think people would be just as interested in this camera if it had an Arri logo on it. As for what's wrong with the camcorder design, that's more a matter of what you are used to, although the F900 with all the add-ons can get rather long. But the shape is less of an issue with me as is the image the camera produces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Neary Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 It's amazing how it takes the Panavision logo to suddenly make cameras acceptable to people. I wonder what this whole argument has really been about. You don't like the fact that the F900 looks like a camcorder? Respectfully, I think the argument/discussion is more that the -images- from the f900 (when blown up to big screen) look like poop. I'm pretty forgiving, but every movie I've seen that originated from the f900 (and output to 35, and presented in a theatre) looks soft and mushy and awful, no matter who shot it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 "Respectfully, I think the argument/discussion is more that the -images- from the f900 (when blown up to big screen) look like poop. I'm pretty forgiving, but every movie I've seen that originated from the f900 (and output to 35, and presented in a theatre) looks soft and mushy and awful, no matter who shot it." A more pertinent comparison, Genesis vs f950 or Viper with srw1 bolted on top. I'd be surprised if Arri didn't buy a Genisis for their rental department. They bought Vipers and f900s, but will Panavision undercut the competition as they did appeared to do with Panavised f900 in Europe? Since Sony partly own Panavision this is a case of the manufacturer killing its own market. Good for producers bad for everyone else. Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Rodriguez Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Woah, you mean telecine at $120 an hour! What!!! There is no way that you're getting a Spirit 2 telecine for $120 and hour. Add in a calibrated scan from Technicolor and you're talking at least $800/hr unsupervised, and that's just for S16. I've seen many rates from DuArt, RIOT!, I/O Group, NFL Films, Technicolor, etc. and believe me, there's no $120 an hour, not even for students, not on a Spirit 2 with Davinci, Pogol, or Lustre. And if you're using modern film stocks like the new Vision2 stuff, and you're not transfering on Spirit 2, then IMHO you're probably missing stuff on that film, cause an older Cintel I don't believe will pull the full 12-stops+ that these films can muster. I mean if you're going to spend the money on film, make it look good! IMHO, poorly transfered film does not compare at all to decently shot 24p video (which can be done for cheaper), other than the fact you can brag that you shot on film. Even on film with a cheap transfer the highlights will be clipped, crushed shadows, noise, etc. because you're running the film through a crappy "video" camera! I've seen this time and time again where my friends will rush off to the cheapest transfer they can get, and it all looks like grainy crap, or something from the early 80's/late 70's-not that stuff back then looked like 'crap', but in a technical sense compared to today's film transfers or even the F900, stuff back then does NOT compare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 @Jason Egads, I'm getting $120/hour supervised for my work. Shoot, for $1200 an hour, I could buy a workprinter and do it myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Rodriguez Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Okay, $120 and hour. What are you transfering on? Spirit? Rank? Who's your colorist? I'm not going to disagree with your numbers, but a good colorist at a top house in NY is not $120 an hour, they're at least $1,000/hr. on second shift. Heck man, Color Lab in D.C./Maryland is $195/hr for one-light DVCAM DAILIES!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 it could be that we're just lucky, or we have friends that give a discounted rate. Never discount what personal connections can get someone. This is not a great arguement, however. You can run off one price, and someone else can always come up with a way to undercut it. I even calc'd out how to get 1 hr of 35mm negative for a lower price than you listed. (never underestimate the power of the short end) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Rodriguez Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Well, I simply don't see how you're getting such great deals, not for high-end telecine transfers. The student rate at NFL films for film-to-HD transfers is $675/hr, and for digibeta is $375/hr, all on Spirit datacine. Student rate. It doesn't get much cheaper than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Also depends on which market you are in. If you're not in the main markets (aka, the demand for the service is lower) you can get better prices. Also, if you're willing to go to Canada, you can get some really great deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Wendell_Greene Posted June 14, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 14, 2004 The student rate at NFL Films for film-to-HD transfers is $675/hr, and for digibeta is $375/hr, all on Spirit datacine. Cost of an NFL Films cap or t-shirt: PRICELESS : :D Wendell "used to dream of filming NFL games like Ernie Ernst or Howard Neef" Greene :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Rodriguez Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 This has prompted me to make my own "triangle" of film economics: Film / \ / \ / \ Quality Cheap Pick any two :) P.S. Quality and cheap=HD video or some other progressive video format, i.e., SDX900, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Well, I simply don't see how you're getting such great deals, not for high-end telecine transfers. The student rate at NFL films for film-to-HD transfers is $675/hr, and for digibeta is $375/hr, all on Spirit datacine. These rates are typical for this area, maybe you can do a little better with some negotiating & off hours in NY and quite likely in LA..... But budgeting at significantly-less-than-book rates is risky, no ? Anyway shouldn't the comparison here be with Spirit 4K,etc if not in fact real scanners ? Are there any 4K Spirits out there yet ? I just BET that'll be "slightly" more than $120/hr :o -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Rodriguez Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Forget scanning if you thought the Spirit 2K to HD was expensive. I'm getting quotes at $0.18 per FRAME for a scan/DI post! $120 might not get you through the opening credits :o! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Rodriguez Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Anyway shouldn't the comparison here be with Spirit 4K,etc if not in fact real scanners ? You're exactly right Sam. Here we have people talking down about the Genesis, F900, etc. not being like film, yada, yada, yada, and then you turn around and get the rock bottom cheapest transfer you can possible get on the oldest telecine's in existence, and brag about how "film" looks so much better than well-shot 24p HD. Frankly when you go the absolute cheapest route in this instance, I'm not sure if you're really gaining any quailty out of your film compared to what HD could look like if taken half-decent care of, other than the fact you can say it was shot on 35mm, FWIW. Not trying to say you're putting out shoddy work, I'm just curious to know if you're really gaining anything by shooting film, having to bend over backwards for quality that might not be much better than any HD camera could easily do, especially if all you're getting is one-lights/unsupervised transfers on old telecines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 You can also buy a film scanner, I'd note. A low quality film scanner starts at around $1200. While not the speediest thing in the world, it can be fully automated. And even the low-quality scanners are good enough for TV work if color-balanced properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 downmix, which scanner is that? Jason, I wouldn't agree with you that late 70's and 80's filmstocks don't compare to today's either film or digital. The dynamic range was smaller of course, but as for the overall look of the image and qualitty (grain and resolution) i don't find this true. I am not talking about fast 80's stock, because they are not really pretty estheticaly (even though the resolution was still beter, way better than f900). The slower 5247 film looked quite nice, and was capable of resolving enough resolution to fill a 4K scan with usable image data without any problems. I don't think you can compare f900 in resolution even to the old 5254. Perhaps you are used to seeing bad transfers+interpositives of old films. Take a look at some of the restored films and newly transfered. MGM is soon making DVD collections of all the old James bond films. Scanning them at 4K and then downsampling to DVD resolution. This should give you a good idea of true colors and tones as the overall look. (it is way smoother than that you usually see from the old contrasty and grainy transfers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Rodriguez Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Exactly my point-the "look" of film on television is very dependant on the type of scanner/telecine you're using. Which leaves me quite skeptical of $120/hr transfers, because chances are it's not a Spirit 2K, which will not give you the highest quality look. Instead, with a one-light daily transfer you could easily get that contrasty, blown-highlight, grainy look that does not say "high-quality slick" to me, it says bad transfer. And in that case you're much better off just shooting with HD whether you think it looks better than film or not, because frankly, it's going to look much better than a cheap film transfer. Also when you're watching an F900-shot scene and a film-shot scene at the cineplex, after all those dupes, interpositives, etc. that the film had to go through to hit the screen, 4K is long gone, we're talking maybe 700-800 l/ph up on the screen, which the F900 can easily do. The same is partially true for 2K projection, the F900 can look good there too, although I'm sure 4K downsampled to 2K film footage will look a bit sharper than the F900, but the F900 will definitely look better than S16, which is really where I see HD-24p fitting-somewhere in between S16 and 35mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted June 14, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 14, 2004 Also when you're watching an F900-shot scene and a film-shot scene at the cineplex, after all those dupes, interpositives, etc. that the film had to go through to hit the screen, 4K is long gone, we're talking maybe 700-800 l/ph up on the screen, which the F900 can easily do. Personally I don't find that to be true. All the 24P I have seen so far just looks soft to me. Although the image is very clean, when you try to focus on a specific part of the frame, there isn't enough detail. With film it's the opposite, although you have grain, if you look for details, it is there. That is true even for Super16 blowups. Just recently I was very impressed by the look of 'Troy', which was an excellent Super35 blowup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 My point here was not whether film, transfered to HD as a video transfer looks as good as F900 / 24p origination, it was that we should compare what film can really do vs what Genisis can really do. -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 "when you try to focus on a specific part of the frame, there isn't enough detail." This observation is not one that seems to matter to the average viewer. Since day one most people even those looking, cannot tell the difference between HD and 35. I do not disagree that film has more res than HDCAM at point of shooting, but the typical audience does not evaluate the image on a technical basis. Otherwise they would have given up on scratched, grainy and wobbly film presentation years ago. Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painfulcrash Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 ( i can not wait untill a feature film gets shot with genesis) this topic will be sizzling :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 "which is really where I see HD-24p fitting-somewhere in between S16 and 35mm." We have yet to see what Snell and Wilcox will do with upconversion of 1920x1080 to 4k. Give them a few years? Maybe at this high resolution new types of upconversion with proper interpolation of image, (not merely line doubling) will "work". Since we have little experience of watching digitally projected 4k images who knows what the audience will appreciate. We are making the rules up as we go along. The recently announced innovative wobblevision concept from Hewlett Packard to turn a 2k projector into 4k, (if it works!) is one example of thinking out of the box that can surprise the industry. Another example, the Micro lens on ccd came to market out of the blue and gave us an extra stop. First I heard of that technology was when it was mentioned in the press release just before the launch of the new camera. Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted June 14, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 14, 2004 This observation is not one that seems to matter to the average viewer. Since day one most people even those looking, cannot tell the difference between HD and 35 In most cases, film's ability to handle highlights and flesh tones better are the most obvious clues. The sharpness advantage of film over HDCAM is very real, and has been well documented: http://www.smpte.org/members_only/library/...file=morton.pdf "Assessing the Quality of Motion Picture Systems From Scene-to-Digital Data", SMPTE Journal, February-March 2002 The lack of sharpness in HDCAM translates into the final release prints -- to me, the live action in "Star Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Clones" was almost always less sharp than the CGI characters. I was especially disappointed with the lack of HDCAM sharpness in the IMAX presentation of the movie in Rochester. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Rodriguez Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 I've read parts of that paper, and IIRC, the film was scanned at 4K and then sent through an "enhancement" pass, while the HDCAM source was upressed to 4K and sharpened. I think one thing that is missed in all of this number stuff is that we're pointing towards the ideal. A movie that is going to hit the theatres right now, and is going to go through 2K DI is not going to have the resolution that is specified for film in that paper. It's just not possible. You're basically using an HD camera inside a telecine to scan the film at high speeds for interactive color correction. So which one is better resolution wise, and HD camera or an HD camera?? You pick. You'll either get an HD camera in the telecine, or you'll get an HD camera on the set. Now HDCAM does have more compression than a telecine, but still overall you're not going to have a huge difference in absolute resolution. One day when everybody is doing 4K DI's with ArriScan or Northlights, then we can talk about these ideal numbers. But right now movies are going through 2K DI, and in that case, especially if they're scanned on a Spirit 2K or another telecine like a Cintel at 2K, you're not getting a whole lot more spacial resolution than an F900 can give you. Like I said, it's a HD camera in the telecine pointing at a piece of film and scanning that, or a HD camera on the set actually shooting the scene through a lens to tape. When we're talking about HD or 2K telecine's, in the end it's basically an HD camera shooting something, and you're limited to the resolutions that an HD camera can show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted June 14, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 14, 2004 When we're talking about HD or 2K telecine's, in the end it's basically an HD camera shooting something, and you're limited to the resolutions that an HD camera can show. I agree, today the HD camera or the HD telecine is limitation, not the 35mm film negative. No disagreement that a 4K scan is much better than a 2K scan -- just goes to show the detail is on the film negative if you need to get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now