Panavision Genesis

[Max Jacoby]

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.

So what?

 

Even if they can't consciously make out a difference doesn't mean that they don't feel this difference subconscioulsy. I think the audience deserves a bit respect than your statment implies.

 

Otherwise they would have given up on scratched, grainy and wobbly film presentation years ago.

 

Here we go again...

 

I am really sick and tired of peple always complaining about how bad film projection is. The vast majority of theatres I have been to offer a very good to excellent viewing experience. The root of bad projection is not that it is film that is being projected, but the projectionist is to blame. If you think that will go away with digital projection, think again.

[Max Jacoby]

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.

My point all along. I don't think that DI is ready yet, despite what everyone says.

 

But most films are still done photochemically so I don't think your argument is valid here. By the time the majority of films will be using DI, 4K will be the standard. Hopefully that will be good enough.

[Christian Appelt]

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

 

I agree with that. The few times I saw new 35mm prints struck from original Camera Negative (on studio prints), I was really surprised how good even 1950s Eastman Color could look. Of course, this quality died when you got to see Eastman prints from older dupe stocks on foreign markets, because the old dupe process looked really bad. Some of my favourite films like BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI I never saw except in yellowish, grainy prints, the only exception were releases in Technicolor Dye Transfer or classic 70mm prints (because they were done from OCN).

 

I feel sad about all those classics being gone on film, I wish they would make new dupe negatives with today's dupe stocks that can capture all the OCN's quality. DVD is no substitute for that.

 

When I see again vintage film prints from the 1970s, I am often shocked about the lack of craftsmanship in mainstream cinematography.

On the contrary, many silly 1970s exploitation-type films look almost "classic" today because they were shot according to the old rules and standards of industrial or non-theatrical filmmaking, meaning the camera is steady, picture looks bright and sharp and there's no abuse of zooming or nonstandard treatment of the negative (like pushing, overexposure to "destroy colors", heavy diffusion, Chem-Toning or whatever was in fashion back then) .

 

So it's, as always, not only the tool, but the use we make of it...

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

ummmm people, I think we're getting a bit off topic now. Remember this is a thread for the Genesis camera and it's technology. It makes it easier to search for and organize discussions if the posts try and stick to the topic.

 

Not trying to be an A-hole.

[Filip Plesha]

It is funny how some people seem to think that no matter what you do

in the intermediate process the resolution in the print is less than 2K.

It's almost as if they think that print stock is not able to resolve more.

 

In fact, print stock is very fine grain, very slow film with resolution greater than

most camera negatives. It can capture a lot more than 4K. The resolution loss is relative, not absolute, it's not like, no matter what your source is, the resolution is going to end up being about 2K. No. The end resolution depends on your original source. IF the source is an ultra sharp 65mm negative and the blow-down is done

at the internegative stage (for example), the resolution is probably going to be

more like 3K in the print. On the other hand. If your original source was a 1440 pixel wide fuzzy f900 image, and you print it to a negative and then to a print, you will end up with 1K resolution, not 1.5K as you started. You should start with

an original as sharp and hi-res as possible to bet better results in the prints.

 

The asumption that a print will show about 2K resolution under good conditions is based upon the standard 35mm model of shooting. If you shoot at 1440 pixels

you will loose resolution and end up with even softer images. You will only get 2K

resolution in prints if you start of with a higher resolution original.

 

And what is all that thing about "good enough for audience". You can be sure that at least 10% of people in that audience will have the same visual consciousce (and i dare to say natural gift) that cinematographers have. What will you do with those people. Some people come to cinema to watch cinematography. Think of all the photographers in the world (not everone with visual talent is a cinematographer).

It's not like only cinematographers can really SEE.

And even if nobody cares about the difference. Well then why the hell are cinematographers here for? Why do they choose the film stock or digital cameras

just for little subtle changes in style and look? Nobody sees that you may say.

Then it is a waste of money. Why all the filters, nets, diffusers, lights etc etc.?

Even though people might not see those sublte changes. DP's still use all the tools they want.

 

There is always someone in the audience that will care for good cinematography.

You can not generalize. Films should be either art or good entertainment, not an exploatation of public. Its almost like the policy is to sell as few pixels as you can, trick the audience, the mindless, ignorant masses that are only here so studios can profit from them. This is serious dehumanization.

 

Perhaps some (and I do mean SOME) people will not mind for the lack of resolution in cinemas, but they will certainly be happier if you give them more resolution.

 

From that same mentality came the idea that digital cinema should be 2K only because current prints are close to 2K in resolution. Digital cinema should provide

better image than we have now, and by that show a reason for their existence as a replacement for film.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I would expect a camera looking at a real scene to produce a better image than one looking at a 35mm film frame of that scene.

 

Phil

[Jason Rodriguez]

Hmm, these are all really great arguments.

 

You know what, let's just go back to when film was film and there wasn't all this griping about "progress" in whatever form not being good enough to what's currently in use.

 

The epitomie of film: Black and White Silents :)

 

After that it's been nothing but griping. "Sound's not ready", "sound's not good enough", "No one needs color", "I like Technicolor more", "digital's not good enough", etc., etc.

 

Do you guys realize that if you rip out an American Cinematographer (and I have one btw) from the mid 30's you're going to hear the same arguments about the transition from black and white to color, or silents to sound as you're hearing right now towards the digital transition. And guess what we're shooting on now??

[Max Jacoby]

Do you guys realize that if you rip out an American Cinematographer (and I have one btw) from the mid 30's you're going to hear the same arguments about the transition from black and white to color, or silents to sound as you're hearing right now towards the digital transition.  And guess what we're shooting on now??

I think you are missing the point here. This is not about resisting progress, but about making sure that newly developed tools offer an improvement over existing technology. Compared to film HD is a setp down the ladder and you know that very well.

[Mike Brennan]

"Even if they can't consciously make out a difference doesn't mean that they don't feel this difference subconscioulsy."

 

 

That is your opinion. But where is the study that says HD origination imparts a different feeling on the audience? Steven Poster and I have been calling out for such a study for years. Maybe it is a more powerful feeling maybe not!

It is interesting that Screen Digest reports that cinema owners record higher takings for digital screenings than the same film screened on film.

 

"I think the audience deserves a bit respect than your statment implies."

I do not concur.

 

"Here we go again...

I am really sick and tired of peple always complaining about how bad film projection is."

 

 

I am more interested in exploring the difference between HDCAM origination and film, so I am outling typical image quality/artifacts where the slight softnening of HDCAM transferred to film, when seen in amongst the scrathes grain and wobble is not an issue to the audience. Since the discussion is about HDCAM transferred to film then the HDCAM print suffers the same fate as the film originated movies, scratches wobble and grain.

 

"The vast majority of theatres I have been to offer a very good to excellent viewing experience."

 

Ok then HDCAM transfered to film will look very good to excellent for the audience in these theatres.

 

"The root of bad projection is not that it is film that is being projected, but the projectionist is to blame."

 

Good point, the industry has treated the audience with disrespect for decades, they deserve better! But you miss my point, that there are many issues with film projection, HDcam gets rid of one layer of grain and wobble and replaces it with a slightly softer picture with less colour pallette.

 

"If you think that will go away with digital projection, think again."

 

I didn't say digital projection would be fault free.

 

I am refering to your original comment and suggesting that what you see as slightly soft HDCAM transferred to film actually has no obvious effect on the audience.

 

Not even top DPs can tell the difference so I am reliably informed by those undertaking digital cinema and HD to film tests around the world.

 

No obvious effect.

4K projection will raise the bar for both film and digital workflows.

 

 

Mike Brennan

 

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Mike Brennan]

"I think you are missing the point here. This is not about resisting progress, but about making sure that newly developed tools offer an improvement over existing technology. Compared to film HD is a setp down the ladder and you know that very well."

 

So all HD origination is a "step down" what particular ladder???

Filmaking has many snakes and ladders so to be selective is nonsense, a mis service to the budget and ultimatly to the audience.

 

On some budgets some genres, compared to film HD enables the producer to deliver a better movie.

On some budgets some genres, compared to HD film enables the producer to deliver a better movie.

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Mike Brennan]

John P wrote

 

"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.'

 

Agreed.

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Jason Rodriguez]

So, changing the topic here a bit, what do you guys think the availability of this thing will be when it comes out? Will it be reserved for the highest-budget, high-profile 35mm projects, or do you think it'll mainly be an indie tool for a while (I hope indies/commerical productions can get it, cause that's where I'm at)? Also price point: so exhorbantly high that you might as well shoot 35, or relatively less expensive, i.e., about the same cost as an F950/Viper for daily rental?

[Max Jacoby]

I am refering to your original comment and suggesting that what you see as slightly soft HDCAM transferred to film actually has no obvious effect on the audience.

 

Not even top DPs can tell the difference so I am reliably informed by those undertaking digital cinema and HD to film tests around the world.

Are you serioulsy suggesting that 'top dops' can't see the difference between hdcam and film?

 

 

So all HD origination is a "step down" what particular ladder???

 

I am talking about a step down the picture quality ladder, as you know very well. Picture as in 'image' not 'movie'.

[Jason Rodriguez]

If you are saying that the "top of the ladder" (for most practical production) is 35mm, then I'd agree with you. If you are saying that "top of the ladder" includes any film, including S16, then I'd have to respectfully disagree. While well-shot S16 on a 35mm blow-up can look good, I don't think it looks better than well shot and color-corrected (this is an important step in any shooting chain) HDCAM blown up to 35mm.

[Max Jacoby]

While well-shot S16 on a 35mm blow-up can look good, I don't think it looks better than well shot and color-corrected (this is an important step in any shooting chain) HDCAM blown up to 35mm.

Jason,

 

What are in your opinion the best looking films shot on hdcam that you have seen?

 

I must admit I am a bit surprised by your statment, because I don't think anyone questions that Super16 has better latitude and color depth than hdcam. That leaves us with sharpness and grain. Recently at a lab where I was grading my film they showed me a reel of a film shot on Super16 Cinemascope and blown up to 35mm anamorphic and I must say I was extemely impressed by the sharpness of that. And that was shot on 74, not on the new Vision2 stocks. Only on wide shots could you notice that it didn't quite have the crispness of 35mm. It certainly looked sharper than any hdcam film I have seen so far.

 

I know it's a bit of a crapshot to compare different formats through different films, but unfortunately I haven't yet seen a side by side comparison.

[Jason Rodriguez]

Yes,

 

S16 does win out in the lattitude and color-depth categories, but I find the grain distracting. BTW, I'll have to admit that most of my experience is with TV, and there I've definitely found HDCAM to trump S16, both transfered to digibeta. Of course once you start clipping highlights in HDCAM, things start looking bad.

 

I'm not saying that S16 can't look good, just that I find HDCAM to look cleaner and sharper, but I guess for me, sharper goes hand-in-hand with cleaner.

 

For example, I have DPX files that were scanned from film, and I have HDCAM frames. The HDCAM frames look much sharper/crisper than the film. You can say that the crispness is edge enhancement, but I don't think that's the case (especially when the stuff I shoot has detail turned off). It's just that things look cleaner, that I'm seeing low-contrast detail (not necessarily edge detail) that the film grain softened and masked over. Whether that "window-like" cleaness is desirable or not is a matter of aesthetic opinion.

 

Films in HDCAM that I like?

 

Well, you're probably going to shoot me for this one, but I didn't think SW EPII looked bad. Yes, there were some parts that I noticed noise in the shadows, etc. but overall I was impressed. Once Upon a Time in Mexico looked pretty good to me as well as scenes I've seen from Jackpot. The dreams projects that I saw this past NAB at the Sony screening (which was in HD) looked very nice. Then of course there's stuff that I've shot, which I find look better than many other projects that my friends/co-workers have done on film.

 

Now ultimately the best stuff I've seen was shot on film. Not going to argue with that, but then most of that was 35mm origination, not S16. And I've found with using the CvpFileEditor gamma curves you can get a very nice highlight roll-off in the Cinealta that cushions the clipping that can occur, giving highlights a very nice film-like appearance.

 

The cool thing now is that the Genesis is here, and from what we've heard so far, it's bascially indistinguishable from 35mm film, and uses a menu system close to the F900. Hopefully it won't be too expensive, at least reasonable for mortals like me :)

[Filip Plesha]

It's all about taste.

 

I think that one of the great things about digital cinema projection is that it will be a good clean, visually "objective" platofrm on wich you can show whatever you like.

If you like clean images you can use digital cameras and if you wan't grain you can use 16mm or 35mm. Film projection leaves a special "film charm" even on digital footage, and i think this is something that some people like Jason don't really want in every case.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Jason: You really need to try some of the VISION2 films in Super-16. They've "raised the bar" on the quality you can get for that flexible format:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why/?id=0.1.4.3&lc=en

[Max Jacoby]

S16 does win out in the lattitude and color-depth categories, but I find the grain distracting.

Personally I don't mind grain, I like the texture it adds, if appropriate for the look of the film. Just take the films of Wong Kar Wai or 'Eyes Wide Shut' (which I think look stunning) But that is only for film projection, when transfered to video I see your point about it becoming distracting. Grain doesn't translate well into video and Mpeg encoding has even bigger problems with it.

[Max Jacoby]

Film projection leaves a special "film charm" even on digital footage, and i think this is something that some people like Jason don't really want in every case.

But I for one like that and will be sad to see it go.

 

I also like the look of laserdiscs better than dvds. How horribly old-school-analog I am :ph34r:

[Filip Plesha]

The only "charm" that will go away is unsteady image, loss of resolution from optical copying and more grain than there was in the negative. Film look will be there because you will be seing the scans of the original negatives, the grain will be there because it is in the negative allso. And remember, the color deph will be 12-bit so it will look quite nice. Film still has it's charm, even on sd 8-bit video. Imagine how much better it will look on 12-bit data files (hope you had the time to read the DCI draft of the future specifications)

[Guest Pete Wright]

Hey guys,

 

I have some questions.

 

Mike said that Sony owns Panavision. Is that true?

 

Except for more shallow depth of field there will not be difference between F950 and the Genesis. Why all the fuss about the camera? Does it do Cinemascope aspect ratio?

 

F950 requires separate MPEG4 processor to record to the portable recorder. Where is the MPEG4 processor with the recorder docked into the Genesis?

 

You discussed depth of field. Someone said that doubling frame size (diagonal?) will have the same effect as as opening lens 2 f-stops. Is that right?

 

How much does depth of field change with each stop?

 

Are 35 mm lenses for the Genesis as fast as HD primes?

 

Pete

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I agree about the "film charm" thing - agree that it's there, and that it's not always desirable.

 

I really love the way "Swordfish" looks on the region 2 DVD because it has absolutely minimal film artifacts, such as dirt, grain, and unsteadiness. It had a quality that I've always thought of as "just picture," with no side to it, nothing to take away or distract from the image. Now this example proves that the "just picture" can be achieved on film, but in this case by massively oversampling. Most DVDs have visible grain, if only because it kicks off the MPEG-2 compression.

 

Film almost never achieves "just picture." There's always dirt grain and unsteadiness. Some of the best-looking video I've seen was on a particularly good (the very zenith of the range, actually) on a giant LED screen at NAB. From the proper viewing distance for such a large screen, with the incredible intensity and saturation of the LED source, it was incredible. I found out that the feed was HDCAM (shot on HDCAM) and it was like a window cut out of reality, through which another reality was visible. It was very slightly soft but that doesn't bother me; at sufficient distance it wasn't enormously softer than projected 35mm and with far fewer other artifacts.

 

This has turned into a bit of a reminiscence, but hopefully it does make clear what I like about the digital image, which is clearly hard to do on film.

 

Phil

[John Pytlak RIP]

It was very slightly soft but that doesn't bother me; at sufficient distance it wasn't enormously softer than projected 35mm

 

Although standard SMPTE 196M recommends a viewing distance of 2 to 4 times the image height, many modern theatre designs put seats very close to the screen, so in busy times, the audience may be forced to sit much closer than 2 image heights.

 

Even NTSC video looks okay if you sit far enough from the screen. :rolleyes:

 

I normally prefer to sit 2 image heights from the screen, which is well supported by well-exposed 35mm film, and "film done right" presentation quality by the theatre. For example, SMPTE Engineering Guideline EG5 specifies that theatres with large appearing screens achieve at least 80 line PAIRS per millimeter in the center of the screen, 56 at the sides, and 48 in the corners. Given that the width of a 35mm print film frame is 21 millimeters, you can do the math as to what resolution is specified (hint, it's much greater than 2K).

[Max Jacoby]

I normally prefer to sit 2 image heights from the screen, which is well supported by well-exposed 35mm film, and "film done right" presentation quality by the theatre.

I always try to sit 2.7 image height from the screen. That way the vertical viewing angle is 21 degrees, which equals the vertical viewing angle of a 'normal' lens (40mm anamorphic, 50mm spherical 1.33, 32mm 1.85, etc...). I find that to be the most comfortable and neutral distance.