Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted June 16, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 16, 2004 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? That depends if your number of pixels in the sensor stays the same. If it does, then the pixels will be four times bigger, making them faster as well. If on the other hand you keep the pixel size the same, but put more of them on a bigger sensor, then the speed will remain the same, with the added drawback of less depth of field. Are 35 mm lenses for the Genesis as fast as HD primes? Since you can put any PV mount lenses on this camera, you will have a huge choice of lenses, from sperical to anamophic. The speed goes from the 50mmT1.0 spherical and the 50mm T1.1 anamorphic upwards. What about PL mount lenses though? Can those easily be fitted to this camera or did Panavision try to monopolize the market again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Are you serioulsy suggesting that 'top dops' can't see the difference between hdcam and film? Thats what I wrote. HDCAM transferred to film. Or HDCAM and film transferred to HDCAM viewed on big screen or HD monitor as experienced at post houses, transfer houses, camera tests ect. SOmer of the loadest mouths in the world come unstuck! I am talking about a step down the picture quality ladder, as you know very well. Picture as in 'image' not 'movie'. No max I don't know very well thats why I asked for clarification as some readers may think you mean that filmakers who choose HD will end up with a lower quality movie than if they had chosen film. Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Are you serious Mike? How do you explain then that the audience sees the difference in projection prints and as you say DP's don't. I think it should be the other way around. Not to mention that a release print would hide a lot of differences that a studio answer print would not. Even my mother said that there was something funny about episode2, not like other films (yes, even old people go to see star wars) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 "Mike said that Sony owns Panavision. Is that true?" I hope I wrote that Sony owns part of Panavision. "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?" Too early to tell what the difference will be other than shallower depth of field. If you put scope lenses on it should. "F950 requires separate MPEG4 processor to record to the portable recorder. Where is the MPEG4 processor with the recorder docked into the Genesis?" Its that big lump bolted to the back (can be removed) The recorder does not work without the processor. Sony list them as seperate items to make the system look less expensive:) No, I'm being cynical, apparently you can daisy chain two recorders from the one processor so they list the prices individually. Last years pricing was $55k for the recorder and $15k for the processor but don't quote me on this. Maybe we could expect a 2/3 inch camcorder with inbuilt SR MPEG processor that could take the srw1 recorder as a dockable. The xdcam camcorder (inbuilt mpeg encoder) runs very hot so heat would be a big issue for HD. How much does depth of field change with each stop? Difficult question to answer, get a depth of field calculator or try playing with a HD camera and monitor. Depth of field on HD at T2.1 for typical head and shoulders at 4 feet camera subject distance is 4 inches, at T1.8 it is two inches. Hd detail is always on so ther is an artificial sharpening of all of the picture, this creates a less snappy seperation from the background on all but longfocal lenghts. "Are 35 mm lenses for the Genesis as fast as HD primes?" The fast 35mm primes are faster. The prism in 3ccd sytems limits max aperture to around 1.6. However longer zoom ratio lenses are available for 2/3 inch than 35mm. A 21x is no big deal for 2/3 inch but a head ache and back ache for 35mm. Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted June 16, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 16, 2004 Are you serioulsy suggesting that 'top dops' can't see the difference between hdcam and film? Thats what I wrote. HDCAM transferred to film. Or HDCAM and film transferred to HDCAM viewed on big screen or HD monitor as experienced at post houses, transfer houses, camera tests ect. SOmer of the loadest mouths in the world come unstuck! If they can't see the very obvious difference between film and hdcam, then I would hardly call them 'top dops'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 If they can't see the very obvious difference between film and hdcam, then I would hardly call them 'top dops'... Are you doubting that I don't know what a top DOP is? Rather than put down my comment by assuming it can't be try you would do better braodening your outlook max! When is the last time you watched a comparison between 35mm and HD transferred to film and were not told in advance which shots were HD and which were film? It is very difficult to spot HD transferred to film unless it is split screen. It gives me an oportunity to repeatmyself that top DPs have been fooled by watching HD transferred to film. HDCAM at that. I get the kind of feedback from these tests that doesn't get printed in ASC mags! Having said that there is a lot of agreement with the new genisis camera v film test that the test became very confusing with film and hd being intercut it was imposible for most to tell the difference. Mike Brennan Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Even my mother said that there was something funny about episode2, not like other films (yes, even old people go to see star wars) Hmm star wars, shot with a camera for the first few weeks that had no auto black balance or black balance memory. Some portions soft due to backfocus errors, some of the best and worst keying I've ever seen. They were learning as they went along. Scope image extracted from 16 x 9 did not help either. Mark 1 camera, now we are on mark 3. This really was day one of HD to film. Every HD production has the potential to be superior quality to Star Wars. I've been involved with $20m and $300k productions where the film out looks better than swaotc.Techniques and equipment are improving. Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted June 17, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 17, 2004 It is very difficult to spot HD transferred to film unless it is split screen. Thanks. I take that as a compliment, since I for one have never problems spotting HD transferred to film. Hell I can even spot whether a film went through a digital intermediate or not. So I must have some ability that your 'top dops' lack... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Mike, when I say that even my mother thought something is different, i didn't mean resolution. I ment the look of it. The "plastic" skin, the different colors (more-video, more cartoonish) etc. There is an obvious difference in resolution too, but it is not that bad for smaller screens, it is watchable. And a lot of people wouldn't mind this softness. (well I do) but it is as if film looks more real, more organic, as you can touch the things on screen. This is what poeple notice, more people than you think.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 a good colorist at a top house in NY is not $120 an hour, they're at least $1,000/hr. on second shift. WHAT??? I just noticed this..... I've had transfers from several post houses in NY, and have never paid $1,000 an hour. If all of the top colorist charge this for every job, they'd be sitting around doing nothing much of the time. They do cut deals and if you become friends with them they will do you favors because they recognize you are a client and they want to build a working relationship with you. Top colorists know they can charge their top rate to a Hummer commercial, they also know a short film cannot handle their top rate, but they still want to work, and build a working relationship with DP's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 I've been involved with $20m and $300k productions where the film out looks better than swaotc.Techniques and equipment are improving. Mike Brennan Me too, > $300k) Then again I saw S16 "Monsoon Wedding" on the same screen as SWAOTC, way better & sharper. *Optical*" blowup (mostly) but by.... Swiss Effects. I think we CAN agree Swiss Effects knows their craft ! -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Rodriguez Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 That $1,000 is ballpark for a supervised HD transfer (at least these are the types of figures I'm getting quoted). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 You know, the supervised HD transfer would occur only at the end of the process, hence you would have 3-4 hours, maybe 8 if you're not prepared. It's not this huge expense. Your initial run would be low-def one-light for editing, if you even edit on video. (some folk still edit using workprints on an editing table) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 "Then again I saw S16 "Monsoon Wedding" on the same screen as SWAOTC, way better & sharper. *Optical*" blowup (mostly) but by.... Swiss Effects." It would have been interesting to see what they would have done with SWAOTC. But I doubt that they would have been able to fix some of the camera and lens issues. Saw a transfer a few weeks ago by a Mexican post house of a film I've been working on and was stunned at the high quality. Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Raising Victor Vargas looked really good projected also. Very sharp. I don't know its exact post flow, but I'm sure it was an optical blow up. I spoke to the DP about a year and a half ago, if memory serves I believe he said he shot it on 7274. We need to dispel the S16 too much grain myth. 7289 and 7212 are both S16 but look very different projected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted June 18, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 18, 2004 The Kodak VISION2 films certainly offer new opportunities for Super-16 production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Bill Totolo Posted June 18, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 18, 2004 John, I just wanted to mention that the latest demo's of Kodak's film stocks are really gorgeous. I like the whole packet as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted June 18, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 18, 2004 Thank you! Better yet, there are more Kodak VISION2 films on the way. B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 John, Is Kodak planing to make a vision2 50D film stock? (I mean for sunlight, even 50 ISO is too fast if you want to pull the most out of your lenses (not use too small apertures), therefore there is always a need for a very slow film stock) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Panczenko Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Yeah, I would love to see some Vision2 daylight stuff come out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted June 19, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 19, 2004 Time will tell. Not me. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 "John, Is Kodak planing to make a vision2 50D film stock?" Chaps, can we move this Kodak Q and A about film stocks to another forum, this thread is about the Panavision Genesis :) Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 If you can filter the irrelevant posts this HD forum is worth reading, someone posted this in March.... "The SRW1 4:4:4 recorder is probably designed to record a (compressed) 4k image from the next camera. Now we are talking!" The price of the srw1 is apparently been significantly reduced from the $80k mooted last year. $55k including processor is now rumoured. (hardly a bargain!) Anyone had firm prices in the states? Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted July 1, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted July 1, 2004 > If they can't see the very obvious difference between film and hdcam, then I would hardly call them 'top dops'... Prior to the Genesis camera, it has always been relatively easy to tell what was shot HD and what was film, even when the film was transferred with the objective of making things match. This latest test I saw at CineGear is the first time that I really couldn't tell, I tried to guess, and guessed wrong. By far the biggest difference between them was on the falling dominoes. The Genesis operator let them fall quickly out of a lockoff shot. The film operator made a quick tilt to catch them bouncing around on the tabletop. Some people have noted the slight difference in color on the purple flowers. This really doesn't mean much, since both elements went thru digital color correction. They could probably go back to cc and make them match better. The flowers were well within the color gamut of both systems. Likewise for the even smaller differences in highlight and shadow detail, there is no sane reason to prefer one over the other based on dynamic range. Trying for an even more perfect match would only be a pointless engineering exercise. As for the film being "dumbed down" to match Genesis, I doubt it. It doesn't look that way to me. These tests were shot and timed by Allen Daviau. I've met him before this, and we talked about other digital cameras. My impression is that he's an honest guy who'll tell you the pros and cons as he sees them. IMHO, Genesis is a significant step forward in cinematograpic technology, on the order of the first postwar Arriflexes 50 years ago or the first Panaflexes 30 years ago. It renders all three chip cameras as obsolete as three strip technicolor. It puts 2/3" cameras out of the running for anything but low budget productions. The Panavision and Sony people have really done themselves proud on this one. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pete Wright Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Sorry, I must disagree. The main difference between this camera and F950 is a larger CCD chip = shallower DOF. No major breakthrough. Does anyone know if you could use the new Sony SRW1 with The Viper? Pete 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