Panavision Genesis

Mike Brennan · July 17, 2004

"Panavision by using chips from their new company PanavisionPSV."

Opps should read PanavisionSVI

Mike Brennan

Max Jacoby · July 17, 2004

With Panavision having 85% of the film market (their figures)

That doesn't sound very believable, even if they are just talking about the US. It certainly isn't the case in Europe.

David Mullen ASC · July 17, 2004

It sounds too high, but maybe if you consider that Panavision is the biggest supplier of cameras to multi-camera sitcoms shot in the U.S., the high rental figure may make sense. But of course, once you leave Los Angeles, the percentage would obviously be much lower. On the East Coast, I had a sense that it was more like 50-50 between Panavision and Arriflex for the 35mm rental market. In the U.K., I wouldn't be surprised if it were more like 70% Arri / 30% Panavision (again, I'm only talking about the 35mm rental market, not S16 and not self-ownership.)

Sounds like the Dalsa with its 8MP sensor with a Bayer filter is probably similar in final resolution to the Genesis with its 12MP striped filter (ignoring that the Genesis is currently recording HD resolution only.)

I think we'll see a day where Arri and Panavision both have a digital versions of their 35mm cameras -- the D20 and the Genesis are signs that is happening. I think they'll only be buying parts from companies like Sony. With cameras like the Kinetta and the Dalsa, we may see smaller companies competing in the movie camera market rather than have Sony dominate -- Sony may just end up staying with the broadcast video market. Movie cameras aren't really much of a profit-maker anyway -- only a few hundred are ever produced a year, compared to thousands of video cameras.

Mitch Gross · July 17, 2004

On the East Coast, I had a sense that it was more like 50-50 between Panavision and Arriflex for the 35mm rental market. In the U.K., I wouldn't be surprised if it were more like 70% Arri / 30% Panavision (again, I'm only talking about the 35mm rental market, not S16 and not self-ownership.)

I think I'd put it more like 60/40 in favor of Arri. here's just much more available. Panavision NY is tiny compared to LA.

Phil Rhodes · July 17, 2004

Hi,

I've never seen a single Panavision camera in use in the UK. All Arri.

Phil

Brad Grimmett · July 18, 2004

I think I'd put it more like 60/40 in favor of Arri. here's just much more available. Panavision NY is tiny compared to LA.

That may be true in NY, but it wasn't true when I was in FL. The vast majority of jobs used Panavision. And if they used Arri or Moviecam most of the time the gear still came from Panavision. Of course, one big reason for that is that Panavision is the only rental house in Orlando. But most jobs that I worked on in Miami and Tampa also used Panavision the majority of the time. People from Miami may have a different view of this since they worked down there much more than I did. I know Cinevideotech does well in Miami, so there must be plenty of jobs using Arri gear down there.

David Mullen ASC · July 18, 2004

>I've never seen a single Panavision camera in use in the UK. All Arri.

Then why are you always complaining about Panavision's dominence when you see evidence to the contrary right before your eyes?

Mike Brennan · July 18, 2004

Hold your horses while I'll get that % figure in writing,

I'll stand to lose my Arri discount otherwise:)

Mike Brennan

georg lamshöft · July 18, 2004

Arri is working on their own digital camera:

http://www.arri.de/infodown/news/0404_e.pdf

It uses a 6MPixel-CMOS-sensor developed by the frauenhofer institut which is already used in the arriscan. But as far as I know Arri has the opinion that film is still better than any current digital technology.

Mike Brennan · July 18, 2004

Here are more specific details of Panavision market share, this time from Morning Star

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Stock/Com...ocktab=snapshot

"Panavision manufactures high-precision camera systems, comprising specialty cameras, lenses, and accessories for the motion picture and television industries. The company's camera systems are not available for sale and are rented exclusively through the domestic and international facilities the firm operates and its agent network. Panavision's market share includes 71% of the major studio feature films and 86% of the episodic television programs made in North America as well as 49% of the independent feature film market."

Mike Brennan

Phil Rhodes · July 18, 2004

Hi,

> Then why are you always complaining about Panavision's dominence when you

> see evidence to the contrary right before your eyes?

Because practically all the films that I actually get to see were shot on Panavision gear, because practically all the films that I actually get to see were shot in the US.

And I wasn't aware of having always complained about them being dominant.

Phil

Tenolian Bell · July 18, 2004

But Phil you do make it sound like Panavision is a juggernaut to the film industry holding the little guy down. Panavison actually will rent to the little guy as well as the big guy. Most of the larger films over the last 20 years or so have all been lensed on Panavision. And that is due more to the fact that Panavision supplies a great product. There are lots of options of camera manufactuers to choose from there is a reason Panavisionis chosen.

This is the same reason why today many of the bigger films are going to Arri. Arri created a great product in the Arricam, it is being well recieved and used.

Tenolian Bell · July 18, 2004

As I wrote earlier, this isn't the killer camera. Question is will the killer camera have a Panavision badge or a Sony badge.

Longer term question, is their room for Panavision, Arri and Sony in the digital high end?

Right, with the way things are going the killer digital camera will need to record 4000 lines of unfiltered RGB at 16 bit linear signal that has a high dymanic range from shadows to highlights, onto a compact protable storage device, using media that can be recovered hundreds of years later.

Actually I don't quite understand why Sony, Panasonic, Thomson, Dalsa and the like are willing to put up so much money to get into the world of cinema. Because of it being a relatively expensive but small niche. Is it just the prestige of Hollywood?

I guess when I think about it Sony really was trying to have it both ways. They wanted to construct a broadcast style camera that could double as a cine camera. That way they cover all markets.

I think of this group Panavision and Arri are probably the real innovators. Because they deal exclusively with the cinema niche market and are constantly adding and changing their products to fit the needs of that market. Very few companies deal with or supply the needs for physical photochemical film. So all of their ideas are largely their own.

From what I hear Sony doesn't so much innovate but borrow a lot from other engineers and scientists.