Panavision Genesis

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

If they had licenced that technology they would have no reason not to mention it, unless they have financed some critical advancement of it. Foveon has problems, particularly cross-colour artifacts, which force you into a lot of postprocessing.

 

Phil

[Guest Pete Wright]

My opinion:

 

Reading the patent abstarct, it seems that if they'd use the same amount of R, G & B pixels, they would not have infringed on the patent. They would not have to call it Bayer filter. In a 3-chip camera you don't have more green either.

 

I doubt that Panavision developed the camera. I'm sure Sony developed it with Panavision's input. It is closer to Dalasa, Arri and even the Viper than to F950. It's called CineAlta.

 

I read in another forum that Sony and Panasonic had some behind the scene agreement not to compete against each other in 720p and 1080p. Maybe there is more to it and Sony needed to use another brand so it does not break their agrrement. Note also that Panasonic does not have anything higher in progressive than 720p; JVC HDV is 720p. Sony does not have progressive DV; Panasonic and canon do. Ikegami makes dual 720/1080p cameras; neither Sony nor Panasonic do.

 

I still don't understand what is the big deal about the Genesis besides the point that it has a large chip, better viewfinder, and a huge deck docked into it. The picture will not be any better than that od F950. It's nothing revolutionary to talk about.

 

Pete

[Alvin Pingol]

If they had licenced that technology they would have no reason not to mention it, unless they have financed some critical advancement of it. Foveon has problems, particularly cross-colour artifacts, which force you into a lot of postprocessing.

The Sigma SD9 and SD10 digital SLRs use Foveon X3 technology. You can read about image problems believed to be caused by this chip.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd9/page16.asp

[John Sprung]

The picture will not be any better than that od F950.

The Bayer patent is from 1976, so it expired in 1993. John Pytlak may be able to tell us if there were subsequent relevant patents that are still in effect

 

Genesis, Dalsa, and Arri D-20 are large chip/single chip cameras. Viper, F-900, F-950, and CineAlta are all 2/3" three chip IIRC. That's a big difference.

 

I've seen the pictures from Genesis, it definitely blows that old F-950 away.

 

 

-- J.S.

[Tenolian Bell]

I still don't understand what is the big deal about the Genesis besides the point that it has a large chip, better viewfinder, and a huge deck docked into it. The picture will not be any better than that od F950. It's nothing revolutionary to talk about.

Larger chip, better viewfinder, and a deck docked to the camera are huge improvements over the F950 in themselves.

 

Larger chip allows the camera operator to see wider than camera framing to watch for mics, grip equipment, etc. In addition to more pixels, higher resolution, yadda, yadda.

 

Better viewfinder is no small feat at all. If you've spent time looking through a Panavision optical viewfinder and then have to switch to a black and white video viewfinder. It's the difference between 20/20 vision and placing monochrome gauze over your eyes.

 

A deck docked to the camera is better than tethered by wire to a seperate deck. Way better than tethered by wire to a 150 pound hard drive array that has to be wheeled behind the camera on a cart.

 

Then to top it all all off it uses Panavision's excellent optics. We get to use Panavision primo's and it does make a difference in the image you see on screen. To those that have yet to see footage from the Genesis, all of these improvements do make a difference in comparison to the F-950.

 

It's interesting that there have been a lot of detractor's toward this camera. Maybe the improvements don't mean anything to those with a video background, maybe its only exciting for those with more a film background. Maybe for those with a video background the F-950 is the ultimate camera.

 

I have more a film background than video. To me I'm not all that excited about the F-950, but I would love to get the opportunity to try the Genesis. It serves my needs and what I am accustomed to through form and function far more than the F-950 does.

[Tenolian Bell]

However, I find it much more likely that they simply laid out the RGB filters slightly differently and called it something other than Bayer, thus allowing them to claim "it isn't Bayer."

I would image this is probably what they've done. It's much more probable than them coming up with a whole new way of recording color with CCD's that no one else has thought of.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Point of order:

 

> Then to top it all all off it uses Panavision's excellent optics.

 

It is by far not universally accepted that Panavision's optics are any better than anybody else's. I have only ever played with them for a matter of minutes but even I can see that at least some modern Panavision lenses flare and veil like crazy; I mean, one I saw (and no, I have no idea what it was other than that it said "primo" on the side) veiled worse than my el-cheapo video zoom. I suspect that the unquestioning belief that Panavision makes great glass may have sprung from one or more of the following:

 

- Panavision is an American company. The US is the world centre of high technical quality filmmaking. Americans like to use American gear. Therefore, the best scenes go before Panavision lenses.

- Panavision makes cameras which come in lots and lots of boxes and cases and which require large crews. IATSE approves of this.

- Panavision lenses are sharp. They are apparently more prone to flare than would be considered ideal. Flare and veiling requires lots of people with lots of little black flags after which Panavision lenses look fantastic in all respects. IATSE approves of this, too.

 

From this it could be concluded that Panavision lenses are very good for big budget Hollywood movies. I have a sneaking suspicion that they'd be a pain in the neck for anything else. Comment from more experienced people is of course encouraged...

 

Phil

[John Sprung]

Larger chip allows the camera operator to see wider than camera framing to watch for mics, grip equipment, etc.

My understanding is that every pixel on the chip gets recorded on tape. Perhaps in the future we may see cameras that give us an overview area electronically, but now it's only done optically with the traditional mirror shutter and ground glass, like film cameras do.

 

It would be even better if part of an electronic overview area were recorded on tape. It would eliminate edge artifacts in the active image from various post processes.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

- Panavision makes cameras which come in lots and lots of boxes and cases and which require large crews. IATSE approves of this.

- Panavision lenses are sharp. They are apparently more prone to flare than would be considered ideal. Flare and veiling requires lots of people with lots of little black flags after which Panavision lenses look fantastic in all respects. IATSE approves of this, too.

Sorry, but the IA doesn't have anywhere near that kind of clout. The size of the camera crew and equipment package is always quite small compared with the electrical and grip departments.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

- Panavision makes cameras which come in lots and lots of boxes and cases and which require large crews. IATSE approves of this.

- Panavision lenses are sharp. They are apparently more prone to flare than would be considered ideal. Flare and veiling requires lots of people with lots of little black flags after which Panavision lenses look fantastic in all respects. IATSE approves of this, too.

 

From this it could be concluded that Panavision lenses are very good for big budget Hollywood movies. I have a sneaking suspicion that they'd be a pain in the neck for anything else. Comment from more experienced people is of course encouraged...

 

Phil

Phil-

I have always enjoyed and respected your opinions as it is important to have many which are diverse. But I feel I need to interject here to stop you from spreading fiction.

 

Panavision makes what cinematographers and directors want, period. To say their equipment requires more cases and thus more people, which you also say is IATSE sanctioned, is absurd. As a matter of fact ACs during prep frequently combine equipment into as few cases as possible for easier management. Using your reasoning one would think they call production and tell them they need another AC because there are too many "boxes." IATSE is more interested in fair working conditions than forcing the hand of productions. Perhaps you have them confused with SAG.

 

The glass in the Primos is excellent. You should try shooting with them and compare to others before you set off on a tirade about them being a product of the union. I CAN speak from experience...I use them 90% of the time I shoot film...and this lets me make an educated, and yes subjective, comparison to others. There are more than a few variables to extracting the full performance of a lens. I've used them on everything from high end commercials to no money, no crew (with little black flags), and natural light short films. I do this because I know what I'm going to get...their results are reliable. Of course there are things I would like to see improved (they were designed in the early to mid 80's) but overall they are impressive. I would encourage you to shoot them some time. I don't think you'd be disappointed.

 

Respectfully,

Eric

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

My understanding is that every pixel on the chip gets recorded on tape.

I believe you have confused this with the fact that all the pixles are used, but not recorded to tape. At some point the image is downconverted. There is no way currently to record a 12mp image at 24fps.

[Max Jacoby]

It is by far not universally accepted that Panavision's optics are any better than anybody else's.Phil

 

I have yet to meet a Dop who doesn't like shooting with the Primos. They are state of the art lenses, just like the the Cooke S4s and the Ultraprimes. Dops don't use Primos to do Panavision a favour.

 

 

I suspect that the unquestioning belief that Panavision makes great glass may have sprung from one or more of the following:

 

Oh give it s rest Phil! You are once again insulting film camera crews. Do you really think they enjoy lugging boxes around? Even though the equipment comes in different boxes, everyone always only takes out the necessary, puts it in a set bag and leaves the bloody boxes behind.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> you really think they enjoy lugging boxes around?

 

Yup.

 

Well, not in the UK, no. However on an American set, based on experience of three, there was a definite vibe of "Hmm, we can stretch this out to the next meal break and force them into overtime at the end of the day."

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't know of any crews that want to work LONGER days even with overtime; most of these people have families that they'd like to see now and then. The look of relief on the crew when a film set manages to finish the day in under 12 hours is palpable.

 

Panavision is popular mainly because they are the BIGGEST rental house in Los Angeles. Does it take a genius to figure out that the biggest rental house in Hollywood might be supplying more equipment to productions in Hollywood?

 

You want to make an anamorphic film? Panavision has AT LEAST three times as many anamorphic lens sets than their nearest competitor. Maybe it's more like five to ten times as many. One or two big anamorphic shoots would pretty much wipe out the anamorphic lens inventory at another rental house. At Panavision, they support dozens of anamorphic shoots at a time.

 

Primos are the equivalent of Cooke S4's and Zeiss Ultra Primes. The differences are subtle enough to be a matter of personal taste. Cookes flare less than Primos maybe when directly hit with hard light but flare more when hit with soft light. Maybe - the differences are not enough for me to pick one over the other. Certainly it's ridiculous to think that one uses more flags with Primo lenses -- it's standard practice to flag the lights off of the lens in any movie! It's not like you say to the grips "oh, I'm shooting with Cooke's -- don't worry about lensing that backlight off of my camera please..."

 

Panavision equipment DOES come in more cases generally, yes. Nothing to do with the union. Fundamentally, Panavision has ALWAYS designed their system to be more modular than Arriflex. This concept has its strengths and weaknesses. One advantage is the universality of the support gear across all of their cameras. Another advantage is the ability to teak the support gear for your particular needs. But the disadvantage is that it comes in more cases. On a really large production, that's not really an issue anyway -- you have a lot of gear to deal with even on an Arri shoot.

 

I've shot more of my non-union low-budget 35mm shoots on Panavision equipment than Arri. Why? Mainly because their rental rates have been just as good, if not better, so it's the producers making that decision more than me. I haven't expanded the size of my crews to accomodate Panavision equipment -- and I would if it were really necessary. The large size of Panavision's inventory works to the advantage of the low-budget filmmaker -- they have more gear so they can give your more deals on it. And it's good equipment.

 

Plus Panavision is very supportive and nuture their customer relationships; it doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to figure out that a business that treats its customers well will get more repeat business, does it?

 

I was on the East Coast with my last film and debating whether to go for CSC and an Arri package versus Panavision NYC. I visited both facilities and both were very nice to me. The problem was that CSC would have to subrent the anamorphic lenses needed, at higher costs therefore, plus they were already supporting a large anamorphic shoot in NYC. And I was going to have to rent their new Arricams because their cheaper Moviecam (as a b-camera) does not have an anamorphic viewfinder. I go to Panavision NYC and the first thing they say to me is "We just talked to Bob Harvey in L.A. and he said do whatever you can for David." I basically gave them my list of what I needed, including the anamorphic lenses, and the producers told them how much they had to spend (which was too low for my list) and Panavision said "OK." It was a no-brainer to go with Panavision.

 

As for the crews, it has nothing to do with being in the union and trying to create more work so they can slow down! I don't know of any crew that wants to create more work for itself -- they are judged by HOW FAST THEY CAN WORK. Even on the biggest shoots. Some AC's generally love Panavision gear and some don't. This is based on their experiences working with the gear. They all have their reasons but it's all about the work, not about status. They want the gear to do what it's supposed to do and a rental house that fixes it or replaces it quickly when it doesn't do what it's supposed to do. Some have had better experiences at one rental house versus another and therefore form opinions about one of the other.

[Max Jacoby]

The problem was that CSC would have to subrent the anamorphic lenses needed, at higher costs therefore, plus they were already supporting a large anamorphic shoot in NYC.  And I was going to have to rent their new Arricams because their cheaper Moviecam (as a b-camera) does not have an anamorphic viewfinder. 

What lenses would they have subrented? JDC? Hawks?

 

As far as I know the Moviecam Compact doesn't need an anamorphic finder, since the anamorphic eyepiece does the unsqueezing. On all other cameras (Arricams, 535, 435, Moviecam SL) one needs to change the whole finder.

[David Mullen ASC]

CSC never invested in an anamorphic viewfinder for their Moviecam, or if they did, it was lost and never replaced. Anyway, they are owned by Arri Media, I believe, and pretty much only have the latest Arri and Arricam gear now. I think they keep the Moviecam around just for Tami Riker... Anyway, they told me that their Moviecam Compact could not unsqueeze the image and they'd have to subrent an anamorphic viewfinder for it.

 

Yes, it was down to either getting Hawks from Clairmont or going to JDC. But they kept telling me how Darius Khondji had rented every JDC lens for this scope film in Manhatten ("The Interpreter"? I think Sidney Pollack was directing.)

 

After we got the deal from Panavision, JDC called us directly and said that they would provide the cameras and lenses matching Panavision's bid just so I would have a chance to try out JDC's anamorphic lenses on a feature -- but that did not seem like a good enough reason to turn down Panavision's generous offer. However, maybe someday I'll be trying JDC if Panavision is out of scope lenses...

[Mitch Gross]

Yes, it was "The Interpreter" shooting with all the JDC lenses and it spposedly took a lot of convincing to get Pollack away from the Panavisions. He had always used them until "Out of Africa" because of the lenses David Watkins wanted to use and was really upset by how noisy he found the Arris of the time to be. He complained that he had to loop the entire movie. So Darius must have really had to talk fast in order to gethim to agree to shoot with Arri. Of course the new ArriCams are lightyears away from the BL4s of old and they look mighty Panaflex-esque. And "Training Day" looked pretty darn nice.

[John Sprung]

My understanding is that every pixel on the chip gets recorded on tape. 

I believe you have confused this with the fact that all the pixles are used, but not recorded to tape. At some point the image is downconverted. There is no way currently to record a 12mp image at 24fps.

Yeah, that's what I meant. The whole active area of the chip gets used -- downconverted -- for the final image, there's no "extra" around the outside to let you see what's just out of frame.

 

That overview area is the only remaining justification for optical viewfinders that you have to push your face against. It would be so nice to be able to operate looking at a big bright picture with both eyes and your head free to move a little. That's the way it was with the old parallax BNC finder. This would be even better, because you could put the finder image wherever you want. That little bit of extra comfort adds up to a lot at the end of a week of 16+ hour days.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Max Jacoby]

Yes, it was "The Interpreter" shooting with all the JDC lenses

Do you know if they are using the Cooke or Zeiss lenses?

[David Mullen ASC]

The main advantage to an optical viewfinder is that you are actually looking through the real lens -- judging focus is a LOT easier.

 

The main advantage of an electronic viewfinder is that you are seeing the actual video signal, plus can get a boatload of other info to be displayed, like zebras.

 

It's like what you really want is both, if you are a DP/operator. Otherwise, if your a DP at a monitor with a separate operator at the camera, I can see letting the operator work with an optical viewfinder (except when it is more convenient to work off of an onboard monitor) and getting the eyepiece info over to another monitor.

 

But it's always been a frustration with video cameras that I can't take a peek through the actual lens now and then. Plus most of them have b&w viewfinders, which is pretty unreal sometimes.

[Tenolian Bell]

Yeah, that's what I meant.  The whole active area of the chip gets used -- downconverted -- for the final image, there's no "extra" around the outside to let you see what's just out of frame. 

The Genesis chip is reported to be the size of a super 35 frame which is square. When cropping for 1.77, 1.85, or 2.40 you are not using the entire sensor area. In fact even when shooting 1.33, super 35 doesn't really use the entire film sprocket to sprocket as TV safe. The TV safe is still a bit smaller area. So there should be extra space around the real picture frame with the Genesis sensor.

[John Sprung]

The Genesis chip is reported to be the size of a super 35 frame which is square.

As I understand it, the chip dimensions match the 1.78:1 extraction area of super 35. The full silent or "super" 35 frame is 1.33:1 -- that's where that aspect ratio originated. IIRC, it started with a purchase order from Edison to Eastman Kodak.

 

(I wonder if the next camera will be called "Exodus"? ;-) If so, does that mean they'll stop making film cameras? ;-) )

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Tenolian Bell]

(I wonder if the next camera will be called "Exodus"?  ;-)  If so, does that mean they'll stop making film cameras?  ;-) )

I was told by a Panavision guy the chip was the size of the Super 35mm frame. Super 35 would be a .980 X .735 size chip, a 1.78 extraction of that would be .945 X .531 size chip. So clearly 1.78 is not Super 35. So what you are saying is that Panavision isn't telling the truth.

 

 

Why would Panavision bother investing money in the development and manufacture of the XL2, if it was already planning to stop making film cameras?

[John Sprung]

(I wonder if the next camera will be called "Exodus"?  ;-)  If so, does that mean they'll stop making film cameras?  ;-) )

I was told by a Panavision guy the chip was the size of the Super 35mm frame. Super 35 would be a .980 X .735 size chip, a 1.78 extraction of that would be .945 X .531 size chip. So clearly 1.78 is not Super 35. So what you are saying is that Panavision isn't telling the truth.

 

 

Why would Panavision bother investing money in the development and manufacture of the XL2, if it was already planning to stop making film cameras?

Um, it was just a joke on the word "Exodus" -- A lot of people don't get my jokes.

 

As for the 1.78 thing, I guess it's the difference between simplifying and lying. If they're in the same political party as you, they're simplifying. If they're in the other party, they're lying.... ;-)

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Mike Brennan]

The Genesis sensor is a striped sensor.

RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB

RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB

RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB

RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB RGB

 

 

Not a bayer filtered sensor

RGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRG

GBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGB

RGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRG

GBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGB

RGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRGRG

GBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGB

 

It is pretty easy to see that the signals from the individual Red Green and Blue pixels of the striped ccd sensor are familiar processing territory for Sony. Whereas the bayer filter arrangement requires not insignificant processing to interpolate full colour. Bayer is comparatively unfamiliar territory for Sony in respect to quality motion picture imaging.

 

 

 

The 12 milllion pixels are probably equivelant to about 8 million pixel in a bayer filter in respect of resolution. However there will be no bayer artifacts and full colour resolution with the striped sensor.

 

Panavisions lens range, their recent purchase of a innovative CMOS chip maker and alignment with Accuscene viewfinders could be a pointer to where they are going.

 

The Genesis was made under the DHD Ventures organisation, a company incoporated in Delaware. (A bit like an offshore company?) Sony and Panavision are equal share holders, it doesn't appear to have any assetss ect just a paper company to get around various US laws, not anything underhand, standard buisness practice.

 

Although Sony own 15% of Panavision billionare Ron Perleman owns the rest!

Both Panavision and Sony would have exit strategies. Panavision by using chips from their new company PanavisionPSV.

 

With Panavision having 85% of the film market (their figures) and their own lenses and a deal with Accuscene viewfinders and Arri building their digital camera then Sony need a lens manufacturer to support any future independent foraye into large single chip imaging. Fujinons recent annoucment that their super zoom HD lens is now available for 35mm film cameras could be a indication where Sony are hedging their bets.

 

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?

 

The sums are not enormous, Sony paid $10million for the 15% stake in Panavision.

 

I'm told by a buisness analyist that they have spent $100s millions developing HD cameras and editing. They could buy Panavision tomorrow if they felt they needed too.

But don't be surprised to see Panavision spread their wings. They have a good brand name.

Their recent 300x lens is now being marketed by a TV company! Watch out Canon!

 

Who knows how long before we see a Panavision branded consmuer cam!

 

 

 

 

Mike Brennan