How about some civility on this forum?

[Guest razerfish]

What's with all the vitriol by a few members? Do they also attack the Kodak guys whenever they post?

 

Why so many nasty personal attacks? It's like a silly turf war or something.

 

How about if you can't be civil, go play on a different board. I'm interested in hearing Jim's thoughts and don't appreciate a few crackpots doing their best to run him off. Being a skeptic in one thing; being a jerk is another. Why can't the guy be afforded some basic decency here?

 

And Jim Murdoch, are you against all things high def? First you were fixated on Panavision, now RED. Is it your absolute goal to run the CEO of RED off? Is there a chance you could give it a break, and maybe not ruin it for the rest of us that are interested in what the guy has to say?

[Emanuel A Guedes]

I agree.

[Guest razerfish]

I agree.

 

How about we also try not to kiss Jim's ass either. That, to me, is about as bad the nasty insults a few like to hurl. How bout we keep it in the middle? No fawning all over him [i don't care if he's a billionaire bla bla bla] or insulting him for no reason. Is that so hard?

[Emanuel A Guedes]

How about we also try not to kiss Jim's ass either. That, to me, is about as bad the nasty insults a few like to hurl. How bout we keep it in the middle? No fawning all over him [i don't care if he's a billionaire bla bla bla] or insulting him for no reason. Is that so hard?

I also partially agree with your point just because with some people it seems that it's a crime. But for sure there are reasons that came before my first post here. If you will do a research it's easy to confirm.

 

As matter of fact, because I'm used to read a lot of respectful posts @dvxuser.com or @dvinfo.net (where this sort of conduct isn't tolerated with any one -- billionaire or not), it was a surprise.

 

But if you are thinking this hate is recent or after my posts, you are wrong. They were a reaction. Maybe considering my style -- we don't have all the same record, right? Otherwise, the english is not my native language and it's not so easy to say the things as you are saying.

 

Besides, I can't be in the middle because I invested $1,000 of my money in this project doing one reservation -- that's all!

 

__

Edited May 12, 2006 by Emanuel

[Josh Bass]

Many of the attacks come from people who don't use real names. Just sayin. Not all, but many.

[Emanuel A Guedes]

Many of the attacks come from people who don't use real names. Just sayin. Not all, but many.

I believe but others are following the river. And if the water is going in that particular direction, they are going even forward.

 

In the beginning I saw Jim alone fighting alone against this army... :lol: ...it wasn't fair.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

And Jim Murdoch, are you against all things high def?

 

Certainly not. What I'm against is people trying to pass off cheap beer as vintage champagne. I've been having essentially the same argument for at least two decades: over-hyped equipment that either never comes anywhere near living up to what was claimed, or simply never appears.

 

Panavision make great film equipment; you show me where I've said anything else. But they're a large company with hundreds of employees, who are facing an uncertain future because of the company's severe financial problems. But instead of tackling the problem at its source; ie cutting back on its runaway corporate bloat, they keep embarking on these idiotic and futile "Digital Cinematography" schemes.

 

I'm sure it all sounds great and logical to non-technical bean counters who don't know the first thing about the subject. And they do produce working cameras, but what does this achieve? They spend far more on research and development that they could ever hope to recover in rental revenue.

 

Also I take issue with the over-liberal use of the term "Hi-Def". HDTV means 1920 x 1080 pixels (ie 2 megapixels) from a progressive-scan source, displayed on nothing smaller than a 50 inch monitor. Most so-called HDTV screens currently available are only 1 megapixel; I've only ever seen one true 1920 x 1080 100" plasma display, and all I could get the idiots running it to show me was some stupid music videos that looked like they were shot on DVC Pro or some other crap format!

 

The Genesis is the first HDTV camera that actually produces anything resembling 2K scanned film, but it still falls a long way short of what is required to tackle 35mm film. And this is the whole problem: A Genesis package is far and away the most expensive item in the Panavision catalogue, but the image quality it produces is way below what could be obtained from a much cheaper panaflex setup.

 

Regarding the Red, if Jim Jannard can produce something roughly equivalent to the Genesis for the equivalent of two or three days' rental of a Genesis package, well more power to him. I've even given him some advice on what features an "Everyman" HD camera should have (eg the ability to use cheap homemade ancilliary equipment rather than being locked into special dedicated items).

 

I just don't think he can do it. If he does have the technical resources to pull off such a project, I can't see why he can't just give us a few more details; I don't know what trade secrets he thinks we're going to steal!

[Guest razerfish]

Certainly not. What I'm against is people trying to pass off cheap beer as vintage champagne. I've been having essentially the same argument for at least two decades: over-hyped equipment that either never comes anywhere near living up to what was claimed, or simply never appears.

 

Panavision make great film equipment; you show me where I've said anything else. But they're a large company with hundreds of employees, who are facing an uncertain future because of the company's severe financial problems. But instead of tackling the problem at its source; ie cutting back on its runaway corporate bloat, they keep embarking on these idiotic and futile "Digital Cinematography" schemes.

 

I'm sure it all sounds great and logical to non-technical bean counters who don't know the first thing about the subject. And they do produce working cameras, but what does this achieve? They spend far more on research and development that they could ever hope to recover in rental revenue.

 

Also I take issue with the over-liberal use of the term "Hi-Def". HDTV means 1920 x 1080 pixels (ie 2 megapixels) from a progressive-scan source, displayed on nothing smaller than a 50 inch monitor. Most so-called HDTV screens currently available are only 1 megapixel; I've only ever seen one true 1920 x 1080 100" plasma display, and all I could get the idiots running it to show me was some stupid music videos that looked like they were shot on DVC Pro or some other crap format!

 

The Genesis is the first HDTV camera that actually produces anything resembling 2K scanned film, but it still falls a long way short of what is required to tackle 35mm film. And this is the whole problem: A Genesis package is far and away the most expensive item in the Panavision catalogue, but the image quality it produces is way below what could be obtained from a much cheaper panaflex setup.

 

Regarding the Red, if Jim Jannard can produce something roughly equivalent to the Genesis for the equivalent of two or three days' rental of a Genesis package, well more power to him. I've even given him some advice on what features an "Everyman" HD camera should have (eg the ability to use cheap homemade ancilliary equipment rather than being locked into special dedicated items).

 

I just don't think he can do it. If he does have the technical resources to pull off such a project, I can't see why he can't just give us a few more details; I don't know what trade secrets he thinks we're going to steal!

 

Jim, who appointed you the watch dog of high def movement? For the longest time, you implied that the Genesis was nothing more than a mirage, constantly harping about how they hasn't been any footage yet. You made it sound like some big conspiracy Panavision was involved in. Now that it's out, you're onto a new rant; how much it stinks, how expensive it is. Did the CEO of Panavision steal your wife or something? What's your the beef with them?

 

And, yes, you did give some advice to Jim Jannard, but you gave him a helluva lot more grief than advice. And you start a whole new thread just to mock him.

 

It's like going to watch someone speak and hecklers try to shout down the speaker, not caring that they're ruining for all the people who actually showed up to hear the speech. You're that heckler, Jim.

Edited May 13, 2006 by razerfish

[Guest razerfish]

Actually, that crack about your wife was uncalled for. I'd edit it out but it won't let me.

[Michael Most]

Also I take issue with the over-liberal use of the term "Hi-Def". HDTV means 1920 x 1080 pixels (ie 2 megapixels) from a progressive-scan source, displayed on nothing smaller than a 50 inch monitor.

 

The only one who defines it that way is you. The ATSC has many definitions, only a few of which even mention progressive scan or 1920x1080. And nowhere is it required that you have a specific size monitor. Please stop trying to pass off your personal opinions as industry established fact.

[Guest]

I can't be bothered to look into Red, and I decided long ago that I will shoot film and sink or swim with that.

 

But I'll tell you what the film industry really needs and this is some thing that WILL sell.

 

A SILENT synch sound 35mm camera the size of an Arri IIC, for under $20,000.00 new.

 

If some one comes up with that watch them fly off the shelf. Yes I know it may be a pipe dream, and maybe a bit like saying, if you can make a Ferrari model and sell it for under $20,000.00 you'll have some thing.

 

Really all it will take is for some one to hit on the magic combination of making a small silent movement for the camera. I doubt it's some thing Arri or Panavision would tackle, this is more of a job for an independent visionary inventor.

 

R,

[Gary Robinson]

It's interesting that you brought that up, Richard. Lately, the prices on Ebay for used cameras have dropped signifigantly. A couple weeks ago, and Arri BL1 went for $5000. There's an Arri 2b that's isn't selling at $1400. I think people are having trouble justifying spending much over $6000 for a camera when you can get an HVX 200 or JVC hd 100 for several thousand and have a nice looking image. I would expect to see some of the film camera manufacturers react to this erosion in the next few years. They really do need a 35mm camera that can get independent filmmakers excited.

Edited May 13, 2006 by Gary Robinson

[Stephen Williams]

It's interesting that you brought that up, Richard. Lately, the prices on Ebay for used cameras have dropped signifigantly. A couple weeks ago, and Arri BL1 went for $5000.

 

Hi,

 

Last week a BL2 made 12k+ on Ebay!

 

Stephen

[Guest AshG]

Some people dont like change... Does a grand piano sound better than even the best midi simulators or samples? Sure, but you can still write a hit song on it and the only people who will ever know/care that it isnt "as good" are the analog piano snobs, not the consumer, executives, etc. 35mm is beautiful but lets face it Hollywood is cranking out junk, do you really think Scary Movie 4 would have grossed more, been a better film or had ANY more redeeming qualities if it was shot on film?

 

Film and HD will co-exist for another decade+ I would assume with HD gaining all the time. HD or digital may never been as good as film but it is surely "good enough" to let quality content shine through. IMHO people should stop attacking the tech and start attacking the terrible content. I saw Poseidon last night (wife made me go), what a waste of 2 hours of my life...

 

 

 

ash =o)

[Gary Robinson]

Hi,

 

Last week a BL2 made 12k+ on Ebay!

 

Stephen

 

 

A BL2 lists for $24000 and a BL1 lists for $17000 at Visual Products.com. I've seen a number of BL2's go for around $17000. Even the mags are going for less now. I think there is a big downwards trend.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

The ATSC has many definitions, only a few of which even mention progressive scan or 1920x1080. And nowhere is it required that you have a specific size monitor.

 

I think you misunderstand. Unless you have a screen that's at least twice the size of the average 25"-30" SD job, in a normal viewing environment, for the majority of viewers there will be no easily discernable improvement over standard defintion NTSC or PAL, particularly on a set with an advanced chroma decoder. (Actually, because most large-size screens don't use interlaced scanning, the screen can be somewhat larger again)

 

The problem with the ATSC defintion is that it includes a lot of formats that really aren't all that much of an improvement over what regular NTSC or PAL is actually capable of.

 

In demonstrations, what we routinely get shown is (often so-called) HDTV compared with downconverted composite NTSC or PAL on an ordinary TV set. Switching to component SD, S-Video or the output of an advanced decoder gets you a lot closer to the HD picture quality, and on an LCD or Plasma high-resolution screen it's hard for the average viewer to tell the difference. But nobody ever does that.

 

Just because a government committee, for political reasons, decides to define anything that even a slight improvement over regular NTSC as "High Definition", doesn't mean it is.

[Tim Tyler]

Just because a government committee, for political reasons, decides to define anything that even a slight improvement over regular NTSC as "High Definition", doesn't mean it is.

 

So... what's the Murdoch HD Standard?

[Stephen Williams]

A BL2 lists for $24000 and a BL1 lists for $17000 at Visual Products.com. I've seen a number of BL2's go for around $17000. Even the mags are going for less now. I think there is a big downwards trend.

 

Hi,

 

Cameras can sit for years at dealers with prices like those. BL3's sell under $20,000 in the real world.

 

Stephen

[Michael Most]

Just because a government committee, for political reasons, decides to define anything that even a slight improvement over regular NTSC as "High Definition", doesn't mean it is.

 

Well yes, it does. That's why it's called a STANDARD. If you want to redefine it, then get your own definition accepted as a standard. Until that happens, stop claiming that it's so.

 

The fact that some of those formats don't happen to yield a million percent improvement in the actual image as perceived by the viewer has nothing to do with the standard, the definition of it, or the name used. And the fact that one doesn't see a significant difference when looking at a smaller monitor from a greater distance doesn't mean the difference isn't there. Watching something shot on 35mm film on a large screen projected digitally on a properly maintained 2K projector isn't going to look the same or have the same impact as watching the same image transferred to video on a 14 inch screen. That doesn't change the fact that the elements are essentially identical, it just reiterates that the method of display and the conditions under which it takes place have an impact on the human perception. This is hardly news, but it also doesn't mean that the element that was created is anything less than what it is. A 35mm print projected in a properly set up screening room is going to look better than the same print projected in my living room on a 4 foot screen with the window blinds open.

[Guest]

What is the rate of depreciation on HD cameras? A whole lot faster than film gear I can assure you of that.

 

Watch the value of the RED cameras drop like stones, as the makers come out with new models and competitors enter the market place with newer and better technology.

 

R,

[Jim Jannard]

Richard... one of the reasons that HD cameras depreciate so fast is that everytime there is a new feature (sensor, codec, or other capability) you need to buy the next camera to get it. The RED camera is upgradeable (including sensor). The onboard recording (flash or drives) grow in capability with advancing technology. And the RAW output is designed to handle today's standards (dual fiber channel and Infiniband) while being open to future generations of high speed standards. The lens mounts are interchangeable so you will always have the flexibility of choosing past, current or future lenses. The body is designed to handle a wide assortment of accessories, with many mounting points for today and tomorrow. I haven't seen any of the above design philosophies in past HD cameras, so I think it is safe to say that it would be hard to put the RED camera in the same deprecation class as the others. Jim

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Err... Panavision don't seem to have too much trouble renting out their CineAlta fleet, even though they're getting pretty long in the tooth now. Interestingly, they're mostly rented out as studio TV cameras, - which is all they really are - pretty surprising in that normally "three-years-and-it's-landfill" market.

 

But an obsolescence-proof retrofittable TV camera? What'll they think of next?

 

 

All I can say is that if Jim Jannard can pull this off, there are going to be some awfully pointed questions asked over in Woodland Hills!

 

Well yes, it does. That's why it's called a STANDARD. If you want to redefine it, then get your own definition accepted as a standard. Until that happens, stop claiming that it's so.

 

The fact that some of those formats don't happen to yield a million percent improvement in the actual image as perceived by the viewer has nothing to do with the standard, the definition of it, or the name used. And the fact that one doesn't see a significant difference when looking at a smaller monitor from a greater distance doesn't mean the difference isn't there. Watching something shot on 35mm film on a large screen projected digitally on a properly maintained 2K projector isn't going to look the same or have the same impact as watching the same image transferred to video on a 14 inch screen. That doesn't change the fact that the elements are essentially identical, it just reiterates that the method of display and the conditions under which it takes place have an impact on the human perception. This is hardly news, but it also doesn't mean that the element that was created is anything less than what it is. A 35mm print projected in a properly set up screening room is going to look better than the same print projected in my living room on a 4 foot screen with the window blinds open.

I would have to say that that is the dumbest response I have ever had on this forum.

[Michael Most]

I would have to say that that is the dumbest response I have ever had on this forum.

 

I guess that's what one gets from you when they make an interesting point and attempt to make a contribution to the discussion at hand. In other words, I pointed out that you've made up your own definition of what the term "high definition" means, one that is contrary to the standard that has been developed and accepted as the definition of the term, and you then claim that I'm the one who's dumb. I guess anyone who disagrees with anything you say is dumb, including myself, everyone at Panavision, eveyone at Panasonic, and just about everyone on this forum. As far as I can see, that puts me in pretty good company.

 

Then again, your apparent sole purpose here is and always has been to say outrageous things and piss people off. Congratulations.

[Chad Stockfleth]

Jesus. This whole thread is so contrary to the topic title that it borders on ridiculous. ob-la-di ob-la-da...