More Genesis

[Mike Brennan]

Press release for the Genesis

 

"...... the debut of Genesis?, the first film-style fully portable digital imaging camera that utilizes all existing spherical 35mm lenses, including Primo? primes and zooms and support gear."

 

 

No mention of anamorphic?

Could they be planning a crooped output from the sensor for 'scope? rather than use anamorphic lenses?

 

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Tenolian Bell]

I didn't think super 35 would be a wide enough frame to covef full 2.4 anamorphic.

[John Pytlak RIP]

What aspect ratio is the active area of the sensor? 2X squeeze anamorphics wouldn't make much sense with a 16:9 or similar sensor. Yet, using only a portion of the available sensor image area would compromise image quaility.

[Guest Pete Wright]

It's a 12 MP CCD. The output is 2K. IMHO you should be able to carve a "scope" image that would work with any 35 mm lenses; without any real image degradation.

 

Pete

[Mike Brennan]

"What aspect ratio is the active area of the sensor? 2X squeeze anamorphics wouldn't make much sense with a 16:9 or similar sensor. Yet, using only a portion of the available sensor image area would compromise image quaility."

 

Good question. Super 35 format is the only tech detail regarding aspect ratio that I have heard at the moment. No figures on pixels in use, I'd hope most of the 12millon pixels are being used as this ccd sensor seems to be custom made.

 

Getting conflicting numbers from the books, in theory what would the coverage be of a anamorphic lens on/in super 35 format?

 

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

[John Pytlak RIP]

For 35mm film, the projectable image area for the 2.39:1 "scope" format is 0.825 x 0.690 inches (Standard SMPTE 195). Some 2X anamorphic lenses might be able to cover the wider image area of a full frame (Super-35) aperture, but with 4-perf pulldown, you can't use much more height.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I'm still not quite sure why "uses film support gear" is a selling point. I'm not adverse to a half-reasonable mattebox, one lives on my video camera all the time, but in the main making it reliant on existing 35mm-style support equipment just makes it complicated, bulky and expensive. I'd prefer a device which wasn't pitched so much at the "we fear change" crowd. Designs like this overlook the labour savings which can be made with video - you'd think they were deliberately making it overcomplicated so they can turn round and say "Look, told you so," when it turns out to be exactly the same shooting experience, just slightly less sharp on screen.

 

Phil

[Nate Downes]

@Phil

 

By the same note, I wonder why they don't work to make the film experience much simpler. Imagine a nice medium where HD and film were both as easy to work with as the other, and the only way to judge the difference was personal preference.

[Max Jacoby]

I'm still not quite sure why "uses film support gear" is a selling point. I'm not adverse to a half-reasonable mattebox, one lives on my video camera all the time, but in the main making it reliant on existing 35mm-style support equipment just makes it complicated, bulky and expensive.

This camera uses 35mm lenses, it is only logical to use existing accessories. These 35mm accessories have proven themselves and that is what people are comfortable with. I don't really see the point of getting rid of them or even trying to come up with something new. I for one have never found them too 'bulky' or 'complicated' to use.

[Michael Nash]

Hi,

 

I'd prefer a device which wasn't pitched so much at the "we fear change" crowd. Designs like this overlook the labour savings which can be made with video

 

Phil

I think you're missing the point here. Sony and Panasonic ALREADY came out with "alternative" systems that were based on something other than 35mm film support gear. And guess what happened -- filmmakers who were used to 35mm equipment and techniques found certain things lacking, and had to wait for new accessories to be designed and built just to give them what they ALREADY had with 35mm film.

 

Panavision, a provider of 35mm film equipment with a customer base of 35mm users, decided to make a digital capture device that didn't obsolete their own equipment or alienate their own customers. If you think video gear is more streamlined and cheaper than 35mm, the equipment is already there for you to use. If 35mm gear better suits your production methods for digital capture, now you can do it that way too.

 

More to the point: 35mm isn't too bulky or expensive for a majority of feature film, TV, and commercial productions. On the contrary, it offers filmakers a degree of control and options that 2/3" video doesn't quite match yet. And I don't buy the "labor savings gain of video" argument. Currently you can shoot 35mm with a single zoom lens and pull focus yourself if you like, just as you can with video (and I'm comparing to HD). Yet when you want to get more specific with your imaging, sometimes you actually have to work harder with video to do what you can do easily with 35mm (like control highlights, drop d-o-f, or use specialty lenses that haven't been built for video yet). You could just as easily tout the "labor saving gains" of film over HD under dramatic filmmaking conditions. I'm not suggesting that either film or video is better; I'm just saying that 35mm gear is currently more diverse, prevalent, and flexible than 2/3" video gear.

 

So I think a design like this is exactly what was needed -- a digital capture device that fits seamlessly into 35mm production methods. You get the benefits of digital capture should you need it, with the control and familiarity of 35mm gear. Again, this camera wasn't designed with ENG video production in mind; it was designed with dramatic filmmaking in mind.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Sure, but I'd still like a low-complication-factor camcorder that doesn't overcompress the image. The F900 does; it isn't ideal either. Kinetta seems incredibly promising, but it's not exactly an ergonomic marvel (and I have handled it.) Giving people what they're used to is fine up to a point, but the object here is to make films - not to "give peopel what they're used to." If a better way appears, people should be willing to change. I think the direction of equipment development in this area is being dictated far too much by the jobs that IATSE members do and wish to continue doing, and tend to have a tantrum if they're presented with alternatives. Moviemaking traditions are good, but at the end of the day it's a product-oriented production process. We shouldn't be forced to do things a certain way just because that's how they were always done.

 

Phil

[Max Jacoby]

I think the direction of equipment development in this area is being dictated far too much by the jobs that IATSE members do and wish to continue doing, and tend to have a tantrum if they're presented with alternatives.

What exactely are the accessories you are not happy with? Remote focus? Matteboxes? On board monitors? And what alternatives would you propose?

 

You are making it sound like all the existing accessories are completely useless and their sole purpose of existence is for camera assistants to justify their job. I find this quite insulting. These accessories are well thought out and very modular. On top of that people like Arri and Panavision are constantly improving them based on feedback by people who actually USE them.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

At the end of the day I find it quite insulting that I'm consistently written off as a "video guy" by employers, but it happens. I get to pull my own focus and probably get paid less than the guy whose sole job it is to do so on a feature. Yes, I think people need to grow up a bit.

 

Phil

[Max Jacoby]

I get to pull my own focus and probably get paid less than the guy whose sole job it is to do so on a feature. Yes, I think people need to grow up a bit.

Focus pullers on features do deserve their money. It is one of the hardest and most nerve-recking jobs on a filmset. It is quite simple: if you don't consistently nail your focus, you get fired.

 

I really suggest you try focus-pulling on a 180mm lens wide open on a close-up of an actor who constantly moves around without marks. I bet your respect for the profession will increase tenfold.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I don't lack respect for focus pullers, I'm just frustrated with the lack of recognition of good video people. I would in turn suggest that you try focus pulling, gaffing, directing photography and probably also some sound work for less than the same money. Oh, and you have to own £15k of equipment to do it. Try doing all that, and then being told that this focus guy is a superior human being.

 

Phil

[Max Jacoby]

Phil,

 

The Genesis is clearly aimed at the 35mm market. It is only logical that they consider the needs of these people when they designe the camera and accessories.

 

The reason these peple are paid more than 'video people' is because these films simply have bigger budgets.

[Sam Wells]

I've done both, more or less; am I superior to myself or what ? :rolleyes:

 

I think we've got a Woody Allen script going here...

 

-Sam

[Michael Nash]

Moviemaking traditions are good, but at the end of the day it's a product-oriented production process. We shouldn't be forced to do things a certain way just because that's how they were always done.

And we shouldn't be forced to abandon proven techniques just because there's an evolutionary alternative available.

 

It's more than a product-oriented process. 35mm filmmaking is an industry that's been around for 100 years, worldwide. The only way it can continue and survive as an industry is with a reliable infrastructure; i.e. consistent and reliable equipment, techniques, and crew positions that let people get on with the business of making product. If the entire industry were forced to stop what they were doing and learn a new technology from the ground up, the industry would collapse. The new technology has to be introduced into the workflow slowly, so that work continues to flow.

 

Also keep in mind that HD is an emerging and evolving technology, so you can't ask film professionals to abandon their gear for a system that isn't even really defined yet. I don't know about you, but I have to keep working with the gear that's handed to me. A D-30 one day, an F-900 the next, and an SR or 2C the next. I have to keep up with what's out there now. I can be as progressive and experimental in my filmmaking ideas as I want (and I am), but I still have to keep working, ya know? I think the same could be said for the majority of film/video professionals out there.

[Michael Nash]

At the end of the day I find it quite insulting that I'm consistently written off as a "video guy" by employers, but it happens. I get to pull my own focus and probably get paid less than the guy whose sole job it is to do so on a feature. Yes, I think people need to grow up a bit.

So why fight it, Phil? It's a simple principle of business, if not philosophy. You make your offering attractive to your customers. If what you're offering doesn't sell, modify what you offer. You can be 100% convinced that apples are good for everyone and you have lots of apples to sell. But the customers want oranges, and are only willing to pay so much for apples. So what do you do? Complain that people should want apples, that they should "grow up" and give apple sellers the respect they deserve? No! if you want to stay in business you start selling them oranges. You start to get the respect you seek when you start givng them what they want.

 

Analogies aside, I learned along time ago its useless for one businessman to fight the perceptions of the marketplace. Instead, use the perceptions of the marketplace to help you sell what you've got. Producers for the most part shoot video because they value cost over quality. Producers choose film because they value quality over cost. It doesn't matter how excellent your skills are, you'll never get the respect you seek from clients who aren't interested in the highest quality.

 

And it doesn't even matter if you're talking about the same clients, who may choose film for one project and video for another. They choose film because they need the quality; they choose video because it's cheap. And if you're the "video" guy, then you're guilty by association. I've been down that road, doing corporate video for companies that spent big $$ on 35mm production for their advertising. The "video guys" were never even considered for advertising, even though we had the skills and equipment in house.

 

I learned not to fight it. I decided to re-define myself (and the therefore the perception of my clients) as a DP, -- the quality guy, not a video guy. Once I did that, doors started to open up for me. It's been a lot of work to make the transition, but I realized I had to shake off the stigma of "video guy" if I ever wanted grow beyond that niche.

[Mike Brennan]

Phil wrote

 

"I think the direction of equipment development in this area is being dictated far too much by the jobs that IATSE members do and wish to continue doing, and tend to have a tantrum if they're presented with alternatives. Moviemaking traditions are good, but at the end of the day it's a product-oriented production process. We shouldn't be forced to do things a certain way just because that's how they were always done."

 

 

Here here.

However light at the end of the tunnel as there is no optical viewfinder on the Genisis:)

 

 

Part of the problem is that it takes more than one or two jobs to learn how to work well with ccds.

Years of experience to learn the ins and outs of compression tape transport issues monitor and cable stitch ups ect.

When I attended an early Sony sponsored Santa Fe HD course there was no mention of zebras. ("too difficult for film operators to deal with" when I asked why) Light meters and contrast ratios were the thing. Of course the exposure was only then corrected by reference to a monitor! So here was a feature of digital (zebras) that was not being taught.

 

When f900 came out the ASC went to great pains to point out that ASCs can work with any medium. A pretty arrogant approach, indeed initially they grouped minidv and HDCAM formats into "digital", "this digital poop will kill us" was a comment heard fom a senior ASC... at a mini dv to film screening.

 

The manufacturers have responded with a toolset that gives those with a deep background in film a sense of familiarality. The SRW1 perched on top of the Genisis will be a great laugh for future historians. And a 30 year love of out of focus backgrounds may be looked back on as driven by convienience as well as aesthetics.

 

More changes will come in the next generation.

 

In the first two years of the introduction of the Panavised f900, Panavison in Europe would actively persude interested producers and DPs away from HD if they thought that film was an alternative. Rates would be very high. If the producer went somewhere else for HD kit (rather than go with Panavision film kit) the HD rates would drop by 50% or more.

 

Will be interesting to see how entusiastically the Genisis is rolled out by the European Panavision rental departments.

 

By the time Sony get digital to ape the film process/workflow those who really know how to ride that horse will be retired.

 

Most humans resist change.

 

Mike Brennan

[Mike Brennan]

"They choose film because they need the quality; they choose video because it's cheap."

 

Readers may think that you are saying producers choose video because they don't care (cheap) about the quality of picture?

 

Most producers and directors chose video or HD because it can deliver a better experience to the audience than if they shoot film. In Europe we use the expression "production value" to describe bang for buck. The overall budget has to be factored into bang for buck as does other factors such as amount of bluescreen or shooting ratios.

 

65mm doesn't always deliver good production value as its high cost may draw money from other departments.

 

The decision to shot film or HD is a complicated one.

Catagorising HD as being "cheap" is as narrow a statement as saying "film is expensive"

 

While I'm here congratulations to Neville Kidd who won best cinematography for Solid Air, shot on HD, which also won best director at the recent Festival Internacional de Cinema de Troia 2004.

 

 

Mike Brennan