Panavision HD

[Mark Allen]

The Panavision camera has had a chance to be in existence for a little while now. I'm wondering what the current "word" on the camera is. Initially - a lot of excitement - people saying it really cam close to looking like film. Does it still have that very clean HD look to the skin tones? Does it really hold colors range better?

 

Also - should this camera have a subtopic?

 

Is this camera becoming available soon?

 

I saw a movie for TNT the other day that was shot on the ...950 I believe and It still has no grit to it. I think because it smooths the details. Would be great for porn. An action adventure needs that grit.

[Elhanan Matos]

Getting "grit" isn't a problem, if by grit you mean noise. There are a couple things you can do in the F900 or the F950 to get more noise in the image.

 

It makes more sense to start out with the cleanest image and then add your grit either in camera or in post.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I think people who saw "Collateral" and complained about the motion rendering overlooked the incredible available-light night work which was much smoother than film could have done at the same light levels, so if you're after grain and other artifacts it's probably not the format for you. I've always thought that if I did shoot something that needed to look dirty for filmout I'd probably have it burned out to a moderately-fast camera stock rather than a very slow intermediate one, just so as to impose a little grain on it.

 

Phil

[Robert Sanders]

Hi,

 

I think people who saw "Collateral" and complained about the motion rendering overlooked the incredible available-light night work which was much smoother than film could have done at the same light levels, so if you're after grain and other artifacts it's probably not the format for you. I've always thought that if I did shoot something that needed to look dirty for filmout I'd probably have it burned out to a moderately-fast camera stock rather than a very slow intermediate one, just so as to impose a little grain on it.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've always wondered about what the options were for the film-out.

 

1) Do different film recorders use different types of stocks? Do the different recorders have their own unique "look".

 

2) What options are there, in regards to film stocks, for the film-out?

 

Personally I wouldn't add any artificial grain to the image in post production (via software). But I would like to have all organic grain elements applied simply through the process of the film out.

 

3) But how much control do you have (wrt grain size/amount)?

[Michael Nash]

The Panavision camera has had a chance to be in existence for a little while now.  I'm wondering what the current "word" on the camera is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The camera is not available for rental until around New Year 2005, so most everyone is still working off the same demo they saw at Cinegear in June.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

They still only have the 2 cameras. One is in Japan with Sony and the other is at Panavision, Woodland Hills on their stage doing demos.

 

The color seems to have more range and gradation. I assume this is due to the higher sampling (4:4:4)

 

re. Phil's comment:

I completely disagree that HD can produce a cleaner image in low light. 5218 pushed 1 stop, Cooke S4s or Primos wide open and transferred to HD on a Spirit, will blow any HD video away in terms of image quality. There would be far less grain in the film image than noise in the video image.

[Mike Brennan]

re. Phil's comment:

I completely disagree that HD can produce a cleaner image in low light. 5218 pushed 1 stop, Cooke S4s or Primos wide open and transferred to HD on a Spirit, will blow any HD video away in terms of image quality. There would be far less grain in the film image than noise in the video image.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

High Eric have you done a test?

If you are refering to Viper in scope mode bear in mind there is a one stop loss in scope mode.

The trick with HD is to not use more than 3 db gain if you can perform a grade where those who have done comparison tests ( I haven't) seem to prefer HD for its superior low light level characteristics.

Other factor is that HD has much more depth of field wide open than 35mm film.

Finally for wide shots where say it is impossible to light large areas a 1/24th second exposure is possible. That is another stop increase in sensitivity.

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

Mike,

I haven't done side by side tests, BUT I have shot both as mentioned and film was far superior. In fact I think the sensitivity of 5218 processed normally is the same as the F900 @ 3db. Also, the I don't think the HD lenses at 1.4 or 2.2 are as sharp as the Primos and Cookes are wide open. I also admit I've only used the F900.

 

Additionally, and this is just a personal preference perhaps as a result of predominantly film experience, I think that film grain has a less distracting aesthetic when pushed than electronic gain does. When adding contrast in final grading, I've also noticed that noise increases much more quickly on HD with 3db and up as opposed to grain in film in telecine.

 

I do think HD has slightly more shadow detail in extreme low light, but I think you start to loose color saturation as a result of increasing sensitivity. I haven't seen this as much with film.

 

I went to telecine at Company 3 this morning to grade some rushes from a commercial yesterday and every time I see that '18, I'm blown away. It just outperforms every other type of image aquisition I know of. And the range of post control it affords you is tremendous. You have so much room for adjustment, if needed, before the image begins to loose it's integrity.

 

I believe in God...Kodak be thy name.

 

Sorry to get off subject Mike, but yes you're right about the 1/24 thing. BUT, you can also shoot AND transfer film at a slower frame rate (12fps) to get the same effect. As a matter of fact I was shooting a spot, natural light, of kids driving around at night in a car in Hollywood using a Primo anamorphic zoom which is NOT the fastest lens. I pushed the film 1 stop adn ran the camera at 16fps for an extra 1/2 stop. It came out beautifully, though with much more motion blur.

 

I just think people forget that you can pretty much do anything in film that you can in HD regarding no/natural lighting. Yes it's more expensive, but you get what you pay for in my opinion.

 

All this being said, the two formats will continue to co-exsist for a long time methinks. There will be different needs for different projects and it's a good thing that filmmakers now have another viable option.

[Elhanan Matos]

Does anybody here know what Panavision is doing about the noise that the SRW-1 produces?

 

I have been around alot of SRW-1 decks and they make a lot of noise, which makes sense to me why Sony would take it off of the camera and have it sitting away from the mic.

 

Also the SRW-1 needs about 100 Watts to run. That would mean that you would either need alot of batteries or a power supply for it. Making the camera kind of tricky to work with untethered.

[Mark Allen]

Getting "grit" isn't a problem, if by grit you mean noise. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Post added noise and video noise is not the same at all and the reason is because in film noise I've found you are actually getting a perception of additional resolution. What I mean by this is the video noise and post noise is not revealing different information, it is - instead - becoming more blocky. The reason why film grain actually has a respectible quality to it is because imagine if someone is holidng perfectly still - impossible i know, but imagine - whenever a grainual hit a certain part of the frame it is revelaing a tiny freckly - or maybe it's two which reveal that. Okay - back to reality - people are moving - but the sensation with the film traveling at 24 fps is that you still get a feeling for added resolution - just a variant in texture. The other methods (post and video noise) are a subtraction of resolution.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I think you guys are just more willing to accept film grain than you are video noise. I've been working regularly with 2K images of ISO500 film stock recently and the grain is intense. I have the opportunity to make immediate, side-by-side comparisons with F900 material and it is far smoother. I wouldn't even say it's that much softer - the compression is visible, but mainly in shadows. HDCAM does seem to hate shadows.

 

Phil

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Hi,

 

I think you guys are just more willing to accept film grain than you are video noise. I've been working regularly with 2K images of ISO500 film stock recently and the grain is intense. I have the opportunity to make immediate, side-by-side comparisons with F900 material and it is far smoother. I wouldn't even say it's that much softer - the compression is visible, but mainly in shadows. HDCAM does seem to hate shadows.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What stock exactly were you using?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I've no idea, ask John Seale!

 

Phil

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

Hi,

 

I think you guys are just more willing to accept film grain than you are video noise. I've been working regularly with 2K images of ISO500 film stock recently and the grain is intense. I have the opportunity to make immediate, side-by-side comparisons with F900 material and it is far smoother. I wouldn't even say it's that much softer - the compression is visible, but mainly in shadows. HDCAM does seem to hate shadows.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe if the HD was recorded at -3 or 0db. But to make a fair comparison the HD has to have been shot at +3 db. I too have done the comparison with '18. As stills, there is slightly more grain in the film, but in motion it goes away and becomes information which = resolution. The HD noise yields nothing but noise, especially in the shadows. But you really have to be anal about all of this to care.

 

I admit I am more willing to accept film grain than video noise and I think it's because it contribites to the image, to a point, rather than take away as video noise does.

[Max Jacoby]

Hi,

 

I've no idea, ask John Seale!

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Probably 5218.

 

Some of 'Cold Mountain' looked incredibly grainy, especially for a S35 DI. There was one shot in particular that looked like Super8! I have no idea why he got an Oscar nomination for that film.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Some of the smoke stuff is incredibly grainy in the original scans let alone once the colour's been shifted to buggery. There are cuts that go bright orange/deep blue in the original material.

 

Phil

[Tenolian Bell]

HDCAM does seem to hate shadows.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What have you seen in HDCAM that indicates it "hates shadows"? That's normally touted as its strength.

[Tenolian Bell]

I've been working regularly with 2K images of ISO500 film stock recently and the grain is intense. I have the opportunity to make immediate, side-by-side comparisons with F900 material and it is far smoother. I wouldn't even say it's that much softer - the compression is visible

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah I would agree in film there is always some grain present, because that is what makes up the picture. What I am curious about is the type of presentation you saw these two comparisons. Was it on an HD monitor or 2K projection?

[Tim Tyler]

There was one shot in particular that looked like Super8!

 

I recall thinking that shot looked like an optical zoom (in post).

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> What have you seen in HDCAM that indicates it "hates shadows"? That's normally touted as its

> strength.

 

Separate camera from tape format. The cameras are fine in low light - until you go into gain there's no penalty. However, compression codecs such as HDCAM often throw away more detail in shadows, by design, than they do in midtone and hilight - simply because the shadows are less visible and don't draw the eye. This is fine for ENG, which is really what HDCAM was designed for, but less ideal if you're going to grade it. Note that's "Less Optimal" not "Unusable".

 

Phil

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Well it is 500iso I suppose.

[Keith Mottram]

Phil, which process was used to scan the film, I have noticed a massive difference in scanned negatives between Spirit and Northlight, the grain management on these and other systems is extremely variable.

 

Keith

 

P.S. Daniel, can you please stop pointing that gun at me, it's both inappropriate and offensive.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Northlight.

 

Phil