Mike Brennan Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 (edited) The funny thing is all of this has been said before. You are saying absolutely nothing new. Yes the words may be the same as have been noted before. But as technology develops (and this thread is about Genesis a landmark introduction of a large format single chip ccd and portable HD recorder) No harm in it being readressed? Mike Brennan Edited March 12, 2005 by mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted March 12, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 12, 2005 Hi, Being as Genesis is no more available on the street than Dalsa, Kinetta or the Arri solid-state camera, I'd hesitate to call it "landmark". The Panavision logo makes it neither a landmark development or a good camera. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 If I could predict the future of technologies future as well as Peter W. I wouldn't be wasting time on this thread, I'd be trading stocks online. By Satphone from my yacht B) -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter Waal Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 If I could predict the future of technologies future as well as Peter W. I wouldn't be wasting time on this thread, I'd be trading stocks online. By Satphone from my yacht B) -Sam I've been thinking -- we probably COULD all go together and get odds on this in Vegas. Might make a fun little betting pool :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Allen Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 Being as Genesis is no more available on the street than Dalsa, Kinetta or the Arri solid-state camera, <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Acutally, if you have a shoot date, I believe the Genesis is available. If you want it tomorrow, I don't think so. If you want it for a shoot in a couple months, you can book it is my understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominic Case Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 What toxic chemicals does it use in it's processing? Several. They are all handled professionally according to environmental laws - though of course those are not as strict in some countries as we would like. What toxic chemicals do computers and all other digital devices contain? WHat toxic chemicals are used in the manufacture of all that equipment? The answer is "several". How professionally and environmentally are they disposed of? You can't use an argument one way without using it the other way as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Winter Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 (edited) Film vs. Digital eh? It seems pointless when one considers that a good 'movie' maker should always choose the best tool available to them (given money, story, etc, etc). Currently, I repeat, CURRENTLY (given 1. Capture Quality and 2. Presentation Availability/Quality) 35mm film beats digital hands down. Will this change? Most likely. Digital has a distinct advantage over film. It can be advanced at a much faster rate than its organic opponent. Moreover, given the average 18mos doubling rate of most computer technologies it's not too far-fetched to suggest that we'll be seeing 40 mega pixel digital capture by 2010 - 2015. It's also not too far-fetched to suggest that by this time we'll have onboard harddrive space to contain these massive images. The real trick isn't making the cameras better it's convincing the cinemas to buy digital projectors that will consistently become obsolete as the surrounding technologies evolve. Besides, the entire digital revolution could be held at bay by one simple and oh so funny solution. John, why not push Kodak to partner up with Arri or Panavision and come out with a brand new (and as small as possible) film camera for Kodak's brand new and long overdue 140mm gauge! B) Just the thought of it would have digital developers and their proponents waking up in cold sweats for years to come! :P Perhaps 35mm film can't keep up with digital in terms of advancements but who really says we have to stay with 35mm?? ;) Evan Edited March 14, 2005 by Evan Winter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harryprayiv Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 John, why not push Kodak to partner up with Arri or Panavision and come out with a brand new (and as small as possible) film camera for Kodak's brand new and long overdue 140mm gauge! B) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Imagine pulling focus on 140mm film at T2.8?!?!?! :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 I'd settle for some 65mm now and then. Any takers out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted March 14, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 14, 2005 I'd settle for some 65mm now and then. Any takers out there? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Kodak still makes a full array of 65mm and 70mm film stocks. And IMAX certainly is enthusiastic about the quality of 70mm, even when blown up from a 35mm original with their DMR process. (Although lots of 65mm negative is still used for many IMAX films and other "special venue" productions and VFX work). But there are still hundreds of 5-perf 70mm projectors in theatres today, ready to show the "Spendor of 70mm" again: http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...ytlak/70mm1.pdf http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...ytlak/70mm2.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Winter Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Here's are 2 questions for John or anyone else that knows the answers: I shoot music videos. We shoot on 35mm film, head to transfer and end up on digibeta for the stations (MTV, BET, FUSE, etc). Now music videos shot on 35mm, just like commercials, series, or MOWs, shot on film have, effectively, been downrezzed to a lesser quality format and yet they still look far better than productions originating on said format (digibeta). So, the questions are - 1. Why do we never see features shot on 65 or 70mm and downrezzed to 35mm? Would the large gauge downrez not look discernibly better than a 35mm origination? 2. And, if this is the case and if film companies are starting to see digital breathing down their necks, then doesn't it behoove film companies to figure out ways to make originating on 65/70mm and downrezzing to 35mm a more viable option for filmmakers? Evan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Mottram Posted March 14, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 14, 2005 1. Why do we never see features shot on 65 or 70mm and downrezzed to 35mm? Would the large gauge downrez not look discernibly better than a 35mm origination? 2. And, if this is the case and if film companies are starting to see digital breathing down their necks, then doesn't it behoove film companies to figure out ways to make originating on 65/70mm and downrezzing to 35mm a more viable option for filmmakers? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> erm, do you know any stedicam operators that could lift a 70mm camera? Or do you fancy trying some run and gun with a 65mm? keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted March 14, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 14, 2005 1. Why do we never see features shot on 65 or 70mm and downrezzed to 35mm? Would the large gauge downrez not look discernibly better than a 35mm origination? 2. And, if this is the case and if film companies are starting to see digital breathing down their necks, then doesn't it behoove film companies to figure out ways to make originating on 65/70mm and downrezzing to 35mm a more viable option for filmmakers? Evan <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Every feature film shot on 65mm negative had 35mm reduction prints for the general release. And yes, the improved quality of the negative "came through" the system, even in the 35mm prints of that era. Even on SD DVD, the transfers of some of those 65mm productions look magnificent. Take a look at a DVD of "Lawrence of Arabia", "Patton", "My Fair Lady", "Hello Dolly", or "The Sound of Music" and the sharpness and lack of grain will be very apparent, even though those films were made on old Kodak films (5250, 5251, 5254) that don't come close to the sharpness and fine grain of today's VISION2 films: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products....1.4.28.6&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products....1.4.28.8&lc=en And if you ever get a chance to see a new 70mm print of those films on a huge screen, you are in for a treat! Here is a site to watch for 70mm screenings: http://www.in70mm.com/newsletter/diverse/screenings.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 erm, do you know any stedicam operators that could lift a 70mm camera? Or do you fancy trying some run and gun with a 65mm? keith <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Steadicam has been done with VistaVision mod rigs. Garret Brown shot a long VV Steadicam shot - at 0.75 fps ! - for the third Star Wars movie. (Episode 6 I guess) -Sam Wells Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Steadicam has been done with VistaVision mod rigs. Garret Brown <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Garrett. dropped a "t" on the way to the mailbox -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted March 15, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 15, 2005 Steadicam has been done with VistaVision mod rigs. Garrett Brown shot a long VV Steadicam shot - at 0.75 fps ! - for the third Star Wars movie. (Episode 6 I guess) -Sam Wells <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That was the famous Speeder Bike sequence in the forests of Endor in "Return of the Jedi": http://www.starwars.com/databank/vehicle/s...bike/index.html Enjoyed watching the whole film again a few weeks ago. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now