Genesis to be trialled for Superman

[Mike Brennan]

but he can't fool me.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Jim,

your personal opinions regading individuals mean nothing to me as you post under an false name.

 

If you mean what you say why hide?

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Rik Andino]

Did you see the footage projected on screen

Or on a television monitor?

 

How good is it? Really? (I know it's kickass but are there more specifics)

How are the colors and the sharpness?

 

You're right during the next 20 years our industry will see

A great transition from film to digital...

& it'll be a bloody war between die-hard loyalist on both sides

In the end we might have to redefine the way we see images

As well as the way we do productions, lighting, blocking, etc...

 

But film will always be around...because for some reason people like it...

Who knows maybe it'll become the low-budget solution in 25 years...

 

The future is unscripted<--this sounds like the tagline for a good sci-fi flick :)

Edited March 12, 2005 by Rik Andino

[Guest Peter Waal]

I saw it projected on a screen, from a 35 mm print, supervised by Daviau.

 

"How good is it really?"

 

Frankly I thought the Genesis footage was sharper than the 35 mm footage, only slightly, but it was noticeable.

 

Colors were equal. Overall look and feel was equal. Depth of field was equal.

 

These are my impressions -- not very scientific, but like I said, seeing is believing, and after seeing the test footage I can totally understand how a DP like Siegel would be prepared to stake his reputation on it. I'm not a techie, so I can't give you the exact technical reasons why it looks so good, but to my eye it looked right, just like 35 mm, and that's all I really care about.

 

Personally, I give film five years before it's nothing but a niche product for a few stubborn die hards. All the R&D money is going into digital capture now, and money talks. Besides, in five years (probably less) Panavision and its competitors will no doubt have something that makes the Genesis look modest by comparison. Film's days are seriously numbered. Sorry.

[Tenolian Bell]

Is this 2000 again?

 

That was the last time film was given five years left.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Don't take my word for it. Take a Kodak rep out for beers and ask him about this camera. Two beers and he'll be crying. Guaranteed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not crying, and neither are any of my Kodak colleagues. :P

 

(What Kodak rep did you buy the beers for? They usually do the buying.)

 

If you still think Kodak is just a film company, you haven't been paying attention!!! But Kodak has not stopped investing in new film R&D either. Have you ever heard the expression "the best of both worlds"?

[K Borowski]

Do you want to know why all camera R&D is now going into digital? Because film cameras have basically remained unchanged for about 30 years (granted there have been a few new unneccessary features on the newer models). The technological improvements in MP film are currently going on in the film emulsion itself (look back 30 years at film and honestly say that it hasn't grown by leaps and bounds and I'll laugh in your face) Why do you think Panavision is rental only? They are rental only because Mitchell, the camera manufacturer that Panavision stole their camera movements from, built cameras so good that they lasted forever, which isn't good for business. This is why Mitchell folded. Everyone already had their cameras! Digital on the other hand, is great for business, if you're a camera company that is. The Panavision line had remained basically unchanged since they were introduced in the '70s and now we're getting a new camera every two freaking years. Why is that? Hmm. . . As for film dying, I for one plan to shoot plenty of film in 2010.

 

~Karl Borowski

[Guest Peter Waal]

Puh-lease,

 

Give it up. Kodak's not even in the Dow 30 anymore. That's because your sales are suffering and your prospects aren't nearly what they used to be. But this is so yesterday's news.

 

I find it interesting that the moment someone finally challenges you with a camera that you KNOW can do the job of 35 mm film, you come back with the comment than Kodak is more than "just a film company."

 

Have you seen the Genesis footage by the way? (The point of this thread.) Or are you merely here for the purposes of corporate spin?

[John Pytlak RIP]

Have you seen the Genesis footage by the way? (The point of this thread.) Or are you merely here for the purposes of corporate spin?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I personally have not seen the Genesis yet, although other Kodak engineers have. Kodak is well aware of its strengths and weaknesses. But I have seen the new film and digital products Kodak is working on. Sure I work for Kodak, but if you think I am merely here for spin, YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION in the mere week you've been here.

 

Kodak's not even in the Dow 30 anymore.

 

The last time I looked, Panavision was not listed on the Dow 30 either. :P

 

(nor was Sony, Panasonic, Dalsa, Canon, Fujifilm, Thomson, etc.)

 

http://stock1.com/dow30.htm

 

Kodak's sales increased to 13.5 BILLION dollars (US) in 2004, and 2005 is already off to a great start. Almost all of Kodak's business is IMAGING, unlike some of the other companies and conglomerates who are relative newcomers to this wonderful business of making movies. Maybe that's why Kodak has such a good FOCUS. B)

[Tenolian Bell]

Here we go with this again.

 

From pure tech specs and numbers. No the Genesis still does not stand shoulder to shoulder with 35mm film. The argument being made is 1920 x 1080 good enough?

 

Food for thought.

 

For digital to live does film have to die?

 

Or can digital stand and function based on its own merits

irregardless of what happens with film?

[Guest Peter Waal]

From pure tech specs and numbers. No the Genesis still does not stand shoulder to shoulder with 35mm film. The argument being made is 1920 x 1080 good enough?

 

For digital to live does film have to die?

 

Or can digital stand and function based on its own merits

irregardless of what happens with film?

 

Man oh man,

 

Like I said initially, I'm only reporting my IMPRESSION of what I saw in test footage that was projected with shots from a Panaflex and a Genesis intercut. I couldn't reliably tell the difference between the two formats and nobody else could either. (There were about 200 or so film people in the room, some DPs, some directors, some producers, etc.) That's why I said that seeing is believing. I don't give a damn what the numbers tell you. You don't watch numbers on the screen. You watch PICTURES. They don't lie. If I thought the Genesis was inferior to film capture, I'd tell you. I don't work for Panavision, don't own any stock, could care less whether they live or die as a company. I'm only reporting what I saw with my own two eyes. I thought that's what this site was for -- for people to share their experiences. (Seems a few people on this site don't want to hear about what other people have seen with their eyes and would rather quote statistics. I don't get that at all.)

 

Like I said, don't take my word for it. Check it out the test footage for yourself and come to your own conclusion.

 

I don't think film HAS to die. I just think it will. Film is expensive, cumbersome, uses a lot of toxic chemicals in its processing, and if there's a digital solution that looks just as good, then I'm all for it.

[Tenolian Bell]

You watch PICTURES. They don't lie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's a funny statement.

 

Myself as well as others have seen the Genesis/35mm test.

 

Many of your arguments have already been made and exhaustively discussed.

 

But then you don't really seem to present yourself as open to discussion.

[Rik Andino]

I don't think film HAS to die. I just think it will. Film is expensive, cumbersome, uses a lot of toxic chemicals in its processing, and if there's a digital solution that looks just as good, then I'm all for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What toxic chemicals does it use in it's processing?

 

PS Renting the Genesis is as expensive as shooting film

And it's just as cumbersome if not more

Edited March 12, 2005 by Rik Andino

[Mark Allen]

Did you see the footage projected on screen

Or on a television monitor? How good is it? Really?  How are the colors and the sharpness?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I saw it proected on film (after being trasnfered) where it cut from film to genesis and back and then played the whole sequence again with the footage alternated the other direction (genesis to film and back every cut).

 

I could tell which was film and which was genesis. Had I not been looking for it... would I have known? I don't know. I don't know if I would have been thinking about it.

 

If I were shooting Superman would I shoot genesis or film? Probably film. The money is there and what signals me that something was genesis is something I'd rather avoid - even if it is only a few percentage points of an aesthetic difference.

 

If the genesis were a 1k/day rental I think there would be a revolution afoot. But it's not. It costs a lot.

 

[As for Peter's attack on Kodak (in several forums now). I don't think that's necessary. Their not the enemy here. We're filmmakers. They've got a tremendous history of being integral in quality filmmaking. We respect that. They'll have their digital 4k camera at some point too. Whoops? Did I just leak some info? No... it's just a guess... but I'd say... come on, of course they will. Anyway - showing respect is always a good way to start irregardless.]

[Sam Wells]

I agree Mark and Tenolian. This is an evolutionary process.

 

Way more cheaper for me and a thousand others to shoot film than use the Genesis, even if it's magnificent.

 

Let's see what it really can do out in the world. I've heard "in five years film will..." every five years since 1980. Usually from people who didn't know how to shoot it or never had shot it.

 

-Sam

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

They took the Genesis, some F900s, and a full 35 packages out of Panavision Woodland Hills. No one knows for sure, including many at Panavision, what they are going to do. I've shot with Tom Sigel and know him and his 1st Ac. I ran into the 1st at Panavision while prepping and he didn't even know what was going to be shot on what. He did say he had something like 12 cameras (HD, 35) that he was spending 4 weeks prepping to ship down to Australia. For some reason it's all hush hush.

 

Before they left for Australia they shot tests at Warner Bros. and used the Genesis for those tests.

[Guest Peter Waal]

Let's see what it really can do out in the world. I've heard "in five years film will..." every five years since 1980. Usually from people who didn't know how to shoot it or never had shot it.

 

I understand you have ample reason to be skeptical. I was skeptical before I saw the test.

 

Anyway, for film to be "dead" it doesn't have to disappear entirely from the face of the earth. Dead is probably an overstatement. But would you settle for "severely marginalized" or "niche product"?

 

Before you start throwing food at your screen, let me explain: You can still buy vinyl records today, but nobody would seriously suggest vinyl is a competitor to CDs or MP3. And be clear, I'm not talking about sound quality. I know there are people out there who insist records sound better than digital audio, just as I'm sure many of you will continue to insist film negative is a better choice -- qualitatively -- than digital capture, no matter which way the wind blows from a business perspective. That's your right.

 

I'm asking you to step back for a moment and look at where the BUSINESS is going. Like it or not, the business, overall, wants digital capture, digital processing, and digital presentation. Digital processing is here now, digital presentation is coming, but until the Genesis came along, the digital capture part was looking pretty dicey. Now that Genesis looks viable, a lot more money is going to be poured into digital capture than ever before -- and that moneyflow is what's going to push film to the sidelines. Companies like Dalsa and Arri and Thomson are eager to compete. That competition is what drives innovation. That's how industries change over time.

 

So, film may not disappear entirely, but if even only 50% of all the movies being made in 2010 are being shot with digital cameras, film companies will no longer be able to make their margins, because film is a VOLUME business. You literally have to sell boatloads of it to make it profitable. Half of the film business going to digital capture would be more than enough to destroy the film+chemical based economy. The tipping point is probably less than 50%, but I doubt anybody from the film companies even knows, because nobody calculates for industrial Armageddon. It just happens.

 

The film+chemical people know this is true, which is why whenever you bring it up they point out that they do "more than just make film and chemicals." While true, it's also true that the bulk of their revenues come from selling film, paper and chemicals to the photography and motion picture industries. If there's a "we'll see" to this story, it's whether most of the film+chemical companies will survive much beyond 2010. Polaroid has already disappeared because it didn't diversify its product line in time. Personally, I doubt there will be room for both of Fuji and Kodak much longer. People are buying less film, and with less film you need less chemical to process it. That's why Kodak's not in the Dow 30 anymore. That's not an attack, that's a fact. The trend is only going to intensify in the next three to five years, spurred on by major developments like Genesis.

 

Industries advance and industries retreat. It happens all the time. In the early part of the 20th century, the major carmakers bought up all the trolley tracks in the United States so that they could be paved over with roads for cars. At the time, people said the personal automobile was a fantasy. It would never happen. What they didn't understand was that the smart money was already backing cars, and that's why cars won. Not because cars were "better" but because the smart money was behind cars. That's where the profits were going to be made. Today, the smart money in film isn't in film, it's in digital. Not because digital is "better" but because the that's where the profits are going to be made.

 

Bottom line: If I were a cameraman, I'd be learning everything I could about digital capture. I'd know digital capture like the back of my hand. Every knook and cranny of it. How it works. How the systems are made. Who designs them. Etc. I'd leave film to the old guys and throw all my energy into understanding digital and making digital capture as good as I could make it. That's just me.

[John Pytlak RIP]

I'd be learning everything I could about digital capture. I'd know digital capture like the back of my hand. Every knook and cranny of it. How it works. How the systems are made. Who designs them. Etc.

 

Sounds like you'd like an internship at Kodak. :D

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDe...eDo/index.shtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDe...ent/about.shtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDe...ighlights.shtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/digital/ccd/sensorsMain.jhtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDe...icSensors.shtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDe...rocessing.shtml

[Guest Peter Waal]

Sounds like you'd like an internship at Kodak. :D

 

Are you offering, John?

[John Pytlak RIP]

Are you good enough, Peter?:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/careers/in...tml?pq-path=923

[Guest Peter Waal]

Are you good enough, Peter?:

 

I'd want me on my side.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Are you good enough, Peter?:

 

I'd want me on my side.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Kodak tries to hire the best people, to design and make the best products and services. :)

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDe...ts/awards.shtml

[Guest Peter Waal]

Kodak tries to hire the best people, to design and make the best products and services.  :)

 

I would hope so :)

 

Your products and services are great. It's your strategy that's lacking.

[Tenolian Bell]

The funny thing is all of this has been said before.

 

You are saying absolutely nothing new.

 

To skip forward to the inevitable conclusion.

 

From previous discussions where all these same points have been made and debated over. Generally what is agreed upon is that no one has a crystal ball and no one can predict the future.

 

We all agree digital capture is here it has advantages, and it is replacing film in parts of the industry where it is most useful. This is good.

 

We all agree digital does not yet replace many of the advantages that come with film capture. Maybe one day it will, but right now it doesn't. Film chemistry contiunues to improve and march on. Hybrid film/digital systems are being developed and improved. Film can be scanned at far higher resolutions and chroma samples far beyond what any digital capture system is right now able.

 

Yes the Genesis test looked great. That was one test under a certain set of parameters that did not take into account other factors and parameters.

 

After shooting the test Daviau said himself digital is getting better, but still does not match a 35mm negative.

[Tenolian Bell]

You watch PICTURES. They don't lie.

 

You may not understand all of the manipulation and choices that go into an image before it is on a movie screen. You are not watching reality, it is not the truth, you are watching a fantasy created in someone else's imagination.

 

The same holds true for the Genesis/35mm test.

[Tenolian Bell]

They took the Genesis, some F900s, and a full 35 packages out of Panavision Woodland Hills. No one knows for sure, including many at Panavision, what they are going to do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sounds as though they have a plan they want to keep hush.

 

Hopefully they plan to do somehting really cool.

 

HD has the potential to be used in creative ways, other than a lot of post processing to make it look like slick 35mm.