Panavision Genesis Screening

[Mark Allen]

I just saw a screening of the Genesis footage shot by Alan Davieu, ASC at Panavision.

 

I remember years ago watching the footage he shot with the 900 at Sony. I didn't then and never have felt that the current HD format produced aesthetically pleasing enough results that I would want to shoot a feature with it.

 

The Genesis, however, did. At least, from what I saw I felt it did. Here are some impressions I had after watching the footage.

 

They show the same sequence of shots twice. They intercut between film and genesis each cut. I won't say which came first so as not to ruin the surprise for people.

 

Could I tell? Yes, I could for many shots, but I've spent many years looking at this stuff and know what to look for - and, frankly, if someone had told me it was all 35mm I probably wouldn't have noticed. No one else in the room (producers/directors) I brought along had a sense which was which - except for a line producer who was right more often than not.

 

But here is the real question... Do I think it has the quality to create the same aesthetic experience as film for a discerning audience? Yes. And that's what matters most to me. One thing I definitely was looking for and was happy with was that it seemed the skin tones were less smudgy that I see in current Sony HD (and I see HD every day). I've always felt that kept HD out of being useful for anything but high gloss or stlized. I could see more aesthetic impressions being created with this Genesis process.

 

Now - know that in all the footage I saw - it was graded with the blacks crushed. I really would have liked to see the raw footage because then I could have guessed where it would have gone from there.

 

If you see the footage, you'll note that the Genesis definitely is holding more information in the whites as well. If you don't, they'll point it out for you.

 

Also know that this was the footage Panavision put together for us to see. I would be interested in knowing the DP's comments and will search the internet for them.

 

Before I made a huge commitment to it I would like to see some raw footage - even if it is just something shot in the stage - but I was given confidence by what I saw that I would be happy shooting in this format.

 

Now, the camera isn't going to be cheap to rent for a the next year or more. That's a downside. For films that aren't shooting a lot of footage, the savings might not be stellar.

 

(All the technical specs are online, so I'm not talking about those - just aesthetics.)

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

00

(All the technical specs are online, so I'm not talking about those - just aesthetics.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Where? Where? I've never been able to find anything but vague generalizations and a lot of "verbal hand waving", and not for want of trying.

 

And the question on most curmudgeons' lips: If recording-wise at least, it's no more difficult than Betacam, why have so few tests been done?

 

I mean: load tape; shoot your pictures; remove tape; take to transfer house of your choice! How hard is that?

 

If the bloody thing is supposed to be oh-so-35mm-film-camera-like in operation, how come only ONE GUY has been allowed to shoot tests.?

 

And I don't recall Davieu being all that pants-wetting excited about the results anyway <_<

Edited February 4, 2005 by Jim Murdoch

[Mark Allen]

Where? Where? I've never been able to find anything but vague generalizations and a lot of "verbal hand waving", and not for want of trying.

...

And I don't recall Davieu being all that pants-wetting excited about the results anyway <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well... there's a lot of information here: http://panavision.com/product_detail.php?m...de=c0,c202,c203

 

As for other tests - I think the camera is relatively new and people seem to be testing for their own purposes which they probably don't want to release. Bascially if you can gather up the cash to rent one, you're probably working on something that you don't want out in the public domain. I was thinking of calling to ask if they had any other footage or raw files.

 

Daviau's comments in milimeter.com included:

 

<<Daviau cautions that the cinematography community needs to do further Genesis tests, ?really abusing the camera out in the field with available night-light exteriors? before the device's niche evolves. Besides, adds Daviau, neither Genesis nor any digital camera will equal film anytime soon.

 

?This camera produced a very good quality image, no doubt,? he says. ?But in terms of overall picture quality, you won't easily be able to capture exactly what a piece of negative captures. Film will always capture tremendous highlights and shadow information that will always exist on your negative, even if you won't be using it until sometime down the line, such as when you make new prints or digital transfers.?>>

 

http://millimeter.com/mag/video_genesis_test/

 

I think this is where the huge price leap concerned me. It seemed like it was a great breakthrough for indies - far better than other digital options - no question there. But I think if money were no object, I'm not sure why someone would choose it over film. I see the market for the camera as the people who are on the fense of HD vs. film for cost reasons. I think the camera just needs to be priced in that range.

[Rik Andino]

Well many big Hollywood Directors are fans of HD

George Lucas, Robert Rodriguez, Steve Buscemi, Michael Mann (to name a few)

They don't care about price so they might rent it.

 

Many Actors and Producers are also falling in love with HD

So it might be used more on big studio sets

The Director could justify that HD will bring out better performances

Than shooting on Film and the studion would do it to appease the stars.

 

Also Television is perhaps the biggest HD market out there...

Panavision could easily dominate the Television market

That seem like a very lucrative idea to Panavision.

 

I don't think Panavision is that interested in the Indie Market

Who's best option still is Super16 (which can look better than HD)

Not many people are that interested in the Indie Market.

 

HD is as expensive a format as 35mm, I still don't see it that affordable.

 

And Panavision is poise to make a killing and maybe revolutionize the industry.

[Michael Most]

Many Actors and Producers are also falling in love with HD

 

Really? Name one.

[Rik Andino]

Johnny Depp loved it...

he was talking about it in the Once Upon...Mexico junkettes

 

Neve Campell said she like working in HD too

 

Jamie Foxx also said something about the comfort of HD

 

But I'm serious many actors love the fact that you can do more takes

(I dunno if that's a good thing but...)

 

I'm just stating that many actors liked it (not just the famous ones)

 

Am I wrong? Do actors hate HD?

 

I dunno, I dunno I'm just a little man--if is the middle word in life :)

[Kevin Zanit]

Well, a lot of actors like it for the above reasons: The long takes, and the ability to start and stop the camera in less formal way . . . thus less intrusion into their performance.

 

On the other hand, HD can do some tricky things with skin tones, etc. It also can be hard for an actor to see themselves on a 24" HD monitor during playback (assuming you have playback, and let the actor see it).

 

I really don?t think it is substantial one way or the other.

 

 

Kevin Zanit

[Mark Allen]

Well many big Hollywood Directors are fans of HD

George Lucas, Robert Rodriguez, Steve Buscemi, Michael Mann (to name a few)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think the process of HD is very appealing to many. I feel like until the Genesis, though, the acceptability range was too limited.

 

Now, I realize that Rodriguez loves HD - but I honestly don't think the look of Once upone a Time in Mexico served the film or was appropriate. I thought, therefore, it looked bad. Spy Kids on the other hand, I think the HD worked fine - made perfect sense.

 

If I could sum up my feelings about what I saw (which was very limited as I mentioned) - it would be this:

 

The aesthetic range of the technology has widened greatly with this release of the technology.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Well... there's a lot of information here:  http://panavision.com/product_detail.php?m...de=c0,c202,c203

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No there isn't; they don't really tell you anything much, although it might sound like they do<_<

 

I think this is where the huge price leap concerned me.  It seemed like it was a great breakthrough for indies - far better than other digital options - no question there.  But I think if money were no object, I'm not sure why someone would choose it over film.  I see the market for the camera as the people who are on the fense of HD vs. film for cost reasons.  I think the camera just needs to be priced in that range.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you've pretty well summed up the reason for the lack of interest in HD movie capture five years on! Why would you want to spend more on renting the equipment than you'd save on the film?

[John Sprung]

Where? Where? I've never been able to find anything but vague generalizations and a lot of "verbal hand waving", and not for want of trying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John Galt of Panavision gave us some details at HPA. The Genesis sensor is 5760 x 2160 photosites, and the sites are simple rectangles 4.10 x 6.15 microns. My speculation about fancy intertwined sites was wrong. They're grouped three by two like this:

 

RGB

RGB

 

So, the groups are square, and there are 1920 x 1080 of them.

 

I'm surprised that nobody sees a difference between horizontal and vertical resolution with this setup. I certainly didn't. Vertically, they only have to make the 2160 Nyquist limit optically, then they can filter digitally to the 1080 limit, which lets them pretty much max out the top octave vertically. But horizontally the colors are severely undersampled, and they only have 1920 complete datasets across. I'll look for a resolution discrepancy if I see the tests again. It'll be interesting to try pulling a green screen matte.

 

But the most important thing in this business is what the pictures look like on the screen. If the pictures look great, nobody gives a s--t what the numbers say.

 

Clearly, 2/3" will soon be dead and gone for most single camera work. It'll linger a while in low budget features. It has a long future in TV news, documentaries, and sitcoms. It'll be big chips vs. film for single camera shows that can afford a caterer.

 

As for other tests, the cameras haven't been available. Daviau shot with a prototype. Last I heard, Panavision was building the production units, but didn't have any ready to ship. It should happen real soon, if not yet.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Greg Gross]

Hey mmost,

When are you going to come out of your cave? We all know Rik Andino,

Mark Douglas. I'm just a dumb ass student cinematographer myself,pro-

fessional photographer,professional in medicine,and I produce my own

short dv productions. What do you do? Whats your name? Please enlight-

en us on the Viper, Panavision Genesis. Personally I think they are both

good cameras. I do not think its by mistake that Al Mayer Jr. has offered

the Genesis for the Superman production, lets be patience and see what

happens. I can call Mr. Mayer on the phone and ask him? I think he's got

the the right idea in mind. You know the Genesis was conceived and de-

signed right on his desk. I want to see what the quality looks like after

tape goes to production. Hey man its all happening in the USA,isn't that

great?

Greg Gross

Professional Photographer

Film 7 Productions

Student Cinematographer

Respiratory Therapist,RRT

Ventilator Management Specialist

Long Term Acute Care

P.O. Box 5057

3122 Green St.

Harrisburg,PA 17110

Tele. 717-233-9065

[David Mullen ASC]

Mike Most is a regular contributor on CML and he probably figures we already know him here too. He's a post supervisor and efx supervisor in the film and TV industry, right Mike? I know he worked for awhile as the efx supervisor on "Exorcist: The Beginning".

[Keith Mottram]

Mark, was there any talk at the screening about scope options?

 

Keith

[Greg Gross]

Well I have no problem with that Mr. Mullen. He's been hitting pretty hard

at times here with no name,no credentials. I mean I know I'm a dumb ass

but some of these other guys deserve a little more respect for their views.

I mean Mr. Douglas was there at the screening and expressed what he ob-

served, he's no newbie. I can tell you for a fact that I read a line from Grass

Valley site that said $45,000.00 for Venom Flash Pak(starting at) with no euro

sign . I suspect that it was corrected, sorry I'm not sure of date and time. I

assure you David that I respect you and the ASC. You could chew my ears off

all day and I'd take it,as I'm aware of your professionalism,craft,art. I some-

times get bent a little with these anonymous user names. I know I use Pd170

user but its intended to express the camera and format I use, I always sign

with my name. Your point was well taken sir and thank you.

 

Greg Gross

[Mark Allen]

Mark, was there any talk at the screening about scope options? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not with us, sorry. I didn't think to ask.

[Michael Most]

Mike Most is a regular contributor on CML and he probably figures we already know him here too.  He's a post supervisor and efx supervisor in the film and TV industry, right Mike?  I know he worked for awhile as the efx supervisor on "Exorcist: The Beginning".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's pretty accurate. I've been a Visual Effects Supervisor since about 1996, primarily in television (I did "Ally McBeal" for all 5 seasons, as well as the first season of "Charmed," the first season of "Roswell," numerous pilots and MOW's, and more recently various episodes of "Without A Trace" and "Veronica Mars") and, as David mentioned, occasional feature work, most recently the Paul Schrader version of "Exorcist: The Beginning." I also do occasional freelance compositing and some CG work. Prior to that, I was Technical Director of Encore Video in L.A., prior to that I was lead colorist for television programs at the same facility (worked on L.A. Law, Cop Rock, Byrds of Paradise, NYPD Blue, and many other shows), prior to that I was a post production supervisor and occasional associate producer at Lorimar (for almost 7 years), prior to that I was a colorist (actually, we were called Telecine Operators in those days, the early 1980's) doing primarily feature mastering at Bluth Video Systems in Burbank (now defunct, bought by AME in the mid 80's), prior to that I was a videotape operator, and prior to that I was an assistant film editor. I'm a member of IATSE Local 600 (Cinematographers' Guild) and the Television Academy. Favorite color: blue. Whew. Quite a trip down memory lane, but I think that pretty much covers the last 25-30 years.

 

If I seem a bit hard on some posters, I don't mean to be. I'm just bothered by misconceptions about the way the industry and production in general work, and the way these misconceptions seem to become fact on the Internet. I'm also bothered by the notion that one can pick up a DV camera and call themselves a "cinematographer," and that one can then pick up a copy of Final Cut Pro and call themselves a "filmmaker." But mostly, I read and post here and elsewhere to correct the many misconceptions that seem to arise about our industry and how it works.

 

And I'm also very proud to call David Mullen a friend, whom I hope to see again one of these days.

[Michael Most]

Well, a lot of actors like it for the above reasons:  The long takes, and the ability to start and stop the camera in less formal way . . . thus less intrusion into their performance.

 

On the other hand, HD can do some tricky things with skin tones, etc.  It also can be hard for an actor to see themselves on a 24" HD monitor during playback (assuming you have playback, and let the actor see it).

 

Yes, that's a good point - some actors do like the ability to keep rolling, although I would add that a number of actors I've worked with on HD shows are sometimes put off by it, in the sense that they want to give some thought to directors' adjustments before having to incorporate it into a performance. They don't necessarily like the pressure that comes with the AD saying "still rolling," although directors sometimes like the spontaneity that results from it.

 

I wouldn't call that "falling in love" with HD, though. And I would also add that in my experience, every actor I know would rather be shot on film than on anything else, for many reasons.

[Michael Most]

Hey man its all happening in the USA,isn't that

great?       

                                     

 

It would be, except that "Superman" is being shot in Australia.

 

Not that I have a problem with that. In fact, I love Australia, and would love to go back (I did an MOW there about 7 years ago, in Gold Coast ). Great atmosphere, great people, great crew, in fact, great everything.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think actors like acting when they don't have to worry about the number of takes or camera reloads, but many don't like how they look on video, and it can be a shock to see themselves on a 24" HD monitor in a close-up, especially if they are middle-aged actors worrying about lines in their faces...

[Max Jacoby]

The Director could justify that HD will bring out better performances

Than shooting on Film and the studion would do it to appease the stars.

 

The 3 key elements to a good performance are:

 

a good script

a good actor

a good director

 

The number of takes on can do is not even remotely as important as any of the above elements. Nor is the ability to watch high quality playback. If you haven't got it after take 7, you won't get it after take 77 either.

[Mike Brennan]

The 3 key elements to a good performance are:

 

a good script

a good actor

a good director

 

The number of takes on can do is not even remotely as important as any of the above elements. Nor is the ability to watch high quality playback. If you haven't got it after take 7, you won't get it after take 77 either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is more to the story than the above.

I worked last year with a director on a feature, it was his first HD shoot.

Budget was around $2.5M.

The director said that HD gave him the option to go for the perfect take.

He said on this budget if shooting 35mm film that he would not have been able to afford extra takes.

The film was character driven with experienced actors.

 

So on modest budgets the extra take is needed to make the most of the the good script and the good actor!

 

The other point to consider, made before on this foum was Faye Dunaways comment that being able to say "reset", (rather than "cut") gives the director the ability to maintain energy and pressure on set. Another way to make the most of the good script and good acting and more to the point, make the most of average actors and average scripts!

 

Mike Brennan

[Max Jacoby]

Of course it is nice to know that one can do an unlimited amount of takes, but the fact is that unless you are working with non professionals or are improvising, shooting a lot of takes very often is counter productive. Even if tape is cheap, rehearsal is still cheaper as is rewriting the script. Shooting a lot of takes takes up time, which is a luxury the exact same productions that you mention don't have! Saying that shooting a lot of takes will help compensate for an average script and average actors is about as valid an approach as saying: we will fix it in post. It is the indie equivalent of the Hollywood attitude of pouring money into films, hoping that all your expensive special effects, stunts and such will help cover the fact that your script is just no good.

[Mike Brennan]

Of course it is nice to know that one can do an unlimited amount of takes, but the fact is that unless you are working with non professionals or are improvising, shooting a lot of takes very often is counter productive. Even if tape is cheap, rehearsal is still cheaper as is rewriting the script. Shooting a lot of takes takes up time, which is a luxury the exact same productions that you mention don't have! Saying that shooting a lot of takes will help compensate for an average script and average actors is about as valid an approach as saying: we will fix it in post. It is the indie equivalent of the Hollywood attitude of pouring money into films, hoping that all your expensive special effects, stunts and such will help cover the fact that your script is just no good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is this a response to my post?

Let me restate;

A leading experienced Mexican Director

and an experienced cast, ie RADA trained ect ect. (no non professionals)

No improvising

The director said that shooting HD enabled him to go for the extra take or two to try for perfection of perfomance, whereas had he been shooting film he would have stopped after perhaps three takes if had achieved 80% satisfaction of the performance.

 

HD gave this director the *budget* to get better performances.

This was not counter productive!

 

Mike Brennan

[Max Jacoby]

Is this a response to my post?

 

Indeed it is :-)

 

On all the films I have worked on so far, we usually did 3 to 5 takes of each shot. That includes actors of all kind of experience and training, ranging from first timers to several Academy Award Winners. The budgets range from 750k Euros to over 30 Million Euros. Shooting ratios of 10:1 to 25:1. I am not disputing that in some instances the fact that one doesn't have to worry about the number of takes that one can do is a bonus, but I have yet to encounter a film like that. So the claim that shooting on video will magically improve your acting performance is in my opinion overrated.

 

Funnily enough I am currently working on a HD feature where we are doing the same 3 to 5 takes on average that I am used to from my 35mm shoots.

[Mike Brennan]

Indeed it is :-)

 

On all the films I have worked on so far, we usually did 3 to 5 takes of each shot. That includes actors of all kind of experience and training, ranging from first timers to several Academy Award Winners. The budgets range from 750k Euros to over 30 Million Euros. Shooting ratios of 10:1 to 25:1. I am not disputing that in some instances the fact that one doesn't have to worry about the number of takes that one can do is a bonus, but I have yet to encounter a film like that. So the claim that shooting on video will magically improve your acting performance is in my opinion overrated.

 

Funnily enough I am currently working on a HD feature where we are doing the same 3 to 5 takes on average that I am used to from my 35mm shoots.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I didn't say that shooting video would magically improve acting performances, so please don't pharaphrase my argument in that way!

 

I stated a particular directors experience that he could try for 100% perfection on video where if he was shooting on film on a simalr budget he would stop at 80% after say three takes.

 

Your figures are meaningless in this discussion as you have not related them to degree of acceptable performance as defined by a director.

 

Was the director happy to stop at 3 or 5 takes? Had they been shooting HD would he have gone for another? Bearing in mind it *doesn't* usually involve a reload?

 

 

Mileage will obviously vary from director to director and movie to movie.

 

 

Mike Brennan