The secret to behind the Panavision Genesis

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Really, it's not a new idea.

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, and if you dare to ask on these forums the question: "If colour stripe filters are so great, why do all the broadcast TV camera manufacturers still persist with those expensive and fragile dichroic prisms with three CCD sensors"

you'll usually get a flood of people telling you it must be because nobody thought of it before! People who usually can't spell terribly well....

 

But the Trinicon came out in the early 70s!

[Ted Johanson]

First of all, Panavision don't sell cameras, they only build them for their own rental operation, so scalability isn't really an issue for their customers.

 

You mean Sony isn't going to try to sell their version of the camera, just as they did

with the F900?

 

...to buy back Sony's interest in Panavision...

What a shock! Sony couldn't stick with something?! Oh my, what is this world

coming to?!

 

According to my contacts at a certain large video rental house, Sony representatives are no longer welcome at Panavison!

 

That would be a relief, if it's true.

 

I would have thought the Genesis would surely have used an alternating RGB pixel structure viz

 

RGBRGBRGBRGBRGB

BGRBGRBGRBGRBRG

RGBRGBRGBRGBRGB

 

and then use line averaging to cancel out colour artifacts, which is what they've always used in single-chip RGB colour cameras before, both Sony's and those made by other manufacturers! (I think they all used Sony CCD chips anyway).

 

But when I asked John Galt at Panavison about this, he obviously didn't understand what I was talking about.

 

This seems all too often to be the case. You call up a company to ask them some

technical questions and they either can't give you an answer or they'll give you

an answer that they think sounds good for their company. So, when you call up

a company to ask them if the resolution is scalable, don't expect to get a straight

answer.

 

 

-Ted Johanson

[Kevin Zanit]

". . . Sony representatives are no longer welcome at Panavison . . ."

 

I have been told the same thing from certain people.

 

"You mean Sony isn't going to try to sell their version of the camera, just as they did

with the F900?"

 

Panavision just altered Sony's camera slightly. It was not Panavision's camera, and then Sony started selling it. It was a Sony camera that Panavision just modified.

 

Panavision changed the body some, changed the handle, the lens mount, and some various other minor things.

 

If you look at the "Panavisied" 900 you can see the "S" from Sony slightly visible through Panavision's modifications.

 

Even if Sony was going to sell an item like the Genesis, it would most likely be too expensive for most. The figures I have been told is that the camera will cost $250,000 to build (the production model).

 

 

Kevin Zanit

[John Sprung]

The figures I have been told is that the camera will cost $250,000 to build (the production model).

Kevin Zanit

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You say that as if it were a lot of money. ;-)

 

What's the street price of Arri's top of the line film cameras? Probably not far from that quarter mil.....

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Elhanan Matos]

This seems all too often to be the case. You call up a company to ask them some

technical questions and they either can't give you an answer or they'll give you

an answer that they think sounds good for their company. So, when you call up

a company to ask them if the resolution is scalable, don't expect to get a straight

answer.

 

Maybe youre just calling the wrong place. I wouldn't call Best Buy or CompUSA for technical support for my Television Set or Computer Monitor. I would call the manufacturer. If you're looking for a straight answer maybe you should call someone at Sony who knows more... Now who that is is another problem in itself.

 

I would think the best time to be asking those questions would be at NAB in a few weeks.

[Elhanan Matos]

I was told that Sony had no interest in Releasing the Genesis to the public. Although, I'm sure if you give sony enough money they will build you one. I think the exclusivity contract on the Genesis ends sometime around next November.

[Kevin Zanit]

For a company like Sony whose equipment such as an F900 is nowhere near the price of $250,000 it is a lot of money.

 

The price tag would eliminate all but a few rental houses, certainly not enough to entice Sony into dumping a lot of money to manufacture, and market the thing.

 

On top of all this, one would still need the optics, and all the other various expenses accompanying a high-end camera.

 

A top end Arri camera body is under a $100,000.

 

So yes, in the scheme of high-end equipment, $250,000 is not a lot of money, but it is enough to eliminate much of the potential buyers, thus making it unviable for Sony.

 

Kevin Zanit

[Guest Peter Waal]

Can't figure out what the point of buying something like this would be, especially now that movie cameras are going digital and entering the realm of "Moore's Law." Someone, maybe Panavision, will probably have a superior model on the market 18 months from now. (Say two years, just to be a pessimist.)

[John Pytlak RIP]

Moore's Law applies to computer chips and memory devices, but past history says that digital cameras have moved at a slower pace. It's much more than pixels on a chip that make a good camera.

[Guest Peter Waal]

Moore's Law applies to computer chips and memory devices, but past history says that digital cameras have moved at a slower pace.  It's much more than pixels on a chip that make a good camera.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's more than film that makes a good camera, too. And "good" is a relative concept.

 

Past history re: digital cameras isn't much time. They've come a long way in a few years. I'd take my 8 megapixel Nikon over my 35 mm Nikon any day of the week. What I lose in highlight detail I more than gain in convenience.

 

Anyway, a digital camera is a computer with a lens on it, and Moore's Law isn't a law, it's an axiom that drives the digital industries, of which movies are rapidly becoming a part. Moore's Law is already a factor. HD is no longer considered good enough unless it's 4:4:4. Genesis now trumps HD. In a couple of years (at most) something else will come in and trump Genesis. If that's not Moore's Law in action, I don't know what else to call it.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Keeping up with Moore's Law can be expensive. ;)

 

This year's latest is next year's boat anchor.

[Tenolian Bell]

It's more than film that makes a good camera, too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Actually:

 

Film and its camera don't share a relationship to the way a video camera works.

 

A film camera really only has to move the film at a constant speed and hold it still for 1/24 of a second, without tearing or scratching it. Everything else is just bells and whistles.

[Guest Peter Waal]

Keeping up with Moore's Law can be expensive.  ;)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is expensive. But making movies is expensive. Hollywood is no stranger to spending money. Who's taking Genesis for a spin? Not some fledgling indie filmmaker -- Warner Bros. It's the big studios who are going to pay the freight on digital capture, not low budget independents. Sorry, John, but if Superman goes ahead with the Genesis, which seems to be the case, the movement to digital capture in Hollywood is going to go into warp drive. The big studios spend billions annually on production and marketing. An extra twenty or thirty million a year to underwrite improvements in the camera systems is chump change to them, if it means no more film.

 

Which it does.

[Tenolian Bell]

HD is no longer considered good enough unless it's 4:4:4. Genesis now trumps HD.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Genesis is HD. Slightly compressed HD.

 

The F900 is highly compressed HD.

 

The next step up is uncompressed HD.

[Guest Peter Waal]

Genesis is HD.  Slightly compressed HD.

 

The F900 is highly compressed HD.

 

The next step up is uncompressed HD.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would say the next step is 4K capture and on-board recording of 4K images. But I'll take uncompressed HD in the meantime.

 

Where Genesis adds a major improvement to HD is in the area of it's 35 mm-like depth of field control. It focuses like a film camera, uses film camera lenses, onto a Super 35 mm sized sensor. IMO, that addresses a major limitation of HD up to now.

[John Pytlak RIP]

It's more than film that makes a good camera, too. And "good" is a relative concept.

 

Past history re: digital cameras isn't much time. They've come a long way in a few years. I'd take my 8 megapixel Nikon over my 35 mm Nikon any day of the week. What I lose in highlight detail I more than gain in convenience.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My daughter is getting married in November. EVERY professional wedding photographer we interviewed preferred film. Sometimes that highlight detail is really much more important than "convenience".

 

I would say the next step is 4K capture and on-board recording of 4K images. But I'll take uncompressed HD in the meantime.

 

Digital motion-picture cameras are still struggling with the very high data rates and massive amounts of data that need to be recorded for anything above 2K resolution (1920 x 1080 = only 2 megapixels). Compression, subsampling, aliasing, and low bit depth are still necessary evils with real consequences. So don't expect the resolution and image quality of that 8 megapixel Nikon or 14 megapixel Kodak digital still camera very soon for motion imaging.

 

I still favor the 12 megapixel sensors mounted on a perforated clear plastic base that Kodak sells for less than $0.04 each. B) (And I do own a Kodak digital camera, along with a few 35mm SLRs).

[Guest Peter Waal]

My daughter is getting married in November.  EVERY professional wedding photographer we interviewed preferred film.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Most (professional) wedding photographers shoot 120 roll film at a minimum. Even the best 35 mm film can't hold a candle to 120, to say nothing of larger formats.

 

35 mm ain't much of a standard for digital to beat. Which is why it's going to beat it. If the movie business were using 65 mm as its standard, you might have an argument.

 

Any chance Kodak's going to cut the price of 65 mm neg to keep digital at bay?

[Tenolian Bell]

I would say the next step is 4K capture and on-board recording of 4K images.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is the exact work flow on Peter Jackson's King Kong right now.

[Guest Peter Waal]

That is the exact work flow on Peter Jackson's King Kong right now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Really? I know you can record 4K with cables to a hard drive, but cabled recording is a bit of a mess on set, especially if you want to use a steadicam or any kind of complex rig. Do you know if they have an onboard recording system? Do you know what camera? Curious. Thanks.

[John Pytlak RIP]

35 mm ain't much of a standard for digital to beat. Which is why it's going to beat it. If the movie business were using 65 mm as its standard, you might have an argument.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As I said:

 

Digital motion-picture cameras are still struggling with the very high data rates and massive amounts of data that need to be recorded for anything above 2K resolution (1920 x 1080 = only 2 megapixels).

 

So when will a true 4K digital camera having film's latitude and an on-board recording device be on the market?

[Guest Peter Waal]

So when will a true 4K digital camera having film's latitude and an on-board recording device be on the market?

 

Whenever it arrives, one thing is certain: It will be sooner than Kodak would like :)

[John Pytlak RIP]

Or maybe it will be made by Kodak! ;)

[Guest Peter Waal]

Or maybe it will be made by Kodak!  ;)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bring it on, baby!

[Tenolian Bell]

Here is how Peter Jackson's King Kong is recording 4K capture and storage.

 

http://www.arri.com/video_diary/day62-480x270-mpeg4.mov

 

 

Here is the 4K post work flow.

 

http://www.arri.com/video_diary/day66-480x270-mpeg4.mov

[Tenolian Bell]

Well you asked about 4K recording and storage.

 

I was just showing you how it can and is being done right now.