The secret to behind the Panavision Genesis

[nchopp]

I've heard of it and so what? You can make 24" x 50" prints from micro film.

Of course, they won't look perfect at that size but neither will a 22 "megapixel"

Bayer pattern sampled image. What does this camera cost? $15,000, $20,000?

A 22 megapixel Bayer pattern sampled image is pretty pathetic for chip as large

as that camera has! The actual resolving power of film is far greater than the

resolving power that camera. Did I mention yet that larger sensors become

exponentially more expensive and can have increased noise?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I just had to laugh at this part. I've got a crystal clear 24x36 hanging on my wall shot on my Canon 10D, a measly $1,500 (at time of purchase) 6.3mp DSLR, with a $400 Sigma lens. I shoot weddings semi-professionally, and I know MANY professionals that are shooting digital. There aren't too many customers that need something bigger than 20x30, which is where MF starts to come into it's own. Other than that, I'll stick with digital. I save money, and that savings is passed on to the customer. (Although I still shoot some B&W 35, just because I still prefer how it looks)

[Tenolian Bell]

On the other hand, you could theoretically adapt video lenses to work on  film cameras (16mm at least), but I personally haven't heard of anybody wanting to do this!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've heard of NFL films using video lenses on their 16mm cameras. They somehow use the motor in the lens for zoom and focus. That enables them to see the football leave the Quarterback's hand fly through the air and the catch. With smooth zooms and sharp focus.

 

I've inquired about DigiPrimes being used for Super 16, but its always been met with "why would you do that?" I'm just curious. The DigiPrimes are designed to focus the image onto a smaller target. What would be the results?

[Ted Johanson]

I just had to laugh at this part. I've got a crystal clear 24x36 hanging on my wall shot on my Canon 10D, a measly $1,500 (at time of purchase) 6.3mp DSLR, with a $400 Sigma lens. I shoot weddings semi-professionally, and I know MANY professionals that are shooting digital. There aren't too many customers that need something bigger than 20x30, which is where MF starts to come into it's own. Other than that, I'll stick with digital. I save money, and that savings is passed on to the customer. (Although I still shoot some B&W 35, just because I still prefer how it looks)

 

I just had to REALLY laugh at that!!! In order to get a print that large from a 6

megapixel image, you'd need to print it at 85 DPI; a far cry from photographic

quality. And that's not even taking into account the poor sampling accuracy

(Bayer pattern and low-pass filter induced) of your precious 10D. I must say

I have NEVER heard a claim this PATHETIC from a digital SLR owner! Yes,

your image looks "crystal clear" if you are standing, what, 20 feet away or so.

 

You say you save money? Ha! Not with the way people like you think they have

to always have the lastest and "greatest"! When are you going to upgrade to the

20D anyway? Come on, get with it; the 10D is no longer the best digital SLR

in it's price class. You've got to hurry up and buy a whole to new camera just to

upgrade the image quality. Hurry up, you're losing business because you don't

have the coolest digital SLR!

 

 

-Ted Johanson

[K Borowski]

I just had to laugh at this part. I've got a crystal clear 24x36 hanging on my wall shot on my Canon 10D, a measly $1,500 (at time of purchase) 6.3mp DSLR, with a $400 Sigma lens. I shoot weddings semi-professionally, and I know MANY professionals that are shooting digital. There aren't too many customers that need something bigger than 20x30, which is where MF starts to come into it's own. Other than that, I'll stick with digital. I save money, and that savings is passed on to the customer. (Although I still shoot some B&W 35, just because I still prefer how it looks)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It all depends on how close you get to that 24x36 however. Medium format quality becomes apparant at even 8x10 IMHO. Also, wedding pictures are hardly ever wall mounted (unless you're talking about the print or two the couple sends to their parents and relatives), but are usually designed for close inspection mounted in an album. If you're using a camera that's only 6.3 MP, you're doing your customers a severe disservice. The old 110 film is about 5 or 6 MP, and I certainly wouldn't use that to shoot a wedding. And when you shot before did you shoot 35mm at weddings? Even 35mm would have trouble looking good at anything larger than 11x14 in, and the res. on 35mm film goes up to about 15 MP with 400 speed professional film. Also, when you switched over to digital from film photography did you honestly LOWER your prices? Or did they go to pay off the equipment first and then right into your pocket?

[John Sprung]

The DigiPrimes are designed to focus the image onto a smaller target. What would be the results?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The image would dim to black in the corners of the frame. It's called vignetting.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Tenolian Bell]

The image would dim to black in the corners of the frame.  It's called vignetting.

-- J.S.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I suppose that's a sarcastic way of saying the DigiPrimes focus on a target area for the prism block that is even smaller than the super 16 frame.

 

And would more politely answer my inquiry.

[Sam Wells]

Plus you'd be paying money for things you don't need and don't want, the overcorrection for spherical aberration, the ability to rear focus for a longer in-air distance, and color landing which is specific to HD 3-chip prism cameras.

 

I suspect Zeiss will apply any engineering knowledge gained by developing those lenses to other products :)

 

-Sam

[Elhanan Matos]

I suspect Zeiss will apply any engineering knowledge gained by developing those lenses to other products

 

They did. Theyre called the Master primes.

[Elhanan Matos]

I've inquired about DigiPrimes being used for Super 16, but its always been met with "why would you do that?" I'm just curious. The DigiPrimes are designed to focus the image onto a smaller target. What would be the results?

 

That sounds like a fun test. I have access to all the necessary equipment to do this with 35mm film. I have a few sets of Digiprimes just laying around my office, I also have a B4 to PL adapter from Abakus, and I'm sure I can get a camera from someone in the LA area for a weekend.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Six years after the Digital Cinema demo and pronouncement by George Lucas at ShoWest 1999, less than 1 percent of theatre screens have added Digital Cinema systems for feature presentation:

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh no, I realize that the vast majority of people at both ends of the chain are still using film, in flagrant defiance of George Lucas's and Rick McCallum's specific orders, (which makes me wonder when some of the posters here last went out for some fresh air. Hey, it's OK guys, that Y2K thing turned out to be no big deal :P )

 

However, I don't see the development of practical digital projection as being technically "un-do-able" the way I do the development of practical HD acquisition. My point was that if either one did manage to become mainstream, the projection side would surely be more damaging for Kodak and other film manufacturers. But as I always say: "don't sell your Kodak shares just yet!"

 

I guess the reason I'm being such a curmudgeon about this, is that, unlike just about everybody else here, I know how both film and video cameras actually work, what they can and what they can't do, and what technological breakthroughs would be needed to make video a true competitor to film. So far these have been conspicuous by their absence. Yeah, the manufacturers keep shovelling up the same old sh!t year in year out, and year in year out, the other 99% of the film industry ignores them!

 

But here is the, er what's the politically correct way of saying this - the African-American in the archaic solid fuel retention facility :P I really think that future home flat video displays are set to eventually exceed the 1080-lines of HDTV.

There are several new flat-screen technologies that look set to dramatically reduce the cost of flat-panel displays, while at the same time allowing much greater resolution. Woe betide any producer who decides that 1920 x 1080 pixels is good enough! There won't be any "Digital Restoration" re-releases of that crap!

 

And unless electronic cinema projectors are able to keep pace, (and there's no guarantee that they will), the only way cinema operators will be able to offer anything better than what consumers can see at home, is to stick to film projection!

[darren vogler]

Hi Peter,

 

It's me, Darren, from Victoria.

e-mail me: dvogler@hotmail.com

I would love to talk to you!

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Hi Peter,

 

It's me, Darren, from Victoria.

e-mail me: dvogler@hotmail.com

I would love to talk to you!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Er, who are you talking to? I don't see anybody called Peter in this thread.

[Matt Pacini]

You guys can argue with John Plytak all you want, but I'm afraid he still has the last laugh, due to these facts:

 

99.9% of all feature films released are still shot on film, even though we've been hearing for over ten years "any day now, the digital gear is gonna kill film".

 

All the digital formats don't even look as good as 16mm film, let alone 35mm film.

You can argue all the specs you want, and make predictions 'till you're blue in the face. It still doesn't look as good, and using the 8 megapixel still cameras in your argument is an excersize in irrelevance.

 

Anyone with over a room temperature IQ knows that Moore's Law breaks down at a certain point. There are limitations of any technology, you can't analyze the past and predict the future with that kind of precision, especially something this ridiculous.

I bring this up all the time in ridiculous discussions about the environment, silly pop science predictions, etc., where they will say something like: "at the present rate, in 100 years, this will be X bigger" or whatever.

That's like pointing at a 3 month old child, and saying; "at the present rate of growth, in 15 years this child will be 80 feet tall.

 

And let's not forget, film technology has not stopped. It's getting better all the time, AND Kodak themselves, are behind many of the top digital advancements.

Just look at their digital still cameras. Or better yet, buy me one!

 

Matt Pacini

Edited March 27, 2005 by Matt Pacini

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

You guys can argue with John Plytak all you want, but I'm afraid he still has the last laugh, due to these facts:

 

99.9% of all feature films released are still shot on film, even though we've been hearing for over ten years "any day now, the digital gear is gonna kill film".

 

Matt Pacini

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ten years? Ten years?! Listen mister, people have been saying that for nearly fifty years, ever since Ampex demonstrated the first video recorder in 1956 :P

 

 

I'm certainly not arguing with Mr Pytlak at any rate. He's about the only other person here who seems to have any idea what he's talking about.

 

But how dare you bring facts into an online discussion forum!

Edited March 27, 2005 by Jim Murdoch

[Balazs Rozsa]

The reason ?10 years ago they were predicting that soon ? and look after ten years still nothing happened? sounds good. But, if somebody was predicting 10 years ago that movies would be shot digitally soon, he could only hope that big companies like Sony and the like will come up with a new big cheap tape mechanism that can record 4K or 8K images (which was unlikely). Or he could hope that movie makers will be happy with 2K resolution (which was obviously not the case).

 

Now the situation is different. Computer technology is getting near the point where it will allow the recording of very high resolution images economically.

 

Anyone with over a room temperature IQ knows that Moore's Law breaks down at a certain point.  There are limitations of any technology, you can't analyze the past and predict the future with that kind of precision, especially something this ridiculous.

I bring this up all the time in ridiculous discussions about the environment, silly pop science predictions, etc., where they will say something like: "at the present rate, in 100 years, this will be X bigger" or whatever.

That's like pointing at a 3 month old child, and saying; "at the present rate of growth, in 15 years this child will be 80 feet tall.

Matt Pacini

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Please! Theoretical limits are much higher than what is available now. And there are new technologies like laser interference volumetric storage and who knows what else. But of course you cannot base your prediction upon these vague things. Instead just look what the current hard drive manufacturers are doing and saying. The technology you will find in the shops in the next three or four years already exists in the laboratories. And even after that they have a fairly good idea how they will increase storage capacity. Capacity is so high already that you do not need to go that much far in the future to see how computer storage will allow high quality video capture cheaply.

 

10 years ago a 1GB hard drive was considered a really big hard drive, you could not even dream about recording any kind of video feasibly. Now we are very close. Ten years from now storing the video on hard drives will not be an issue. But this is the first time we can say that. And this time it is quite easy to see it is true.

[Matt Pacini]

Well, that's kinda the point.

I'm NOT making predictions, I'm stating what's here, now.

In other words, I'm living in reality, not the fantasy of what "MIGHT" happen.

 

And yes, I'm aware that "film is dead" has been predicted for 50 years.

I was referring to the recent claim that digital is going to kill it.

 

The fact is, analog video wasn't good enough to kill film, and digital video isn't either.

 

Matt Pacini

[Rik Andino]

The fact is, analog video wasn't good enough to kill film, and digital video isn't either.

 

Matt Pacini

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're probably right film still has a pretty long life.

But to dismiss digital video is just as ignorant as saying film is dead

& unlike 50 years ago there are some fact to the rumors this time.

 

For example

2 of "what should be" this year's biggest blockbusters were shot in HD

Sin City

& SW Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

 

And there are a couple of smaller films shot in HD capable of making a splash

DEBs

Hate Crime

One More Round

Shadowland: The Lengend (in CA)

Mousakka & Chips (in the UK)

 

And there might be a few more along with that...soon

 

So you see

While HD is not capable of dethroning film it's able to compete with it...

And in the television market HD runs neck & neck with film.

 

So don't be so hasty to dismiss digital video

You might find yourself surprised in a couple of years.

[John Mastrogiacomo]

For example

2 of "what should be" this year's biggest blockbusters were shot in HD

Sin City

& SW Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I saw part of SW Episode III: Revenge of the Sith at Showest a couple of weeks ago on a big digital projection screen and it looked softer than all the other trailers.

 

Some other trailers they played were "Rebound", "Fever Pitch", "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" and "Kingdom of Heaven". :)

[Matt Pacini]

Well, siting what "should be" a couple blockbusters is more of the same: predictions that may, or may not happen.

I suspect at some point people are going to wise up and stop thinking the next George Lucas film is not going to be boring, but hey, what do I know?

 

And using two examples that over 90% of the frame is CG, therefore NOT shot on HD, is not really a good example as well.

These are special cases.

 

Hey, I'm obviously not saying NOBODY is shooting anything but film.

We could talk about movies that have been made in Super 8, VHS, Hi-8, etc., and it still doesn't prove a trend that is going to "kill film".

 

Look what was predicted after Blair Witch Project (shot on Hi8), and look what actually happened.

The hype:

"It doesn't matter what you shoot on, everyone can now make video movies and it's totally irrelevant! (and all sorts of talk about how the studios lost their monopoly, because now anyone can make a feature film that can gross $200 million", blah blah blah).

Reality: Basically nothing changed, other than every kid with a DV camcorder started flooding the world with badly shot movies, so now you're even less likely to have anyone look at your "non-film" movie than before BWP.

 

 

Matt Pacini

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

The fact is, analog video wasn't good enough to kill film, and digital video isn't either.

 

Matt Pacini

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's really no such thing as "digital" video. The thing that produces the image, whether it's film, CMOS or CCD, is still an ANALOG device. Digital processing of the analog signal allows a lot more things to be done to clean it up than is possible with old-fashioned analog circuitry, but the final image can still only ever be as good as what goes into the system, however much digital processing you use to disguise its inherent deficiencies.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

For example

2 of "what should be" this year's biggest blockbusters were shot in HD

Sin City

& SW Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

 

And there are a couple of smaller films shot in HD capable of making a splash

DEBs

Hate Crime

One More Round

Shadowland: The Lengend (in CA)

Mousakka & Chips (in the UK)

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I realize that English is not your first language, but are familiar with the expression: "The exception that proves the rule?"

 

In other words, you're trying to prove your point by quoting facts that seem to prove the exact opposite as in: "Is that the best HD can do? That miserable handful?"

 

The problem is, we've been hearing the same sort of statement for nearly seven years now, and the vast majority of movies are still shot on film. You're wrong; deal with it.

[Rik Andino]

I realize that English is not your first language, but are familiar with the expression: "The exception that proves the rule?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What do you mean English is not my first language?

Maybe not proper British English--but I'm from friggin New York!

 

And I understand the exception that proves the rule.

 

You both (Jim and Matt) are right most films are made on film--

And they look great!

 

And you're probably right film is not going away for a very long time

And HD is still not at a level strong enough to dethrone film

 

But with that said my point is--even at it's inferior level

HD is still good enough to compete with film

This year two of Hollywood's biggest blockbusters were shot on HD

 

I just came from watching Sin City which looked amazing

And the Theater was packed at 3PM in the friggin afternoon!

And every show in NYC after 7PM is sold out on opening day!

So if you don't believe it's going to be a blockbuster...

I don't know what business saavy you have

 

And If you don't think Star Wars Ep. III is going to be a big blockbuster

I don't know but you should stay away from the business world

And don't gamble cause you're probably not very good at it.

 

I not antifilm and I don't hate it

I like shooting on film (I rather shoot on it than HD)

But I'm realistic enough to recognize HD as a viable medium in moviemaking

 

I'm not a blind fanatic who gets annoyed when people state the obvious

I know 10 years ago folk were saying that this was gonna happen soon

But there weren't any big films shot on HD

 

Now people can state a few films that were shot on HD and are succesful

Ten years from now there will be more!

 

Does this mean that film is dead--NO!

Film is still very good--but HD is catching up.

 

Why I don't understand is why can't both formats exist peacefully

Film doesn't have to die so that HD can live

Jesus sometimes it's like the goddamn Arab-Israeli peacetalks in here...

 

Thank god none you fanatics knows how to make a bomb

You guys aren't explosive experts huh? :unsure:

 

 

:)

[John Sprung]

I think that the use of digital cameras for features will increase slowly, gradually, gently, subtly, .... in marked contrast to all the threads here on the subject.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Tenolian Bell]

The US congress is beginning to really push broadcasters to give up their analogue airwaves and prepare to move on to digital. I'm reading that a hard deadline is to be reached sometime between 2006 and 2009.

 

 

1080i is beginning to migrate into cheaper and cheaper cameras. I saw an ad for a Panasonic camera with a DVX like body that shoots 1080i, 1080P, 720i, 720P, 480i, and 480P at 24, 30 and 60 frames per second. How the hell will that work?

 

Anyway broadcasters are steadily migrating to HD equipment.

 

So if everything from sports to game shows to the news are being shot with 1080i equipment, what advantage is it for the cinema to shoot with that same format?

 

Will be interesting to see what happens.

Edited April 2, 2005 by tenobell

[John Sprung]

So if everything from sports to game shows to the news are being shot with 1080i equipment, what advantage is it for the cinema to shoot with that same format?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1080p, actually. News and sports may be shooting 1080i, soaps and games I wouldn't know, but everything that goes thru post is 1080p/24. Everything with foreign or future sales potential goes 1080p/24.

 

 

 

-- J.S.