Saw the Panavision Genesis

[Max Jacoby]

But now, everyone went that route and made their lenses bigger and heavier! Now the Z Series are small compared to Cooke S4's and Zeiss Ultra Primes.

 

In my mind the (non-LDS) Ultra Primes are quite small. Even with LDS you can comfortably carry them in one hand. The Master Primes are about twice the weight and size of the UPs by the way. Which is still light compared to some anamorphic lenses.

[Peter J DeCrescenzo]

... I used to joke with my camera assistant, holding up a Z Series lens, that only Panavision can manage to make a Zeiss lens bigger and heavier ... But now, everyone went that route and made their lenses bigger and heavier! Now the Z Series are small compared to Cooke S4's and Zeiss Ultra Primes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mr. Mullen's story reminds me of the scene in the silly movie "Crocodile Dundee" when the star surprises his would-be attackers by whipping out his bushwacking knife with its b-i-g, l-o-n-g blade and says "Now, _that's_ a knife!"

 

I can picture David on set, dressed in his outback safari costume, delivering a variation on the above line, saying "Now, _that's_ a lens!"

 

Thanks for yet another great anecdote & behind the scenes report, David.

 

All the best,

 

- Peter DeCrescenzo

[David Mullen ASC]

It would be funnier if someone held up a 50mm Zeiss Super-Speed and then I held up a 50mm Primo Anamorphic and said "now THAT'S a 50mm..." That lens is the size of my thigh.

[Mike Brennan]

The interesting point to note in the Genesis test is that the slightly blown out windows were ND gelled and I have been told that there was no shortage of light available on set.

 

So *it appears* that the cinematographer controlled the balance between exterior and interior.

 

Since the audience were very interested in how the Genesis and film compared in highlight areas I wonder if the balance between outside window and inside was based on what the Genesis could handle or on what would be a regular setup for that DP when shooting film?

 

The slightly hot outside look was not untypical of a 1 1/2 stop difference between in and out that is in everyday use.

 

I am not saying that lighting was changed between setups.

I am not saying that a decision was made to favour one format or another.

 

I am saying that it appears the degree of burnout was in the hands of the DP (and grader if the aesthetic was for the film to match the Genesis).

 

I would like to see a test subject where both film and Genesis burn out.

 

No digital camera should suffer burnout of highlights with ND gells and HMis on set, the pertinent question is the *amount and cost* of control of exterior light one needs to apply when using digital.

 

An impressive test overall, but I am unsure of its highlight handling ability. Guess I'll have to use it:)

 

Mooted 14bit ADs will be interesting.

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Sam Wells]

I would like to see a test subject where both film and Genesis burn out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Better yet a test where the burn out is gradual (some to no detail beyond that window) and differing sizes of speculars (sheet metal, chrome etc)

 

-Sam

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Mr. Mullen's story reminds me of the scene in the silly movie "Crocodile Dundee" when the star surprises his would-be attackers by whipping out his bushwacking knife with its b-i-g, l-o-n-g blade and says "Now, _that's_ a knife!"

 

I can picture David on set, dressed in his outback safari costume, delivering a variation on the above line, saying "Now, _that's_ a lens!"

 

Thanks for yet another great anecdote & behind the scenes report, David.

 

All the best,

 

- Peter DeCrescenzo

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jim Frazier did exactly that on the short video Panavision made for the Frazier lens. (Jim is an Australian too y'see:-)

 

The actress accompanying him cries (of the mugger who pulls a smallish lens from his jacket): "Look out! He's got a lens!"

Jim laconically replies: "THAT's not a lens!" (pulls the huge Frazier lens out of his jacket) "THAT'S a lens...."

[Sol Train Saihati]

Was lucky enough to have a tour from Paul Wheeler BSC, down at Panavision London. It was pretty amusing when we were sitting down having a drink in the cafe, when he turns around and says "Have a look at this" before pulling out the Genesis. After a barrage of caffeine animated questions he led us over to look at some footage in the screening room, essentially a Genesis test (or maybe sales) reel.

 

It went a lil something like this... Two short films were screened on a 35mm projector, both shot by a world reknowed DP. In the first film, one shot was taken with a 35mm camera and the next with the Genesis. All the way through. The second film was the same as the first, however it was shot the other way around. It was like a game of spot the difference.. :blink:

 

Sure you've got someone in the back of the room shouting out "Genesis!", "35!" (that would be me) although after a while you begin to realise the point. It will not matter, at least not at the moment, what you shoot on, as the difference in quality between 35mm and HD is quickly becoming a non-issue. It is more comparable to choosing what kind of stock to shoot on. Not better or worse, just different.

 

Of course we came to the agreement that it will come a time where cost will be the critical factor dictating which format we use, and its a crying shame. However just just as the petrol car is still in use, so too many people will lose out if film sales begin to wane. Large companies would be cutting away far too much profit if everyone switched to digital at the same time. But I'm meandering down the wrong road, conspiracies stop here!

 

The showreel for the Genesis was quite a revelation for me(no pun intended), and although I'm a die hard film fanatic, if the story calls for it why not use a different format? I read recently in the ASC, "Film vs. Digital? Who cares? What's the difference?" Only now has it really struck a chord. It's not even worth arguing about anymore.

 

But I'm sure you already knew that?

 

PS. 65mm is the only way to go. B)