Keith Walters

People stopped renting them, mostly. They also stopped being "Sammys" back in 1997 as I recall. About 10(?) years ago, after Ron Perelman bought Deluxe, PV were moved to the Atlab/Deluxe building in Mowbray Road in Lane Cove. That made sense financially, except that shortly after that the banks seized Panavision and Perelman relinquished all equity, so PV had barely moved in when they were no longer "part of the family". At some point Deluxe then moved to North Ryde and Arri Rentals of all people moved in. Ironically, most of the digital "35mm" cameras PV now rent out are either Arris, or Reds! I haven't been there for well over 10 years. I keep meaning to go to John Barry's (if they still exist) for some green chromakey paint, while I still can.

Thanks. I couldn't find that information for some reason. "17+ Stops"?! I wonder how they work that out, considering there aren't even any stills cameras actually capable of that much range. That would mean there could be areas of pixels over 100,000 times as brightly illuminated as other areas on the same sensor, and the camera electronics would be able to capture it all for final display on the mighty 6-stop range of the average LCD TV. But there's not a lens in existence that could create that situation, so I wonder how they calculated it. Jannard should have had one of those fitted to Elon Musk's spacefaring Tesla. Think of the battery life! (And in space, no one can hear the fan running.... Not that it would do you much good).

FFS; why does every attempt to get straightforward technical information on Red products have to be like wading through a mangrove swamp in rubber boots two sizes too big.... So, what sort of ProRes are we talking about? It can't possibly be straight 4:2:2; that would be far too sensible. Don't be ridiculous. But just for the sake of argument, let's suppose it is. Does this mean that Red have finally bitten the wax tadpole and actually included the on-board full-De-Bayer module that everybody has been telling them they needed? If so, is it any bloody good? "....but I'm not sure that's ever been specifically optimised for." This ... sort of implies that there are bits about the Red Codecs that you are sure about :rolleyes: Which ones were they then....

But to answer my question, can you just record ProRes and not anything else? The Red site is far from clear on this. It would sound like an obvious and sensible option, but Red have a history of rejecting the obvious and sensible. And, what was your last feature film production? Is it anything likely to be available on Blu Ray?

"WEAPON shoots simultaneous REDCODE® RAW and Apple ProRes or Avid DNxHD/HR recording" So, am I reading this right? After years of doggedly Albratossing themselves by making Redcode Raw the only available recording format for Red cameras, and as a result continually getting sand kicked in their faces by the supposedly lower-spec-ed Alexa, you can now record on "open" (non encrypted) formats? When did this happen, and why? And what do they mean by "simultaneous"? Do you get a choice?

I'm the technical manager for a large Australian electronics retailer, and I can tell you we do sell a large number of record players. BUT they're definitely not Hi Fi. The simple reality is that there is a large segment of the older population (both here and in most Western countries) with large collections of LPs that they wouldn't mind hearing again, but they're not prepared to spend a fortune on an expensive audiophile setup. What we and many other stores sell are basic stereo systems not greatly different to what were commonly on sale around 40 years ago. OK, your average audiophile would sneeringly turn their noses at such basic equipment, but for most people it does the job. Actually the most common reason stated for a sale is an upcoming birthday for an elderly parent and the kids want to surprise him/her by putting on some of their old records that they might not have heard for decades. So yes, there are currently a lot of record players being sold, but NOT HiFi and nowhere near as many records. This "vinyl is coming back" thing is utter hogwash. All that's coming back is an affordable way of playing people's old record collections.

A huge amount of video is still watched on either 720 x 480 or 720 x 576, which is close enough to the resolution of the original 1941 monochrome NTSC standard! A lot of the actual content doesn't even approach that resolution. There's no major demand for higher resolution, at least for living room sized TVs, it's just something manufacturers have pulled out of their collective arses in the hope of talking up a new market.

Too many people are still paying for their 3-D TVs which were the LBT (Last Big Thing). It's jsut another same old same ol' same ol': How do we convince consumers they need a new TV when there's nothing wrong with their old one....

I just bought the complete Set (1978 to 1982) on DVD. (I can't believe how much the price varies on the net - I paid about A$77 including postage; other places had it for about $100 more!) The DVD picture quality varies enormously between the 1978 and 1980 episodes, I presume that would have been due to poor archiving, since it must have been shot on 2" tape, which normally holds up very well even 40 years later. There was an earlier release of this series, but due to music copyright problems it had to be severely mutilated and didn't sell very well. In this latest version by ShoutFactory they say they managed to recover about 80% of the music.

Exactly. For one thing, the actresses are too skinny. Finding a 5 or so actresses today with convincingly pretty faces but with the plumper physique in favour in the 1920s would be a major ask, even for a big-budget production, so the fact that they look pretty much exactly like what you seen on TV and in the movies today is an obvious giveaway. The hairstyles are also suspiciously modern. Screen actresses in the 1920s either wore their hair short with a severe Marcel perm, or if they had long hair it was usually tied up. And on to a different sort of "hairstyle", I have seen a number of "vintage" silent porn flicks; I don't ever recall seeing any featuring "Brazilian's" :rolleyes: The lighting looks exactly like someone using a modern studio light and trying to simulate a carbon arc in post. Arc lights didn't just flicker; the arc plasma tended to jump around, giving a characteristic "twitch" to the shadows. There's no sign of that.

Can you tell me exactly what it is you want to do. As in convert 1920 x 1080 MPEG4 to 320 x 240 MPEG1 I've got an old Windows 7 Desktop that has a variety of video editing/converting programs installed on it. I mostly use VideoPad with the paid upgrade but Any Video Converter is free and works pretty well: https://any-video-converter-freeware.en.softonic.com/?ex=DSK-347.2 It's what I recommend for non-technical people who just want an easy-to-use converter. The user interface couldn't be much simpler: AviDemux is a really powerful and fast editing tool if you just want simple cuts, but it has a fairly steep learning curve. FFMPEG is really fast, but the learning curve for that is almost vertical :rolleyes:

I presume you're using a Mac. Unfortunately Apple don't seem to care too much about third-party software. I stopped using MPEG streamclip for the PC ages ago as there are far better apps available now, many of them freeware. You could always use FFMPEG (builds are available for just about all platforms including Mac and Linux). Most of the available freeware video editors and DVD ripping programs actually use large chunks of the original FFMPEG source code, with a friendly GUI tacked on :-)

It looks suspiciously like the technology Sony used for their first Digital audio recorders, although those mostly used U-Matic tapes.

Aha. You're obviously using the RectalSeach™ search engine. It can find anything :rolleyes:

That's strange; a link posted in 2013 connects you to an article dated 20 July 2017. :blink: "Their first cameras were modified Mitchells, which remained the basis for all their subsequent film camera models. Pretty similar approach to what they're doing now with digital cameras, I think." Hogwash. Although they copied some aspects of the original Mitchell design for their film cameras, they still largely built the things themselves in their own machine shops. They sure as hell didn't do anything like that with their video cameras. "I did a quick search for DXL jobs, there have been more than 10 features, multiple TV series, pilots and ads shot on top of the productions listed previously. " Aha! And how did you do that exactly? That was the only information I was really after, and I was only able to turn up the same slack handful of non-events as everybody else here did. Is there some sort of database that lists productions by camera model? Most of the replies here have been just the usual Pana-luvvie affirmations mixed with a sprinkling of incomprehensible drivel from the usual suspects, plus a couple of new ones.

Aha! You've hit the nail on the head! As it happens, there is actually a VERY good reason, which will become more apparent over the next few months. "Perceived lack"? Hmmm This must be some new useage of the words "perceived" and "lack" I haven't encountered before... http://www.doddlenews.com/panavision-sued-over-unpaid-loans/ "Panavision have always been primarily a lens company, but they have also always made cameras on which to mount them." You mean the film cameras that run so quiet you have to take the lens out to hear if the movement is actually running? Those lens mounts...? For a long time Panavision made the best lenses and film cameras in the world. And I mean they **made** them. On the other hand, Panavision have never made a digital cinematography camera, they've simply been mechanically modified cameras bought from other companies. The difference is, if you wanted to use a Panavision film camera you had to rent it from Panavision; there was no other option. However if you desperately wanted the images from an F900 or a Genesis, you could get the same thing from Sony.

Di che cazzo stai parlando?

Is that right? I could show you several emails that prove otherwise. (There are certain people who I imagine would rather desperately hope you'll drop that particular subject, but carry on :rolleyes:) And I actually did find the original posts here about the Genesis and worked through the first couple of pages of thread titles. I have yet to a single post by him thus far.

:blink: When was that? I don't recall making any posts about the Genesis when it came out. Was this forum even running then? "Plus the truth is that a lot of people are very happy with the quality and look from the regular Alexa cameras, so there isn't a lot of incentive to switch unless you are required to shoot with a +4K camera." ​Just so, and apart from which, if you desperately have to have a Red camera, Panavision will quite happily rent you one, or an Alexa for that matter. Plus Arri have had 4K prototypes for a long time, but they checked out the market first before going at it like a bull at a gate. ​This is just another white effluent from a company that hasn't made an operating profit in nearly 5 decades.

In 18 months....?

Roll crickets.....

So 18 months on, what has been shot with this? Is there any website that carries that sort of information, apart from the manufacturers' websites? If there's a place for that on the Panavision site, I can't find it.

George wouldn't have thought so.....

Here we are; problem solved:

Actually, it didn't look too bad when she was supposed to be flying, it's more when she's supposed to be floating around just before landing that looks dismally fake. It would have been better if they'd green-screened everything that involved her being off the ground. And surely they could have done a better job on the costume. She looks like a former cheerleader from a little midwest town that nobody's ever heard of.... :rolleyes: "I attribute this to finally moving away from NTSC/PAL limitations, and adopting the capabilities of the higher definition as well as wider range of intensity that is now commonly available on display screens in the home." ​That's what I was thinking too. Basically, they're making 45 minute feature films. It would be interesting to see what the Blu-Ray version would look like shown in a cinema.