Mike Brennan

"Panavision does not sell cameras, only rents." The Genisis was made by a new company setup by Sony/Panavision and ???? to research and make the prototype. Company is called something like "DHD" Don't quot me on the exact name as it probably isn't correct. So question is does "DHD" sell cameras. I guess Sony would own +51% of "DHD" anyway! Mike Brennan

"have spent the last two weeks working for Filmlight on their Baselight software (Tomb Raider 2, Cold Mountain et. al.) and deal with these issues on a daily" I don't disagree with anything anyone has said however reliable info about what happens with A/D in cameras is hard to identify. Plenty of post experts who know their stuff. Roper make sensors, their article may be just vauge. Maybe there is something in A/D hardware that makes this true? This topic started with the concept of mapping A/D to control compress highlight end of ccd response (something Sony say they have done on Mark 3 f900 by remapping.) Would be good to get laymans explaination. Roper's article says that larger dynamic range of larger size pixels on cooled ccd sensors needs or benifits from 16bit A/D. Maybe they are refering to the overall greyscale representation/capture? Guess we'll ask Roper on Monday. Anyone know who makes the Genesis CCD? Mike Brennan

I'm interested if anyone else has seen the occasional short shot in Shrek 2 that suddenly looks like video. I have seen this before on other animated movies, it isn't new. I put this down to those shots being created with a (comparable) exposure of less than 1/48th of a second, perhaps 1/30th. So the motion portrayal is more blurred than 1/48th. The Shrek shots had the subject moving through a stationary frame quickly. (shreks wife getting out of bed is one example) My guess is that they used a slower "exposure" to allow fast movement through frame. This is interesting, if animators are trading some blur to allow fast action without strobing. There were a couple of other shots where 1/30th second type motion portrail seemed to be employed. I'm wondering if this is planned at the animation stage or if it is a tool that the editor selects to rectify strobing if they have to speed up a shot. If we imagine that the audience don't mind this look, how usefull would this technique be on HD shoots? Faster action through a stationary frame. Usefull?? Mike Brennan

"Has there been any information released about what this camera will cost (to buy and/or rent) and what its availability will be?" September October for rental. No offical word if they will sell it. They have to come in at under $3000 a day to compete with Dalsa. SRW rental cost may be between $400-$700 a day so it would leave $2k for the camera. Sony are unlikely to make their money back on this 1st incarnation of this camera, they will on the SR format. Only buy it if they can give you contract for the option to trade up to a Mark 2. I suspect/guess that Genisis will be proof of concept (proved by Panavision rentals over the course of 2 years) then next improved camera will appear and be available for sale. Over time they have an opportunity to develop a killer digital cinematography rental company using Panavison as the base, but I suspect this is a hard concept for a "box shifting" company to get to grips with. Mike Brennan

"My final output is 35mm release print, isn't composing for 2.35 within the 16x9 image and then cropping in post brings down the image quality when projected on the big screen since you're not using up the whole pixel area?" Yes the quality is lowered except if you use a Viper in scope mode or the new Canon gadget. Mark 1 "scope HD" techniques haven't stopped films winning awards or being financially successful (swaotc) Do a test. "I heard HD has low tolerance for over exposure and high contrast scenes, something to worry about in a tropical country." Low tolerance for overexposure is balanced by impressive monitoring of the image via monitor zebras or waveform. Low tolerance for High contrast scenes? Last week I was shooting long lens aerials of a sunrise over the Atlantic with a 60th yacht under sail in the forground, two weeks ago a commercial with a Nigerian bride (white dress) including a day exterior inside a car. Would film have handled the contrast better, yes, did it matter, no Do a test, try and get the best out of the camera rather than the worst. Film also has numerous low tolerances! Try and take a balanced view. Mike Brennan

Recently we were discussing dynamic range of ccds and 10 bit vs 12 bit A-Ds. Came across this article from Roper Scientific. Seems that there *is* a conection between the type of ccd and bits assigned to A-D conversion. Roper are mostly refering to cooled CCDs where noise is very low. They make the point that commercial ccd applications use 16bit A-D to maximise dynamic range of a particular type of ccd. I have been trying to find out why Sony had remapped their A-D with the f900 upgrade. Could it be that there is more dynamic range available in the ccds than 12 bit can deliver? By remapping have they have created a kind of log response? Wouldn't it be interesting to be able to manipulate the A-D conversion itself rather than its output. Mike Brennan http://www.roperscientific.com/library_enc_dynamic.shtml "As a specific example, consider a Kodak 1401E CCD, which has a full well capacity of 45,000 electrons. At a typical readout rate of 1 MHz, the read noise is 11 e-. The dynamic range of this chip is therefore 45,000:11, or 4,091:1. In order to take full advantage of this dynamic range, cameras incorporating Kodak 1401E chips usually utilize a 12-bit A/D converter (4096 gray levels). It is important that the camera's readout and signal-processing electronics be optimized so that low read noise is maintained, otherwise the dynamic range will be compromised. To extend dynamic range beyond the 12 bits given in the previous example, a camera with a lower read noise or a CCD with a larger full well capacity is required. Full well capacity is related to pixel size. For instance, the Thomson 7895 has a capacity of 375,000 e- and a read noise of 5 e- rms at 40 kHz. The dynamic range is thus 75,000:1. In commercial cameras this is usually coupled to a 16-bit A/D converter (65,536 gray levels)"

I'm shooting a feature film using the Sony Cine Alta HD cam for the first time. Is it possible to achieve the 2.40 aspect ratio using this camera or do I do it during post? Thanks! A HD scope film won best cinematography by Nevill Kidd, and best direction at Festival Internacional de Cinema de Troia 2004. The Canon lens adapter will be worth a test. Mike Brennan

"They choose film because they need the quality; they choose video because it's cheap." Readers may think that you are saying producers choose video because they don't care (cheap) about the quality of picture? Most producers and directors chose video or HD because it can deliver a better experience to the audience than if they shoot film. In Europe we use the expression "production value" to describe bang for buck. The overall budget has to be factored into bang for buck as does other factors such as amount of bluescreen or shooting ratios. 65mm doesn't always deliver good production value as its high cost may draw money from other departments. The decision to shot film or HD is a complicated one. Catagorising HD as being "cheap" is as narrow a statement as saying "film is expensive" While I'm here congratulations to Neville Kidd who won best cinematography for Solid Air, shot on HD, which also won best director at the recent Festival Internacional de Cinema de Troia 2004. Mike Brennan

Phil wrote "I think the direction of equipment development in this area is being dictated far too much by the jobs that IATSE members do and wish to continue doing, and tend to have a tantrum if they're presented with alternatives. Moviemaking traditions are good, but at the end of the day it's a product-oriented production process. We shouldn't be forced to do things a certain way just because that's how they were always done." Here here. However light at the end of the tunnel as there is no optical viewfinder on the Genisis:) Part of the problem is that it takes more than one or two jobs to learn how to work well with ccds. Years of experience to learn the ins and outs of compression tape transport issues monitor and cable stitch ups ect. When I attended an early Sony sponsored Santa Fe HD course there was no mention of zebras. ("too difficult for film operators to deal with" when I asked why) Light meters and contrast ratios were the thing. Of course the exposure was only then corrected by reference to a monitor! So here was a feature of digital (zebras) that was not being taught. When f900 came out the ASC went to great pains to point out that ASCs can work with any medium. A pretty arrogant approach, indeed initially they grouped minidv and HDCAM formats into "digital", "this digital poop will kill us" was a comment heard fom a senior ASC... at a mini dv to film screening. The manufacturers have responded with a toolset that gives those with a deep background in film a sense of familiarality. The SRW1 perched on top of the Genisis will be a great laugh for future historians. And a 30 year love of out of focus backgrounds may be looked back on as driven by convienience as well as aesthetics. More changes will come in the next generation. In the first two years of the introduction of the Panavised f900, Panavison in Europe would actively persude interested producers and DPs away from HD if they thought that film was an alternative. Rates would be very high. If the producer went somewhere else for HD kit (rather than go with Panavision film kit) the HD rates would drop by 50% or more. Will be interesting to see how entusiastically the Genisis is rolled out by the European Panavision rental departments. By the time Sony get digital to ape the film process/workflow those who really know how to ride that horse will be retired. Most humans resist change. Mike Brennan

Can you use the F900 to feed the tape to the computer or do you need a VTR? Does anyone know? Any input would be appreciated. Short answer yes. But replay from a deck has better error correction. I had a reel edited in house by a top post company, they had borrowed a demo f500 deck for playout. We checked back the recording and i was fine. But then the tape would not playback very well at all from my f900! You should have no problems playing back from a f900 if everything is in order. I wouldn't reccomend it if you are playing back more than a few tapes a day. Mike Brennan

"What aspect ratio is the active area of the sensor? 2X squeeze anamorphics wouldn't make much sense with a 16:9 or similar sensor. Yet, using only a portion of the available sensor image area would compromise image quaility." Good question. Super 35 format is the only tech detail regarding aspect ratio that I have heard at the moment. No figures on pixels in use, I'd hope most of the 12millon pixels are being used as this ccd sensor seems to be custom made. Getting conflicting numbers from the books, in theory what would the coverage be of a anamorphic lens on/in super 35 format? Mike Brennan

"HD will one day be significantly less expensive than shooting film, but nonetheless the percent of the total budget devoted to either Film or HD is still a small enough fraction of the total budget as to not merit being the sole reason a professional production would choose one method over the other.' If it is not cheaper, why do professional productions choose HD? Mike Brennan

My questions are: 1. What vertical resolution can be seen, or measured, in 1080i, 1080p and/or 720p 2. Is there a significant difference between 1080i and 1080 24P on Sony HD with a static test subject? 3. How does vertical res compare to horizontal res, relative to picture height? Do the test yourself it is easy! One HD camera one resolution test chart two lights. Display on either HD monitor or projector. Look at the res lines on the chart. If you have a possible job someone will transfer your test chart from HD to film. A subject other than test chart should also be considered as comression schemes of HD recording affect resolution in unexpected ways, ie subject dependent. What decisions will you be making based on viewing a test chart? Mike Brennan

Kinetta's 90 minutes 444 in a box could have appications for other cameras...

The Canon HJ21x7.5 is a slightly different construction to the eng style, it has more focus rotation and much less breathing. The HJ 11x eng is similar to the cinestyle apart from not having the doubler mechanism. I understand that tolerances for the cinestyles are "easier to meet" due to its more robust construction. Main issue is focus pulling, it is more trickey for focus puller with eng gearing. Are you based in th euK? The bigger impact on screen will be from your choice of camera. Mike Brennan

Press release for the Genesis "...... the debut of Genesis?, the first film-style fully portable digital imaging camera that utilizes all existing spherical 35mm lenses, including Primo? primes and zooms and support gear." No mention of anamorphic? Could they be planning a crooped output from the sensor for 'scope? rather than use anamorphic lenses? Mike Brennan

"In what situations do you consider HD being faster to light than film?" This is a fast response excuse typos.. This is down to technique and communication. Nothing mysterious. There are two aspects to this. One is the use of HD monitor the other is taking advantage of greater depth of field of 2/3 inch imagers (compared to 35mm) for given amount of light HD monitor Communication is faster, gaffer sees the shot sees what you are up to faster with a decent monitor. During blocking he watches. He knows what is in shot and what isn't.Point to the monitor, a slash here a flag there, you are not gesturing in space you are pointing at the picture. The monitor empowers the gaffer. Lots of finger prints on the monitor:) In frame practicles, reflections, are faster to adjust. Dropping light sources into a scene, observing where the light falls from the cameras POV is really usefull. This helps gaffers and electricains drop in cutters fingers ect. Light measurement across the image is instantaneuos. No need to use a spot meter measuring 10 different parts of the picture, as a good monitor has 1920x1080 spot meters that you see at a glance. Their are also zebras for the real enthusiast. Communication with a director is fast. It is very easy and quick to nail a look under the black cloth. (this is particullarly usefull when working with a new director) Night scenes can be shot with absolute confidence. Worried about a colour temperature of a neon or a dodgy looking flourescent? Worried about subject failure? strange casts? Bounce light in particular is great fun and fast to play with on HD. The brain doesn't need to number crunch. No estimating what colour shifts are happening, you have a ringside seat on the image plane. Lighting continuity is a breeze if you record a few seconds of every scene on a seperate tape. recalling the scene file and switch between playback and live image to swiftly compare moods and tones from one location to the next. Particularly usefull if something unplanned is occuring. I'm sure being able to strike a set and derig lights through the benifit of instant replay, without having to wait to the following day has an impact on the speed of the production as a whole. This may be off topic. Depth of field Greater depth of field on 2/3 inch imagers. Less light required usually equals faster setup/derig reposition. Bluescreen, less light for same depth of field. Do you want to light a bluescreen studio and subject to T5.6 or T2? All the subject must be sharp for blue screen No question packshot lighting is faster on HD. Positioning products in respect to reflections, mini bounce cards ect is a breeze with a big HD monitor a few feet from the table. Assistants look at the monitor. Greater depth of field plays a roll here too. No need to hang a 1.2 with a Chimera from a truss or goal post, use a 800 watt bug light with chimera on a right angle arm. Easy to adjust. Extreme closeups are much easy to light/meter. Fiberoptics are great for closeup work but moving them half an inch equates to a few stops if they are close to a subject. Instead of setting the light then metering your are metering while you set the light. Sometimes we can use ambient light levels, say in a night exterior as a base, rather than calling in Muscos. These are lighting techniques that have lent themselves to video and have been practised over many years on video. DPs and gaffers without video experience may not be tuned in... My first feature I worked with a very established Italian gaffer who had worked with the greats. He had just come off his first HD feature and was looking stressed! After a week with me he was over the moon. In his words he felt after 25 years in the buisness he was actually crafting the light exactly (to the 1/4 stop) the way *we* wanted it and seeing it live he felt closer to the image than he had ever been on film. I invited him into my decision making process and gave him confidence in the HD monitor. Film making/shooting is a team effort the HD monitor is a brilliant communication tool. Even a small one is usefull in this respect. "I for one wouldn't want to be stuck shooting sunlight exteriors with an HD camera." It just a matter of knowing how to do it, the right approach, ideally from all departments. If you have a generator or butterfly frame it is simply a question of more fill or go up a level of diffusion on the silk, pop in a pola, or .6 grad, ensure makeup do their job, craft the image to look good. You will only be "stuck" if you and the director have an unrealistic expectation of what the combination of set, crew equipment format grading can achieve. In the whole scheme of a production, films superior dynamic range may be more critical for some projects than others. But one of the first HD movies was shot in a snowfield. Are there special video cameras for the winter olympics? Now the above comments are more relevant to a tightly scheduled tightly crewed production. Bear in mind whenever I talk HD it is usually across features docs commercials, not only high budget features where the established working practises of a production crew numbering 200+ remains pretty much unaltered regardless of format.(perhaps bluescreen movies is an exception) Mike Brennan

The IR filter on HD cameras is designed to absorb IR. There are many SD single sensor (black and white) cameras that are sensative to IR. I have a Ikegami that is very nice. With doing any further research I'd guess that their would be some HD res industrial cameras that are IR sensative but you'de need a computer to record the utput of the camera. It is possible to remove the IR filter for colour cameras but the effect isn't as strong as you'de like. Been on at Sony Panasonic for years to make the IR filter switchable, they don't get it... Mike Brennan

CCD mapping in a digital camera helps reduce spotting from dead pixels, by interpolating image data to "cover up" the pixel defects. Yes this is correct, but it is also used by Sony to descibe an aspect of the A-D process. Sony claim by "remapping the A-D" they increased dynamic range/highlight handling in mark 3 f900, last years upgrade. There is a slight improvement in dynamic range of f900 mark 3, but we can't be sure what it is down to... I understand (may be wrong) that the more bits assigned to A-D process the more they can get from ccd to tape. It may be that they have assigned more bits to highlights? Ikegami have a new standard def camera with a world first 14bit A-D the HK-399PW. Mike Brennan

The superior dynamic range of film puts fewer restrictions on what a cinematographer can do. You don't have to "work around" the issue of limited latitude and make as many compromises in your lighting. This is not a one way street, there are comprimises in lighting that come with using film that are beyond this present discussion of highlight latitude. Depth of field of 2/3 inch HD vs 35mm is one where in low ambient light levels it is film that is compromised. Shadow detail monitoring, spot metering of highlights, are all easier reliable and faster on HD. As far as I can tell most DPs note that HD is faster to light than film, even though more has to be done to control some highlight areas of the image. In a real world situation being able to light fast means more time to fine tune. If a DP is trying to achieve a high key look then he will have problems. I'd love to hear of any other specific lighting styles that are difficult to achieve on HD and also of lighting styles that are easy on HD, difficult on film. Mike Brennan

"That's not much then, and wouldn't coincide with the comments about it looking like 35mm, or even what somebody in the Genesis thread described when he aimed the camera at a crowd of people and it captured both the shadows and the hot-lit sunshine falling on the crowd." Hard to comment on the shadows sunlight observation apart from saying current HD doesn't exaclty fall over in such situations however a stop in the highlights on video can be the difference between no highlight detail at all and a block of detail popping into the zone, especially true with back Caucasian lit skin tone. Properly/sympathetically handled HD that is intercut with film is very difficult to spot. Direct split screen is more obvious. I'd guess that the Genesis test was produced to get the best out of the camera, not as a demonstration of the difference between film and HD. I'm sure we could conjure a test where film is more obvious. A High Key cosmetics commercial would do it! The Genisis is a ccd camera, I wouldn't expect miricles, but do expect more positive comments from the community as DPs and others warm to a camera that has 35mm lenses. From what I've heard from the technical side, (I haven't seen the test) it is likely that intercutting between Viper/ f950 with 444 recording and Genesis will be possible as there is likely to be not more than a stop in difference in the latitude to tape. A slight difference in sharpness should be evident, but be difficult to spot except perhaps in cityscapes and landscapes or other scenes that are rich in fine detail. Will be interesting to see, but don't expect Panavision to allow a side by side comparison unless the Genesis is actually much better than 2/3 inch cameras:) Sony produced a promo shot f950 444 which was projected at the Digital Cinema Summit in Vegas on the 2k projector but was largely rubbished by the self proclaimed experts. A month later the very same experts claim the Genesis 1920x1080 SR recording is a close match to film! I understand that digital noise reduction was applied to the film shot version of the Genesis test so it probably looked less like grainy film than purists would be happy with. Earlier this month I was shooting a wedding scene for a commercial on HD in Africa, Nigerian bride wearing an off white dress. There was also a day exterior of a white car, Nigerian occupants. The difference between lighting this for film and HD was that it simply required more fill for HD and I added a polariser. If you examine the film vs HD test conducted over the years a common key aspect has been the exploration of the exposure latitude of HD vs film. So typically, DPs would light a scene with the contrast ratio that they are used to and get a gorgoues result on film. The HD camera is placed next to the film camera and no changes are made in lighting. One such test had a 5k? backlight on a ballerina performing on stage.(it wasn't the early Panavision test) Looked great on film crap on HD as the DP shot the HD at the same time without adjusting the lighting! His comment then was that HD didn't have the exposure latitude of film. I was asked to critique the test and commented that the HD version was poorly lit and not representative of how a DP would work with it on location. One should be aware that the Genesis test like all tests before it should be viewed with suspicion. Borrow a HD camera, good monitor and have a play. Transfer to film at a company that has a vested interest in dealing with digital rushes. This is particularly important in Soho! Even a (minor) part of the highly regarded DCI StEM test shown in Vegas has been critisised as being described as X when it was actually Y. Digital has some way to go to match the extreme highlight handling charecteristics of film, test to see what it can do for you today. Mike Brennan

"10 bit doesn't necessarily give you a greater dynamic range;" Agreed. But the 12bit heads do have slightly greater range to tape. The 750 vf900 there is a difference in my and others view. Sony say they have remapped A-D, I imagine this would go some way to clawing all there is to get out of the ccds? It is quite interesting exploring the cine gamma curves where without touching iris there are subtle effects of increased details in highlights. Sony engineer said in the early days of HDCAM that it wasn't so much the ccd that was a problem but "what they did with it" (meaning how they handled the signal sampled and recorded it) Now could someone explain what ccd mapping is:) Mike Brennan

Anyone see a Fuji PL mount lens at cineexpo? HUe 12 x23.5F? (What could the F stand for?) Fuji seem to be very serious about electronic cinematography. Mike Brennan

If you can filter the irrelevant posts this HD forum is worth reading, someone posted this in March.... "The SRW1 4:4:4 recorder is probably designed to record a (compressed) 4k image from the next camera. Now we are talking!" The price of the srw1 is apparently been significantly reduced from the $80k mooted last year. $55k including processor is now rumoured. (hardly a bargain!) Anyone had firm prices in the states? Mike Brennan

"John, Is Kodak planing to make a vision2 50D film stock?" Chaps, can we move this Kodak Q and A about film stocks to another forum, this thread is about the Panavision Genesis :) Mike Brennan