Jump to content

Arri buying DALSA camera division


Gunleik Groven

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

"unless you apply an extraordinary amount of attention to detail, they produce very ordinary pictures"

 

Yeah, because film doesn't produce "ordinary pictures" (whatever that means) under the same conditions? Film looks like crap if its shot like crap the same as video. What I don't get is why this is becoming another film vs. video thread, I thought we were done with those in like 1999 . . .

 

The point really is, its a sad thing no matter what you think of video as an acquisition method. Good people are out of jobs, and a truly interesting and good product will not continue to see the light of day (at least in its current form).

 

I have not spoken to a single person who has actually seen the pictures produced by the Origin and Evolution and not been impressed. Many of these people didn't really want to like what they saw, but admitted they were surprised and impressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Genesis is that great a success, and the demand is so great, why are there still only 80-odd (not 100) of them after four years? Considering a complete beginner like Jim Jannard can turn out 4,000+ REDs in less that 2 years, virtually from a standing start...

 

Panavision don't sell their cameras, they only manufacture what they need for their rental fleet. Perhaps they could have manufactured more, but they could've also been limited by their stock of 35mm lenses, which are needed to service their film camera rentals as well.

 

Interesting to know how many Panavision F900's they made, given that they should have a larger market than the Genesis.

 

I believe there has only been just over 100 Vipers manufactured for a broader customer base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Keith, you have to admit that not everyone shares your assessment of the image quality produced by the Genesis.

 

Your implication is that the majority of filmmakers have just as high image quality standards and tastes as you, that the majority agrees with your assessment, and that image quality is the Number One factor in how filmmakers choose what they shoot a movie on and how they shoot it and post it. There are a number of upcoming filmmakers who like digital images in general, and image quality is not only subjective for a lot of people, not every producer or filmmakers makes it their highest priority, whether or not they should. There are a number of factors at work beyond picture quality.

 

Panavision is not a mass-production factory -- they don't make thousands of anything, not Primo lenses, not Panaflexes, not Genesis cameras. They aren't building these for sale for one thing. They don't have massive piles of money lying around either -- they build in small numbers and look at their rental market to decide if any more are needed. How many Milleniums did they build? 100 seems like a good number of Genesis cameras -- any more than that, and they are not in the position to replace them when better technology is developed. You can't follow the same model as film cameras, where someone can just rent a Panaflex built in 1983 and get the same results as a Panaflex built in 2003. With any digital camera technology, you have to figure that within three or so years, customers will start being more interested in the next generation to come along and you won't be able to rent the existing camera for the same prices as before. So overbuilding would be incredibly stupid of Panavision.

 

The high number of RED sales is because the camera is also being bought by people who work outside of purely narrative cinema, so it intrudes on other marketshares of any video camera in that price range and higher. So comparing sales of RED to number of Genesis cameras built is pointless and misleading, not when some people are buying RED's instead of the SDX900 they were considering for their production company.

 

The trouble with you Keith is that your prejudice against Panavision and digital warps your perspective on these issues. You constantly are ready to jump on them and label what they do a failure. You spent months claiming that there was some conspiracy because Panavision wasn't promoting the Genesis aggressively before it was released, you spent months trying to say there was something wrong with it because hardly anything had been shot on it and released to theaters, back when there were maybe only five bodies in existence and none of the movies had finished post yet!

 

The truth is that the Genesis has been far more successful than any other digital cinema camera in terms of expensive mainstream studio features and TV series being shot digitally.

 

And the other truth is that the transition from film to digital origination is happening right now and the Genesis camera is right smack-dab in the middle of that transition.

 

No, for theatrical 35mm film print projection, I don't think the Genesis is quite there in terms of overall quality, nor do I think any other digital camera is quite there yet, RED included. For 2K digital projection, I think the current choices do produce quite similar quality results -- I've seen Genesis-shot movies shown digitally in theaters and the quality is excellent and quite comparable to any film-shot projects shown digitally.

 

It took more several minutes into viewing "Forbidden Kingdom" in the theater in digital projection before I guessed it was shot on the Genesis, and that's mainly because the night exterior photography seemed so fine-grained.

 

In other words, we are getting quite close to matching 35mm quality with digital camera technology. For TV presentation, it's much harder to make the case for film where you have an even harder time spotting the differences. I'm shooting a TV series on the Genesis for Dreamworks right now, and I heard that Spielberg, who was not in favor of Showtime's policy requiring digital origination (he had the pilot shot on 35mm film) has been quite surprised by the quality of my dailies and how film-like the show is looking.

 

It may take two more generations of digital cinema cameras to really match 35mm quality to the final degree that cinematographers require -- dynamic range being the last hurdle really (and considering the complaints by some DP's that current film stocks have too much dynamic range on display, we're getting to that point where the dynamic range of the new digital cinema cameras are approaching what cinematographers used to like in older emulsions in terms of fall-off.) It won't be the Genesis or the RED. It may be the next generation, the next ARRI D-something, the EPIC or RED TWO, the Sony F-whatever, whatever Dalsa transforms into (probably the next ARRI D-something...)

 

My sense with Panavision is that, not having the same dollars to spend on expensive development and construction, that the next generations of digital cinema cameras might just be bought by them from an outside manufacturer and adapted, probably whatever ARRI develops.

 

But your arguments that the Genesis is a failure are based on a lot of unfair and inaccurate propositions -- one, that Panavision intended the Genesis to replace its 35mm inventory, two, that Panavision believed HDCAM-SR was the ultimate destination for cinema image recording, and three, that Panavision believed that the Genesis completed the technological transformation from film to digital image capture technology.

 

When the truth is that the people at Panavision are not idiots and they know that the Genesis and HDCAM-SR could only be a transitional technology and thus there was no reason to build more than 100 units no matter what the demand was, because even if demand exceeds supply today in 2008, it won't be true three years from now or five years from now.

 

I suspect that within three years we will see the digital cinema camera arrive that truly makes the majority of filmmakers question the need to shoot on film, at which point it will require a few more years to take over the market. In 2008, the increase in TV production from film to digital was quite dramatic due to cost-cutting combined with the new camera options. It was not gradual at all. When the right technology comes along for feature filmmaking, the changeover will also happen quite dramatically, though I don't really believe it will be a total changeover either. But we will see a flip-flop happen from the majority using film to the majority using digital within a rapid two-year period once the right tools come along, with the right post infrastructure. If the new cameras come along in two tears, and it takes two years for a major transition to happen, we're talking in the 2012-ish range for film to no longer be the dominant player. But since those cameras don't currently exist, it's hard to get too worked up over guesses like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Er ... OK.

There are so many straw men in there I'm going to bail out due to the fire risk if nothing else.

 

Obviously you have a vested interest in not ruffling too many producers' feathers.

I have zero interest in that, and I have zero interest in making films.

My interests lie elsewhere.

Edited by Keith Walters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Whenever I interview for a job with any producer, I give them what I consider a fair and practical breakdown of their options in the regards to camera technology, with the pros and cons. I also weigh the individual project's needs, the budget, and the desires of the director for how it should look and how he or she likes to look. I also have to factor in their own tastes.

 

The fact that I'm am always willing to discuss the positive and negative aspects of any technology I shoot is perhaps why you probably won't see me in a big advertisement for any product, I tend to be too guarded in my assessments.

 

From an image quality standpoint alone, I'd still pick 35mm anamorphic, contact-printed from the original negative, over any digital options out there, and most film options (except larger negatives.) However, image quality is only one of several factors I have to consider, not to mention the particular look that the movie calls for. Artistically, I can't always justify a sharp, clean, fine-grained, pristine film image.

 

But I also have to factor in budget, workflow, the visual tastes of the director, and a host of other things. And sometimes I'm not given unlimited options to choose from and have to make the best of what I'm given. But even then, I would never hesitate to tell a producer or a director of what I thought. It's my job to give them honest assessments, and it's my nature as well. I don't own any equipment so I'm not trying to promote any technology for my own financial gain, plus I like having a variety of options to choose from. And even though I've often rented from Panavision, I would not hesitate to tell them or anyone else of what I thought of a Primo lens verus a Zeiss Ultra Prime or Master Prime, or a Panaflex Millenium versus a Arricam ST.

 

I'm being completely honest -- I like the image quality I'm getting on the Genesis for my current TV series. Would I use it for a feature? That depends on the feature. Do I think it looks "better" than well-shot 35mm anamorphic? Not really, but that depends on what's best for the individual project, visually, logistically, and financially. I probably wouldn't have proposed shooting my domestic TV drama in 35mm anamorphic. And I wouldn't force anamorphic on a director who personally hates the format, which some do. And I'm willing to admit that some great cinematographers are not too fond of that format as well.

 

There are some DP's out there who shoot every movie on the same film stock, same camera, same lenses, use the same labs, etc. I'm not one of them. I'm a bit of a dabbler; I like trying new things. So I tend to have a broad perspective on these issues, not a partisan one. But you seem to feel that anyone who doesn't condemn Panavision is therefore pro-Panavision. It doesn't have to be so black and white.

 

Panavision is unique in how it develops products for rental only, so there are limits in comparing them to Sony or ARRI, etc. You can't judge success by number of units made and sold. Sure, there are aspects of Panavision that I think need improving.

 

I think they need to either develop some Primo version of the Master Primes or get rid of the shutter design that prevents them from simply putting PL optics directly onto a Panaflex. I think they need to develop 1.34X anamorphic lens sets that use front, not rear, anamorphic elements. I think they need to work on a data-based 4K digital cine camera, not another HD tape camera. Probably RAW Bayer, but not necessarily.

 

Unlike you, I actually have to work with this stuff, so the quality, reliability, cost, etc. are all much more important to me than it is to you. I don't have the luxury of making judgments from afar; it's to my advantage for these technologies to improve, so it's important to judge then critically and make accurate assessments.

 

BTW, it's hard to ruffle any producer's feathers over technology issues -- most don't care all that much about them, and many don't understand them as well, so me taking about 35mm versus Genesis versus RED to them, or Panavision versus ARRI, or Kodak versus Fuji, or even Digital versus Film, doesn't ruffle their feathers... it just makes most of them fall asleep. Most of them aren't as passionate about these details as most cinematographers. Just as I'm not so interested in the particulars of dealmaking or distribution or studio politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, it's hard to ruffle any producer's feathers over technology issues -- most don't care all that much about them, and many don't understand them as well, so me taking about 35mm versus Genesis versus RED to them, or Panavision versus ARRI, or Kodak versus Fuji, or even Digital versus Film, doesn't ruffle their feathers... it just makes most of them fall asleep.

I have only worked on commercials, but I've never found that to be the the case.

 

Of course if somebody just keeps parroting a litany of "What everybody knows" that would send anybody to sleep, me included.

 

You can't judge success by number of units made and sold.

 

Oh dear. You'll probably now find your Reduser account closed and all your posts deleted :P

(And Jan von Krogh will be back here making racist comments again....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I didn't mean to imply that all producers are disinterested in technology, just many don't want to delve as deeply into the camera issues as many cinematographers, by nature, have to.

 

Look, it's in the best interests of cinematographers that what they shoot with works reliably and delivers good content without a lot of fuss and time-consuming fiddling. The argument for film is just as much based on the later -- many cinematographers who are not so unhappy about digital images still worry about the logistical and practical aspects of shooting on the new digital cameras.

 

Ultimately, I tend to agree with Harris Savide's sentiments after shooting "Zodiak" on the Viper -- why replace 35mm film with something almost as good and sometimes more complicated to use? When we will see the day when a digital camera arrives that seems to offer only advantages over 35mm film, no disadvantages, to the point where only romantic purists would resist using it? That day hasn't come. Unfortunately, one less-than-ideal scenario is that film gets replaced before that happens. But either way, I think we're approaching a day when more people shooting narrative features in Hollywood will opt to shoot digitally than on film, whether that happens in three years or five or seven or ten.

 

Yes, I've had that argument over at Red User with Jan (who I believe is Laguun over there) this notion that film is already dead simply because more digital cameras are sold yearly. That's been true for a decade or so, digital cameras have always been a big seller worldwide compared to movie cameras, so it's not a very accurate way to gauge the popularity of film as an origination medium. But it does suggest that digital, and RED, are forces to be contended with, and it certain indicates an accelerating trend.

 

Trouble with looking at the RED sales is that not all RED's are being bought to shoot things normally shot on film -- some are being bought instead of an HD camcorder to shoot material normally shot in HD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
When we will see the day when a digital camera arrives that seems to offer only advantages over 35mm film, no disadvantages, to the point where only romantic purists would resist using it? That day hasn't come.

I get annoyed about people making lofty predictions about when this is going to happen, when most of them really have no idea how a video camera actually works, or film for that matter, and more importantly, what technological challenges will need to be overcome.

 

The reality is, this is one of those technological brick walls where every extra stop of dynamic range gained comes at a disproportionally greater cost, and most of the apparent "improvements" seen in recent years are really just better ways of disguising noise. Despite being labelled "digital", video camera sensors are still very much analog devices, and the massive technological advances that have made fully digital devices so cheap, fast and efficient in recent years are not really applicable to them.

 

To make a sensor with a dynamic range of 16 stops for example would require something that can handle signals ranging between about 10 microvolts and 600 millivolts (ie roughly 60,000:1) but on different parts of the silicon chip at the same time. The problem is that the digital drive signals have an amplitude of at least a few volts, and picking out a 10 microvolt signal with that is a bit like trying to pick up grains of dust with barbeque tongs. The tiniest phase jitter in the clock signals will produce massive amplitude modulation of the low-level signals, which we see as noise. The phase jitter is mostly generated by the silicon atoms bouncing around in the semiconductor crystal, how are they going to stop that happening?

 

The basic problem is, while silicon sensors are exquisitely sensitive photon collectors, getting the signals off the chip without introducing noise is very difficult. Digital still cameras have less of a problem because you don't have to get the data off at 24 frames per second.

 

Unfortunately, one less-than-ideal scenario is that film gets replaced before that happens.

I don't think that will be happening anytime soon. While it's most unlikley any new 35mm film making plant is going to be produced, if Kodak decided they were no longer interested in film manufacture, they would be more likely to sell the operation off to a smaller company than simply cease production. After all, you can still get super-8 reversal film, but not from Kodak.

 

Yes, I've had that argument over at Red User with Jan (who I believe is Laguun over there) this notion that film is already dead simply because more digital cameras are sold yearly. That's been true for a decade or so, digital cameras have always been a big seller worldwide compared to movie cameras, so it's not a very accurate way to gauge the popularity of film as an origination medium.

I've been hearing that since the first SP Betacams came out twenty years ago. Of course the recorders and cameras weren't "digital" but the sensors are just as analog now as they were then :P

What I don't understand is why so many of the Red-Heads (and others) get so heated about this subject. Even if 35mm film origination did suddenly cease, this is going to benefit them how?? I would have thought it would be the same people doing the cinematography, just with different cameras.

 

Trouble with looking at the RED sales is that not all RED's are being bought to shoot things normally shot on film -- some are being bought instead of an HD camcorder to shoot material normally shot in HD.

Oh I think a lot of people did think they were going to be used in place of film, but are now finding it difficult to get any sort of paying work using them in place of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Rather than regurgitating the same slack handful of mainstream cinema release projects that were shot on the Genesis, maybe they should try explaining the overwhelmingly greater majority that aren't!

One factor limiting the number of feature films shot on Genesis is the number TV shows shot on it. Though it's expensive to rent, it saves the whole raw stock develop and telecine expense, requiring only a tape to tape selects transfer. Shooting to SR tape is ideal for HDTV. Native 1920 x 1080 is ideal for HDTV. So, a lot of them are on TV shows.

 

Figure that a TV show keeps their camera package for 8-9 months straight, and it's a much better deal for the rental company. They'd need maybe 4 - 6 features to bill that much time, plus the check-in, shelf time, and check-out overhead between movies. Bottom line, movies can't use 'em 'cause the TV guys already got 'em.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
One factor limiting the number of feature films shot on Genesis is the number TV shows shot on it. Though it's expensive to rent, it saves the whole raw stock develop and telecine expense, requiring only a tape to tape selects transfer. Shooting to SR tape is ideal for HDTV. Native 1920 x 1080 is ideal for HDTV. So, a lot of them are on TV shows.

 

Figure that a TV show keeps their camera package for 8-9 months straight, and it's a much better deal for the rental company. They'd need maybe 4 - 6 features to bill that much time, plus the check-in, shelf time, and check-out overhead between movies. Bottom line, movies can't use 'em 'cause the TV guys already got 'em.

 

-- J.S.

Is there a list somewhere of current prime-time shows shot on the Genesis?

Preferably broadcast prime time, not cable prime time :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...