Interesting Article about Panavision

[Keith Walters]

Many people mocked the idea of digital vista vision. They are not mocking it any more.

 

Yeah, for much the same reason most people aren't mocking Cartesian Dualism, non-emergent materialism, or the potential of truncation errors in Sieve of Eratosthenes. :rolleyes:

 

People started posting about the Red at DVXuser back in 2006, Keith. Yes, it's been "years."

 

Lemme see ... 2009 - 2006 = ... (fiddles with calculator) ... Three!

 

Yes, they were talking about the RED three years ago. Allowing for truncation errors, that bears a close approximation to what I said.

Now show me where they talked about any "Successor" to the RED three years ago. The RED was supposed to make "Obsolescence obsolete".

The implication being that the RED was the last camera you would ever need to buy.

 

And if anybody wants to to jump in to point out that your RED will still produce "the same great pictures it always did", you need a lesson in commercial reality:

If you're trying to compete with the man down the road, and you have a RED one and he has an Epic (or what have you), who do you think the customers are going to go to? Sure, you can try slashing your prices, but see, we now come to the most serious flaw in the reasoning of your typical hyperventilated "Film is Dead" apologist:

The acquisition cost is nearly always a very small part of the overall production cost. Plus, most of the expensive ancillary equipment is going to be similar or exactly the same. Your only real option will be to upgrade just to keep level with your competition.

 

The classic "Red Queen's Race" scenario.

 

To me, it' as clear as a sunny day right after it rained the night before -- the future of motion cinema is 6K+ FF35 RAW.

Maybe so, but the present is near 100% 35mm film.

[Keith Walters]

Nearly all serious still photogs shoot raw.

That, boys and girls, is a classic example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

[Jamie Metzger]

1st thing I do at a prep for a red job is try to figure out how to make it work like a real camera.

 

Panavision has real techs, real cameras, real service, and a very good reputation.

[Peter Moretti]

There will always be a need for truly professional grade tools.

 

I used to bicycle race, and inevitably a new bike would come out that would be as light as a professional racing bike for a fraction of the cost. It would cause a stir among the magazine readers, but there is a lot more to a racing bike than light weight. The amazing thing about a professional racing bike is that it's light, yet stiff enough to efficiently transfer energy into the drivetrain, yet flexible enough to be "comfortably" ridden over cobble stones, yet strong enough to neither break nor malfunction during a race. At a certain level, the cost of the bike is irrelevant.

 

And at a certain level, it must be the same way with movie production cameras.

[Serge Teulon]

The Epic is priced much higher than the Red One, and I think the intent is to make sure it is well-built and professional, hence the higher costs.

 

I wasn't aware of that. If that is the case then all the better for all of us.

 

All the information that I've read about the Epic seems to differ from one information centre to another. I put that down to the marketing of the Red products....

So I've adopted a 'wait for it to come out and then make up my mind' attitude.

 

Tom - I'm sorry if it sounded like I was pounding you about the r1 but that wasn't my intention. I was merely stating what we all know about the r1 and I was interested in finding out what info you had on the Epic.

 

I agree with Jamie's comments.

Panavision, in my experience, have always been the leading company in grabbing a competitors product and improving it with their own touches.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Serge Teulon

[Thomas James]

And all this talk about Digital Vista Vision 6K ? The fact of the matter is that digital cinema projection is going 2K and 4K and what is needed is a camera that supports those two formats. Am I wrong in saying that if 6K is scaled down to 4K that scaling artifacts will be produced? No doubt that the Red Epic 645 which supports 9K and is easily windowed to 8K would produce the best downsampled 4K with no scaling artifacts.

 

I would much rather have a 4K camera with Diamond shaped pixels than a 6K camera with square pixels even though both cameras would have the same gross pixel counts. The Sony FX-7 has diamond shaped pixels. Unfortunaely big numbers always sell even if the result is worse picture quality.

 

Of course film origination can be used for 4K digital projection however 65mm film will produce the best results.

[Tom Lowe]

Lol, Stephen and Keith, are you guys sticking to the old story that what happens in the stills photography world does not relate to cinema? Because that theory is already flying out the window.

 

Why do you think that nearly all still photographers are shooting digital full-frame RAW now? Just for fun? You think motion cinema photographers will somehow be immune to the benefits of digital RAW? That's just silliness, IMO. Do you really want to bet against digital RAW? Do you want to come back to this forum in a couple of years and have to defend your statements dismissing RAW? :)

[Stephen Williams]

Why do you think that nearly all still photographers are shooting digital full-frame RAW now? Just for fun? You think motion cinema photographers will somehow be immune to the benefits of digital RAW? That's just silliness, IMO. Do you really want to bet against digital RAW? Do you want to come back to this forum in a couple of years and have to defend your statements dismissing RAW? :)

 

Hi Tom,

 

Red does not record uncompressed raw, the raw port got cancelled. You asking me to bet that highly compressed raw will win the day, not convinced film could remain King for it's archive ability alone.

 

Best,

 

Stephen

[John Sprung]

Am I wrong in saying that if 6K is scaled down to 4K that scaling artifacts will be produced?

 

No, the losses from the resampling are overwhelmed by the advantage of the higher Nyquist limit for the OLPF. The tough cases are the slight size changes, say taking 2048 down to 1920. Ideally you want twice as many samples as your target format, or just a tad more so you can be a little less critical on the filter.

 

The Sonys aren't so much diamond shaped as they've just taken square pixels and rotated the grid 45 degrees. The EX-1 and EX-3 use the same pattern. In a world that has a lot of sharp horizontals and verticals, that's a good idea. Maybe not the best choice if you're doing an industrial for a chain link fence company, though..... ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Keith Walters]

Why do you think that nearly all still photographers are shooting digital full-frame RAW now? Just for fun? You think motion cinema photographers will somehow be immune to the benefits of digital RAW? That's just silliness, IMO. Do you really want to bet against digital RAW? Do you want to come back to this forum in a couple of years and have to defend your statements dismissing RAW? :)

Perhaps it's Alzheimer's kicking in but I don't recall ever even mentioning RAW in this thread.

My only comments have been to the effect that certain people seem fixated with arguing that it's reality that's somehow got it wrong.

 

But since you bring it up, silicon sensors are fine for still cameras that can take their time downloading the image into the processing computer. The only real advantage of RAW in still cameras is that it allows you to have less downtime between shots, since you're not waiting for the camera to process and compress the images. Other than that, the whole RAW concept for stills is just overhyped overblown verbal rod-whalloping. You might as well use it if it's there, but if it wasn't, it wouldn't make that much difference to the end result. The main issue is that it can be provided inexpensively on a still camera, and if people think they need it, manufacturers will provide it. After all, the camera is actually doing less, not more, but people talk like a whole new section has to be added to the camera to get RAW capability.

 

Getting anywhere the same image quality at 24+ frames per second would require a massive increase in processor power and power consumption, which is simply not practical in a portable camera, as people are slowly and painfully discovering. Also, as has been pointed out I don't know how many times here and elsewhere, RED Raw is not the same thing as still camera RAW, just as 4K Bayer Masked is not the same thing as 4K RGB

 

And as has also been pointed out, lots of Prime-time shows have recently switched to HD cameras, none of which however use any kind of RAW format.

[David Mullen ASC]

The only advantage in post for RAW is that it supposedly contains all the dynamic range that the sensor could capture. However, if a 12-bit RAW camera and a 10-bit LOG camera (usually with a 14-bit A/D) end up giving you the same dynamic range in post to work with, then there is no particular advantage to the 12-bit RAW camera over the 10-bit LOG camera in post, particularly if the LOG image used less compression than the RAW image. The only advantage to RAW at that point comes in the lower data rates to record in-camera, or the less amount of processing needed in-camera.

 

RAW in itself is not magic, it does not promise anything more than what the camera sensor can deliver, which may or may not be better or worse than some other system.

 

The reason RAW is preferred in still photography is that the alternative is JPEG. In digital cine cameras, that would be more like the cameras that record H.264 AVCi or XDCAM or something.

[Keith Walters]

The reason RAW is preferred in still photography is that the alternative is JPEG. In digital cine cameras, that would be more like the cameras that record H.264 AVCi or XDCAM or something.

The way some people go on, you'd think it was like comparing HDCAM to VHS.

 

Whatever, I still maintain that the RAW option is mostly provided because

A. It costs virtually nothing extra to implement

B. People are convinced that it will make an enormous difference to their photography

 

It's a bit like the high speed shutter option available on virtually all CCD cameras. The circuitry that allows it is actually there to protect the CCD cells from electrostatic discharge damage, the shutter function is just an incidental by-product. Apart from removing the need for a mechanical iris on really cheap surveillance cameras, it has very limited usefulness in the real world. Although it allows you to extract extra-sharp stills from fast-moving objects, the lack of motion blur produces a quite unpleasant picture with normal motion.

But virtually all cameras have it, because it costs nothing to implement.

[Tom Lowe]

The only advantage in post for RAW is that it supposedly contains all the dynamic range that the sensor could capture. However, if a 12-bit RAW camera and a 10-bit LOG camera (usually with a 14-bit A/D) end up giving you the same dynamic range in post to work with, then there is no particular advantage to the 12-bit RAW camera over the 10-bit LOG camera in post, particularly if the LOG image used less compression than the RAW image. The only advantage to RAW at that point comes in the lower data rates to record in-camera, or the less amount of processing needed in-camera.

 

RAW in itself is not magic, it does not promise anything more than what the camera sensor can deliver, which may or may not be better or worse than some other system.

 

The reason RAW is preferred in still photography is that the alternative is JPEG. In digital cine cameras, that would be more like the cameras that record H.264 AVCi or XDCAM or something.

 

David, even if the alternative was TIFF, nearly all professional photographers would still be using RAW. Trust me on that. I think you underestimate the benefits of RAW. For starters, color correction/temp under RAW is a totally different ballgame than with "burned in" images. You can use exposure, color temp, sharpening, saturation channels, etc, in RAW to greatly enhance photos.

 

I mean really. Do you guys think that all these pro photographers are shooting RAW just for their health? It's a huge pain in the ass to shoot RAW. Professional photographers have come to love the RAW format. To somehow diminish or dismiss RAW makes no sense to me. Are all these thousands of photographers and photo editors simply delusional, as Keith suggests?

 

If anyone wants to know what RAW 6K FF35 24p footage is going to look like, go buy a Canon 5D Mark II and shoot some timelapse sequences. Your jaw will hit the floor when you render out 4K or 1080p. The quality is beyond astonishing -- beyond spectacular. That is why I am 100% certain that RAW 6K FF35 is the next big thing, where cinema is headed.

[Scott Fritzshall]

As far as I am aware, a 16bit file can contain all of the image data that's in the RAW file, and you can do all of the same image manipulations either way- I think the difference is in the math used- ie; there is no "color temp" slider in most color correctors that work on RGB data, but you can still tweak the settings to get the same result. And stuff like sharpening, which isn't baked in, but I'm not sure how that's different than just writing out an RGB image with no sharpening and deciding how much to add later. So, unless I'm totally wrong on this, the advantage in software is that you change the point that you're tweaking this stuff- rather than doing it in-camera or at the end of post, you're doing it at the beginning of post, as a "development" process, which I guess can be beneficial from a workflow standpoint if you incorporate it properly. But other than that, I'm pretty sure that the main reason pro photographers shoot RAW is that, as David said, it's either that or .jpg, because it's just too much processing time to decode everything to a high-quality RGB file, and way too much storage space to keep them on a card. And, finally, they're using it because that's what they've been given to work with- the manufacturers decided to do it this way for whatever reasons made sense to them, and everyone adapts to that.

 

Tons of resolution is cool, don't get me wrong, but I'd rather we get over this "x"k thing, and focus on improving latitude and color reproduction. I personally would be perfectly happy if we all paused at whatever resolutions we're currently at for a few years so that we could focus on improving our sensors in other, more important directions. But, of course, most of RED's marketing is based on 4k, 6k, whatever, so that's what we're going to get.

[Tom Lowe]

Scott, if you want to finish your project and display it at 4K, then 6K is not some fancy option or marketing ploy; it is absolutely necessary.

 

If you believe, as many of us do, that 4K is the next gold standard for display, then you need to be shooting on a 6K Bayer camera or 4K+ RGB.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Tom Lowe

[Keith Walters]

Onto other belt-tightening news, I've just heard that PV Sydney are going to move from their current spacious premises in Artarmon (with the nice big car park), to the Deluxe (formerly Atlab) premises at Epping this November. Seems like Ron Perelman is interested in keeping the family all under one roof :rolleyes:

This will be interesting to see.

I wonder whose 30-year accumulation of junk is going to get dumped first.

And where is everybody going to park? Perhaps down the cliff face along Epping Road...

[John Sprung]

I wonder whose 30-year accumulation of junk is going to get dumped first.

 

Perhaps you should stand by for a few dumpster dives? ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Brad Grimmett]

Seems like Ron Perelman is interested in keeping the family all under one roof :rolleyes:

This will be interesting to see.

Apparently Panavision Woodland Hills and Panavision Hollywood will both be located together in Burbank soon. Imagine moving all the stuff in a building this size... Panavision

How many goodies will be left behind?

[Keith Walters]

Perhaps you should stand by for a few dumpster dives? ;-)

-- J.S.

No thanks.

Well I wouldn't know about Panavision now, but you have never seen such a collection of absolute sh!t like they had at Atlab. And this was after they'd just moved into a brand new building!

It was like something out of a MOSFILM warehouse...

You should have seen the state of the two thirty-year-old Dolby-A decoders they expected me to get working for their QC theatre.

(Amazingly, I did actually manage to get one functional, mostly by bringing my own parts in from home...)

Shudder...

[Jake Iesu]

It is indeed true that Panavision Sydney Will be located next door to Deluxe in Lane Cove. The move will happen some time in November, no equipment "bake sale" to speak of at the moment however.

20 years of junk is in the process of being sorted through for it's potential usefullnes, It is quite intriguing some of the things that have been pulled up. One of the Ex service guys draws contained some drawings of every single cable and wire diagram in the entire fleet, a few thousand little notepad sheets all rather meticulously organised, Just another little thing that has been completely digitised in the modern age i guess.

 

 

---Supposidly there is a 3 story underground carpark at the new complex. Edit.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Jake Iesu

[Scott Fritzshall]

Scott, if you want to finish your project and display it at 4K, then 6K is not some fancy option or marketing ploy; it is absolutely necessary.

 

If you believe, as many of us do, that 4K is the next gold standard for display, then you need to be shooting on a 6K Bayer camera or 4K+ RGB.

I'm quite in favor of exhibition eventually moving up to 4k, but I'm saying that there is more important stuff than resolution, and that currently I feel that we're at a place with resolution where we could comfortably plateau for a little while in order to address other concerns. This would also allow hardware to catch up with what's required for finishing shows at 4k without huge additional expense- pushing out hundreds of vfx shots at 2k right now is hard enough. Keep in mind, very few shows finish at 4k currently. That's probably going to start to change, but of the films I've worked on so far- many with budgets of over $100m, only one has posted at higher than 2k, and it did so at a massive premium.

[Stuart Brereton]

If anyone wants to know what RAW 6K FF35 24p footage is going to look like, go buy a Canon 5D Mark II and shoot some timelapse sequences. Your jaw will hit the floor when you render out 4K or 1080p. The quality is beyond astonishing -- beyond spectacular. That is why I am 100% certain that RAW 6K FF35 is the next big thing, where cinema is headed.

 

35mm Film is still equal to or exceeds 6k resolution, so no gain there.

 

As far as Full Frame 35mm acquisition goes, the additional costs and hassle would far outweigh the benefits in picture quality. FF35 is going to be very hard to focus pull at the sort of stops that are currently fashionable. That either means lots more soft shots (which cost money) or lots more lights for a deeper stop (which cost money) FF35 will cost more either in time, or in equipment costs, while offering an improvement in image quality that your average cinemagoer will neither notice, nor care about. There are plenty of people who are quite happy to watch films on their iPhones for god's sake!, What makes you think anyone cares about FF35?

 

There are also virtually no cine lenses that will cover full frame 35mm, which means that there would have to be a huge financial investment by lens manufacturers to cater for this paradigm shift.

 

On top of this the data management and post production costs of dealing with a 6K image pipeline are going to be huge, and unjustifiable, given that currently all but the most wealthy features get scanned to film at 2k, and there are also so few cinemas able to project digitally.

 

I think people need to get over this obsession with resolution - we already have more than most people can discern. The main issues for digital cinema manufacturers to be worrying about should be dynamic range and latitude

[Keith Walters]

---Supposidly there is a 3 story underground carpark at the new complex. Edit.

The parking is on three levels, but it's not a real three-storey car park like you get in a shopping centre.

There is no "underground" parking as such. Basically the levels are part premises, part car park.

 

Parking wasn't any problem when I was there, but more than half the building was vacant then. Nice to be able to park in the shade in the summer.

 

Access is basically off a narrow and winding suburban street. It'll be fun getting trucks in there.

 

Apart from the constant chemical smell, watching what the processing chemicals do to the concrete floor and the plaster on the walls, and the occasional toxic spill, it's quite a pleasant area.

 

I've heard they've called in Ex-CEO Denis Noonan to oversee the move and the remodelling of the building. Is this some consequence of the game of "Musical Managers" that PVLA have been playing for some years?

[K Borowski]

Tons of resolution is cool, don't get me wrong, but I'd rather we get over this "x"k thing, and focus on improving latitude and color reproduction. I personally would be perfectly happy if we all paused at whatever resolutions we're currently at for a few years so that we could focus on improving our sensors in other, more important directions. But, of course, most of RED's marketing is based on 4k, 6k, whatever, so that's what we're going to get.

 

Ditto on what Scott said.

[Serge Teulon]

35mm Film is still equal to or exceeds 6k resolution, so no gain there.

 

As far as Full Frame 35mm acquisition goes, the additional costs and hassle would far outweigh the benefits in picture quality. FF35 is going to be very hard to focus pull at the sort of stops that are currently fashionable. That either means lots more soft shots (which cost money) or lots more lights for a deeper stop (which cost money) FF35 will cost more either in time, or in equipment costs, while offering an improvement in image quality that your average cinemagoer will neither notice, nor care about.

 

I think people need to get over this obsession with resolution - we already have more than most people can discern. The main issues for digital cinema manufacturers to be worrying about should be dynamic range and latitude

 

 

Well said Stuart.