Interesting Article about Panavision

[Thomas James]

Jim Jannard claims that the existing Red One produces the equivalent of 65mm film quality.

[Stephen Williams]

Jim Jannard claims that the existing Red One produces the equivalent of 65mm film quality.

 

I believe he claims others have said that. It was version 8 or earlier at the time!

[Thomas James]

Yes you are right Jim Jannard uses the Peter Jackson testimonial which claims that when Red is projected at 4K it looks just like 65mm film which was used to shoot the old Epics. Others call Red grainless 35mm which gives an explanation for Red's apparent 65mm resolution.

 

Apparent resolution is a concept that cannot be easily dismissed. Nor can subjective testing methods for apparent resolution be easily dismissed.

[Keith Walters]

Jim Jannard claims that the existing Red One produces the equivalent of 65mm film quality.

 

People say he claimed all sorts of things he didn't actually say.

But in turn he claims his critics said all sorts of things that they didn't actually say

"Scam" is a good example.

 

Certain people also claimed the Genesis had "Imax" resolution, before anybody ever saw it in action of course.

 

A large percentage of the posters on Reduser also claim that they have something to offer the film industry in general, so, what does that prove?

It's a lot easier to claim something than to demonstrate it.

[Keith Walters]

Apparent resolution is a concept that cannot be easily dismissed. Nor can subjective testing methods for apparent resolution be easily dismissed.

Bollocks.

 

See; nothing to it :P

[John Sprung]

Subjective A/B testing is what the ASC and PGA just did. Red has almost as much subjective resolution as 35mm film, plenty close enough for general purpose storytelling. The differences are in color gamut, dynamic range (especially shoulder characteristics), and OLPF flare on extremely bright out of range objects.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Keith Walters]

Subjective A/B testing is what the ASC and PGA just did. Red has almost as much subjective resolution as 35mm film, plenty close enough for general purpose storytelling. The differences are in color gamut, dynamic range (especially shoulder characteristics), and OLPF flare on extremely bright out of range objects.

-- J.S.

Jim Jannard never said the RED was a replacement for film.

He did suggest it was "a great alternative" to film, although in general the industry doesn't seem to agree.

It would be more relevant if the comparison was between the RED and similar format video cameras.

 

The only truly valid test would be to set up a series of typical real-world shooting situations with known difficulty areas, and have an expert in using each particular shooting format do his or her absolute best to capture the scenes, and then have the best post production team/company they know of do their absolute best to get the most out of that footage. In other words, what normally happens with Prime Time productions.

 

That would eliminate the problem of different lighting requirements for different formats, since the lighting would be individually set up for each shoot, exactly as it would be if it were part of a real movie or TV commercial. It would be a much more "real world" situation, where the cinematographers have to shoot what they are told to shoot, rather than cherry picking the footage that came out well for a showreel.

 

In practice, this would be somewhat problematic for outdoor scenes. About the only way it could be done without arguments is that the shooting would have to take place at the same time on successive days, and hope the weather doesn't change.

 

But here's the kicker: Part of the test would be an audit of exactly what it costs to shoot on each format. So for example, you might find that with enough fill lighting and careful monitoring, a particular video camera might well produce results that compare very well to 35mm film origination. But then you would have to factor in the cost of extra lights, monitoring equipment, personnel, extra post time etc. This would all be carefully recorded while the tests were taking place.

 

You might well find that the extra cost of 35mm film and processing, scanning etc, is more than compensated for by the savings in other areas, including time.

[John Sprung]

The only truly valid test would be to set up a series of typical real-world shooting situations with known difficulty areas, and have an expert in using each particular shooting format do his or her absolute best to capture the scenes, and then have the best post production team/company they know of do their absolute best to get the most out of that footage. In other words, what normally happens with Prime Time productions.

 

About the only way it could be done without arguments is that the shooting would have to take place at the same time on successive days, and hope the weather doesn't change.

 

But here's the kicker: Part of the test would be an audit of exactly what it costs to shoot on each format.

 

That's pretty much what the ASC and PGA did. The interiors were done sequentially, the exteriors were done with all eight cameras on a big rig, 4 on the top row, 4 on the bottom. Each camera had its own DP.

 

They kept an audit of all the factors that affect cost, including the time the DP's spent in post on color grading.

 

The only thing they didn't do is A/B electronic cameras against each other. For each scene they ran comparisons against the film. They'd show film, then electronic camera #1, film again, then electronic camera #2, and so forth for all seven. We watched the same stuff over and over fourteen times in a row. That's why there's something like three hours just of looking at the material, without any discussion. It would be nice to be able to pick pairs of cameras and split screen, but the combinatorial math makes that highly impractical for every combination. There was one camera that stood out as having some peculiarities and inadequacies, though.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Keith Walters]

the exteriors were done with all eight cameras on a big rig, 4 on the top row, 4 on the bottom. Each camera had its own DP.

 

-- J.S.

Yes but that means that they would all have the same lighting, which is far from being a real-world situation.

Lighting that makes a video camera look OK is going to come out flat and lifeless on film.

[John Sprung]

Yes but that means that they would all have the same lighting, which is far from being a real-world situation.

Lighting that makes a video camera look OK is going to come out flat and lifeless on film.

 

Actually it is the real world situation. When you're shooting large sunlit exteriors, even the biggest budget commercials and features can't afford enough lights to make any difference. So, your controls are filters and stop. It's only when you go in for coverage that you can fly silks and punch in some light.

 

Even in the interiors, to me the most useful test was the Bob Primes single bare clear lightbulb test. The bulb is in frame, and it's pretty much the only signifcant light source. (IIRC, he had one very dim window in the BG). That test shows how each camera handles a huge range, from way under to way over.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Thomas James]

There are a lot of unanswered questions concerning the ASC and the BSC tests. One being why was their no 5 perf or 15 perf 65 mm formats tested. I find this very strange because these formats will be needed once 4K digital projection becomes common. And what was used to view the footage? Were 4K digital projectors available or was the footage just viewed using a 35mm projector? To have a valid test the footage must be viewed using a 4K digital projector or 65mm film projector.

[John Sprung]

The tests were an all volunteer and donation thing. 65mm raw stock is a special order item, not something that a vendor can donate off the shelf. Arri has a handful of 765 cameras, but I believe they're in storage in Germany. Panavision had one of the "A" cameras from Lawrence of Arabia up as a lobby display a few years ago, I don't know if they have lenses much newer than that for 65. Maybe they could have talked to the Imax guys and comshawed some short ends, but nobody shoots storytelling movies on 15 perf. The Imax camera is almost as big as the eight camera rig they used for the wide exterior shots.

 

IIRC, they did do some 65 on the STeM project a few years ago, and Rob Hummel had some in his film formats shoot out 15 years ago. But these tests were aimed at practical real world movies and TV, where budgets are most definitely not going up in the camera and lab accounts. For their intended purpose, they're extremely relevant and useful tests.

 

Everything was posted as 4K DPX files, and they showed it on a 4K Sony projector at the Academy's Pickford Center. I don't believe they've done a filmout.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Thomas James]

Why is it that the AMC theatres decided to purchase 4628 Sony 4K projectors rather than just go with a 2K system? The answer is that they are scared. 2K digital is no better than what you can get at home with a cheap $99 Blu-Ray Player. What the theatres want is an experience that you cannot get at home. While 4K digital is good for projecting 35mm film content the fact is made that more importantly 4K digital projection allows 65mm content to be displayed in all of its glory. Yet the ASC refuses to test any 4K projection of 65mm content claiming that 65mm is not used anymore or that it is overkill. I guess they have never heard of the Dark knight or if they have they must have thought it was a total waste of money to shoot it using 15 perf IMAX.

[Keith Walters]

Actually it is the real world situation. When you're shooting large sunlit exteriors, even the biggest budget commercials and features can't afford enough lights to make any difference. So, your controls are filters and stop. It's only when you go in for coverage that you can fly silks and punch in some light.

 

-- J.S.

Er, maybe it's a matter of terminology or maybe it's a union thing over where you are but I've been on any number of exterior shoots where they have anybody who isn't doing anything else, standing around holding sheets of poly and/or cardboard covered in aluminium foil to flatten the lighting.

 

Maybe that doesn't constitute "lighting" in your book, but I've also seen 12K HMIs used in broad daylight to do the same thing.

 

Obviously it depends on the budget and how many scenes are involved, but it is done, at least in this country.

 

Maybe that's why so many Hollywood films get made here.

 

Regardless, when you're talking about video vs film, in my experience it's nearly always exteriors that are the deal maker/breakers.

Certainly, many people have some very strange notions about what constitutes an "awesome" image, but by a strange twist of fate, it rarely turns out to be their call....

[Keith Walters]

The answer is that they are scared. 2K digital is no better than what you can get at home with a cheap $99 Blu-Ray Player. What the theatres want is an experience that you cannot get at home. While 4K digital is good for projecting 35mm film content the fact is made that more importantly 4K digital projection allows 65mm content to be displayed in all of its glory.

No, a $99 DVD player will not do much more than grab the disc, whirr and clank a bit and if you're lucky tell you that the disc is playing.

Before you can fully re-create the cinema experience you need:

• A 40-50 foot screen
  
• A 1920 x 1080 (minimum) projector big enough to put a decent picture on it.
  
• 500 ~ 1,000 Watts of sound system (speakers extra)
  
• Post-mix soda dispenser
  
• Popcorn machine
  

OK I'll grant you that you will be viewing the pictures at the same resolution on your 42" plasma or whatever, and it will be a hell of an improvement over NTSC/PAL but it's not the same as viewing it in a public cinema with hundreds of like-minded strangers.

[Keith Walters]

No, a $99 DVD player ...

Sorry, $99 Blu-Ray player.

Although without the rest of the stuff, the results will be identical...

[John Sprung]

Er, maybe it's a matter of terminology or maybe it's a union thing over where you are but I've been on any number of exterior shoots where they have anybody who isn't doing anything else, standing around holding sheets of poly and/or cardboard covered in aluminium foil to flatten the lighting. ...

 

Sure, for small areas. That kind of exterior isn't so very different from a day interior. You can work with your own lights under a 20x20 butterfly.

 

In the test, the dock in the lake is maybe a hundred yards long, the forested hillside on the shore behind it maybe half a mile wide. Maybe you could punch up a few items on the dock, but carefully so it doesn't look fake. But some things really are too big for us to light with any reasonable degree of control.

 

BTW, are there really Blu-Ray players out there for $99? I thought they were still pricey.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Keith Walters]

BTW, are there really Blu-Ray players out there for $99? I thought they were still pricey.

-- J.S.

I don't know. The cheapest I've ever seen one here is about $250 (about US$200, although the exchange rate is currently varying all over the place).

After the exchange rate conversion, our consumer electronics prices generally aren't all that different to US prices for a similar item

 

At the moment people seem perfectly happy with DVD on their HDTV sets.

After all, DVD through HDMI on an HDTV is a lot closer to true HD, than VHS is to broadcast quality PAL or NTSC, and billions of people were perfectly happy with VHS.

[Ruairi Robinson]

I don't know. The cheapest I've ever seen one here is about $250 (about US$200, although the exchange rate is currently varying all over the place).

After the exchange rate conversion, our consumer electronics prices generally aren't all that different to US prices for a similar item

 

At the moment people seem perfectly happy with DVD on their HDTV sets.

After all, DVD through HDMI on an HDTV is a lot closer to true HD, than VHS is to broadcast quality PAL or NTSC, and billions of people were perfectly happy with VHS.

 

 

http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/07/09/wal-m...er-price-to-98/

[Ryan Patrick OHara]

http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/07/09/wal-m...er-price-to-98/

 

Congrats. All of you have officially taken this topic completely off target. :P

 

Panavision will survive. Besides the optics department, their history and success as a camera manufacturer has always been based on taking an already existing product and improving it. This has been the unspoken business model. For instance, the early PV reflex cams were simply rehoused Mitchel movements. They incorporated with Jim Frasier and perfected the Frasier lens system. They have bought and liquidated more industry companies then I care to recall. I believe a large number of gear head brands and remote system companies were at one point bought, incorporated and/or liquidated by Panavision. For instance Moy and Technovision. From what I was told a few years ago, Panavision is Arri's single biggest customer; only showing how Panavised 435's are very popular amongst Pavavision rentals. They have teamed up with Sony in the past to create the Genesis, and have Panavised many other cameras on their own such as Sony F900 and the Phantom.

 

I have no doubt that the future of Panavision will be more or less a co-operative effort with electronic manufacturers, if designing their own systems. This is actually not a change for PV, but just something new. Film cameras have film negative as the capture medium, therefore Panavision was never entirely in the business of creating the actual image capture medium... usually just optics, mechanical performance, and innovative features. So now, as they expand and adapt to offer a larger digital line-up, I wouldn't expect them to R&D their own CCD or CMOS chips. You will see Panavised cameras and co-operative camera production with other established electronic or camera manufacturers. And I have no problem with that.

 

What you are paying for and what makes Panavision a first rate company is because it's a one stop shop for any professional production. Besides offering only what they deem as the best quality in professional tools (a good reason you won't see any RED One's), they will custom build camera parts, rigs, lenses, and camera packages to fit your individual needs. All the equipment is cleaned, tested, and prepped by industry professionals. If something should break down during production, they cover you with replacement bodies, parts and service.

 

Panavision is not the worlds largest camera provider because the Panaflex was the best camera. Hell no. Arri cams are just as great and to some better. Plus you can buy an Arri! The reason Panavision is esteemed and used by the majority of professional productions, is because they offer a SYSTEM. A comprehensive, all you need system... with the service, support, and power to outfit any size production. It is professional piece of mind and reliability... the pit crew to your race car. Something that any Hollywood producer would gladly pay for when putting so much time, money and effort on the line. Everything goes down the coke bottle, and it's good to know you've got the best in quality and support. That is what you are paying for.

 

Not to start a RED debate, but RED seems to represent the complete opposite of that business model, and at this point offers little competition to Panavision's services. As mentioned, if Panavision is like having your own pit crew for your race car, RED is like driving without insurance. Almost any PROFESSIONAL production with a budget can clearly see the difference. If Panavision offered RED One's I bet more larger productions would use them, as they are not crap cams. But as of now, the RED Ones are not up to snuff with most industry folk, and until they get a backer like Clairmont, Panavison or Otto... I think professionals (producers and cinematographers) won't want to venture into the field without professional support behind them. Especially with the way RED likes to manufacture and release the cams... with bugs and issues.

 

In regards to this article, I blame sensational journalism and shame the author for even inferring RED's role as a point worth mentioning when regarding reasoning for Panavision's recent woes. I also am partly ashamed that I too, have been dragged into discussing RED at a point of unnecessary comparison.

 

Panavision is about quality AND support. You pay for the best of both.

 

Those are my thoughts on the matter.

 

Best,

 

-Ryan P. O'Hara

[Ruairi Robinson]

Not to start a RED debate, but RED seems to represent the complete opposite of that business model, and at this point offers little competition to Panavision's services. As mentioned, if Panavision is like having your own pit crew for your race car, RED is like driving without insurance. Almost any PROFESSIONAL production with a budget can clearly see the difference. If Panavision offered RED One's I bet more larger productions would use them, as they are not crap cams. But as of now, the RED Ones are not up to snuff with most industry folk, and until they get a backer like Clairmont, Panavison or Otto... I think professionals (producers and cinematographers) won't want to venture into the field without professional support behind them. Especially with the way RED likes to manufacture and release the cams... with bugs and issues.

 

Hi.

 

Clairmont stocks red cameras. Have a look at their rental catalogue.

 

And the Genesis too had lots of bugs and issues when it was first used in production. It just wasn't being discussed so publicly.

 

R.

[Stephen Williams]

Hi.

 

Clairmont stocks red cameras. Have a look at their rental catalogue.

 

And the Genesis too had lots of bugs and issues when it was first used in production. It just wasn't being discussed so publicly.

 

R.

 

I have head Panavision rent's REDS with a P+S mount! BTW I did not see any seals when I took a look inside a camera.

[Ryan Patrick OHara]

Hi.

 

Clairmont stocks red cameras. Have a look at their rental catalogue.

 

And the Genesis too had lots of bugs and issues when it was first used in production. It just wasn't being discussed so publicly.

 

R.

 

Ah sorry, mate.

I was unaware Clairmont had REDs. I haven't been there in awhile, and I figured the test RED footage I have seen on their floor, was someone who brought one in and was renting the rest of the package, hence using their lenses. Had no idea they rented them. Doesn't change my opinion much, though. :)

[John Sprung]

I have head Panavision rent's REDS with a P+S mount!

 

I know they bought five of them early on, I believe in the second hundred, plus more later. But this was mainly for testing and research. If they rent them, it's probably more as a specialty item that you can ask for rather than a part of their main rental inventory. It's something they have 5 or 10 of, rather than 150 or more. Red's dynamic range and color gamut issues clearly put it in a different category than their other electronic cameras.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Ryan Patrick OHara]

I know they bought five of them early on, I believe in the second hundred, plus more later. But this was mainly for testing and research. If they rent them, it's probably more as a specialty item that you can ask for rather than a part of their main rental inventory. It's something they have 5 or 10 of, rather than 150 or more. Red's dynamic range and color gamut issues clearly put it in a different category than their other electronic cameras.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

I used to work for panavison (for a short time) and I can say you are not far off. They have looked into the technology and their actions speak volumes in regards to their findings. I'd say you'd be better to wait and see their next move, then to judge a position at this time. But don't doubt they have examined all current cameras and possibilities.