Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Panavision videos...

Andy... I'm certainly OK with Mysterious vs. Magical. In the end, it is all about what they look like.

Jim
 
Does the Genesis sensor have micro-lenses? That could bring the colors into alignment.

-T
 
Kidding Andy.

Red Schmed. That's what I do as Hollywood Schmollywood.

Panavision is a great company that has helped me greatly over the years.

Tell those guys over there to make some 16:9 anamorphic if they haven't been already.
 
andyr said:
Jim, Graeme, While the Genesis sensor is not a mysterium there are some things that will have to remain mysterious for reasons of completive advantage. I assure you that the photosites are adjacent, and yet the output is properly and exactly co-sited without interpolation - and no magic is involved.
Click to expand...

Hey Andy,

Nice to have you here.

So "Demystifying Digital Camera Specifications" only applies when it's relative to bayer patterns? ;)

Deanan
 
ts1 said:
Does the Genesis sensor have micro-lenses? That could bring the colors into alignment.
Click to expand...
Something along this line of thought seems plausible, given the on-chip binning.
 
andyr said:
Jim, Graeme, While the Genesis sensor is not a mysterium there are some things that will have to remain mysterious for reasons of completive advantage. I assure you that the photosites are adjacent, and yet the output is properly and exactly co-sited without interpolation - and no magic is involved.

Regards,

Andy

Andy Romanoff
Panavision
Click to expand...

Andy this seems like quite a convenient double standard you have here. But it makes no difference, the Genesis will never produce more than 1080 lines of resolution and we can measure a reliable 3.2K Luma and 2.2K chroma resolution from the Red One. So all other augments aside you've managed to take a 12MP sensor and chop it down to 2, it seems like a trivial thing to co-site three lines of pixels in a 82% downscale. Even if you have a perfect 4:4:4 1080P Panalog image, you are still significantly below the available information from a Red One. It doesn't matter how you achieve it.
 
Evin Grant said:
Andy this seems like quite a convenient double standard you have here. But it makes no difference, the Genesis will never produce more than 1080 lines of resolution and we can measure a reliable 3.2K Luma and 2.2K chroma resolution from the Red One. So all other augments aside you've managed to take a 12MP sensor and chop it down to 2, it seems like a trivial thing to co-site three lines of pixels in a 82% downscale. Even if you have a perfect 4:4:4 1080P Panalog image, you are still significantly below the available information from a Red One. It doesn't matter how you achieve it.
Click to expand...

Can't we all just get along? Wouldn't it be just better to do a straight side by side comparison and let people make there own decisions. Images quality can be a very subjective thing. I never try to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't be seeing. You just measure it and let them draw their own conclusions.
 
Heh, tough crowd... (and yeah, I would be part of that crowd).

I assure you that the photosites are adjacent, and yet the output is properly and exactly co-sited without interpolation - and no magic is involved.
Click to expand...
Is there some way of proving your claim?

If you were to shoot a zone plate and post the result, that could potentially prove your claim. Though somebody might argue that your reconstruction algorithm is specifically designed to do well in that situation (at the expense of other situations).

2- I understand your need to keep your secret sauce a secret. But perhaps in the spirit of demystifying all these specifications, you could show/provide evidence of how well your secret sauce works (i.e. don't give away the recipe, but give us a taste!).

In theory, I would expect RGB stripe to be the least efficient arrangement of pixels compared to Bayer. Just like Bayer, the sampling doesn't seem co-sited (unless there is some optical trick to make the sampling co-sited; but if this is the case, why not say so?). Of course, this theory could be wrong.

3- If you can do what you say (take non-co-sited sampling and make it look co-sited), then I think it would be a significant technical achievement. Why not prove it? / show it?
 
BradWright said:
Can't we all just get along? Wouldn't it be just better to do a straight side by side comparison and let people make there own decisions. Images quality can be a very subjective thing. I never try to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't be seeing. You just measure it and let them draw their own conclusions.
Click to expand...

Watch anything shot on Genesis, and then look at your own footage. I certainly prefer what I'm shooting on Red to the ultra-plastic skintones of Superman Returns.
 
ChristopherKenworthy said:
Watch anything shot on Genesis, and then look at your own footage. I certainly prefer what I'm shooting on Red to the ultra-plastic skintones of Superman Returns.
Click to expand...

Amen...!!! :usd:
 
Let there be light gentlemen.
 
ChristopherKenworthy said:
Watch anything shot on Genesis, and then look at your own footage. I certainly prefer what I'm shooting on Red to the ultra-plastic skintones of Superman Returns.
Click to expand...

Some people might like that look. It could have been graded to look that way by Brian Singer, the director. In any case, a MacBeth chart shot should show the color deviation if I'm not mistaken. The only way to make a credible case for why one system is better than the other is to base it on side by side tests.

You have to proceed in a credible fashion, or people will doubt your conclusions. Some people will always believe that the higher priced product is always better than one that costs less. Making the tests open, honest, and ultimately reproducible is the best way to make the case for what you have to sell.
 
BradWright said:
Some people might like that look. It could have been graded to look that way by Brian Singer, the director. In any case, a MacBeth chart shot should show the color deviation if I'm not mistaken. The only way to make a credible case for why one system is better than the other is to base it on side by side tests.

You have to proceed in a credible fashion, or people will doubt your conclusions. Some people will always believe that the higher priced product is always better than one that costs less. Making the tests open, honest, and ultimately reproducible is the best way to make the case for what you have to sell.
Click to expand...

Nah, I think tests will mean very little once there are 20 or 30 great RED feature films out there.

I know people will say that Superman Returns was meant to look like that, and if that's the case then Singer should retire. And I think it may just be hot air. The inventor of Genesis told me the skies were meant to be blown out in the train station sequence of Flyboys. It may be true, but I find it a little difficult to believe.
 
Out of curiosity:
Does the Genesis have a different sensor and processing than the F35?

How much is alike and how much different in that Sony's processing for RGB stripe might differ from Panavisions?
 
Superman did look plasticky on choice of the director - it's not what the camera looks like. I get fed up when people judge cameras from movie graded footage when the choice of the director was not to make the footage look like the perfect camera test, but instead to grade to the footage to suit the needs of the movie!

The key thing for a camera is not to get in the way of the director's vision. All we can do is make the best camera we can, but we cannot dictate directorial and cinematographical choices made by the professionals who use our cameras!

Graeme
 
Thanks, and that, of course, goes to Panavision as well as every other camera manufacturer.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Superman did look plasticky on choice of the director - it's not what the camera looks like. I get fed up when people judge cameras from movie graded footage when the choice of the director was not to make the footage look like the perfect camera test, but instead to grade to the footage to suit the needs of the movie!

The key thing for a camera is not to get in the way of the director's vision. All we can do is make the best camera we can, but we cannot dictate directorial and cinematographical choices made by the professionals who use our cameras!

Graeme
Click to expand...

Wow. He really wanted it to look like that? I'm stunned. Has anybody seen a Genesis movie with good skin tones? I've only seen two, and both looked plastic as.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top