Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

84 Panavision Genesis

Zaphod said:
What are the numbers for feature films shot on Red Vs Genesis?

Despite a suggested 5,000 cameras there seems to be hardly any features shot on RED including a grand total of zero really big features shot on Red whilst there must be literally hundreds of features shot on Genesis?


Also it wouldn't surprise me if Panavision were Red's single biggest client. They are ARRI's biggest client.
Click to expand...


I cant speak for the industry but here at fxphd.com - we have Chesh working here now who was the DIT on the Knowing feature - which had up to 5 REDs and lower budget films like The Nothing Men before that. I am sure there are other projects outside of Australia !!! The thing is , it takes time for a film to decide to use RED, Shoot with RED and then post an get the film out. The Knowing trailer is on itunes.

Mike
 
In Norway RED has taken a dispropotional big part of the high end market in almost no time. I would guess that would be the same for other smaller markets.

Gunleik
 
The Third Man said:
One more thing:

You mean the neutrality of Switzerland.
But that neutrality is not about they don't want to be involved in wars, affairs, etc,...
It's about the money because Switzerland is actually one huge bank.
That neutrality for the centuries guaranteed them "infusion" of money from all types of insecure or unstable world around.
But today that neutrality also a lot changed because of global business relation and development.
Switzerland is not neutral any more in o'l sense how it was in former times.
BTW, I would like to say that today everybody is somehow involved in the game and actually nobody's neutral.
Click to expand...


I Love you Sanjin,

BUT don't rewrite history!!!

Switzerland has been made neutral by France/Deutschland/Russia for the sake of the Old Europe so their business (and military force) would have access to the Alps and cross them at any time without to worry that they could be in the hands of another Empire. Neutrality has nothing to do with banks. Even if during WWII Swiss banks where welcoming Nazi gold thanks to a so called Neutrality.

Switzerland did uderstand that being so small they'll never have the arrogance of any German/France/Italy/Austria Hungary world domination dream that was current from 17th to 20th century.

Yes Switzerland has always been a place to shelter (first of all the Helvets fled from a place we call now France) but I must admit it's a pitty that the only thing that fleeds now in Switzerland is money.

Don't mix Swiss Neutrality with Swiss banks corruption.

Patrick

PS : Sanjin I would love to rent you The Leica 50/0.95 (with your red) if you'll buy!
 
Tresch said:
I Love you Sanjin,

BUT don't rewrite history!!!

Switzerland has been made neutral by France/Deutschland/Russia for the sake of the Old Europe so their business (and military force) would have access to the Alps and cross them at any time without to worry that they could be in the hands of another Empire. Neutrality has nothing to do with banks. Even if during WWII Swiss banks where welcoming Nazi gold thanks to a so called Neutrality.

Switzerland did uderstand that being so small they'll never have the arrogance of any German/France/Italy/Austria Hungary world domination dream that was current from 17th to 20th century.

Yes Switzerland has always been a place to shelter (first of all the Helvets fled from a place we call now France) but I must admit it's a pitty that the only thing that fleeds now in Switzerland is money.

Don't mix Swiss Neutrality with Swiss banks corruption.

Patrick

PS : Sanjin I would love to rent you The Leica 50/0.95 (with your red) if you'll buy!
Click to expand...

Quote about Swiss neutrality:

"Switzerland during the World Wars

Since the 1815 Vienna conference on international affairs after Napoleons defeat, Switzerland is obliged to be neutral in any conflicts between other nations. During World War I (1914-1918), it was relatively clear, what this obligation meant. In World War II (1939-1945), Switzerland was surrounded by troops of or loyal to the German Nazi regime disregarding any international rules. From today's point of view, it seems that Switzerland could and should have done more in favour of jewish refugees. It is also clear that accepting gold from the Nazis while knowing they stole it from murdered jews was a big mistake. Today's Swiss government has appointed an international Independent Commission of Experts (ICE) to conduct an inquiry on Switzerlands role in World War II.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was critized for not having intervened on behalf of the Jews in World War II. In fact, though the 4th Geneva Convention protecting civilians during wartime was only established after the war in 1949, the ICRC has admitted that it did neglect a moral duty. Those who are criticizing the ICRC for its legalistic omissions in World War II are kindly invited to support it now, when it demands e.g. that El Qaida terrorists being detained on Guantanamo U.S. base are either treated as civilians (with full legal rights, including fair trial within reasonable time) or at least as prisoners of war."

Quote about "A society in prosperity

After World War II, technical progress and economic growth reached a new dimension particularly in Western Europe, North America and South East Asia. Switzerland with its tradition in machine building, chemical and pharmaceutical processes and financial services could establish itself as an important player on global markets."

LINK>>>

I would add that Swiss "financial services" outperformed Swiss "machine building, chemical and pharmaceutical processes" by minimum 1000:1.

Probably you've got the point.

Just my two Swiss Franc!
 
Abel as Switzerland:

We don't play favorites.
We try to be friends and work with everyone.
We are happy to make money off all of you. ;-)
 
A very sad destiny of global financial services and facing of global financial meltdown today put Swiss neutrality to the edge.

Politically neutral just exists on a paper.

Economically neutral doesn't exist any more.

Today is more like that politics = economy.

You can be loud/(active) or quiet/(neutral) in world's politics but already economically you've joined the crowd.

Your hands are not clean any more.

If today world's economy crash then everybody crash.

There are no exceptions.

No more financially safe heavens.

Think about Iceland today.

From California via New York, London, Zurich, Frankfurt, Istanbul, Jerusalem, Delhi, Bhutan to Bali, Borneo and Sidney.

From Helsinki via Moscow, Beijing, Dubai, Cairo, Addis Ababa, Johannesburg, Buenos Aires, to Rio de Janeiro and Havana.

But let's go back to the tread topic from this digression.
 
What's the point of this discussion? So what if there are a lot more RED's out there than the rental-only Genesis??? There are a lot more Sony HD cameras out there too than any Panavision camera, film or digital. So what?

Panavision is a rental-only business, so camera sales aren't really indicative of what camera will be used to shoot a production.

And who says that the majority of RED's are being bought for feature production, the area where Panavision is strong. Some RED's are being used to shoot productions normally shot on other HD digital cameras. So why not compare how many F900's have been sold to how many RED's have been sold? It would be just as relevant or pointless as comparing sales of RED cameras to the number of Genesis cameras for rent.

The issue isn't about volume -- overall RED production no doubt is already high in many fields -- it's about whether the traditional renters of Panavision equipment are suddenly going to consider a different business model that involves owning or renting RED's. Working here, I see some shift in Hollywood but nothing significant.

After doing two RED features, I'm now doing a TV series on the Genesis. It's been working just great for the TV series and everyone is happy with the quality. I just talked to another DP who is shooting a CW network series called "Valentine" on the F23; another DP I know just switched from 35mm to the Genesis on "Smallville".

I also get calls from some Hollywood DP's who are out there now shooting on the RED.

In other words, there are lots of options out there and RED is one of them. So is renting from Panavision...

RED will become an important player in Hollywood production... but Panavision isn't going anywhere and they certainly aren't going to sit on their hands and not keep creating products that Hollywood wants to rent.

RED vs. Genesis = apples vs. oranges. Or at least, apples vs. pears...

Panavision is not your enemy. It is not the cause of all the things you hate about Hollywood. Neither is Kodak.
 
Sarah, don't get everyone started again! :) :wink:
 
LilRed said:
Indeed! Maybe I'm wrong.. but isn't Red in a class of its own, right now anyway?

~Sarah
Click to expand...

Sarah, It all depends for what and for whom. Red certainly has a lot of appeal, but Dalsa, Phantom, Genesis, Arri, Sony and many others have certain features more suitable for different projects. For my individual needs, Red One is in a class of its own, but for others and other uses this may or may not be the case. It is just another option, like David Mullen eloquently pointed out.
 
RED is at the forefront of digital cinema cameras that are not built around HD tape recording, but on data recording instead. It's not the first of course, but the combination of high resolution and practical data recording is accelerating a long-delayed, or long-anticipated, shift away from videotape-based recording.

It also accelerates a trend of offering higher quality cinema images at lower costs. Again, I don't think of it as the first to do this, but it is a major leap forward in a trend.

But ultimately, if the RED becomes as successful as most of us think it will be, it will invite more and more competition -- ultimately ARRI and other camera companies will make something similar, 4K RAW cameras, and Hollywood production will likely be interested in renting these cameras as they are in the RED cameras. The large number of RED cameras out there will have an impact to some extent, but it will not eliminate their competition. Cost is not always the most important factor to Hollywood studios and if someone makes a RED-like camera that costs more but is more reliable, or has more features, or better quality, then Hollywood will often opt for that. Of course, I may be referring to the EPIC...

Numbers of cameras sold doesn't mean a whole lot when it comes to a feature production model based on one-time renting for a temporary legal entity created just to make one movie.
 
On modern Hollywood sets, no one buys; they rent, and the rental houses guarantee and back-up their product in exchange for charging high prices. The camera (and even film stock) is just the smallest part of a film's total cost, so, budget-wise, digital versus film (let alone one digital camera versus another) is a wash at this point in time. The fact that red has an inane and unfamiliar exposure system and workflow makes it unattractive for those accustomed to having everything ironed out, even if its images are awesome for the price. Right now it's a good option for ads, tv series, music videos, overseas and independent film, etc. but it's not going to turn feature films upside down. There are probably 50 times more dvx's than there are reds and that means nothing.

This will change in the future based on two things:

1) The industry is making great revenue, even with the economic crisis, but costs are far too high and profit margins are thinner than ever. The heads of the studios are more than concerned.
Just look at New Line folding, WB pushing Harry Potter to the summer, Universal saying no to a $400 million after director's fee Tintin, and Fox and Lionsgate basically abandoning marketing anything without a guaranteed market. And Coloumbia is more a content factory for Sony than a studio that has to be profitable on its own terms, so that's why its struggles may be less apparent.
We may see outsourcing to low budget semi-independent studios like in the 1950s and 1960s and these studios may own their own equipment. This could make cheap cameras relevant.

2) 3D technology is catching on. It may take a while to become the norm, but most theaters are converting to 3D. This will help combat piracy and give a good argument against just waiting for a blu-ray movies, which look as good as prints.
When sound caught on, WB, the first studio to offer it affordably, went from a minor to a major, and the sound equipment manufacturers made $$$.
When color caught on, technicolor, the first company to offer a real option for a vivid image, made awesome profits. Kodak later stole much of this away....
The creation of affordable scope widescreen is responsible for Panavision's success--and huge profits at Fox, the first studio to introduce the process.
What I'm getting at is--the first company to offer an easy 3d digital workflow will make huge money. 3d is more expensive, harder to shoot, etc. and this is where a smaller company could catch up to Panavision in feature films.
 
Thanks for the contribution David, Pawel and Policar.

Guys you've made some really good points.

But also don't get crazy about the facts and numbers that were mentioned here.

Those numbers are in public, we know them and we also think about them.

Nobody here is against Panavision, Arri, Sony, Dalsa, Viper, Phanotom, SI, etc...

One more thing just to tell you another example:

Yesterday I passed the shop and picked up DVD "Shine a Light" a film about live concert from "The Rolling Stones",

directed by Marty Scorsese and shot by Robert Richardson ASC, mostly on film (Arri) and with a little part on Genesis (off stage, no concert).

Cinematography was beautiful and excellent as you could expect from 2X Academy Award winner cinematographer like Robert Richardson ASC.

I was asking myself could be possible to shoot this on RED and get a similar result.

Then I said to myself for sure you would get a certain result and it would be a bit different one.

Also I found that getting out of the focus is very fast and easy in this live concert shooting conditions and situation even with all those best cine lenses (Arri MP).

Then after I was somehow not ashamed and afraid of using still lenses on RED and all those "stories" about a short focus trow on a still lenses are for me "gone with a wind".

You just have to get used to it and you will handle it one day with perfection.

At the end don't blame Panavision and other brothers... :) .

Also don't blame Swiss either :) .
 
Boy, I'm a RED enthusiast, but having worked as an AC I can guarantee that Panavision's standards for service, are absolutely bulletproof and almost a unique experience all over the world.

That is the reason so many high budget films are shot in Panavisions. It's the best service any rental house cound give you.

It's a different business model and filmaking model, and guess what we've learned from a century of craft. That model is not going anywhere. Thank god. I still wish I had a red one at home waiting for me...
 
Panavision service is in the dumps for a few years but rose back up a bit more recently. Their service quality is also varies alot by who you are. Some AC's I know get treated like royality while others have been treated like crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top