Anybody See Today's LA Times Business Section?

[Steve G]

MMost,

we all just got a bit cooling from one another discussion here where "one union president" described in documentary web video of

multi-camera evaluation how amazing shot was with Kodak 500T that had got even almost 3-Dimensional

(we should know well that was shot with Panavision camera and Primo L lens and that's Leitz/Leica optics legacy of 3-D feeling that Panavision arranged with ELCAN in 80's).

Suddenly after that was RED shot she said that has got "pay-tan" on talent's face that made a huge brouhaha at the audience.

That was a HELL sort of sarcastic humor...

Have a look and listen carefully>>>LINK>>>

Sanjin, the "bsc" is not a union. It is a society for british cinematographers that have "completed at least three well photographed feature films which have been shown publicly in the cinema OR three television drama productions which have received or been nominated for recognised awards for cinematography. A combination of the above is also acceptable"

It is a body that was set up....

"To promote and encourage the pursuit of the highest standards in the craft of Motion Picture Photography.
To further the applications by others of the highest standards in the craft of Motion Picture Photography and to encourage original and outstanding work.
To co-operate with all whose aims and interests are wholly or in part related to those of the society.
To provide facilities for social intercourse between the members and arrange lectures, debates and meetings calculated to further the objects of the Society"

http://www.bscine.com/MembershipCriteria.asp

It is not a union.

The union in Britain is Bectu. http://www.bectu.org.uk/home
It has little power in the uk any more. Bectu, along with the BSC has no power over what producers shoot with.

You seem to think that Sue Gibson only likes film ? Check out this website for her latest film, shot on the Viper.

http://www.31north62east.com/

Get your facts right.

 

[M Most]

Panavision was caught bringing a knife to a gunfight. I don't want them to disappear, but the "new" direction they're going in will further undermine their position. The best thing Panavision could do is go back to their roots in exhibition and develop new 3D projection tech for theatres. Their business model must change drastically if they want to compete with Red in the market. You can't acquire tech from a company next door and retrofit your way out of a hole that big, I don't care how much marketshare you have.... The world Panavision occupies just got leap-frogged by people who wanted access to their tools and had the ability to develop them on their own. Panavision is in a serious reactive posture, further hindered by the perfect storm of circumstances detailed in that article.

Not to contradict the notion that the future is not necessarily like the past, but I think it's instructive to take a breath here and mention some facts about the present. Right now, Panavision is not only "competing" very well with Red in the television series market, they're far more of a presence than Red is. Nearly all new shows and many legacy shows will be on digital formats this coming season - nearly all of them on either Genesis, F35, F23, one that I know of on D21, and some on 900 variants and Panasonic cameras. Perhaps Brook can educate me on this, but as far as I know, Southland is the only broadcast network show on Red. Features - contrary to what seems to be accepted as gospel here - are still being shot primarily on film, especially studio pictures. It is in commercials that Red has really had the most impact in the higher end of the industry, and in that sense some of the other players have indeed been impacted.

Many people here often accuse industry pros of being luddites, of "not seeing the future," and of refusing to open their eyes. But as Dave Mullen has pointed out in other threads, there is just as much - if not more - "reverse close mindedness" exhibited here and elsewhere by those who refuse to see the current realities, and who refuse to acknowledge that there are choices other than theirs. There seems to be a feeling here that companies like Panavision (and others) are somehow the enemy of all that is digital, new, and good. And that feeling could not be further from the truth. There also seems to be a lot of "they have to lose so that we can win" going on around here, something that also could not be further from the truth. Because when there are choices, everyone wins. A world where only Red exists is just as injurious to choices and creativity as a world in which only film exists. That may be blasphemy to some here, but to those of us who know that all of these things are just tools, it's the truth.

 

[Steve G]

Not to contradict the notion that the future is not necessarily like the past, but I think it's instructive to take a breath here and mention some facts about the present. Right now, Panavision is not only "competing" very well with Red in the television series market, they're far more of a presence than Red is. Nearly all new shows and many legacy shows will be on digital formats this coming season - nearly all of them on either Genesis, F35, F23, one that I know of on D21, and some on 900 variants and Panasonic cameras. Perhaps Brook can educate me on this, but as far as I know, Southland is the only broadcast network show on Red. Features - contrary to what seems to be accepted as gospel here - are still being shot primarily on film, especially studio pictures. It is in commercials that Red has really had the most impact in the higher end of the industry, and in that sense some of the other players have indeed been impacted.

Many people here often accuse industry pros of being luddites, of "not seeing the future," and of refusing to open their eyes. But as Dave Mullen has pointed out in other threads, there is just as much - if not more - "reverse close mindedness" exhibited here and elsewhere by those who refuse to see the current realities, and who refuse to acknowledge that there are choices other than theirs. There seems to be a feeling here that companies like Panavision (and others) are somehow the enemy of all that is digital, new, and good. And that feeling could not be further from the truth. There also seems to be a lot of "they have to lose so that we can win" going on around here, something that also could not be further from the truth. Because when there are choices, everyone wins. A world where only Red exists is just as injurious to choices and creativity as a world in which only film exists. That may be blasphemy to some here, but to those of us who know that all of these things are just tools, it's the truth.

Well said.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Sanjin, the "bsc" is not a union. It is a society for british cinematographers that have "completed at least three well photographed feature films which have been shown publicly in the cinema OR three television drama productions which have received or been nominated for recognised awards for cinematography. A combination of the above is also acceptable"

It is a body that was set up....

"To promote and encourage the pursuit of the highest standards in the craft of Motion Picture Photography.
To further the applications by others of the highest standards in the craft of Motion Picture Photography and to encourage original and outstanding work.
To co-operate with all whose aims and interests are wholly or in part related to those of the society.
To provide facilities for social intercourse between the members and arrange lectures, debates and meetings calculated to further the objects of the Society"

http://www.bscine.com/MembershipCriteria.asp

It is not a union.

The union in Britain is Bectu. http://www.bectu.org.uk/home
It has little power in the uk any more. Bectu, along with the BSC has no power over what producers shoot with.

You seem to think that Sue Gibson only likes film ? Check out this website for her latest film, shot on the Viper.

http://www.31north62east.com/

Get your facts right.

Steve G,

thanks for the info and your kind explanation.

And I will have a look at Sue Gibson's work too.

Also I do not say that "unions" or who else make a rules in the industry in UK, USA or wherever but it was more

about that "unions" and other organizations can make for sure a certain "influence" at "acquisition-decision" level.

 

[Shawn Booth]

Steve G,

thanks for the info and your kind explanation.

And I will have a look at Sue Gibson's work too.

Also I do not say that "unions" or who else make a rules in the industry in UK, USA or wherever but it was more

about that "unions" and other organizations can make for sure a certain "influence" at "acquisition-decision" level.

Huh?

What union makes decisions about acquisitions? That's for production/DP/director....

Do you know anything about the unions Sanjin? You come off sounding anti-union... They protect the craftsmen, they work FOR us... They don't hurt us.

 

[Adil Lahoulou]

15 Sony Cameras for $35M? WTF?

Something tells me there will be yet another CEO of that company soon

looks like Sony is now eating Panavision's lunch...

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Huh?

What union makes decisions about acquisitions? That's for production/DP/director....

Do you know anything about the unions Sanjin? You come off sounding anti-union... They protect the craftsmen, they work FOR us... They don't hurt us.

Shawn,

sorry and obviously not unions in US sense or whatever in that way.

I call them now "groups", "organized groups" or even "network" if these three new formulations can help to get what I wanted to say.

Sometimes I use language with a certain "jargon" to say (not so direct) what should be behind the object of my thoughts...

Hope this helps...

 

[Luis Ismael]

Funny time these are.
A small "vapourware" company is bitting the "big boys".
Congrats RED.

 

[M Most]

I think it must surely be a typo - maybe they meant $3.5 million for 15 cameras (that's $233,333 per camera...maybe you get a good discount for buying such a ridiculously expensive camera in bulk :thumbsup:? Maybe also the price they pay for the Genesis is cheaper than the price everyone else pays for a F35 (around $300,000 I believe))? 150 cameras sounds like a ridiculous number of cameras to buy...

I agree. I corrected my previous post.

There are other inaccuracies in the article, as there are in practically any article written about our industry these days. For instance, it states that "In addition to renting the camera, Red Digital Cinema sells its camera and accessories for about $30,000." This is clearly false because unless I'm missing something, Red doesn't rent any of their products, they only sell them. It states in the same paragraph that "By contrast, Panavision cameras aren't for sale and typically rent from $10,000 to $60,000 a week." This is generally true, except for the facts that a) Panavision also rents packages for less than $10K a week, and b) the products they're talking about at the high end are not digital products, but specialty cameras used for specific, unique purposes. But, as always, readers will probably cherry pick the parts of the article that seem to confirm their own beliefs and ignore the rest. C'est la vie.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Dammit, don't congratulate Brook too much or he'll raise his rates!

 

[Jeff Coatney]

I seriously doubt my opinion has any bearing on weather or not Panavision survives the transition to digital. I don't want Red to be the only digital camera available, but I would like companies that are interested in developing one to do it in a way that drives the technology forward. I find it intresting that so many people are betting on Sony's R&D efforts to pull their fat out of the fire. If Panavision had a credible, serious effort in play to bring something new to the table, would they be buying Sony cameras? Wake up and smell the emulsion. Panavision, and any other serious player in digital cinema acquisition must lead the development curve, not follow someone else's path. Panavision has an outdated business model and the article, if accurate, confirms this fact. Taken at face value, by their own admission, they are not in the market position they once enjoyed historically. I stand by my assessment, which admittedly looks down the road a bit. Let's face it, there are fewer and fewer movies and TV shows being made in California, and the reasons are clearly not entirely due to the digital question. But there is no substitute for leadership in times like these and if Panavision wants to be around for the next twenty-five years, perhaps they should stop changing CEO's and start leading.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Depends on what metric you define as "leading". RED is leading on resolution. But many have compared RED and the F23 and chosen the F23 on overall quality of image and for them they would say the RED is playing catch up to Sony.

 

[M Most]

I seriously doubt my opinion has any bearing on weather or not Panavision survives the transition to digital.

It's interesting that you would say that, because the fact is that in the high end of the industry, Panavision is by far the market leader in digital cameras. If you add up the number of Genesis, F35 (the ones supplied by Panavision), F23, and F900 variants (also the ones supplied by Panavision) that are in use on network television and feature production, I think you'll find that the number exceeds that of any other supplier by a rather wide margin. Panavision is very, very aware of the growth of digital capture. They ceased to be a film only company a long time ago.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

I think the best metric to use is how many solutions are in development right now. Red and Sony have robust development efforts in play. I don't think we should pick a winner based on what people are choosing today. The playing field must expand to include not only resolution but exhibition technology, archiving, distribution. What DP's are shooting with right now means very little, if you factor in the sustained pace of innovation, DP's should be choosing new technology constantly. I'm convinced that the only way to keep Red's innovation engine running is to provide some credible competition. That's what I mean by an outdated business model. Panavision, Arri, And others could leave the sensor innovation to others in the short term, but that is not a healthy posture in the long view. At some point Panavision just becomes another rental house. You see in the digital paradigm, it matters very little which camera system DP's prefer today. What matters is the next development cycle. There is no "win - lose" equation in this game like it existed pre- digital. Now there is only sustained development and the never ending leap-frog of one system architecture beating another to the latest most coveted feature. Red wins the resolution battle for now while Sony wins the dynamic range battle and so on. I always take heat from people who think I'm a Red fan because I own one. Not the case. I own a Red because the company has demonstrated an aggressive, forward looking development posture that they can sustain long enough for me to pay for the gear I bought. They have proven this. While many DP's may choose another camera to shoot with today, the Red development effort will ultimately eclipse and eliminate from consideration, the criteria they used to make the choice. Bottomline: if you can't play the game Jim Jannard is playing, you won't be able to compete. Panavision is letting Sony do this for them.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

By the way, I didn't catch your real name, M Most. With whom am I debating?

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

I could care less about Panavision. I don't dislike them, but they are just another old guard company that has been overcharging for their equipment and services for years. I don't feel any sympathy for them.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

It's interesting that you would say that, because the fact is that in the high end of the industry, Panavision is by far the market leader in digital cameras. If you add up the number of Genesis, F35 (the ones supplied by Panavision), F23, and F900 variants (also the ones supplied by Panavision) that are in use on network television and feature production, I think you'll find that the number exceeds that of any other supplier by a rather wide margin. Panavision is very, very aware of the growth of digital capture. They ceased to be a film only company a long time ago.

Also, the "high end" in any industry errodes rapidly and aggressively in a post-digital change-over. The barriers you refer to are amorphous and ill-defined as they relate to overall market share. I could just as easily say that Red has sold 6,000 cameras, while Panavision has sold zero. I recognize your point, but it is akin to saying the Titanic is the high end of ocean voyaging in 1914. Not to be flippant, but you are only citing the status quo and not taking into account how the industry is currently trending. This has been fun. Cheers. Maybe next time we do this over a cold one?

 

[M Most]

By the way, I didn't catch your real name, M Most. With whom am I debating?

Not debating. Discussing.

Mike. Mike Most.

 

[Scott Webster]

It is interesting that a lot of you seem to think a rental company lives and dies based on the technology they carry, rather than the service they provide.

 

[M Most]

Also, the "high end" in any industry errodes rapidly and aggressively in a post-digital change-over. The barriers you refer to are amorphous and ill-defined as they relate to overall market share. I could just as easily say that Red has sold 6,000 cameras, while Panavision has sold zero. I recognize your point, but it is akin to saying the Titanic is the high end of ocean voyaging in 1914. Not to be flippant, but you are only citing the status quo and not taking into account how the industry is currently trending.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm just pointing out that in a forum like Red User, there are many pronouncements made that are contrary to current fact. Talking about the future is fine, but the reality here seems to sometimes be quite skewed to that of the real world. "Winners" are declared who are, in fact, not the winners, at least not yet. Statements are made as to what the industry is doing that are counter to the actual facts. And it's not just regarding technology - I constantly read references here as to how the studios aren't going to survive, and yet since they are having their biggest box office year in history, they must be doing something right.

I don't completely disagree with your points, but I think they're premature. You (and I) don't really know what kind of R&D is going on in other imaging companies because they have not chosen to be as public with those efforts as Red has chosen to be. Part of that is because Red is a private company that doesn't have to answer to stockholders and doesn't have to issue financials. Most of the other companies that have been mentioned are not in this category, so they need to be quite careful about what they say. But that doesn't mean they're oblivious to the trends, and it doesn't mean they're not doing anything about it.