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 :)

Panavision videos...

Graeme Nattress said:
I strongly disagree about calling a sensor a 4:2:0,
Click to expand...

Graeme, yes, I've read carefully what you've been posting the last two years, processed on what you've said, and also feel their claim 4:2:0 is nothing but a clear mistake. My point was, I can understand why such a question is raised at the first place, so I wouldn't rush to say those guys are not professionals. Still, it cames into mind, why this guy from Canon did not consult first with his Canon DSLR-dept about the debayer-process before coming public.

Mathematically speaking, I see it this way: The bayer-pattern yields data which corresponds to an equivalence class of sources leading to the same data --that's the equivalence relation (all sources yielding the same data are considered equivalent). Now, the debayerian is about picking a representative for the equivalence class. Obviously, you do not have a canonical choice for the representative. So, different choices can be made, each of them having their own pro and cons. (And I highly appreciate what you've done with RED. It's not a trivial task to pick the representative and, obviously, it requires a lot of experience.) My guess is, this is also what the panavision guy tries to say when saying the DSLR's have a processor inside which recognizes whether the object includes the sky, some patterns, etc.; Depending on the object, one may want to change the chosen representative.
 
Well, considering the sensor alone (pre-processing); in a Bayer Pattern arrangement Green does in fact get twice as many samples as Red or Blue so while I agree that the terminology on it's own is misleading. I see it as half truth to perhaps make the RGB stripe arrangement in the Genesis seem more appealing. As Graeme has said before, the "Magic" happens in the processing algorithms.
 
Sometimes the best way to guage your success is to realize who has chosen to become your enemy.

-Thor
 
Did John say anything about PV lenses ? Strange !!!

Optics 1st , Sensor 2nd, Codec 3rd, Storage 4th , Display 5th, WOW !!!
RED nearly got " Royal Straight Flush " cards through their playing cards....

What cards are PV and Pana or Soon Only Not yet or AreV holding ?

Stewart
REDHKSC
RED 768
HKG
 
Daniel Reichenbach said:
Somehow, I'm a dump guy
Click to expand...

Daniel, I think you meant "dumb"... Sorry to correct you on a self insult :)...

When it comes to photography, I use a Leica. I just bought another. I love those cameras and lenses. I used a million cameras in my life and have never felt quite as happy with the result than when I shot with the Leicas. I think I'm just a fan of their "piqué" and DOF... Their pictures always impressed me, wheter in a magazine or in a book...

Beyond all, the technical stuff, what's best, which is the greatest, I think it's about personality. For me, Leica's rendering and imagery has personality. So does Hasselblad in a different way. I just hope Red has personality. I just wish Red becomes the Leica of HD cinema. That's how I feel with Red. I feel it's already got a LOT of personality.
 
Yes Darren, I could make a demosaic that gives you pure 4:4:4 2k from a 4k Bayer image. It's a feature in RedAlert now. You're just throwing away an extra 1.2k of luma detail :-)

Graeme
 
Expected...

Expected...

The problem with Panavision frankly, is Sony. Their nastiness and flip flops are so unnecessary and childish.

We put PV mounts on our cameras to support Panavision when we shot with prototypes. We even heard from Panavision that "they are a rental house, first and foremost" implying welcome arms to RED.

Then Sony steps in and they cave. It's a shame to see such bondage to old alliances, media and procedures crippling such a stable and trusted player in the film industry as Panavision has been.

What a shame? But, then again, they'll come around eventually. They always do.

j.
 
JonFarhat said:
The problem with Panavision frankly, is Sony. Their nastiness and flip flops are so unnecessary and childish.

We put PV mounts on our cameras to support Panavision when we shot with prototypes. We even heard from Panavision that "they are a rental house, first and foremost" implying welcome arms to RED.

Then Sony steps in and they cave. It's a shame to see such bondage to old alliances, media and procedures crippling such a stable and trusted player in the film industry as Panavision has been.

What a shame? But, then again, they'll come around eventually. They always do.

j.
Click to expand...


"Sony steps in and they cave"... What are you referring too?


Mike Brennan
 
And this means????.......

And this means????.......

This was a great Intro to the math of digital capture primer.

So freakin what!

RED is making fantastic images! Which is the point isn't it? Who cares if they have a gerbil running on alfalfa and ginseng making the images inside the cameras, they look amazing.

I would ask the Cinematographers doing evaluation can you tell the difference? And if so is it worth the 10X (+) price difference?

Finally, there is the missing element of post. Since processing is so engrained in producing images now you are able to create things that aren't there. The line of where FX starts is fuzzy. And with a small renderfarm you can create whatever you don't have in your image (eg Pirates of the Caribbean).
 
I jumped in after reading the posts on the Panavision videos. I have been an ASC cinematographer for twelve years. All of my friends in the ASC, many Academy Award winners, think the Red Camera is amazing. It is amazing! I have also shot several shows using the Red. Not one problem. The footage is beautiful. I will tell the Associates from Panavision tomorrow evening at the ASC if there is any discussion regarding quality, dependability, or ease of use.
 
Jannard said:
Panavision has released a set of videos entitled "Demystifying Digital Camera Specifications". I have to say that, while the science is mostly correct, the spin is absolutely wrong. Video #6 is particularly "interesting". I guess we have made Canon a bit nervous also?

Are they actually saying that a DSLR image is not as good as a grab from the Genesis? We, at RED, find this video pretty incredible...

We have had many top DPs call us and shake their heads on the phone... :-)

Just saying...

Jim
Click to expand...



Panavision said the CineAlta was "indistinguishable from film". That 1440 x 800 pixel images were better than super-35.
They implied that only Panavision had the smarts to make lenses with enough resolution to get "cinema quality" out of a 2/3" sensor. (At no point did they mention that lenses designed for film cameras simply won't work with 3-CCD imagers). (Or that other manufacturers make lenses that are just as good if not better, which is why Star Wars III got shot with Plus8 Digital's equipment)
They claimed their Digital Primos gave similar depth of field to lenses designed for 35mm cameras, which is physically impossible.
They claimed the Genesis was good enough for IMAX.

Meanwhile I've been told they haven't shown an operating profit in over 20 years. I bet they would if you were running the show. They'd probably have to do without a few dozen less vice-presidents or so:-)

One thing their competitors would love to have demystified is how they've managed to stay in business this long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top