Panavision videos...

[Jannard]

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

[Darren Orange]

Wow, thanks for the heads up Jim!

[10s]

If ASC DP's shake their heads, and Panavision is getting nervous, ----that's a good sign. You're going to be a target, I hope you're ready for the ride! :)

[Sanjin Jukic]

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

Panavision is just fighting for survival of Genesis in the marker crowded with RED cameras.

And if they are sometimes "so dirty" and "so funny" that's part of a survival fight.

[Jonas Nyström]

Keep it coming, say more....

Good to see you back, Jim.

[Jannard]

We had one (nameless) ASC member come to our booth. He grabbed me to admit he had been a true skeptic. After watching the 4k footage, he converted. It was like a religious experience. He was particularly impressed with the anamorphic footage from "The Argentine". We spent 1/2 hour going over our line, including accessories... especially the lenses. He scrutinized the 18-85mm zoom and left a true fan. It made my day...

Jim

[reality]

It sounds to me like Panavision is finally buckling under the pressure. It is pretty hard to ignore what RED has done to the industry.

Good to see you back Jim.

[Peter McCully]

We had one (nameless) ASC member come to our booth. He grabbed me to admit he had been a true skeptic. After watching the 4k footage, he converted. It was like a religious experience. He was particularly impressed with the anamorphic footage from "The Argentine". We spent 1/2 hour going over our line, including accessories... especially the lenses. He scrutinized the 18-85mm zoom and left a true fan. It made my day...

Jim
Love it!
I'm looking forward to reading in American Cinematographer (in the near future) some first hand accounts from ASC members on using Red on productions. Hopefully, there will be a feature on the "Argentine".

[Gary Stone]

panavision's a little nervous, eh?

let's just say for arguments sake that they're right on the money, i still don't want to pay them the difference.

i cannot wait to get my camera.

[Shawn Nelson]

The problem is that with the merging of digital technology and art, it becomes easy to mislead people who are gods of art into believing really stupid technological lies. Then, if you dont technically tell lies but just throw out enough tech to confuse the artists and try to reassure their feelings, they may be successful at least for a while.

[Jannard]

The problem is that with the merging of digital technology and art, it becomes easy to mislead people who are gods of art into believing really stupid technological lies. Then, if you dont technically tell lies but just throw out enough tech to confuse the artists and try to reassure their feelings, they may be successful at least for a while.

I didn't quite understand the words, but something tells me you got it exactly right. :-)

Jim

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

I think we all know that in the end all they'll have left is "We're Panavision, they're not." Which may keep some of the really loyal customers for a while, but Panavision would be much smarter to try to partner with RED in some fashion. Certainly these lockouts I've heard of not renting to RED productions is not the smartest move (and after seeing the Argentine footage, I really want to shoot some anamorphic), and this buggery of the bad tech spin is just going to sour people more quickly. Panavision should be trying to find ways to remain relevant in the changing industry, instead of making relics of themselves.

[Michael Thornton]

LOL

Anyone has link to this video?

thnx

Tek

[C.H.Haskell]

Welcome back.

[hunterrichards]

panavision.com its on the front page

[Jason Ing]

I just downloaded Chapter 1 (1080p). After watching just a few seconds, I had to stop and come back here and say, "They should have shot it on RED!" :)

[Darren Orange]

Check out what Panavision has posted on their website...

Panavision Post (http://www.panavision.com/in_frame_detail.php?spotid=20&PHPSESSID=c9nrcgaqcr3c9su9gnc3ie0is2)

If they are not directly talking about Red....well we know they are talking about Red. They seem pretty off the chart at this moment...


I'll give them this, they tired as hard as they could to confuse people so they might get lucky and people would just agree with them.....

[Gareth]

For some, the best defence is attack. Drawing this response from giants like of Panavision and Sony...should be congratulated. We've got a saying down here, "Flat out like a one legged man in an arse (ass) kicking competition". Panavision is in need of some prosthetics!

[Steve Phillipps]

I think the more information you can get the better, so this was worth watching.
What it tells me is that there are so many variables involved that statistics and numerical specifications become pretty much meaningless as there can be all sorts of tricks and workarounds - that's why a 1080 handycam is not the same as an F900 even though in specs they could made to look so (depenent upon what you chose NOT to mention!)
So I think it's back to the old standby, judge the output based on what your eyes see on the medium which your audience will view it in.
Steve

[Hemal Keny]

Jim,

Congratulations.

From positive angle: For many getting their product mentioned for whatever reason on the site like Panavision itself is an achievement.

And RED did it in matter of few months. Panavision now feels RED is their serious rival.

This should be news: 2 year RED infant challenged 50 years old Panavision Daddy.

BTW, Indian cinema is the largest in the world and many uses Panavision. Most of them probably never heard of RED. You have got free publicity. Pounce on it.

Regards,

Keny

[Richard Lackey]

I am just a bit concerned over the confusion. Seriously, the biggest challenge I have in introducing the Red One to the South African rental market is to dispell the myths people have. The resistance to this camera and the technology is enormous.

I've got an idea, Jim why don't you start selling shares to red owners, we are a loyal bunch, with the capital raised you buy out Sony. Problem solved. It's now not small fish big fish, Red is then the big fish... or maybe a shark, a great white with big teeth. I'd be first in line to help the cause.

[Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock]

There are 1500 + Reds out there. Only a few months (weeks?) ´till everybody has seen finished productions shot with RED.

That will be the real impact.

Jochen

[Harry Clark]

Hey guys, stop and think for a minute.
Why does Panavision (or Sony or Kodak for that matter) have to "lose" for us to "win"? Red One is a fantastic camera and we'll all use it whenever we can. If certain production requires film, or an HVX, or whatever, will you all stubbornly "push" your Red One? Yes, Panavision is biased. But aren't we too? Good DPs use what tool best serves the project. Just sayin...
I agree with Jim that misinformation is bad. And we SHOULD call people on it. And Panavision not renting lenses without a camera (if that's true) is pretty petty, but then again, it's their company.
But if Panavision abandoned the RGB stripe and came out with a CMOS 4K sensor, or an 8K sensor, would you all turn around and say it's great? Or would we just bash them for some other reason?
They make FANTASTIC lenses, guys. And the film cameras are pretty good too! ;) It's true that they've been on top of the pile for a long time and sometimes have a bad attitude; but let's not stoop to that too.
Wait, give me a minute to put my Romex suit on...
Harry

[oldphart]

Panavision's Chief of Technology is John Gault. Ours is Greame Nattress. I'll take Graeme.

Jim

Sure - but in my book Panavision is a lens company. They did not get into filmmaking, and there should be no need for them to make the electronic replacement for film.

If I were a Panasonic shareholder, I would have wanted them to concentrate on their core business. More high-quality digital cameras means more opportunities to make money on lenses.

[Gunleik Groven]

Harry: Agree...

Old: Guess you mean Panavision...

There's a multitude of factors that applies for me personally for jumping on the RED ship. As price is one of them, my choices are limited. I feel only fortunate that I'm now not currently shooting a 2100 with AVC-I board, even though I'm likewise certain that that would have served a lot of my needs.

I am a digital dude by nature and virtue. Not because I think that is always the best, but it's where I decided to learn and hope to become slightly useable. I don't despise film for that reason. I just don't use it...

RED, thus - opens up some of the more sexy aspects of filmproduction for me, thus far unachievable. I couldn't rent any of the other 35mm digicams here anyway, so they're kust not an option without moving to another country. With 2,5 kids and a wife, that's not on the near horisont...

Does this make me unhappy with the RED?

Not at all. Couldn't be happier. But I'll get an EPIC when it's available.

[Steve Sherrick]

If you go by the numbers (specs), each camera will have strengths and weaknesses. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, the bottom line is what looks good to an audience or client and can you achieve your artistic or commercial intent. Resolution is not the final answer there. A lot of variables will contribute to whether the content is deemed enjoyable and effective.

What's important for RED's future is that we all use it well to tell stories and shoot beautiful pictures. That's what people will remember, not the actual digital resolution numbers.

Having said that, the Panavision videos were worth checking out. That filled my geek boy quota for the day.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Our two-year old David is waking up the haughty Goliaths.

Now they'll have to move their a$$es and try to deliver better, in terms of quality and price.

Good for us customers.

Right now, The Force is with RED...

[Erasmus]

. . . A so-called “4K camera” that has an imager with only 8 or 10 million photo sites but outputs 25 or 32 megapixels is interpolating data without adding any image performance. Moreover, it creates a four-fold increase in post-production digital data to be stored and processed that is both unnecessary and expensive. . . . . By contrast, Genesis has a 12.4 million photo site sensor, produces content superior to what is commonly called a “4K” camera, but through “super-sampling” our final output which is only 6 megapixels (or an 8 megabyte DPX frame). In other words: Same or better picture quality with far less overhead.

hmmm. Now I wonder who they are talking about when they say "a so called 4K camera" ???

Sounds to me like someone's seriously concerned about the future.

[chuck colburn]

Hey guys, stop and think for a minute.
Why does Panavision (or Sony or Kodak for that matter) have to "lose" for us to "win"? Red One is a fantastic camera and we'll all use it whenever we can. If certain production requires film, or an HVX, or whatever, will you all stubbornly "push" your Red One? Yes, Panavision is biased. But aren't we too? Good DPs use what tool best serves the project. Just sayin...
I agree with Jim that misinformation is bad. And we SHOULD call people on it. And Panavision not renting lenses without a camera (if that's true) is pretty petty, but then again, it's their company.
But if Panavision abandoned the RGB stripe and came out with a CMOS 4K sensor, or an 8K sensor, would you all turn around and say it's great? Or would we just bash them for some other reason?
They make FANTASTIC lenses, guys. And the film cameras are pretty good too! ;) It's true that they've been on top of the pile for a long time and sometimes have a bad attitude; but let's not stoop to that too.
Wait, give me a minute to put my Romex suit on...
Harry

Priecesly...

PV has and is a very important entity in the motion picture field. And like Kodak they will adapt to the times. I never wanted to work for them myself and in fact curtailed an interview about half way thru because the person doing the interview had his head so far up his ass I found it astounding that he could breath. lol None the less, what they have achieved is amazing.

[Dominic Cochran]

Sure - but in my book Panavision is a lens company. They did not get into filmmaking, and there should be no need for them to make the electronic replacement for film.



What do you mean they did not get into filmmaking?

[chuck colburn]

What do you mean they did not get into filmmaking?

I'm hip. And even more then being a lens company they are a motion picture camera manufacture. Some (not all) will argue that they may be the best. So I can't see how they could be any more involved in film making then that. No cameras...no movies.

[KETCH ROSSi]

Well I do like Canon a lot, as well as I know you do Jim, this has very little to do with them directly, and more to do with the particular branch of the Broadcasting and HD division, but in that regard, you stand correct they are getting nervous, even so we might think that thanks to Birger Mount, they should be happy, because REDUSERS will buy 100's and 100's of lenses sets, in reality that is nothing to Canon, as they just announced "ONE MILLION EF LENSES SOLD" But they too have cameras in the market, many of them, which are now seriously threatned by RED as well as SCARLET as soon as She will be released.

“Demystifying Digital Camera Specifications” is a meaningful way to understand clearly where each part of the movie-making process plays its part.


Well here they can talk as much as they want about what they think about the so cal "4k CAMERA" which they should just got hold of their Balls and called by the given name "RED ONE", at the end of the day, you said it your self, all it takes is to see the final result in 4K, the talk about Pixels and Sensor capacity all makes very little sense to the 99.99% of the viewers, which lets not forget are the ones that will make us money.

I, if some one at RED recalls, got very upset right from the begin when I decided to give RED a deposit for Three cameras, and don't go true with the purchase of the Viper Filmstream, after I had bug the crap of the guys at CINEMATOGRAPHY.com like the very generous and now our own great REDUSER, DAVID MULLEN, people all around in the mist of the BIG boys were telling me that I just made a huge mistake, well I DIDN"T, and soon in off I'll have a MOVIE to prove it!


All this talk is actually good, I just hope they at list called by name, just in case they got confused, "ITS CALLED RED ONE" and not a "4K camera".

Sorry, but I had to write this, my Doctor says that it is bad for me in my conditions to keep things inside, and this F%$@%@ people now are starting to really upset me, RED is my camera now and as part of this family (RED DIGITAL CINEMA Company) and their products I fill they are talking S%@%#$ about me as well.


Ciao

[chuck colburn]

Canon in the past made some decent 35 and 16mm cine lenses (although a bit wimpy in the mechanics) and they could do it again probally much better then the first time around. If they could do a set of 35mm format lens that can take advantage of the RED cameras capabilities then they could sell those lenses to film camera users also. Zooms have improved alot over the years and if they could do a series of short focale length range ones like the Arri vari-primes I bet they would sell a s**t load ofem.

[Sanjin Jukic]

They make FANTASTIC lenses, guys.
Harry

For Primos-L they use LEICA-ELCAN lenses>>> (http://optics.org/cws/product/P000002510)

[Antoine Fabi]

We had one (nameless) ASC member come to our booth. He grabbed me to admit he had been a true skeptic. After watching the 4k footage, he converted. It was like a religious experience. He was particularly impressed with the anamorphic footage from "The Argentine". We spent 1/2 hour going over our line, including accessories... especially the lenses. He scrutinized the 18-85mm zoom and left a true fan. It made my day...

Jim

That's exactly where small producers/cinematographers like us are happy to have taken the risk. hee! :)
Two years ago, ...well...it was a risk...
Honestly, it impresses me more than comments from well known cinematographers who see the final results. Those comments are the confirmation that RED is a top cinema tool. Nice to hear.

Now, ...the camera is nothing less than incredible. I see it every day. :)


Thanks again!

Antoine

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I hope your all actually watching the video with an open mind or at least just watching the videos before getting steamed up about them. I mean I can understand how RED wouldn't completely agree with the video after all Panavision aren't huge fans of the Bayer pattern technology that the team here have chosen. But thats all the videos are, a comparison of 3 chip, Bayer and stripped (which the genesis uses), specifically I think they just don't like the idea that Panavision refers to Bayer as 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 (in another slide they're a little more generous.
But the idea that they're attacking Red specifically is nonsense they named 3 other 4k cameras in their bayer example hence the generalized "so called 4k cameras".
I understand where Jim is coming from but some of you are losing your minds over this.

[Clayton Harper]

I bet the tipsy-looking old guy giving the presentation doesn't even like to watch movies. :wink:

It is amazing that we have to go do deeply into the subject to look for discrepancies between the higher-resolution approaches. I am totally ready to accept that Bayer might be technically inferior in color sampling and resolution to another approach.

However, I don't give a fuck. Even if Red were 90% the image quality of the Genesis which I'm sure would be too harsh a handicap, the ease of workflow and just the size and adaptability of the tool makes it a no-brainer.

[Harry Clark]

Yes, Sanjin. Leica glass. But they spec and design the entire lens, design and machine the mechanicals, test, and redo. Just like Red. They are also good at listening to customer feedback. Just like Red. They have made lenses to order for specific customers and jobs, have stripped coatings and otherwise intentionally ruined lenses for customers.
And the Panaflex camera, when it came out, was revolutionary. Just like Red. The camera of choice then was the Mitchell BNC. Anyone here in the forum remember those? 100 lbs.+. No handholding. Rackover viewing system. Power hungry. The Panaflex was tiny in comparison, silent, and efficient, with reflex viewfinders (that some "old timers" refused to use because the spinning mirror was new and bothersome) and the camera was modular. You could configure it with the mag on top, or in back. There was a plethora of bracketry for handholding and mounting the camera. Very advanced. Just like Red.
They also, once upon a time, had a camera called the Panacam. It was (I believe) an Ikegami HL-59 inside a Panavision-machined body. So they've been in the electronic camera business too, albeit not from a "ground-up" position like Red.
I am sure that the next digital camera they release will be better than Genesis. And it's nice to have choices...
So yes, it's disingenuous for them to bash Red in the videos (if that's indeed what they are doing) but I think wishing for them to vanish because we're all on the Red Team, while a natural first reaction, is pretty childish.
As cinematographers, we should use the right brush and technique that's right for OUR STYLE and OUR WORK, but don't belittle other artist's brushes, even if the brush-maker is being rude. ;)
Cheers,
Harry

[Eryc Tramonn]

We had one (nameless) ASC member come to our booth. He grabbed me to admit he had been a true skeptic. After watching the 4k footage, he converted. It was like a religious experience. He was particularly impressed with the anamorphic footage from "The Argentine". We spent 1/2 hour going over our line, including accessories... especially the lenses. He scrutinized the 18-85mm zoom and left a true fan. It made my day...

Jim

Hell yeah Jim. I'm happy for you. It's a great feeling to have people recognize your labors. Too bad it happens so infrequently.

However, you have a throng of loyalists, so when you hear detractors and other companies trying to snuff you...let that gas you onto further victories. I think I said somewhere that you're the man.

This whole situation is a doc in and of itself. I call dibs on that idea. Copyright Film Ylem 2008. :)

[Daniel Reichenbach]

Somehow, I'm a dumb guy, I don't understand all this clever words about pixel here, sampling there, because I DON'T want to dig in the deepness of technical prozesses of sensors. The only thing what counts for me is: Do I like an image or not. Can I deal with the technique of a camera or not. What I get out of my RED is more than what I got out of any other digital camera I was able to rent or buy in the past. RED helps me to transform the reality to the digital world in a very special way like I only got from 35mm film. I don't need explications for that, I don't need somebody who tells me, oh but, by the way RED 4K is not really 4K. I give a s/&%/&t on that. RED is a concept, RED is moving, every day, RED don't look back, RED flirts with the future. There will be better REDs, better EPICS soon, I'm convinced. But what I already have is perfect. I love this camera, because the pictures of RED ONE are closer by my heart than any other I got from digital cameras.

[Lauri Kettunen]

Putting it in simple words sounds like their questions is: If one has a 4K bayer sensor sampling with 12Mpixels, how come one gets (3 x 12 Mpixels =) 36Mpixels color data out of it?

We know that Graeme says one gets about a 3.2K out from the Red One 4K bayer sensor. Still this 3.2K corresponds to about 22Mpixels of color data, so in this sense it's a reasonable question to ask where the additional (22 -12 =) 10Mpixels come from.

Evidently, on one hand, the guys on the video go too far when claiming the image has only a color space 4:2:0. For, as somebody said in another thread, anyone whose tried keying with a 4:2:0 image and a Red One image is able to tell RED are not 4:2:0. But, on the other hand, with no doubt, these guys are professionals and deserve to be taken seriously.

I suspect the explanation boils down to extrapolation where as in the Panavision videos they implicitly assume debayerian is strictly about interpolation. In simple words, if there was a hypothetical ideal 4K camera yielding prefect 4:4:4 images, the outcome of the 4K debayerian process image need not to be precisely one-to-one with such a hypothetical image. Instead, once both images are downconverted to 3.2K, it is enough one is not able to say the hypothetical is more right than the other.

[Joe Carney]

The problem is that with the merging of digital technology and art, it becomes easy to mislead people who are gods of art into believing really stupid technological lies. Then, if you dont technically tell lies but just throw out enough tech to confuse the artists and try to reassure their feelings, they may be successful at least for a while.

So, in other words....
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh#t?

[Matthew Greene]

Hahaha, just ran into this thread... Jim sure likes to stir the pot ;o)

[albert rudnicki]

While Pana is busy Demystifying Digital Camera Specifications,
by the end of the summer there could be some 4000-5000 happy Red cameras taking-over the industry.
Keep busy Pana, keep busy:)

[Graeme Nattress]

Lauri, I fully understand how people think that Bayer patterns are "magic" and hence the pixels you get out, are not real.

However, if you do the math, we get a true 2k in R, G, and B, (igorning the second green pixel in the bayer array). That gives us another 2k of green detail. To get full 4k on green we'd need 4 * 2k greens (remember it area of pixels). From 2k * 2 of green, that's enough pixels for 2.8k green. And that's without any bayer magic. Now, that doesn't take into account how the greens are interleaved and how the demosaic works and we're getting 3.2k out of that, of which I can assure you from the above math that 2.8k of it is at least very real.

I strongly disagree about calling a sensor a 4:2:0, as not only is it bad terminology for where it was designed to be used for Y'CbCr chroma sub-sampling, but absolutely does not apply to a Bayer pattern sensor, and indeed does not apply to any sensor configuration.

Graeme

[Simon Valderrama]

The only thing what counts for me is: Do I like an image or not. Can I deal with the technique of a camera or not. What I get out of my RED is more than what I got out of any other digital camera I was able to rent or buy in the past. RED helps me to transform the reality to the digital world in a very special way like I only got from 35mm film. I don't need explications for that, I don't need somebody who tells me, oh but, by the way RED 4K is not really 4K. I give a s/&%/&t on that. RED is a concept, RED is moving, every day, RED don't look back, RED flirts with the future. There will be better REDs, better EPICS soon, I'm convinced. But what I already have is perfect. I love this camera, because the pictures of RED ONE are closer by my heart than any other I got from digital cameras.

I think this one summarizes all that matters.
How image looks is the most important thing.
Realized this one definitely last Saturday. I went to the movies (Before the Devil Knows You're Dead) and before the movie started we saw some commercials. They showed a commercial (shot on 35mm) i just finished post in SD blowed up to 35mm. I could not believe how good SD looked on 35mm , just because good cinematography and telecine CC.
I i wasn't the one who handled all post in SD i would have said it was 2K ... because it just looked good.
Sure resolution matters, but sure we think too much about megapixels as if it was the first thing we should care of ...

[Darren Orange]

Speaking of which maybe this is not the right place or someone else has noticed this but....G.I. Joe according to IMDB is being shot fully on RED ONE.

G.I. JOE IMDB LINK (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1046173/).

G.I. JOE IMDB Technical (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1046173/technical)

[Jay A. Kelley]

I like RED.. It's a cool camera, and it makes very pretty pictures.

I'm good with that.

jay

[Gunleik Groven]

I like RED.. It's a cool camera, and it makes very pretty pictures.

I'm good with that.

jay

Me like...

I get many pm's these days. It's really no secret sauce. It's just a cam... You'll beat me any day. Just hit record... and develop them nicely.

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

"A so-called “4K camera” that has an imager with only 8 or 10 million photo sites but outputs 25 or 32 megapixels is interpolating data without adding any image performance."

Hmmmmm...

LOL

:)

[Matthew Greene]

So Graeme, after watching the videos from Panavision I have questions, (BTW: I've highly respected Larry Thorpe for years, he's taught me most of what I know about lenses).

What's the OLPF compromise you find most appropriate for the Bayer pattern and is there hypothetically (or existing) a way to have an OLPF that filters R,G & B differently?

Also, very hypothetically speaking if one could design a Bayer sensor that has the B & R sensitive "photosites" physically displaced from the G plane does that again, hypothetically count as a way to avoid aliasing?

As a future technology, could the OLPF also be implemented directly on each "photosite, hehehe" along with the dye?

[GlennChan]

I i wasn't the one who handled all post in SD i would have said it was 2K ... because it just looked good.
Contrast and sharpness make a huge difference in your perception of sharpness, more so than resolution (!).

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sharpness.htm

But there is a way to check for real resolution. Try to read small text in the frame... you can't really fudge this like you can with sharpness.

2- This is why I'm more excited about displays with high contrast and real blacks than 4k.

[Graeme Nattress]

The issue is almost a non issue. Currently as we have it, I've not seen chroma aliasing on real world images. I used to see it on Frankie before we had the OLPF. I can see it on RED as it is today on test charts, but we have the de-moiré tool that removes it without removing luma resolution. On luma we're more heavily optically low pass filtered than other cameras (because we're bayer and do need the OLPF to eat into the chroma somewhat) and because we want negligible aliasing on the luma. We get negligible aliasing on the luma, which is more than can be said for most other cameras.

Graeme

[Matthew Greene]

So far, the rare issues in real world applications has been neglible to me. In your opinion does the compromise affect heavy color correction and compositing work in any manner?

[Nick Wolf]

JJ chapter #6 ... did you notice the subliminal cue? There is an interesting contradiction by him first stating ( In religious terms no less!!! ) a claim to being "Agnostic" and then singling out Red from the usual suspects by having all the other cameras listed side by side in lavender and Red in red! ... A most telling detail.

Very sloppy and quite frankly beyond Burlesque.


DogDay.

[Matthew Greene]

Hahaha, maybe it was Red because the powerpoint designer thought he was being cleverly "creative.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I thought it was just an interesting detail more than anything, I mean how do you think the other 3 schmucks feel a lot of people here seem to be ignoring that they where even a part of the comparison.

[Frank Weeks]

All I can say is… statistics don’t lie but liars use statistics.

More to the point. Images don’t lie.

If you sat in Red’s cinema at NAB and watched “100”, the images from the first 100 cameras shot over the first 100 days (as I would suspect Panavision did) their arguments become less meaningful.

That presentation was stunning. This camera creates incredible images. It’s not surprising
that anyone (including that ASC member Jim mentioned) was converted.

That kind of quality, at that price point, would concern any company that sells cameras. It has certainly caught Panavision’s eye.

[Darren Orange]

Graeme, do you think that one day it will be possiable to create debayer algorithm such that their will be NO way to tell the difference between a stripped RGB and bayer sensor? In reality I am seeing that as far as the image goes having a bayer sensor can improve the over all fluid feel of the image, causing it to feel more like film but without grain. Is what I am seeing right, whats the cause for the image to act in this fashion?

[jaadgy akanni]

That presentation was stunning. This camera creates incredible images. It’s not surprising that anyone (including that ASC member Jim mentioned) was not converted.




Videodisc, watch those double negatives; I think that phrase there is saying the opposite of what you're trying to state.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Lol.

Too much Logic...

[Frank Weeks]

watch those double negatives

opps..corrected

[Lauri Kettunen]

I strongly disagree about calling a sensor a 4:2:0,

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.

[Matthew Greene]

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.

[Thor Wixom]

Sometimes the best way to guage your success is to realize who has chosen to become your enemy.

-Thor

[Bang WOW Bang]

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

[Lewis-M Soucy]

Somehow, I'm a dump guy

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.

[Daan Pol]

Anybody noticed the online movies are interlaced?

:D

[David Wesemann]

Jeah,

sorry to leave such an unqualified reply, but all I've got to say to the talk is:

interesting 'bla, bla'.

A while ago I read a comment of one of the red team members, to a question about the actual resolution of a bayer sensor. I can't remember exactly but the jist of it was, you'll have to look at the image, and determine wethter you like what you see. This was speaking from my heart (I don't really know if you can use that expression in German). Up until RED entered the stage, DV printed to 35mm for me was the only really acceptable looking digital format (check out 28 days later, or Winterbottoms 9 Songs, you won't believe the beauty of these pictures). Anything else (Once upon a Time in Mexico, Star Wars etc.) always had that nasty video feel to it. That's just my opinion of course, but I think it is the only true way to determine any form of image quality.

[David Wesemann]

... that expression in English, I meant of course, sorry ...

[I Bloom]

Where can I get my hands on these awesome Panavision videos?

[Graeme Nattress]

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

[Jon Farhat]

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.

[Peace Villow]

Where can I get my hands on these awesome Panavision videos?
Check it out here:
http://media.panavision.com/ScreeningRoom/Screening_Room/Demystifying_Part6.html

[Simon Blackledge]

So have Panavision cancelled their orders ?

[Michael Brennan]

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.


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


Mike Brennan

[James Brundige]

"In ten years we will see cameras like this on people's shoulders and on steadicams"

Last line of Panavision video.

There are already superb looking digital cameras out there now. It's called the Red One.

[Ralph B.]

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).

[Francis Kenny]

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.

[Darren Orange]

Hey Jim and RED Team so RED ONE is a 4K camera says Sony.... ;)
Guerilla and Argentine shot on 4K cameras (http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/files/mkt/digicinema/brochures/Y4KdigCinemaCard.pdf)

Got to love that!

Sony needs RED to sell 4K projectors.

[David M]

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



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.

[Daniel Reichenbach]

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



Hehehe, thanks, always welcome to correct my english ;-)

[Bing Bailey]

so here's the answer jim you have to buy panavision take their lens secrets and start selling us the glass kill off the genesis and replace it with epic :)

[I Bloom]

Check it out here:
http://media.panavision.com/ScreeningRoom/Screening_Room/Demystifying_Part6.html

I was so inspired by Part6 I made my own chart.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/582_1209657085.jpg
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's fuckin duck.

Seriously, Panavision needs to fire this guy and hire someone who did some research and found out how a Bayer pattern actually works.

Ian

[Nick Wolf]

Eloquent.

[Dustin Cross]

I don't think I watched the same videos you guys did. What I saw was no not as bad as you guys are making it out to be.

There were some flaws and some points they didn't expound on and they omitted some things, but they didn't attack anything. There are not many people who can stand in front of a room full of people and talk about a subject without putting their interpretation on it.

Saying Bayer is only 4:2:0 was the big mistake I thought they made and they said they were going to talk about it more and then never did. I could have understood an argument for 4:2:2, but never 4:2:0. And I know 4:2:2 refers to something completely unrelated to sensors.

They also explained in their own presentation how there is data past Nyquist, but that data has problems. They also talked about how design of the OLPF in a system is important to maximize resolution and limit aliasing and that the OLPF could be designed so that it gives the maximum green channel and limited aliasing in red and blue.

I think you guys need to relax a little. If you don't like there presentation, make you own.


Mahalo,
Dusty

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes, a lot of the science stuff was very good and very well explained. My big concern (other than what I've written above) is that 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 or 4:2:0 is not an appropriate terminology for a sensor and is highly misleading.

And that OLPF optimization is an issue, but we address it to our satisfaction, in both hardware (OLPF) and software (chroma de-moiré tools), but quite frankly, most 3 chip cameras allow for more aliasing (even when they use an OLPF) than I'd feel comfortable in a high quality imaging product.

Graeme

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

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:-)
Welcome to industry bookkeeping. None of the major film studios show an operating profit, either. No profit = tax write-off.

[Barry Green]

My big concern (other than what I've written above) is that 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 or 4:2:0 is not an appropriate terminology for a sensor and is highly misleading.
Is it that misleading though? I mean, I know in general it is, obviously -- they're trying to paint the scenario that a 1920x1080 image is better than a 4096 image, so in that perspective of course it's misleading. And a sensor in and of itself doesn't do color sampling, so it's wildly inappropriate, but -- at its core, is the overall simplified message being that misleading?

In context with what the sensor is designed to do, were they intentionally misleading? Their sensor is designed to deliver a 4:4:4 @ 1920x1080 image. They show how they accomplish it. The Bayer sensor cannot deliver a 4:4:4 @ 4K image. It can't. It can deliver a 4:4:4 @ 2K image, yes, but not at 4K. So their position seems to be (consistent with what they've said before) "you can't get 4K out of a 4K sensor". And you've agreed with that. So while it's alarming (and inaccurate) to label the sensor itself as 4:2:0, is the ultimate underlying message inaccurate? The underlying message being: "you can't get a full 4K from a 4096-wide Bayer-pattern sensor, and you certainly can't get 4K @ 4:4:4 from a 4096-wide Bayer sensor." Which I think we can all agree with.

Here's the part that galls me though. You can't get 4K -anything- out of a Genesis. So, we have a system that's designed to give you a solid 2K of detail at 1920x1080 @ 4:4:4. Fine, the Red can do that too. But the Red can also give you a solid 3K of detail, at something probably close to 4:2:2. The Genesis can't. And the Red can even give you a 4K frame size with 3.2K of resolved detail, at probably somewhere between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2. The Genesis can't even begin to think about that. So your Bayer sensor does everything their striped sensor does, yet it also does things their striped sensor cannot, and they're somehow trying to portray that as a problem? That's the misleading/deceptive part, AFAIC.

Where they really go astray is using reasonable arguments to lead the audience to an unreasonable conclusion. If all you're looking for is 1920x1080, then the Genesis approach looks pretty good -- but the Red approach looks just as good. However, if you want more than 1920x1080, the Red offers that and the Genesis doesn't, and to totally ignore that is irresponsible on their part. To imply that the Bayer approach is "bad" because it offers MORE than the Genesis? That's just kooky.

[Evin Grant]

For all the mathematical calculations going on here isn't the most accurate number to use 3.2:2:2? I know Graeme doesn't think this terminology should be applied to a bayer sensor (And he's right) but that won't stop the world from doing so. So let's just say that the Mysterium is 3.2:2:2 Which we all recognize as 3.2K Luma res, 2K chroma res and be done with it. It still kicks the pants off 4:4:4 1080.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

For all the mathematical calculations going on here isn't the most accurate number to use 3.2:2:2? I know Graeme doesn't think this terminology should be applied to a bayer sensor (And he's right) but that won't stop the world from doing so. So let's just say that the Mysterium is 3.2:2:2 Which we all recognize as 3.2K Luma res, 2K chroma res and be done with it. It still kicks the pants off 4:4:4 1080.
Yeah, but the thing is it's a numbers game.

Whatever the sensor "actually" is, it's certainly "effectively" 4:4:4, as anyone who has pulled a competently-lit greenscreen key from RED footage knows. I have never seen anything -- including film -- have as close to a one-click key as RED footage does.

To call it any less than 4:4:4 -- while perhaps mathematically accurate -- ultimately sells it far short of what the final imagery accomplishes. People don't really know what those numbers mean, they just want to see 4s across the board. Anything less is, well, less.

[Graeme Nattress]

But Barry, you can't get a full 1920x1080 from a 3 chip camera who's chips are 1920x1080 unless you allow for significant aliasing as optical low pass filters just are not steep enough. Say you can get a good 90% even, then you're a 3.6:3.6:3.6 image now ;-), and even that is an abuse of chroma sub-sampling notation as chroma sub-sampling notation DOES NOT tell you anything about the actual measured resolution of the luma or chroma, just by what ratio the chroma is sub-sampled compared to what the luma is sampled at.

And, given the segment on Bayer demosaicing, which seemed quite a simplistic look at a complex subject, there was no mention on how the lack of co-sitedness of the RGB in the stripe pattern is dealt with, and also no mention of the effective fill factor in a RGB stripe being greater in the horizontal direction than the vertical direction, and how that effects OLPF design.

So that's why I saying that at 4k we're 78%:50%:50% (as percentage measured resolution of the of the system) and that "at best" a Genesis is 33%:33%:33% of it's "~6k" sensor. I'm sorry, but 50% of 4k is better than 33% of < 6k (by a small amount) and 78% of 4k is vastly better than 33% of <6k.

What we need next is a good metric of aliasing based upon both charts and real world images.

Graeme

[Graeme Nattress]

Scott, the image is reconstructed to a 4:4:4 RGB image, and hence that's how it keys. We take great care to ensure our edges are "nice".

Graeme

[Dj Joofa]

I think the presentations were very good and informative. Red should organize similar presentations of its own to educate the people. There is a lot of disinformation and misinformation on this forum. Red's representatives do try to dispel some of it. However, more is needed in terms of explaining their digital vision in a regulated and streamlined fashion, much like the way Panavision people did.

[Joshua Provost]

I found the whole presentation very interesting. It was nice to learn more about MTF, and how film isn't all it's cracked up to be once you get all the way to projection.

Once he started applying x:x:x terminology to single Bayer sensors, it really broke down. First he said it was impossible to measure the resolution of a single Bayer sensor, then started applying the x:x:x terminology and talking about how diagonally it was 4k. Lots of poor assumptions, if you ask me.

Yes, I would think it is impossible to measure the resolution of a single Bayer sensor... using the same technique as a 3CCD system. It doesn't hold up, but there are other ways.

I'd like to ask specifically about OLPF in regard to Bayer.

It seems to me you do not have to create a special OLPF that accomodates the RBG Bayer pattern, as though you have to treat the green photosites differently than the red and blue ones (as was inferred in the presentation). Really, wouldn't you treat the sensor as monochromatic, since that is what you really get out of the sensor? You'd just create the right OLPF for a monochromatic 4k sensor, based on size of the photosites and fill factor, right?

The goal is still to limit aliasing while maximizing remaining resolution, but you can only fairly compare a single Bayer sensor to a single CCD sensor.

The fact that the Genesis photosites are not co-sited, but next to each other in stripes was disconcerting to me. How do they deal with that? It seems like they need their own "debayer" like process to reconstruct an image, considering they are not co-sited. I can only imagine what would happen if they simply treat those RGB's as though they were co-sited. Again, you'd get nasty aliasing/artifacts, right?

[Graeme Nattress]

Absolutely Joofa - but question - what do I with the rest of my time ? :-)

Yup, if you treat non-co-sited colour filtered pixels as co-sited, you do get aliasing / chroma fringing. Unless you OLPF strongly enough.... Or do some kind of process in software.

Graeme

[Dj Joofa]

Absolutely Joofa - but question - what do I with the rest of my time ? :-)


Yes, I know you, and the rest of Red team are busy now. However, in my estimation Red should take a more proactive stance than a reactive one by alluding to the use of Steven Soderbergh / Peter Jackson as a testament of Red's ability, and display at trade shows. I know very well that reference to Soderbergh and Jackson does have a resonance with certain segment of the film community. However, Red should be able to lay down the facts via presentations, and demonstrations that go beyond NAB, so that independent-minded people can make a decision. Additionally Red's website should be more streamlined. It must have a section on Human Resources and Careers even if does not intend to hire any new personnel at this stage. That gives an impression of a company serious in growth as opposed to just an online website for commerce/ordering.

Red must promote itself as a company where serious R&D is held in addition to being an online store as the current website suggests.

[Brian Langeman]

I think you guys need to put out more Myth Buster episodes too. FXPHD is doing a couple REALLY good RED classes, but you have to pay to get in on those, so it isn't for everyone. It would also be better for more education to come from the company behind the camera too I think.

You CAN get all the info you need by sifting through REDUser, but that's just it, you have to sift through a LOT of stuff, and there's a lot of garbage too. I really liked the first Myth Busters episode that you have out, and think that it would be easy to point someone who is skeptical about editing RED footage to that video to prove it's really really easy. You should really make more of those episodes and make sure they're easy to find.

[Jason Ing]

Red must promote itself as a company where serious R&D is held in addition to being an online store as the current website suggests.

Red already is promoting itself as a serious R&D company. Just to name a few "promotions": Red One, Scarlet, Epic, RedRay... :)

[Dj Joofa]

Red already is promoting itself as a serious R&D company. Just to name a few "promotions": Red One, Scarlet, Epic, RedRay... :)

Jason, an end user does not have a visibility to where/who exactly is making these products. We do know that Red has some inherent R&D ability (Graeme Nattress/Deanan/Stuart English are there), but what exactly is indigenous is not known at least to me. I do not expect in todays world for a company to make/install all its parts (does Dell make that processor in its computers?). However, one has some idea about other companies that what they are up to.

Red's website is just a front end and things stop there. I was making a point about that if Red's R&D is something they are interested in *growing* (and is not all OEM) then they should provide some visibility to prospective people out there and means for that people to apply to be a part of that group.

You go to any well-established company's website and you see a career section. Red should not miss out on that.

[Gunleik Groven]

I think one of Mr J's more proven points in Oakly, and now RED, is his ability to hunt down the right people for the organization... Maybe he likes it that way?

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

I'm sure that they're more than capable of knowing who they want without needing to take applications.

And I'm sure they're getting plenty of applications anyway. ;)

[Jason Ing]

Jason, an end user does not have a visibility to where/who exactly is making these products. We do know that Red has some inherent R&D ability (Graeme Nattress/Deanan/Stuart English are there), but what exactly is indigenous is not known at least to me. I do not expect in todays world for a company to make/install all its parts (does Dell make that processor in its computers?). However, one has some idea about other companies that what they are up to.

Red's website is just a front end and things stop there. I was making a point about that if Red's R&D is something they are interested in *growing* (and is not all OEM) then they should provide some visibility to prospective people out there and means for that people to apply to be a part of that group.

You go to any well-established company's website and you see a career section. Red should not miss out on that.

Everytime Canon updates their cameras with technology improvements, that tells me they have R&D. I've never been to their website but all my cameras and lenses are Canon. I don't need to. A website isn't an entire company. So things don't just stop there.

A career section is helpful to people seeking work. I hardly think it lends any more validation or credibility to a company. I could easily add a career section to my website and an R&D page. But it would be a false front end to a false company. I wouldn't fool anyone... except my mom who would get excited that I'm actually doing something with my life (just kidding!)

A website is one of the many front ends a company can have. I would argue that RedUser.net is a bigger and more important "front end" then Red.com.

Anyway, I don't mean to get into a silly debate. I think I see your point and agree that you want Red to have as big a presence as possible and shout to the world who they are and how great they are. I agree.

It's all good Joffa. :)

[Andrae Palmer]

I sat down with my pencil and graphing paper but I couldn't understand a thing. I ended up wondering if I could just pass the test by looking at the image and saying.. that is good... real good.

[HDPioneers.com]

Graeme needs to be commended for his thoughtful explanations of sensor physics in this thread and many others. I now feel that I have a rough understanding of the bayer sensor in my RED and I often hear myself quoting verbatim Graeme's posts when pitching to my clients.

Now, can you get back to work on build 16 please? ;)

[Graeme Nattress]

Thanks.

Graeme

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

(Pardon the slight off-topic)

So, practically a 4:4:4 DeBayer [full luma + chroma rez.] from the Scarlet 3K sensor would be closer to ~1440x1080 than to 2K?

But, at 2K, we get 100 % luma resolution and ~54 % chroma res.

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes and no. Yes, in terms of measured chroma resolution, and no in that it will look better than if that's what you started with on an alternative 3 chip solution because there will be better control of any aliasing.

Graeme

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Thanks.

Is there, by any chance, a piece of footage from Scarlet that we could enjoy.

:shiftyph34r:

[Bing Bailey]

scarlets going to have a different sensor to red one. with better dynamic range. maybe other things will be improved too

[Stephen Williams]

Yeah, but the thing is it's a numbers game.

Whatever the sensor "actually" is, it's certainly "effectively" 4:4:4, as anyone who has pulled a competently-lit greenscreen key from RED footage knows.

Hi,

For a greenscreen OK, not so sure it's effectively 4:4:4 with bluescreen, FWIW I prefer bluescreen over greenscreen, I shoot both but always prefer blue.

Stephen

[Dj Joofa]

Hi,

For a greenscreen OK, not so sure it's effectively 4:4:4 with bluescreen, FWIW I prefer bluescreen over greenscreen, I shoot both but always prefer blue.

Stephen

I think outdoor shooting in good daylight goes well with blue screen as the natural blue content in the daylight casts a tone on skin that is acceptable given the background and even if the key is not perfect, it is not noticeable.

[Hrvoje Simic]

I was so inspired by Part6 I made my own chart.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/582_1209657085.jpg
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's fuckin duck.



High five, Ian.

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

Just did exactly that!

Stephen


I think outdoor shooting in good daylight goes well with blue screen as the natural blue content in the daylight casts a tone on skin that is acceptable given the background and even if the key is not perfect, it is not noticeable.

[chuck colburn]

Stephen, is that one of your Ultra Cams?

[Dj Joofa]

Hi,

Just did exactly that!

Stephen

Thanks for the picture. What camera is that?

[Stephen Williams]

Stephen, is that one of your Ultra Cams?

Hi Chuck,

Indeed it is an UltraCam one of 15 built. I use them about twice a year when there is no budget left, this time after shooting with the Photosonics!

Stephen

[chuck colburn]

Photosonics, Yummy, Lots and lots of claws and pins moving along very rapidly. lol Is that an E series you got there?

[Stephen Williams]

Photosonics, Yummy, Lots and lots of claws and pins moving along very rapidly. lol Is that an E series you got there?

Hi Chuck,

4ER modified by Cine Magic (4ER+) capable of 425 fps, very loud!

Stephen

[PAzevedo]

I don´t like wars, so let´s beat them with good movies and with an intelligent use of the camera.

[mrmuccy]

I think these people know a little bit about the topic of image capture & MTFs. To discount & "blow off" as "scary" the collective knowledge of these gentlemen is foolish. I think the marketing propaganda is flowing both ways. Even the RED cannot escape the laws of physics & MTFs.

[Graeme Nattress]

MrMuccy, you're right that John and Larry know a lot about making images. However, we know how and why Bayer pattern sensors work, which is not quite how they are described in the video.....

[Luis Otero]

I just saw the infamous video, and to me, it was more like a desperate use of known names to discredit what companies like Red have been able to accomplish. It must be a sign of how much this is affecting their bottomline.

There are much more big productions using Red One that the ones we know as of today. I think is a matter of waiting until they are out, get good reviews, even win Oscars for best cinematography, then they will feel comfortable to say that Reds were used.:bleh:

[Joshua Provost]

I thought the Panavision videos were all-around fantastic information. Great breakdown of MTF. Just some flawed logic regarding Bayer, but you have to give credit where credit is due. If you start slagging the entire presentation, it sounds like sad fanboyism. Keep it real.

[Jannard]

We said from the beginning that the science was correct, but the spin on Bayer was seriously flawed. There is no doubt that presentations like these are a good thing as long as they don't mislead customers to a wrong conclusion. How real is that?

Jim

[Kevin Olsen]

Why is a marketing person giving advice on quantifying digital technology?

This was interesting...congratulations RED for putting some fear into them...

[Uli Plank]

It's quite good information on things like MTF and perception of resolution, I'm going to point my students to it. They are very correct explaining the difference between photosites and pixels – i.e. discerning the sensor and the data.
Why then do they turn things around when using data terminology like 4:2:0 (?!?) to sensor photosites? That's where the logic get's seriously flawed and quite obviously aimed at a competition they seem to take very serious…

Regards,

uli

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I think it's just become common place to miss use that terminology My understanding is that even saying 4:4:4 RGB isn't even correct.
If you watch the video in a later slide they have it as 4:2:0 OR 4:2:2 optically which I'll probably be told is also incorrect but I think that their point was on a bayer you have full green but only half red and blue (And this is on their theoretical sensor so it isn't even a direct knock on red or the other cameras.)
It would certainly be interesting to see a similar powerpoint presentation put on by people heavily in favor of the Bayer sensor in comparison to the other two technologies but I'm not really expecting that to happen any time soon.

[Graeme Nattress]

Sony do it in their brochures, saying F35 is an RGB sensor, or words to that effect. What guff. It's a mosaic colour filter array, just like Bayer is a colour filter array. Look at every high end DSLR out there, or medium format digital back, do they use an RGB stripe CFA mosaic, or a Bayer CFA mosaic. Ummm.... Let me think.... Nope, can't think of any that use an RGB stripe mosaic. They all use a Bayer mosaic. I wonder why.

Now, I must admist that the demosaicing algorithms for Bayer can be scary. But that's my problem, not yours. Of course, the simplest demosaic for RGB stripe mosaic is none at all, and Sony distincly say they don't interpolate, so they must be treating those mosaiced pixels as co-sited, when they're not.

Graeme

[Graeme Nattress]

Oh, and Sony make high end DSLRs now too. And yes, they use a Bayer pattern also, not an RGB stripe....

Graeme

[Wiyum]

We said from the beginning that the science was correct, but the spin on Bayer was seriously flawed.

Jim (and others),

Would you say that the primary reason that Bayer works as well as it does in the RED or DSLR workflow is because RAW acquisition allows for a great deal of flexibility in grading, and thus the unequal color sampling doesn't result in flawed output color? That was my primary argument with what I was seeing... they didn't seem to allow for the flexibility of RAW and post-processing.

As far as sampling patterns are concerned... are they really suggesting that RGB vertical striping is better than Bayer? I can't begin to imagine the many ways that certain patterns would artifact- painfully - with such an array. And is that what the Genesis sensor uses? Last time I was in Woodland Hills, they told me that it was a "true" RGB sensor, and seemed to indicate that Genesis used a Foveon-like layered sensor with red, green, and blue sampling at each photosite. Columns of color on the chip seem rather dubious to me. It might be 4:4:4 in terms of equal color sampling, but the potential for weirdness seems exponentially higher. Bayer might sample different colors unevenly, but each pixel at least has all three colors very nearby in order to interpolate.

[Michael Brennan]

Panavison PR department would not let John Gault answer a list of honest but difficult questions for an article I was writing about John's work.

Jim and Graeme answer some difficult questions daily.

If I recall correctly, late last year a senior Euro Panavison exec I spoke to did not know tht REDone included a recorder.....

"But what do you record on..."


Mike Brennan

[Graeme Nattress]

Wiyum, various white papers show it's a colour filter array RGB stripe sensor. The R,G, & B are not-cosited and each is in the horizontal direction 3 pixels away from it's next same colour.

The big benefit of Bayer is it works very well and has stood the test of time in both motion and stills.

Graeme

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

I propose that the next RED camera be labelled the Exodus. :)

[peso]

Are there MTF curves available for Red One?

[Jon Farhat]

The Bayer method (combined with the genius and art of the RED de-mosaic process) is a more film-like capture matrix in my opinion than the alternatives. Have you ever seen the blue channel of Kodak's T-grain stocks? 5218 for instance? Green is perfect and the blue channel looks like golf balls.

I dare anyone to compare a Red image to the same shot striped onto Genesis chips and tell me the 'math' says otherwise. Any trained (or untrained) eye, asked which image best represents the resolution and apparent range of film, will answer the same, hands down. Eyeballs.

j.

[Wiyum]

The Bayer method (combined with the genius and art of the RED de-mosaic process)...

Is Red doing anything in demosaic that other imaging systems don't do? Is there something inherently different in Red's de-mosaic than would be found in, say, Adobe Lightroom when working with RAW files from my Canon? I'd not heard about anything extraordinary... apart, of course, from having that kind of flexibility in a motion picture camera. Do tell.

[Uli Plank]

You have to work differently for motion pictures as compared to stills. The human visual system is very sensitive to steady patterns – things you might miss in a still, but clearly see as a kind of 'overlay' in moving images. So, I'm quite sure RED is doing de-Bayering differently, but I'm also quite sure they won't tell you the details. After all, that's probably their most valuable intellectual property, while sensor, mechanics and optics are made by third parties under their guidance.

My two cents,

Uli

[Stephen Webb]

I'm waiting for the Red Mythbusters video where Graeme explains exactly why Bayer works best - with side-by-side comparisons, of course :gun:

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Even if Ted did the presentation based on some kind of a script it would be cool.
I'd watch that video with an open mind.

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes, we do things differently. And yes, we're getting into the area of secret sauce.

Graeme

[Pam]

As a Red believer and owner, I disagree with the negative talk coming from Panavision concerning image quality, but I'd like to speak a little in defense of Panavision.

As I was a focus puller for over 15 years, I find that Panavision should be admired for their great lens quality, reliable cameras, great accessories, and good customer service. Maybe something can be learned from them. I have always been amazed by how simply their accessories fit together as opposed to all of the other camera manufacturers. With the follow focus that snaps onto the body instead of the rods, lens changes are super quick. The iris rod bracket and matte box systems work smoother than many others. They've been great about adding more accessory outlets as new technology has developed over the years (Does anyone else remember the days before on-board monitors and remote focus units?). Anytime I've needed a new adaption to a camera or lens, they've had their shop work on it right away. Except for in the case of just a few special configurations, everything Panavision works together like legos. It just snaps on and the camera is ready. Directors, producers, actors, and cameramen I've worked with love this about them. Even when Panavision has bought camera bodies from other manufacturers, they've modified them as much as they can so that they can use the same accessories which makes for a smooth transition from one camera system to another. Their cameras very seldom break down. When they do, if it's not a simple matter of changing the circuit boards which I can do in 30 seconds, then they have always been excellent about having tech support come out to the set immediately if we are in Los Angeles, or if we are in a distance location, they will do their very best to get a replacement camera to us as soon as possible. The user-friendly design, reliability, and customer service saves lots of time on set. It is what has made them deserving of the great reputation that they have had over the years.

By no means do I mean this to be critical of Red, it's just that I'm not sure if all of the users on this forum understand the contributions that Panavision has made to filmmaking.

[Nova Invicta]

Its good to listen, learn and form your own opinions Red has a vested interest in protecting itself, so does Panavision, so does Dalsa etc. Their is a "new" bayer pattern AGAIN invented by Kodak, this bayer pattern corrects some of the known issues with the original and will first appear in low end devices in 2008 like mobile phones eventually going up the scale.
The MTF video is very interesting and points out that video is very different to film and it has a bearing on finished images (diffrent cycles). As stated elsewhere the CMOS chip has its own light gathering lenses and these can affect the final image as light in the center hits these lenses differently to the edges.
No matter what bullshit manufacturers say about their algorithms they only alter what they can phyiscally get from the chip, if the chip didnt get it then no amount of manipulation will change that and the manipulation is a compromise remember that each time you get a software update as the gurus like to blind people with science as its in their interest to do so.

[Graeme Nattress]

The new Kodak pattern makes the image brighter - that's it. That's why it's aimed at small sensor / pixel devices first. They need all the SNR help they can get.

Nova, for the rest, I don't know what you're saying.....

Graeme

[Jannard]

1st- Panavision deserves much credit for what the do (and have done) for the industry. But that does not mean that their technical marketing piece we are discussing is right.

2nd- please understand that all CMOS sensors can no longer be lumped together in one big group with the assumption that they perform the same, act the same, all have the same characteristics, advantages and problems. Blanket statements about CMOS are now much more limited than in the past. The differences in individual CMOS designs and capabilities now far surpasses the similarities.

Jim

[Julian Banos]

So what is Panavision going to do with RED?

Are they going to rent lenses for RED? Are they going to purchase RED cameras to rent their own Pana-REDs?

Since they were servicing "The Argentine", I thought they could develop a business plan to work with RED cameras.

Jim, you probably have talked to them, due to Soderbergh s films. WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO ABOUT RED?

[Harky Jewett]

Just saw the videos. I have to say, it seems like they went to a lot of trouble to carefully explain image sensors just so they could do a rushed critique of a bayer pattern sensor in video 6 and then turn around and praise their own sensor in the last video.

I understand why some people have said we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the whole seminar.
I found a lot of it to be very interesting. However, if they had called the presentation "Why we think RGB Stripe is superior" that would be one thing.

Instead, they call it "Demistfying Digital Camera Specifications" and present it as something like a PSA for the motion picture industry. (And they get their facts wrong as Graeme has pointed out).

It's the guise of objectivity that gets me.

[Dj Joofa]

I am surprised that people are so much disgusted by Panavision videos. I personally thought they were very well done and were very informative. Many of the people that are complaining about it did say that they learned from it. You tell me in overall scope is it good to have these videos posted there on the Internet so that people can learn about the issues that plague digital processing of sensor signals or they should not have been there because some sensibilities were hurt?

I personally would vote for the videos to stay. They are educational, instructive, and explain what Red should also do, and as Graeme Nattress mentioned they will eventually do.

One thing is immediately apparent from the presentations that the two companies who did it clearly thought that they are the market leaders in this area. And in some sense they may be true. But the point to ponder is to what gives somebody that much confidence that they think they are clear market leaders? It has to go beyond simple assembly and packaging of products. Fanboy statements like "Kodak/film is dead, Panavision / Canon are shaking in their boots, Red is the way to go" notwithstanding, what are the elements that shall give Red the respect in the development and scientific community that, say Canon enjoys, or for that matter Kodak and IBM demand and rightfully deserve?

[Graeme Nattress]

Joofa, that's a great balanced post. Of course the overall scope of the videos is great. I just wish as John and Larry are expert on lenses, MTF and such like, that similar care had been taken on the section on Bayer patterns. If Larry had got one of the Canon DSLR guys in to do the Bayer bit, I'd have been thrilled to watch it!

Graeme

[Dj Joofa]

Thanks Graeme. I agree with you. I am sure it must be frustrating for Red to see how some portions of the talks were presented. I guess we shall wait for similar presentations from you and other folks at Red.

[Graeme Nattress]

Argh!~ my last post was post #1920. I want to post again to move away from HD resolution :-)

Graeme

[Steve Sherrick]

Argh!~ my last post was post #1920. I want to post again to move away from HD resolution :-)

Graeme

Great post Graeme. That cracked me up.

[GlennChan]

Almost halfway to 4K. And almost 2/5ths of the way to 5K...

Keep em coming Graeme. :)

[Dj Joofa]

Argh!~ my last post was post #1920. I want to post again to move away from HD resolution :-)


That was indeed so funny. I am glad that I was the recipient of that infamously numbered (1920) message. :holloween:

[Steve White]

In general I thought the videos were informative. The basic philosophy of the presentation is "what we want is good 4:4:4 1920x1080p". It is quite obvious that RED and GENESIS are both very well suited to this task. Except, the RED philsophy is "we want to get the most out of our sensor" followed by "we can do better than 4:4:4 1920x1080p".

In short, they deliberately avoided saying how a 4k Bayer array was awesome at producing 4:4:4 1080p, and focused on how a 4k Bayer array doesn't produce "perfect" 4:4:4 4k. It was a strange double standard.

The other thing I thought was weird was their discussion of RGB filter spectral cross-talk in Bayer patterns, as if they thought it was a bad thing. If you understand how the human eye works, you would realize that our perception of colour comes largely from cross-talk analysis between our "Long" "Mid" and "Short" wavelength cones, each of which is sensitive to a rather broad spectrum. You get much more information when your filters aren't particularly monochromatic.

[Dj Joofa]

The other thing I thought was weird was their discussion of RGB filter spectral cross-talk in Bayer patterns, as if they thought it was a bad thing. If you understand how the human eye works, you would realize that our perception of colour comes largely from cross-talk analysis between our "Long" "Mid" and "Short" wavelength cones, each of which is sensitive to a rather broad spectrum. You get much more information when your filters aren't particularly monochromatic.

Human vision has overlapping responses because I think it takes advantage of redundancies later in high-level processing. However, for your sensor spectral overlap, typically they are removed as early as possible, by design. When you do white balancing, the negative co-efficients in the matrix also help to reduce the cross-talk factors.

A good source for human vision is Boynton (yes with a B, and not Poynton with a P).

[GlennChan]

The ideal spectral response of a camera would be similar to the spectral response of our visual system. One weird thing is that spectral response is different depending on what part of the eye is involved (!).
http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/documents/FL-TL-TN-0101-StdColourSpaces.pdf

You can assume that the spectral response of the average human is that of the 1931 CIE measurements, and design a camera so that its sensors have a spectral response similar to the CIE color matching functions. In a sense, that would be the ideal spectral response (assuming that you didn't have to compromise in sensitivity, cost, etc.; of course in practice you do).

[Steve White]

The ideal spectral response of a camera would be similar to the spectral response of our visual system.
That's like saying "there's no point shooting 4k, because I can't resolve all the information in 1/24 s". Ideally the sensor acquires better spectral information than our eyes.

Furthermore, it doesn't have to do that in the same way we do. You could collect hundreds of colour channels as opposed to just 3 if you wanted - measuring the image spectrum down to a nm, well into the UV and infrared. You could then do colour filtering in post to modify the image.

Heck, you could go a step further, and acquire not only the spectrum but the polarization of the light with your sensor. Then you'd be able to do it all - colour filtering, spectral balancing, polarizing filters - all in the digital realm.

And while I'm dreaming... I'd like a pony. Actually, scratch that, I'd rather a Bösendorfer 290.

Once the spectrum is acquired and known, the next problem is re-generating that spectrum for display - or at least fooling our eyes into thinking it's seeing that spectrum.

[GlennChan]

Theoretically, there might be a small advantage to going with a system with more than 3 primaries, both in acquisition and in display. This would avoid any metamerism (assuming perfect capture + display).

Multiple primaries might possibly have some interesting keying applications.

But in practice, I highly doubt that would take off.
A- We are pretty insensitive to metamerism. If you just take the case of us looking at real world objects (not watching TV), looking at our world is not "color accurate" because there is metamerism from different lighting. e.g. at golden hour, things like golden. So I don't think we pay attention to color inaccuracies as they naturally occur (except where the inaccuracy is extreme, like the extreme IR with stacked NDs example).

The price you pay for a multi-primary system would be very high and it wouldn't work with existing infrastructure.

[jbeale]

You could collect hundreds of colour channels as opposed to just 3 if you wanted - measuring the image spectrum down to a nm, well into the UV and infrared.

This is a fun topic! I think Spiff's idea is great for a what-if scenario, just acquire all the information that physics permits. Might as well specify a quantum efficiency approaching 1.0 too (recording every photon) for the theoretical best results in low-light situations. For now this may imply something the size, price, and lead time of the Hubble telescope, but technology keeps advancing...!

[sbaechler]

I, too found the videos very informative. The main message was that a 4K camera doesn't give you a 4K image on screen in a theatre. All elements that treat an image reduce resolution. Even if you use the best lens at 4K, a bad projector lens can turn your 4K source into a 1.5K image on the screen.

Panavision and RED have different approaches to digital cinematography. For Panavision the priority is clean keys for visual effects while for Red the priority is maximum resolution for what the human eye can see.

[Graeme Nattress]

But the RED approach does not lead to non-clean keys....

Graeme

[Steve White]

One could say that a keying shoot-out is in order just to demonstrate that RED keys as well as Panavision. The only problem with shoot-outs though, is that each camera will having lighting optimisations based upon its sensor characteristics. If you light for Panavision, it may produce better results than RED, and vice versa.

What we really need is a keying "fickleness" parameter for the cameras. A number that indicates how much caution you can throw to the wind when lighting, and still get good keying results.

[Bing Bailey]

Graeme,

I wish people would read the forums more before you start beating your head off a rock :) LOL

RED have never claimed there is

[Andrew M.]

One could say that a keying shoot-out is in order just to demonstrate that RED keys as well as Panavision. The only problem with shoot-outs though, is that each camera will having lighting optimisations based upon its sensor characteristics. If you light for Panavision, it may produce better results than RED, and vice versa.

What we really need is a keying "fickleness" parameter for the cameras. A number that indicates how much caution you can throw to the wind when lighting, and still get good keying results.

That is why each camera rep should be present so he can choose the best setting for his camera test.
You can do keying more than one way and still have perfect results

[avocade]

Here's the link to the videos again:

http://media.panavision.com/ScreeningRoom/Screening_Room/Box_Office.html

Probably got lost somewhere in the middle of the 17 pages :)

[Jason Badham]

Really though aside from a terrible presentation, the information seemed pretty good. But as with anything one can get so caught up in the mathematics that you forget to actually look at the visible difference in images. I have not had the opportunity to see a 4k RED projection yet, but until I do I'm not going to make a judgement either way.

What I would love to see is Ted do a presentation. I think it would be much more palatable.

[Jeff Coatney]

The Panavision v. Red comparison, while informative and interesting, is noteworthy for the simple fact that it even exists. Why is the senior leadership at Panavision taking time away from their core business responsibilities to "help us all make sense of the digital cinema landscape"? Why should they spend one minute away from renting cameras and designing and building lenses to host this presentation? Why even backhandedly endorse "4K Cinema" cameras by grouping them in the same league and class as their own cameras? Why do they defend their approach to digital image acquisition at the same time they are explaining it? Panavision is a market leader, right? Panavision's position in the market is unassailable, right?

Here's what I take away from all this: From talking with Graeme and seeing the videos in question, it is clear that there is more than one path to a digital cinema imaging solution. It really doesn't matter which one is "better" because there is no way to reconcile the vast array of variables to allow a true comparison. The context with which we all relate to digital cinema has changed and we really need to establish a new model for talking about it and evaluating it. What I find consistently lacking in the technical debate is any measure of how the imagery affects the viewer. The only really important criteria that we should care about in the end is "Can the audience tell the difference? Do they enjoy the content less? Are they somehow prevented from becoming engrossed in the content because of the means by which the image was acquired?"

RED and Panavision (even the digital Pana's) are two vastly different expressions of the same toolset. What truly differentiates them is their suitability to Filmmakers. Filmmakers in a global, all-encompassing sense. Both are capable of producing stunning imagery, but the real forces at work that will determine the longevity of either platform is how efficiently do they accomplish the task? This answer is obvious to anyone who has viewed the RED 4K footage projected and seen for themselves how accessible and easy the workflow is. Filmmaking has not evolved, it has mutated. I didn't fully realize just how much more efficient the entire process can be until I was shooting with the camera. I no longer group Panavision and RED into the same category. They are fundamentally different in the way they approach the moving image. In the marketplace they are competitors, but in the process of filmmaking their differences are expressed best in efficiency.

From this perspective, I now see little difference in film and tape. Both require migration to the NLE in realtime: film has to run in realtime twice to get to the point at which I can edit it on my computer. Tape has to run in realtime once to get to that point. In each case, specialized equipment is required and in the case of film, one more layer of specialized technical staff. So, just inside a week, using the camera, I've changed my thinking regarding the underlying economics of using RED. This is not an added benefit, this is the whole point: shortening the pathway that critical creative decision-making must take to get to the DI, or the picture-lock, or wherever you step off the boat creatively.

[Jason Badham]

...The only really important criteria that we should care about in the end is "Can the audience tell the difference? Do they enjoy the content less? Are they somehow prevented from becoming engrossed in the content because of the means by which the image was acquired?"...

...shortening the pathway that critical creative decision-making must take to get to the DI, or the picture-lock, or wherever you step off the boat creatively.

I agree completely. I think it can be easy to get lost in the science and forget about the art that we're all here to do.

What I admire about RED is their desire to create professional tools that can truly have mass reach. They're really making it possible for people with great ideas to get their work done in a way they've always wanted to get it done. Yeah I can shoot my short film in SD, but if the audience is distracted because of the look of the film then there goes that dream. Scarlet takes that even further. There is no way I could have dreamt of being able to shoot a feature in 3k before this years NAB. Thanks to RED I will.

Thanks RED.

[Dj Joofa]

Theoretically, there might be a small advantage to going with a system with more than 3 primaries, both in acquisition and in display. This would avoid any metamerism (assuming perfect capture + display).


I think with the way current spectral responses are measured one might need a little over 30 primaries to have no metamers in practise.

[Thor Wixom]

The Panavision v. Red comparison, while informative and interesting, is noteworthy for the simple fact that it even exists. Why is the senior leadership at Panavision taking time away from their core business responsibilities to "help us all make sense of the digital cinema landscape"? Why should they spend one minute away from renting cameras and designing and building lenses to host this presentation? Why even backhandedly endorse "4K Cinema" cameras by grouping them in the same league and class as their own cameras? Why do they defend their approach to digital image acquisition at the same time they are explaining it? Panavision is a market leader, right? Panavision's position in the market is unassailable, right?

Here's what I take away from all this: From talking with Graeme and seeing the videos in question, it is clear that there is more than one path to a digital cinema imaging solution. It really doesn't matter which one is "better" because there is no way to reconcile the vast array of variables to allow a true comparison. The context with which we all relate to digital cinema has changed and we really need to establish a new model for talking about it and evaluating it. What I find consistently lacking in the technical debate is any measure of how the imagery affects the viewer. The only really important criteria that we should care about in the end is "Can the audience tell the difference? Do they enjoy the content less? Are they somehow prevented from becoming engrossed in the content because of the means by which the image was acquired?"

RED and Panavision (even the digital Pana's) are two vastly different expressions of the same toolset. What truly differentiates them is their suitability to Filmmakers. Filmmakers in a global, all-encompassing sense. Both are capable of producing stunning imagery, but the real forces at work that will determine the longevity of either platform is how efficiently do they accomplish the task? This answer is obvious to anyone who has viewed the RED 4K footage projected and seen for themselves how accessible and easy the workflow is. Filmmaking has not evolved, it has mutated. I didn't fully realize just how much more efficient the entire process can be until I was shooting with the camera. I no longer group Panavision and RED into the same category. They are fundamentally different in the way they approach the moving image. In the marketplace they are competitors, but in the process of filmmaking their differences are expressed best in efficiency.

From this perspective, I now see little difference in film and tape. Both require migration to the NLE in realtime: film has to run in realtime twice to get to the point at which I can edit it on my computer. Tape has to run in realtime once to get to that point. In each case, specialized equipment is required and in the case of film, one more layer of specialized technical staff. So, just inside a week, using the camera, I've changed my thinking regarding the underlying economics of using RED. This is not an added benefit, this is the whole point: shortening the pathway that critical creative decision-making must take to get to the DI, or the picture-lock, or wherever you step off the boat creatively.

Jeff,

This is one of the best posts I have ever read on Reduser. It really puts things in perspective.

Thanks!

-Thor

[mjeppsen]

So while it's alarming (and inaccurate) to label the sensor itself as 4:2:0, is the ultimate underlying message inaccurate? The underlying message being: "you can't get a full 4K from a 4096-wide Bayer-pattern sensor, and you certainly can't get 4K @ 4:4:4 from a 4096-wide Bayer sensor." Which I think we can all agree with.Well said, Barry. One of the most reasoned responses in this entire thread.


Where they really go astray is using reasonable arguments to lead the audience to an unreasonable conclusion. If all you're looking for is 1920x1080, then the Genesis approach looks pretty good -- but the Red approach looks just as good. However, if you want more than 1920x1080, the Red offers that and the Genesis doesn't, and to totally ignore that is irresponsible on their part.I think this is the crux of the problem...what is the methodology of testing camera/image performance side by side with this new crop of imagers? How do you get a fair apples-to-apples comparison from a technical standpoint (beyond the "looks pretty damn good to me" screening test)? If this video series highlights anything, it is the need for standardized testing between companies and cameras.


What we need next is a good metric of aliasing based upon both charts and real world images.In talking to folks at Panavision, they seem to be interested in this same point.


I think these people know a little bit about the topic of image capture & MTFs. To discount & "blow off" as "scary" the collective knowledge of these gentlemen is foolish. I think the marketing propaganda is flowing both ways. Even the RED cannot escape the laws of physics & MTFs.Well said.

For viewing convenience, we've syndicated the Panavision series at FreshTV (http://www.freshdv.com/freshtv). Parts 1-5 are now up, 6 and 7 go live on Monday.

[sbaechler]

But the RED approach does not lead to non-clean keys....

Graeme

I'm pretty sure RED makes cleaner keys than most 35mm stock or HD cameras but you cannot deny that the Genesis has a higher chroma resolution, especially when using blue screen.

Of course all this is purely theoretical. Modern keyers are amazing and I don't think that it would make a difference in practical situations.

I bet that most non-working keys are because of a soft edge due to the limited depth of field of the 35mm format or motion blur due to a slow shutter angle.

[sbaechler]

I think with the way current spectral responses are measured one might need a little over 30 primaries to have no metamers in practise.

I had this Sony 828 digital still camera that had a fourth color in the bayer pattern. It was a blueish-green color. I've never seen this being done again. I don't know if it was because of cost reasons or because it dind't do much. But I would love to know.

One thing that would really improve the dynamic range was a chip with a hexagonal two-photosites design like the Fuji S3 sensor. This sensor has almost two stops more lattitude than a bayer sensor. It needs more processing power though and there are interferences in diagonal lines. But it would be closer to the dynamic range of film than anything else.

[Graeme Nattress]

Sure I can deny that the Genesis has a higher chroma resolution, for it must have < 1920 blue resolution across, whereas we have =2048 and can benefit up to around 3200 if there is any amount of luma on that edge.

The problem with blue screen on 35mm film is probably related to how bad the blue channel looks...

Graeme

[A. Järvinen]

Sure I can deny that the Genesis has a higher chroma resolution, for it must have < 1920 blue resolution across, whereas we have =2048 and can benefit up to around 3200 if there is any amount of luma on that edge.


What about vertical chroma resolution? As I know (and I don't know that much) Genesis has 2160 blue pixels vertically as Red One has 1152. Total number of blue pixels for Genesis is 1920*2160 = 4.1 million and for Red One 2048*1152 = 2,4 million. So based on these numbers one could make a conclusion that Red One has more horizontal chroma resolution and less vertical chroma resolution but then again the color filter arrays are different (probably cannot be compared this way) and results in the real world could be something else.
If the target resolution is 1920x1080 then there's probably no significant difference between the resolutions of these cameras and I'd guess they both produce good resolution pictures (I don't have any experience with either camera, I think Red One is remarkable camera and this is just speculation).

[Christian Edwards]

All I can say is that John Galt's presentations made me want to tear my skin off like uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, bad.

Really though aside from a terrible presentation, the information seemed pretty good. But as with anything one can get so caught up in the mathematics that you forget to actually look at the visible difference in images. I have not had the opportunity to see a 4k RED projection yet, but until I do I'm not going to make a judgement either way.

What I would love to see is Ted do a presentation. I think it would be much more palatable.

Dam and i was thinking about going

Venue Address
Overseas Passenger Terminal
Customs Hall, Level 3
West Circular Quay
Sydney NSW 2000 AUSTRALIA

Wednesday 28 May 08
11.30AM - 1.00AM Demystifying Digital Camera Specifications (http://www.acs50.com/conference/session_info.cfm?objid=54&eid=209&day=1&prog=27&type=1)
Location: Conference Theatre
Speaker: John Galt (http://www.acs50.com/conference/speaker_info.cfm?objid=55&sid=63) (Senior Vice President of Advanced Digital Imaging , Panavision)
Details: A seminar discussing the scientific concepts that underlie the performance of modern digital cameras, featuring John Galt, Senior Vice President, Advanced Digital Imaging.

[Graeme Nattress]

Genesis uses on chip binning, we think, to give an output of 1080 vertical. The extra rows of pixels are not individually addressable and do not count towards resolution.

Graeme

[Bang WOW Bang]

One thing that Genesis and RED are in common are

Both Cameras cannot output " Uncompressed Raw DPX files " but only Dalsa + all of us at S.Two ( Digital Field Uncompressed recording solution ) as discussed the RED one camera @IDIFF in Paris dated Jan 31 2008.

Stewart
Founder and TOP
REDHKSC

[A. Järvinen]

Genesis uses on chip binning, we think, to give an output of 1080 vertical. The extra rows of pixels are not individually addressable and do not count towards resolution.

Ok, I remember reading something about it. Do you know the reason for this? Is it just to get higher pixel count so they can advertise it as 12megapixel camera or are there some real benefits? On chip binning isn't similar to downsampling?

[GlennChan]

I bet that most non-working keys are because of a soft edge due to the limited depth of field of the 35mm format or motion blur due to a slow shutter angle.
There are many ways to make difficult keys.

On the camera side, noise is a big issue. Which would be noise coming from (A) the sensor and (B) from any compression [the compression noise from Redcode is pretty negligible from what I've seen]. If keying is your main concern, I don't think there is enough emphasis on total noise... and too much emphasis on what the color resolution theoretically is.
If you have shadows on your key color (this happens), then it tends to create some difficulty in keying. A compositor would likely erode the crap out of the key to handle that.


I had this Sony 828 digital still camera that had a fourth color in the bayer pattern.
The purpose of the fourth color filter is to increase color accuracy / avoid metamerism due to the camera's spectral response.

You can research metamerism on Google.

We probably don't notice small color inaccuracies / a certain degree of metamerism since it naturally occurs. So this might be why this feature doesn't get a lot of attention. I also believe that Sony says it only decreased color inaccuracy by "50%", so it's not perfect (probably a cost thing, since I believe it's expensive to get accurate color filters).

[lordtangent]

Genesis uses on chip binning, we think, to give an output of 1080 vertical. The extra rows of pixels are not individually addressable and do not count towards resolution.

Graeme

When I went to the Panavision open house a few months ago the Genesis engineer told me straight out that they "bin" two rows together. I was like "bin"? And he had to explain it to me (never heard that term before) My point is I definitely did not mis-hear him or mis-interpret it. He said "bin" I said "What?" And he then proceeded to explain to me what "bin" means and why they do it. They use binning to improve the dynamic range of the sensor.

[Irri]

Does downsizing actually give 4:4:4?

I can see how the Bayer filter could be used as 4:4:4, but does that happen in post? I doubt it.

I was thinking the same thing about 2K 4:4:4, could the extra data be thrown away leaving us with a lower data rate 2K 4:4:4 image using the full sensor. I'm guessing it is a bit more complicated than that.

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes, if you take the 4k down to 2k, the measured resolution is "full" in each of red, green and blue. You could call that 4:4:4 RGB, but it will be better than any camera which generates 2k RGB 4:4:4 from either a stripe RGB sensor with 2k of pixels in each stripe or a 3 chip and prism system because it's downsampled and you can control the downsample filter to get a much better balance between aliasing, sharpness and ringing.

Graeme

[Graeme Nattress]

In post only, and yes, retain DOF.

Graeme

[Steve White]

Why the Red one is first and foremost a 4K camera, and not a 2K 4:4:4 (or how ever you want to enterprit it) with the option to shoot 4K?
This answer at least is pretty easy. RED is a RAW camera, which means 1 intensity value per pixel, while a 4:4:4 image has 3 intensity values per pixel. Therefore, your 2k 4:4:4 image requires 75% of the space as a 4k image (from an uncompressed bandwidth perspective).

A 2k 4:4:4 image from 4k requires a debayer calculation which is irreversible, and therefore destructive. Following the debayer calculation, the image again needs to be compressed to come off the camera.

In summary, producing a 2k 4:4:4 image from a 4k sensor requires both that you do more calculations in-camera, and throw away some image data in-camera. The first increases the cost and power consumption of the camera, decreasing battery life and locking in algorithms. The second decreases image quality.

Ideally what you want is for camera to do all the in-camera analog stuff as best as possible, and get it to a manageable digital form that gives the most options for post-production. I'm guessing that in RED's estimation, RAW was the best way to do the is.

[Graeme Nattress]

RED is not cheap - it's affordable!

[Thor Wixom]

RED is not cheap - it's affordable!

Amen to that, Brother Graeme. :-) I'm at 50k and counting for a complete system.

Not cheap. For me and many others... barely affordable.

Worth it? Yes, the value of the Red is many times it's cost.

-Thor Wixom

[Irri]

Yes, if you take the 4k down to 2k, the measured resolution is "full" in each of red, green and blue...

I see.

So is this done by ignoring specific pixels in the grid and only so when you do exactly 2K? Are pixels not interpolated based on the pixels next to them or is the process the same as when you use 4K but there is much more information available?




...You could call that 4:4:4 RGB, but it will be better than any camera which generates 2k RGB 4:4:4 from either a stripe RGB sensor with 2k of pixels in each stripe or a 3 chip and prism system because it's downsampled and you can control the downsample filter to get a much better balance between aliasing, sharpness and ringing.

Graeme

You can control or we can control?

[Graeme Nattress]

If you develop at 4k and downsample yourself, then you have full control. If you let us do it for you, we have control. We do a nice 4k to 2k downsample. All the pixels are interpolated to ensure they all appear totally co-sited in the 2k result, unlike on a RGB stripe sensor where the red, green and blue are obviously not co-sited and I don't think anything is really done to bring them back into alignment.

Graeme

[Irri]

I think I see what you mean. I was thinking some of the pixels were ignored, but I guess they aren't

So would it then be better to work (grade etc) in 2K then output to 1080 rather than export from Alert/Cine to 1080?

Thanks for the info.

[Andy Romanoff]

If you develop at 4k and downsample yourself, then you have full control. If you let us do it for you, we have control. We do a nice 4k to 2k downsample. All the pixels are interpolated to ensure they all appear totally co-sited in the 2k result, unlike on a RGB stripe sensor where the red, green and blue are obviously not co-sited and I don't think anything is really done to bring them back into alignment.

Graeme

Hi Graeme,

If we did not co-site the full bandwidth RGB outputs from Genesis then we would have mis-registered color images. The fact that we do not speaks for itself.

Regards,

Andy

Andy Romanoff
Panavision

[Graeme Nattress]

Thank Andy. I guess the bit where you do that is missing from the white paper describing the sensor? I guess we've all seen three chip and prism cameras that have a pixel offset in them, in RGB mode, and the resultant lack of registration that occurs in the images.

Graeme

[Graeme Nattress]

Andy, this is the only reference I have to Genesis sensor: http://panavision.com/publish/2007/12/10/GenesisFAQs20071207.pdf

Given the non-square nature of the small pixels, the red, say is just 1/3 of a macro pixel offset from green as is blue just 1/3 of a macro pixel offset from green. Would the 1/3 offset, in the final 1920x1080 image be noticeable, and what losses are incurred from the interpolation necessary to compute what the co-sited red and blue would have looked like?

Graeme

[Andy Romanoff]

Andy, this is the only reference I have to Genesis sensor: http://panavision.com/publish/2007/12/10/GenesisFAQs20071207.pdf

Given the non-square nature of the small pixels, the red, say is just 1/3 of a macro pixel offset from green as is blue just 1/3 of a macro pixel offset from green. Would the 1/3 offset, in the final 1920x1080 image be noticeable, and what losses are incurred from the interpolation necessary to compute what the co-sited red and blue would have looked like?

Graeme

Hi Graeme,

A 1/3 pixel offset might be noticeable but the Genesis output has zero offset. Also, there is no interpolation of the photosite output and therefore no losses from computational processes.

Regards,

Andy

Andy Romanoff
Panavision

[Graeme Nattress]

So, there's an offset in the pixels on the sensor - they're certainly not co-sited there for an RGB stripe, and they don't appear so in the published diagrams. But by the time we see the output, they are co-sited, and no interpolation is done to them. Can you explain exactly how they pixels do get co-sited then?

Graeme

[BradWright]

Are there any image samples of test patterns from the Genesis to prove or disprove this point? There must be lots of example shots that demostrate how clean the image is.

[Jannard]

It seems quite a trick to me that non co-sited pixels on the sensor become co-sited "as if by magic" on output. Andy... I don't think we would push this issue except for the very technical video Panavision produced to explain the disadvantage of Bayer pattern. It only seems fair that this RGB stripe discrepancy be clearly explained.

Jim

[Warren Kommers]

Panavision Shhmanovision



...except for their behind the lens filtration(not a issue in digital) and anamorphic glass..

[Adrian T.]

If we did not co-site the full bandwidth RGB outputs from Genesis then we would have mis-registered color images.


There is no interpolation of the photosite output and therefore no losses from computational processes.

This is a complete contradiction. They DO co-site but they DON'T interpolate. :waaa:

[Andy Romanoff]

It seems quite a trick to me that non co-sited pixels on the sensor become co-sited "as if by magic" on output. Andy... I don't think we would push this issue except for the very technical video Panavision produced to explain the disadvantage of Bayer pattern. It only seems fair that this RGB stripe discrepancy be clearly explained.

Jim

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

[Graeme Nattress]

Thanks Andy. I normally say "and that's where the magic pixies come in" :-)

I guess the difference here is though, that there are tonnes of websites explaining how Bayer patterns work, you can find lots of white papers and scholarly works on demosaicing algorithms, so on and so forth, but there is incredibly little information out there on RGB stripe pattern sensors, so when somebody goes and uses one, you're bound to get questions about it, to explain how the technology works.

Graeme

[Jannard]

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

Jim

[Álex Montoya]

Don't mean to interrupt here but I don't get why we shoud just take his word on something after their obviously biased vid just designed to harm competition.

[T. Singh]

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

-T

[Warren Kommers]

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.

[Deanan]

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.

Hey Andy,

Nice to have you here.

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

Deanan

[Steve White]

Does the Genesis sensor have micro-lenses? That could bring the colors into alignment.
Something along this line of thought seems plausible, given the on-chip binning.

[Evin Grant]

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

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.

[BradWright]

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.

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.

[GlennChan]

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.
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?

[ChristopherKenworthy]

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.

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.

[Luis Otero]

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.

Amen...!!! :usd:

[Raphael Varandas]

Let there be light gentlemen.

[BradWright]

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.

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.

[ChristopherKenworthy]

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.

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.

[reality]

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?

[Graeme Nattress]

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

[Steve Gal]

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

RIGHT

[Graeme Nattress]

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

Graeme

[ChristopherKenworthy]

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

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.

[Josué Ignacio Saldaña]

Has anybody seen a Genesis movie with good skin tones?

In the Commentary to Apocalypto, Mel Gibson said that they integrated Genesis footage with 35mm.

[laguun]

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.

Apocalypto and Deja Vu were very beautiful - the Panavision Genesis is a excellent camera.

People often confuse artistic intent and technical boundary.

Michael Mann and Dion Beebe are a great example for this (Miami Vice), as is Steve McNutt (Battlestar Galactica) - they all choose gritty and harsh looks, even if the used Sony HDCAMs or Thomson Vipers usually output a extremly clean signal.

What i am puzzled about is why Panavision, a company i highly respect, is adressing resolution in its presentation. They dont have a camera which can competete with the red one in terms of resolution.

I also have admit that i am somewhat surprised to see Panavision employees investing so much time in training customers for other manufactueres product.

Regarding the CMOS / CCD debate - we have both systems in house, Sony HDCAM triple 2.2MP CCD-FIT as well as RED single 12MP CMOS and both have advantages and disadvantages.

The good news are, no matter if using SI, Dalsa, RED, Panavision, Weisscam, Vision Research or Sony - the digital cinematographer today has excellent tools at its hands.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

What i am puzzled about is why Panavision, a company i highly respect, is adressing resolution in its presentation. They dont have a camera which can competete with the red one in terms of resolution.


I think the heart of that matter is simply a reminder that there is more to getting an amazing image than simply "My camera has more pixels then your camera".

[Irri]

Can I ask again if there is any benefit to rendering to 2K over rendering to 1080?

[Mark L. Pederson]

Can I ask again if there is any benefit to rendering to 2K over rendering to 1080?
well ... depends on your aspect ratio - there are several "flavors" of 2K - of course - it can be less than 1080 as well ...

1998x1080, 2048x1080, 2048x858 etc.

[Irri]

I was thinking along the lines of 2K being a quarter of 4K therefore giving you the information of 1R, 2G, 1B per pixel. Maybe it doesn't work that way.

[hdnow]

'It seems quite a trick to me that non co-sited pixels on the sensor become co-sited "as if by magic" on output. Andy... I don't think we would push this issue except for the very technical video Panavision produced to explain the disadvantage of Bayer pattern. It only seems fair that this RGB stripe discrepancy be clearly explained.'

Perhaps in the same way as on the cover of Pink Floyd's 'Dark side of the moon'?

cheers,
hdnow

[Peter Lyons Collister, ASC]

Jim and gang,
I am a new convert to the Red and a long standing ASC member. As I have been using Panavision for a long time I understand their approach. They have become corporate and have a Sony camera that in the real world (like the Sony F35) would cost 250,000 dollars. You have build an upgradable camera that delivers and excites and costs ten percent.
This is a good thing and will make every manufacturer work harder.

[Peter Lyons Collister, ASC]

btw. This was my first post and I just got my serial number (#04396). It is a pleasure being part of this forum.
Peter Lyons Collister, ASC

[Evin Grant]

Welcome aboard!

[Peter Lyons Collister, ASC]

After I posted my thoughts regarding Panavision, Arri and Sony about following Jim's business model and making upgradable camera bodies I received some emails and phone calls from exec friends at PV.
I want to clarify that I think the Genesis is a fine camera. I am sure the Arri D-21 and the Sony F-35 are good tools for cinematographers and I didn't mean to diminish those companies. I only wanted to comment on the company and product that Jim has come up with. If rental companies are to survive (which they must) then they cannot do so if the camera bodies cost 250,000 dollars and they have a life of 10 years before new technology makes them unwanted.
I apologize if my words appeared to criticize wither Panavision the company, or the PV 900 and Genesis.

Peter Lyons Collister, ASC








I apologize to

[Jannard]

We agree that Panavision, Sony and Arri are great companies that have terrific tools for the cinematographer. The world is a better place because of the products and services these companies have delivered over the years. All we wanted to do was provide an alternative that could get in the hands of more people. We are working very hard to accomplish that.

Jim

[percy fung]

I based in Hong Kong..
I have 1647 and 1648, been serving the commerical field for the last 4 week, including major Hong Kong airline commercial filming work
We do DI post work, and record 20 full length Asian movies in a Months this year

I have a sample RED 35mm film clip made from mixed Asian producers and RED owners

We are all happy with the cinematic screening result..
If Jim wants a copy, I could send to you
Just give me your FedEX aacount..

I would like to see your view, too

I know this may be a wrong place to ask..
My question is how could I synce 2 REDs for 3D Stereoscopic work

I also have a Demo with 3D Stereo RED footage completed in Dolby Digital Cinema DCI's DCP 2K Jpeg2000 package for Digital cinema projection..

I am happy with RED, although still learning the tricks.

I work closely with Dan Carew in Hong Kong to horn the skills in production and Post.

Percy Fung
Hong Kong

[Uli Plank]

My question is how could I synce 2 REDs for 3D Stereoscopic work


Hi Percy,
greetings to HK, I've been working there years ago as a creative services director for Mediavision.

You should be able to sync two Reds by genlocking them to a single video signal. I can't check this, since we have only one.

Best regards,

Uli

[Steve Sanacore]

I wonder if some at Panavision are not yet keen on building the best digital capture cine camera. Does Panavision want people to move away from film capture at all?

When the first successful personal computers were invented by Apple, and IBM had to compete, there were many years of intentionally crippled PC's from IBM in order to try and protect their Mini computer market.

[Deanan]

I wonder if some at Panavision are not yet keen on building the best digital capture cine camera. Does Panavision want people to move away from film capture at all?


When you have 1000+ film cameras sitting in your inventory that are already paid for and rental is almost pure profit, going digital becomes a conflict of interest. It's a tough spot to be in because if you don't compete with your own business, someone else will take that rental business from you (ie. Plus-8 before they bought them out).

[REDHKSC]

I saw the SONy F23 on your booth and I had a RED on my booth @HKFilmart 2008.

Did you still love F23 or you changed your LOVE CAM ...

There were only three Cameras on the floor : Gensisis , RED, F23.

STEW.


I based in Hong Kong..
I have 1647 and 1648, been serving the commerical field for the last 4 week, including major Hong Kong airline commercial filming work
We do DI post work, and record 20 full length Asian movies in a Months this year

I have a sample RED 35mm film clip made from mixed Asian producers and RED owners

We are all happy with the cinematic screening result..
If Jim wants a copy, I could send to you
Just give me your FedEX aacount..

I would like to see your view, too

I know this may be a wrong place to ask..
My question is how could I synce 2 REDs for 3D Stereoscopic work

I also have a Demo with 3D Stereo RED footage completed in Dolby Digital Cinema DCI's DCP 2K Jpeg2000 package for Digital cinema projection..

I am happy with RED, although still learning the tricks.

I work closely with Dan Carew in Hong Kong to horn the skills in production and Post.

Percy Fung
Hong Kong

[REDHKSC]

Forget about all techncial issues folks,

To me in D/Film makings :

In states Panavision is Jesus Cameras company.

In EU ARRI is King Cameras company.

In ASIA we have Panavision and Arri,
and REDAPPLE seeds are just planning in the RED field though.

I am a just a humble Bee in ASIA from HKG to tell the truth.

STEW.
HKG

[REDHKSC]

One more fact that HK Film Directors and DOPs have not got confident to use RED to make their projects.

At least Mr. Peter Pau has not picked RED up.

Peter who is a best friend of my best friend in Thailand fro more than 35 years.

WHY :

Watch it here : http://media.panavision.com/ScreeningRoom/Screening_Room/Peter_Pau_480p.html

STEW.

[Laco Zamba]

1. Yes, Genesis is nice 14bit HD camera but not affordable for most of us.
2. Rotation of the mirror - "... we can see what we are filming" - what he sees is exactly what is not filmed :-)