THE GENESIS HAS ARRIVED...

D

Digigenic

Guest
Could the Genesis mark the Apocalypse for film...:?:

The link below is to an article in Videography Magazine Online, reporting from the Cine Gear Expo in Los Angeles on the Panavision Genesis High Def Camera, which employs an ultra sweet pinch me on my cheeks 12.4 megapixel 35mm full frame sensor with a 35mm depth of field equivalent. "Genesis is the first film-style fully portable digital imaging camera that utilizes all existing spherical 35mm lenses, including Primo primes, zooms and support gear."
The article also brings attention to the new Panaflex Millennium XL2.

http://www.uemedia.net/CPC/videography/article_8655.shtml
 
K

Kevin_Zanit

Guest
Played with the Genesis some today. Doubt the end for film is in the near future. Remember, this is still only HDCam, 2 mega pixels. Last I checked, film was 12.

I will say it is a vast improvement over the Panavised F900. Having the deck top or back mounted helps take some of the length off the camera. Not having to deal with back focus is wonderful. Having the DOF of 35 is great, and being compatible with all other Panavision accessories is helpful. I like that it is innately 1:77. By far the best improvement is the viewing system. The eye piece, although not optical, was amazing. Super high res color. I could judge focus in the eyepiece, and it was real comfortable. Having operated several F900 shows, I can say this is a vast improvement.

But as I said, it is still HD video.


Kevin Zanit
 

MarkG

New member
Last I checked, film was 12.
Possibly on the original negative, with low-speed film (and at 4:3... 1.85 framing will cost you about 25% of those pixels). But by the time it hits the cinema screen from a release print, it's several generations old with a lot less resolution... HD, on the other hand, will keep the full resolution from the original tape to the final projection.

Certainly effects shots for film are often rendered at 2k resolution across (basically the same as HD), since increasing the resolution makes little difference to the look of the finished movie. If I remember correctly the 'Toy Story' movies were rendered at only 1280 pixels across, though they're a special case (you don't really notice the low resolution because the pure CG images are unnaturally clean).
 
D

Digigenic

Guest
:?:
So, even though the sensor is 12.4 megapixels, it only uses two?
That's a bit of a waste isn't it?
 

Kim Welch

Senior Member
Staff member
Any one got a light?

Any one got a light?

I just read the article and it says, "With a 12.4 megapixel, true RGB sensor, 10-bit log per color output, the Genesis has a greater dynamic range than available digital cameras. "

So what happens to the other 10.4 megapixels. is it or is it not using them?

Kim
 
D

Digigenic

Guest
:?
Yeah, this is confusing…
I'm being told now that it only uses 2 Megs?
I’m afraid someone’s been misinformed…and I doubt its’ Videography Magazine.
Having a sensor like that and only using a 6th of it, would be like having a Bugatti sports car and only using 2 of the available 12 cylinders under the hood.
I still believe it’s 12.4 Megs, 2 Megs on a 35mm sensor doesn't add up.
 

MarkG

New member
Well, it's possible they're calling each red, green or blue sensor a 'pixel', but that would still leave it with 4 million real pixels. I couldn't find any information on the web to say exactly what the resolution of the camera is.
 
D

Digigenic

Guest
:idea:
I'd understand if they'd used the Fovean Sensor, which is employed in Sigma's Digital SLR. The sensor has three different layers for red, green, and blue, as oppose to typical CCD's, which have an rgb pattern on one layer. So, if one layer has 4 megapixels, then you multiply that by 3, and then you have 12 total true RGB.
 
K

Kevin_Zanit

Guest
"Possibly on the original negative, with low-speed film (and at 4:3... 1.85 framing will cost you about 25% of those pixels) . . . "

What? 1.85:1 is called flat, it is a standard projection format that causes no cropping to occur. There is no 4:3 in film projection. If by 4:3 you mean full aperture, then one could shoot anamorphic which will give you a 2.35:1 ratio, and use almost the entire height of the frame (thus utilizing all of the films res.). Film does not have pixels.

" . . . But by the time it hits the cinema screen from a release print, it's several generations old with a lot less resolution... HD, on the other hand, will keep the full resolution from the original tape to the final projection . . . "

Assuming you are not referring to digital projection, even if one were to strike a negative from a digi source, it will still go through all the interpostive/ internegative/ release print steps because no one in their right mind will shell out the money for a film out, and then strike more than one print off of that original neg. Thus the already lower resolution HD footage is still put through the generation loss you are referring to.

Even if you are referring to digi projection, the film would not go through the generation loss you refer to. The o-neg would be scanned either at 2k or 4k res (which would give you a vastly superior image than projecting HD; roughly 2k). It is also a known fact that starting with a higher res source (35) and then down sampling will give you a better image than if you had originated in that down sampled format.

The Genesis has a 12.4 mp sensor, but the image is immediately down sampled to 2 mp. This is because working with 24 * 12.4 mp a second would require a currently impractical amount of storage. They put the larger sensor in for several reasons. One, a 12.4 mp image that is down sampled to 2 mp will look better than a strait 2 mp image. And two, the larger imager protects the camera for future developments in storage technology, it is scalability.



Kevin Zanit
 

MarkG

New member
What? 1.85:1 is called flat, it is a standard projection format that causes no cropping to occur.
Uh, 1.85:1 crops the top and bottom of the frame. Your 12M number comes from assuming 4k pixels across a 35mm frame and 3k pixels up the 35mm frame, at 4:3. A lot of those theoretical pixels are wasted if you then crop it to 1.85:1.

Assuming you are not referring to digital projection,
Yes, that's what I was referring to. Obviously at the moment you're more likely to see HD projected from a film print, but there are plenty of digitial projection screens around if you look for them.
 
D

Digigenic

Guest
Well,

All differences aside,
I'm sure we'd all agree that this is one hell of a camera.

Let's just hope we're fortunate enough to find ourselves actually using one in the near future... :)
 
K

Kevin_Zanit

Guest
"Uh, 1.85:1 crops the top and bottom of the frame"

Yes, you are correct. I should have posted crops very little of the frame.

This is what happens when you post coming off of 20 hour days :wink: . . .



Kevin Zanit
 
B

Bond

Guest
Forgive me here, but it mentions capture at upto 50fps, can I take it that's interlaced? It doesn't cover whether it does 24/25 progressive. Would anyone happen to know?
 
It can shoot up to 50 fps (50P) -- the only deal is that you can only record it in 4:2:2 mode, not 4:4:4 (something has got to give.)

The problem with the argument that digital doesn't need to be 4K or 12MP because of the loss by the time it hits the screen is that a digitally-originated image goes through the same loss in the process of being converted to film and then being projected, so if a traditional print release is planned (and it's pretty much unavoidable) ideally you'd start out at the same resolution as 35mm negative.

Second, if you want to talk about 2K digital projection, then yes, 4:4:4 HD like the Genesis will be enough resolution, but then so would 35mm transferred to 2K (plus have more exposure latitude.)

But should we ever get 4K projection in the theaters, then having shot on a 2K system would have limited you versus having shot in 35mm.

So there are a lot of arguments for digital cameras having to be 4K to be truly a replacement for 35mm. And I'm just talking about resolution.

The Genesis records to the HDCAM-SR format, which is 1920 x 1080 pixels. Potentially a future variation could record directly to a 2K data system. The 12MP sensor is RGB striped (not a Bayer filter) and therefore is not really designed to create a 4K image.

All that said, I think the Genesis produces a very similar-quality image to 35mm, enough to be truly in the ballpark, at least compared to 35mm having gone through a 2K D.I. Not quite the same exposure latitude as color negative, but better than other HD cameras out there. Night stuff and low-contrast, low-light photography particularly works well with this camera due to the lack of grain in the image (now some people would say that a lack of grain was not a positive thing... not me, but some people would say that.)

I think it will be as popular as a $10,000/week camera can ever be... Assuming Panavision builds enough to meet demand. I think they have about 20 and are going to build 100. Even Panavision says that using the Genesis over 35mm only makes sense if you have a high shooting ratio (where you get the tape vs. film benefit in costs) or have a lot of visual efx.

Certainly 100 cameras hardly constitutes a "film killer". Same goes for the Arri D20 when it arrives.

The Dalsa is even closer to the image quality of 35mm, being nearly 4K, having nearly 14-stops of exposure range, but it will take some time before that is cheap enough and convenient enough to compete with film.

Think of it: digital has to MATCH 35mm and then be CHEAPER and EASIER to shoot than 35mm before it could possibly replace 35mm, or else we will be accepting a loss in quality. We are just starting to get cameras that come close to the quality level, but they are not cheaper and easier to shoot, so whether people chose 35mm or these new cameras will be sort of hit or miss.
 
B

Bond

Guest
The 4:2:2 thing is something of a bummer...

I was going to respond with the D20 which apparently can actually go upto 3K and it does do 4:4:4. Also, its custom CMOS chip is designed to replicate the format of 35mm, but you're right 4K is the way forward.

Saying that though, I thought Sin City on the big screen was lovely, and as far as I know that was shot in 2K? but I could well be wrong.

As for 4K projectors, i hear one was debuted at Cannes.
 
I really doubt that in a slow-motion shot you're going to catch the switch to 4:2:2.

The Arri D20 does not do 3K. It has a 2880 x 2160 pixel CMOS chip with a Bayer filter, meant to be recorded to HDCAM-SR (1920 x 1080 pixels) but is capable of 2K data, just like the Genesis could potentially be someday. Neither camera would do 3K. You have to switch to 4:2:2 on the HDCAM-SR deck to record slow-motion on the Arri-D20 as well.

"Sin City" was shot with a Sony F-950 and recorded to 4:4:4 HDCAM-SR (1920 x 1080 pixels). Panavision has been calling that "2K" so I guess "Sin City" can call it that too; it's close enough probably.

From the Arri site:

http://www.arri.com/news/newsletter/articles/09211103/d20.htm
But what about resolution? First of all, we have to clearly define resolution. Resolution tells us how small the smallest structures (e.g. alternating black and white stripes) are that an optical or opto-electronic system is capable of reproducing. In digital photography, there is a tendency to describe resolution in terms of the number of pixels on the chip. Depending on the technology used however, the actual pixel count of a chip does not directly correspond to the resolution the system is capable of reproducing. The D20, for instance, is designed to accurately reproduce images at HD resolution (1920 horizontal pixels). In order to achieve this goal, a Bayer mask CMOS chip of a higher pixel count is necessary.

On the Bayer mask chip itself the full number of pixels is not available for each color. For a 2880 x 2160 chip, the red channel for instance does not have a resolution corresponding to 2880 x 2160 pixels. One could assume that since every second pixel is red in every second row, we have half the resolution for red (1440 x 1080). But that is not accurate either, since for most natural images the missing color pixel values can be reconstructed very accurately, so the resolution of the red channel is somewhere between 2880 x 2160 and 1440 x 1080.

Our goal with the D20 design is to output a very high quality HD image with a resolution corresponding to 1920 horizontal pixels. In order to achieve such an image output from a Bayer mask chip we need substantially more than 1920 horizontal pixels, which is the reason the chip's pixel count (2880 x 2160) is much higher than the desired image output resolution. The raw Bayer data at 2880 x 2160 goes through the color reconstruction process to fill in the missing color information and is downscaled to a pixel count that corresponds more closely to its actual resolution. This allows the D20 to create a high definition image that looks as good as if not better than the images produced by current high definition cameras.
 
D

Digigenic

Guest
Whoa, a year later and the Genesis and D20 still don't really have much to show...man the big boys move sloooooow, :lol:
How long will it be before we actually see something tangible from these cameras? It seems like there's more coming from the 4K DALSA than from the almighty Panavision and Arri. ASC should seriously do a three way shootout between the Genesis, D20, and DALSA, that would be really interesting.
 
Actually there was some comparison shooting done between them at CineGear that some people saw the results of at Laser Pacific (I didn't.)

There was some problem with the 4K Dalsa picture that wasn't fixed by the time of the Laser Pacific screening though.

But you can guess the results: the Genesis and Arri-D20 would produce similar pictures when both are going to an HDCAM-SR deck, all things being equal (i.e. the same lenses are used, which actually can't be done since Panavision uses their own lens mount and lenses.) I don't know if anyone spotted a difference in feeling between the RGB striped CCD chip in the Genesis versus the RGB Bayer Filtered CMOS chip in the Arri-D20. Obviously the Dalsa produces an image with 4X the resolution.

The biggest variables seen in the tests were caused by the lenses being used.

There are a number of big projects already shooting on the Genesis: Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns", Dean Devlin's "Flyboys", a comedy called "Click" being shot by Dean Semler, plus a few others. Panavision is basically building them as fast as they can, but the camera is here and now, not in the future. The Arri-D20 will probably be ready by the end of the year.

Dave Stump, ASC is head of the digital camera subcommittee of the ASC Tech Committee and is planning some tests.
 

Kim Welch

Senior Member
Staff member
In December 2000, there are 15 digital cinema screens in North America, 11 in Western Europe, 4 in Asia, and 1 in South America

As of June, 2010, there are close to 16,000 digital cinema screens, with over 5000 of them being stereoscopic setups. Considering an article written by David Hancock (http://www.isuppli.com/media-resear...bers-and-forecasts-to-2015-are-finalised.aspx), the total number of d-screens worldwide came in at 36,242, up from 16,339 at end 2009 or a growth rate of 121.8 percent during the year. There were 10,083 d-screens in Europe as a whole (28.2 percent of global figure), 16,522 in North America (46.2 percent of global figure) and 7,703 in Asia (21.6 percent of global figure). As regards digital 3D screens, there were a total of 21,936 3D screens, which equals 60.5 percent of all d-screens. This is a rise from the 55 percent in 2009 but is expected to drop slightly in 2011 to 57.5 percent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema#2011
 
Last edited:
Top