Superman

[digitalnirvana9]

When we see the imagery produced by the Genesis Camera for the new Superman movie, will this image quality be roughly comparable to what the RED will be capable of when it comes out? If so, at what resolution would the RED have to be set to achieve those results...
The IMAX version of Superman will have 20 min. of 3D FX which were produced in the Postproduction Process through IMAX. Will there be a similar way that 3D images can be produced for 35 mm distribution and/or lenses developed for this purpose? Thanks, for you input

[evinsky]

At least theoretically, the Red should outperform the Genesis. The Genesis after all records to HDCam SR which is a 1080 line format. Albeit 4:4:4 but still compresed and not RAW. I heard the Genesis had quite a few problems on Superman as well. Something like 30% of the film had a Green line through the image that had to be taken out in post. It wasn't visable on the onset monitors only from the actual recorded 4:4:4 image. The Genesis is a mutt, half Panavision and half Sony. I think Red will be a much more pure breed of device.

[DavidBeier]

^
Question, why exactly do so many of these big budget HD movies choise to record to tape rather than strait to a harddrive? Revenge of the Sith also still recorded to tape. I can understand still using tapes for archival purposes and backup but I don't get with these highly digital films why they don't just record it strait to hard drive first and not have to worry about capturing (or the possibility that a dirty recording head my mess up footage).

[FatBird19]

Question, why would any big budget movie record to HD rather than film? I really don't see the advantages.

[DavidBeier]

Question, why would any big budget movie record to HD rather than film? I really don't see the advantages.

Because a huge number of their shots are going to be digitally altered in some way so why not start in digital in the first place. Also means one doesn't have to worry about lab processing. Some directors also like the freedom of HD (same reason I prefer an HVX200 to 16mm film) since you can see exactly what you are getting on the monitor (theoretically) and can be more flexible in some situations.

[FatBird19]

are there any cost advantages to the genesis over film?

[scharky]

Actually I think it ended up costing them more to shoot on the genesis. It isn't cheap to store all that footage.

Another reason to shoot uncompressed HD instead of film (and I know I'm gonna get slammed for this, but it's true) is that it has a different look than film. Uncompressed digital has many advantages over film in color reproduction.
But again, this has to do with the DP and the director and what they want the film to look like.

[Erik Olson]

As was indicated before, Genesis is the somewhat compromised product from the short (and incredibly troubled) union between Sony and Panavision in the late 1990s.

The Genesis does offer some significant tools to digital filmmakers - although there appear to be a few flies in the pudding. Single-chip Super 35mm RGB imager, wireless HD mag (future generation should be solid-state) and almost infinite variable, ramp-able framerates, full compatibility with hands-down the best lenses on the planet and so forth.

That anyone, especially working professionals, should act surprised to find that an errant blank scan line in a Sony product (read: manifests in almost every lower-third of every CRT they've ever made) is laughable. Sony has sold this as a "feature" for almost twenty years now.

e

[Andrew Wharton]

Question, why would any big budget movie record to HD rather than film? I really don't see the advantages.
Remember that you can also get shots on HD that you couldn't normally get on film. Michael Mann seems to love to turn up the gain until you see the city lights reflecting off the night sky. Collateral and Ali have shots like that, looks like Miami Vice has them as well.

I guess it comes down to having more options, and the Red camera should take that to a whole new level!

[baro]

http://www.bluetights.net/video_large.php?id=9

This is a video where the director, the DP and some other members of the crew are watching and praising the footage of the Genesis. They are talking about how long it takes to handle the video when at some point the director says 'Now it looks better than film, how we make it faster than film?'. Surely they had been discussing that topic a lot previously, so this is probably their point of view. Based on that video, they choosed the Genesis over film because they preferred its look.

[scharky]

Yeah, I remember seing that a while back. I don't think people realize how long the post process is on this thing, and it is certainly not more economical nor timely than film, but they definitly chose it for a reason.

[bgundu]

I'm actually working on the Superman 3D IMAX project as we speak. The resolution we're working with is 1920 x 818. The tonal range is pretty remarkable but it sure can get pretty grainy (or noisy). It's really down to the wire since the film is coming out June 30th and Brain Singer has not locked the picture down yet. And just so you know, the 3D effect is stunning!



When we see the imagery produced by the Genesis Camera for the new Superman movie, will this image quality be roughly comparable to what the RED will be capable of when it comes out? If so, at what resolution would the RED have to be set to achieve those results...
The IMAX version of Superman will have 20 min. of 3D FX which were produced in the Postproduction Process through IMAX. Will there be a similar way that 3D images can be produced for 35 mm distribution and/or lenses developed for this purpose? Thanks, for you input

[vinney57]

That anyone, especially working professionals, should act surprised to find that an errant blank scan line in a Sony product (read: manifests in almost every lower-third of every CRT they've ever made) is laughable. Sony has sold this as a "feature" for almost twenty years now.


Its not an errant scan line. Its the support wire for the patented Sony black mask on all Sony CRT's.

[bgundu]

At least theoretically, the Red should outperform the Genesis. The Genesis after all records to HDCam SR which is a 1080 line format. Albeit 4:4:4 but still compresed and not RAW. I heard the Genesis had quite a few problems on Superman as well. Something like 30% of the film had a Green line through the image that had to be taken out in post. It wasn't visable on the onset monitors only from the actual recorded 4:4:4 image. The Genesis is a mutt, half Panavision and half Sony. I think Red will be a much more pure breed of device.

You are correct about the green line problems. The trouble was also it was in different places so they couldn't really use an automated procces to clean it up.

[Tzedekh]

Its not an errant scan line. Its the support wire for the patented Sony black mask on all Sony CRT's.And there are two of them. One about one-third the way down the screen and another about two-thirds the way down.

[digitalnirvana9]

I'm actually working on the Superman 3D IMAX project as we speak. The resolution we're working with is 1920 x 818. The tonal range is pretty remarkable but it sure can get pretty grainy (or noisy). It's really down to the wire since the film is coming out June 30th and Brain Singer has not locked the picture down yet. And just so you know, the 3D effect is stunning!

I've worked with Greg MacGillivray shooting the Hands Across America in IMAX but never 3D....Could the IMAX process for 3D be used for 35mm or is it a totally proprietary thing?
It must be exciting working on such a cutting edge project.
Congratulations!....Norman

[Jarred Land]

You are correct about the green line problems. The trouble was also it was in different places so they couldn't really use an automated procces to clean it up.

ah.. so the line actually was random, i thought it was at a constant fixed line so it was just loosing one line, but if it kept jumping around that would be a pain in the ass. We had that happen a few times but doing a blackbalance when we saw it seemed to solve it.

[Jay A. Kelley]

One thing is for sure, I would not have wanted to be in the room when those green lines were discoverd..

Bryan: Cool, I think we need to move Brandon's close up to...Ummm just push in on... wait....what the hell is that?

DP: What?

Bryan (standing up, shaking finger at screen) THAT!!

DP: Oh shit.. What is that?

Bryan: That's my question, get your own!

DP: Bob! Call Pana now and get our rep over here.

Bryan: There's ANOTHER ONE..

DP: Where? Oh yeah.. Looks like a green line..

Bryan: Yeah..

DP: That's not good.

Bryan: Ya THINK!?!?

DP: (Sigh) great.

Bryan: Look down.. Oh my god.. Can we get rid of it. Better yet, can we get rid of you?!

DP: ME?! I didn't put it there!

Bryan: You're the director of photography right?!

DP: (Knowing he's being walked into a trap) Yeah

Bryan: So this is your photography, direct that shit off the screen!!

DP; BOB!!!!!


hehehe Funny to me.. I was not there

Jay

[goldyprog]

The differences come down to what the filmmakers want, just in my opinion. You see collateral, which was mainly shot with the Viper, and its transfer to 35 in the theaters gave it a grainy, washed-out look, and a representative trademark of some of Michael Mann's previous urban dramas. Then you see Superman (I guess I'm referring to the trailers) and read up on talk that filmmakers prefer HD to film because it is so much cleaner than film. That said, HD is literally tackling the professional community with different purposes, different uses.

Does anyone know of other projects (movies, commercials, music videos?) that have also been shot with the Genesis?

[Jaime Valles]

Does anyone know of other projects (movies, commercials, music videos?) that have also been shot with the Genesis?
Scary Movie 4, I believe.

[Erik Olson]

Regardless of what it is - blank scan line; underwire support or Trinitron mask lines - it interrupts the image.

I will concede that there is a huge difference between a display device with missing or gapped line "feature" and a capture device having them.

e

[Thomas Mathai]

Regardless of what it is - blank scan line; underwire support or Trinitron mask lines - it interrupts the image.

I will concede that there is a huge difference between a display device with missing or gapped line "feature" and a capture device having them.

e


I been using these monitors for years and only in the beginning did it seem to get in the way. After you know what it is, it is mostly ignored.

[im.thatoneguy]

Direct that shit off the screen!!


:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG) I just have to find a way to work that into a conversation in the next week.

- personal note: I had a trinitron monitor for 4 years before someone told me about the lines. That was the first day I saw them. Since then they've faded back into oblivion.

[Gordon JL]

So why do they always shoot to tape instead of onto something like a harddrive?

Another thing I don't understand; people decide to shoot digital because they will have to alter a lot of their shots (like Star Wars); but, don't they have to digitize the film anywayif they were to shoot on film instead; for it to be edited in an NLE? The only difference I see is that shooting digital prevents them from having to digitize the footage at all; while shooting on film, they have to digitize it once -- which is what they need to do anyway for editing. So I don't understand how a movie with more intensive CG effects requires to be shot digitally; what's the advantage?

[evinsky]

You do not have to "Process" or "transfer" the film, you do have to digitize the tape, but that can be done in house and be logged as you go as well. It is a much simpler workflow than film.

[Yuval Shrem]

Also, matching grain levels between film material and CG elements is nearly impossible, while the High-definition source would typically be virtually grain-less, and then it would blend much better with CG elements, and then when transferring the composited image to film, you will gain an even level of film grain across the image as if it was all shot through the same film camera. That is quite an advantage!

However, I'm not so much into digital projection in cinema theaters. It seems the same movie, projected in film feels more compelling and interesting than the same exact movie, when projected digitally. I've been in a test screening and watched several examples, and that is my (startling and confusing) conclusion. Anyway, shooting HD for a visual FX heavy project makes a lot of sense and presents advantages both in work-flow and the end result of blending live action with CG elements.

[im.thatoneguy]

I'm just guessing here but probably a large reason why they record to tape instead of HD is because A) they're going to backup to tape eventually anyway and B) It costs a lot less per gigabyte to record to tape.

[ozzymandius]

Does anyone know of other projects (movies, commercials, music videos?) that have also been shot with the Genesis?

Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto", coming out in December.

[FatBird19]

Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto", coming out in December.

wow, that was shot on genesis? It looks really good. I just saw the teaser. :0

[Graeme_Nattress]

There's also registration issues with film that have to be dealt with when compositing. Video has zero wobble.

Graeme

[Jarred Land]

wow, that was shot on genesis? It looks really good. I just saw the teaser. :0

Flyboys was shot on the Genesis as well... and it looks pretty good.

http://flyboysthemovie.com/flyboys_cannes_2.mov

albiet the trailer is interlaced for some retarded reason hence making it look like shiit.

[Robert Sanders]

Adam Sandler's "Click" was also shot on the Genesis.

[scharky]

The colors look amazing in that film, but whoever was responsible for the web compression needs to be fired.

[Greg Lowry]

I think that the closeup skintones in the Uberman trailers look waxy and unnatural. I hope the movie looks better.

[Stas_Tagios]

Does anyone know of other projects (movies, commercials, music videos?) that have also been shot with the Genesis?

In addition to those already mentioned:

Feature Films

Grind House (dir: Tarantino & Rodriguez, DP: Rodriguez)
Empty City (dir: Mike Binder, DP: Russ Alsobrook)
A Tiger's Tale (dir: John Boorman, DP: Seamus Deasy)
Deja Vu (dir: Tony Scott, DP: Paul Cameron)
Next (dir: Lee Tamahori, DP: David Tatersall)
The Lookout (dir: Scott Frank, DP: Alar Kivilo)
Thre Ferryman (dir: Chris Graham, DP: Aaron Morton)
La Maison Du Bonheur (dir: Dany Boon, DP: Jean-Marie Dreujou)

TV

What About Brian? (DP: Russ Alsobrook)
The Night Stalker (DPs: Bob Primes, Rick Maguire, Sandy Sissel)
Conviction (DPs: Ernie Holzman, John Thomas)
Faceless (DPs: Mauro Fiore)
In Case of Emergency (DP: Victor Hammer)
Brothers & Sisters (DP: Tom Yatsko)
52 Fights (DP: David Hennings)
Protege: (DP: Adam Sliwinski)

And David Fincher and Harris Savides went 4:4:4 uncompressed tapeless for Zodiac, which shot with the Viper, direct to hard drives. The movie's being cut on Final Cut Pro. Great article on the shooting and workflow here:

http://www.showreel.org/memberarea/article.php?174

[Robert Sanders]

Exciting times.

You know digital is coming of age when Fincher and Mann are using it.

[Jarred Land]

Yeah Mann is really pushing digital and obviously is open to new tools.. its going to be very interesting how the "upper" class of Directors and DP's embrace Red.

[Isaac_Brody]

I think the fact that you can actually own Red and taylor it to your needs is a revolution in itself. I'm not sure what affect it will have on the ARRI's and Panavisions, but it'll definitely shake up the whole renting paradigm.

[donatello]

"what affect it will have on the ARRI's and Panavisions"

you can only rent panavision ..not sure what Arri is doing about their digital cinema camera rent or sell ?? BUT as you may know Panavision also rents some Arri's known as Pan-Arri's so i would expect to see some Pan-Reds .. these would be modified REDS ? probably with panavision designed cages, lens mounts and would be able to accept all panavision accessories so basically they would suppy a Panavision RED Camera system to a production and it would not be cheap... remember Panavision and other large camera rental houses supply equipment and SERVICE !! the service is very important ...

Panavision/Arri supplys camera SYSTEMS to hollywood ..and hollywood pays what ever price to rent them ... IMO RED will immediately be used in SFX houses in hollywood then indies, music video's , commercials ...
then i would guess if Panivision does a Pan-Red it would go into high $$$$ features quicker then if there wasn't a Pan-red .... i would also expect to see many RED's out as B/C camera's before it moves into A camera ....

[Isaac_Brody]

Yeah, but I can't see the justification in renting a Pana-Red for its accessories, especially when third party companies and Red itself can offer alternatives to own. I could see people hiring DP's based on their work and their Red kit.

Or studios could even buy Reds and have their own camera divisions instead of renting, save a bundle of money right there by buying Red kits and funneling the rental money back into production. Hmm...

[Jarred Land]

yeah I agree with you Isaac.. but the rental houses love to supe up cameras and rent em out as exclusives.. Clairmont does this, panavision does this etc.. gives them an "edge" per say.

[CaptainSKA]

If I remember correctly one of the first pieces aired/released nationally that was shot on the Genesis was a segment of 24 a season or two ago. They shot one scene (in a helicopter if I remember correctly) on the genesis due to some kind of contstraints (time, room, I dunno).

All I remember is I specifically went over to my buddy's house to watch that episode in HD to see if I could tell the difference... I couldn't.

[donatello]

studio's don't want to OWN camera's .. they can buy arri's today and they don't ... Hollywood loves to RENT .. they rent whole systems for features -whatever they need - 2 cameras or 8 camera's they rent ..if something goes wrong with the camera they make a call and it is replaced within a hr in LA ... in the long run it's just easier to rent for the studio's/producers ...

so a Pan-Red, Clairmont-Red, Otto-Red IMO will happen ..they will be full system camera's ( they will have their own modified cages etc) so the camera can be used with all current gear at rental house ...

and off topic - i always thought the Genesis was a Panavision only development BUT yesterday i was reading some Panavision SEC filings and they clearly state Genisis is a joint partnership with Sony .. so i would assume that sony has a 35mm size chip TODAY.. ....

[John Allardice]

and off topic - i always thought the Genesis was a Panavision only development BUT yesterday i was reading some Panavision SEC filings and they clearly state Genisis is a joint partnership with Sony .. so i would assume that sony has a 35mm size chip TODAY.. ....

IIRC the Sony element of the genesis is the SRW-1 dockable HDCAM-SR recorder. The camera head itself is Panavision

J

[donatello]

you could be right on the camera head - as i see that in 2003 they bought a company in NY that manufactured CMOS sensors...

from their march,2006 filing ...

"We believe that Arri and DALSA are both working on developing digital cameras with film-like quality with the goal of competing in the same market as Genesis ® "

"A number of these new competitors have significantly greater research and development resources and financial resources than us and we cannot assure that we will be able to effectively compete or achieve successful alliances with these companies."

"The Genesis ® system was developed by a team of Panavision and Sony engineers over four years and contains a one-inch CCD sensor"

"Although we believe that we are well positioned to capitalize on potential growth in the digital capture market, both independently and through a series of agreements with Sony......"

[yevlar]

I think that the Scary Movie 4 guys didn't know what the hell they were doing with the Genesis, because there are large portions of that film that look like complete ass. In daylight, sure, it looks great, but any scene with contrast exhibits motion problems that look absolutely dreadful. It shows a lot of the same problems that I've noticed with films shot with the Sony F900, so perhaps it's an HDCam thing, not a camera issue.

[Thomas Mathai]

It looks like a VHS dub to me. The skin tones are too orange, the colors too saturated, the blacks to crushed.

It's not the best quicktime to judge the look from. I'd wait for the apple trailer site to have a high quality one.




Flyboys was shot on the Genesis as well... and it looks pretty good.

http://flyboysthemovie.com/flyboys_cannes_2.mov

albiet the trailer is interlaced for some retarded reason hence making it look like shiit.

[John Allardice]

I saw a good chunk of stuff from Flyboys projected (on film) at panavision a few months ago, and I have to admit it looked damned good, very naturalistic, with a cooler (temperature), slightly diffused look. Reminded me a little of Gerry Fishers photography from 'Aces High'.
The Genesis is a nice machine, I used it on a Chevy spot last december, but it does weigh a ton, NOT nice for your steadicam op.

J

[BenS0724]

Are you sure ROTS recorded to tape? I can't back this up with absolute certainty, but I was under the impression that Lucas' crew recorded Eps II and III to hard drive, but also made tape back ups to function essentially as dailies.

Realistically, tape is the weakest link in the chain of digital production, and I don't think Lucas would rely on tape to capture his $150 million movies.

[Robert Sanders]

Yup. They sure did. In fact one of the ROTS web diaries was devoted to the HD tent where Lucasfilm HD guru Fred Meyers supervised all recordings. All camera feeds were recorded on SRW5000 decks. They also did all their cloning there too.

http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/bts/production/f20030516/index.html

[The Sarlacc]

Are you sure ROTS recorded to tape? I can't back this up with absolute certainty, but I was under the impression that Lucas' crew recorded Eps II and III to hard drive, but also made tape back ups to function essentially as dailies.

Realistically, tape is the weakest link in the chain of digital production, and I don't think Lucas would rely on tape to capture his $150 million movies.

Yep...all to SR decks...of which there were only like 5 of at the time. Michael Mann had the other ones for collateral. And Lucas had one go down on set and was trying to get one from Mann, who pretty much said FU.

And like was said in the previous post...the SR deck oes dual streaming, so master clones (hehe clone wars...) were created right there at the same time as the masters....that alone saved Lucas big bucks because you a receive a huge insurance discount having clones.

[The Sarlacc]

yeah I agree with you Isaac.. but the rental houses love to supe up cameras and rent em out as exclusives.. Clairmont does this, panavision does this etc.. gives them an "edge" per say.

Clairmont does it because Denny and Terry are geniuses. I mean the things these guys have done to modify cameras over the last 30-40 years is amazing.

They modify the cameras to reflect what they want to use...and further improve upon a camera design.

Referring to HD...look at what they did with the F900 cameras...if I have to use a f900, I always push to prep out of clairmont for it.

Panavision...with them everything has to be proprietary...And is not always for the best. I hate half of what they did in terms of modding the f900. especially the all the damn little cables...just like their film bodies.

[The Sarlacc]

so a Pan-Red, Clairmont-Red, Otto-Red IMO will happen ..they will be full system camera's ( they will have their own modified cages etc) so the camera can be used with all current gear at rental house ...
.

Yes it will. I am still very skeptical about RED.

But I know for a fact, straight from his mouth, that Otto placed a reservation on 8 Red cameras. Along with 10-12 on Arri D20s.

About the red...he said, if it fails...so what, 20k a camera is nothing to him :rofl:

[Robert Sanders]

$160,000 is nothing! LOL!

[Robert Sanders]

10-12 Arri D20's. Wow! That's like $1.2M!

[The Sarlacc]

10-12 Arri D20's. Wow! That's like $1.2M!

I think it was that many...I could be wrong...But I know the red number is for sure.

[Jarred Land]

I thought you couldnt reserve 8 red cameras?

[John Allardice]

I thought you couldnt reserve 8 red cameras?

I think Otto might get a pass on that one

J

[The Sarlacc]

I thought you couldnt reserve 8 red cameras?

dunno, I was standing right there when Otto was telling my friend.

[therock]

got late in that thread, sorry. but still a lot to be commented..


:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG) - personal note: I had a trinitron monitor for 4 years before someone told me about the lines. That was the first day I saw them. Since then they've faded back into oblivion.


After you know what it is, it is mostly ignored.

Same on me. No need to complain about the lines ever. they are just there. A shame they are dieing.


So why do they always shoot to tape instead of onto something like a harddrive?

..but, don't they have to digitize the film anywayif they were to shoot on film instead; for it to be edited in an NLE? The only difference I see is that shooting digital prevents them from having to digitize the footage at all; while shooting on film, they have to digitize it once -- which is what they need to do anyway for editing. ..; what's the advantage?


Question, why exactly do so many of these big budget HD movies choise to record to tape rather than strait to a harddrive? Revenge of the Sith also still recorded to tape. I can understand still using tapes for archival purposes and backup but I don't get with these highly digital films why they don't just record it strait to hard drive first and not have to worry about capturing (or the possibility that a dirty recording head my mess up footage).


Actually I think it ended up costing them more to shoot on the genesis. It isn't cheap to store all that footage. ...
But again, this has to do with the DP and the director and what they want the film to look like.


I'm just guessing here but probably a large reason why they record to tape instead of HD is because A) they're going to backup to tape eventually anyway and B) It costs a lot less per gigabyte to record to tape.

they digitize with a telecine, not a scanner. and its done realtime with less money, thats rushes or dailies. Not to mistake with a scan or a HD recording.
And some might go directly to tape because its more secure, easier to duplicate (just realtime, simple dubbing) and cheaper. Otherwise you end up with endless loads of disks. Not really non-linear or really forward-thinking, but flawless in terms of workflow.
Going home with that only one tape ? Uhm, yep! Going home with that one disk ? Uhem. Nope. Could you take that one please, along with the responsiblity ?
And editing is not done with original data anyway. Its made with proxies, downsized clips etc. So the captured data won't be of that big advantage.


Realistically, tape is the weakest link in the chain of digital production, and I don't think Lucas would rely on tape to capture his $150 million movies.

Regarding safety, tape is probably the absolute safest link. And besides he relies on HD already. So quality is not the issue, it was probably a deal. Remind the awkward comps in EpisodeI and you understand that tape or disk wasn't the issue. IMHO he should have been staying at 35, at least for the first one, but who cares...


Remember that you can also get shots on HD that you couldn't normally get on film. Michael Mann seems to love to turn up the gain until you see the city lights reflecting off the night sky. Collateral and Ali have shots like that, looks like Miami Vice has them as well. ...


Exciting times.

You know digital is coming of age when Fincher and Mann are using it.

Hopefully not. I didn't like that typical HDcam look you can see in some scenes of Collateral. He is a brilliant picture composer and always has superb lighting. However, a camera assistant who was obviously working on Miami Vice said they had major complaints and Michael Mann doesn't want to work with it again.
Anybody better infos ?


There's also registration issues with film that have to be dealt with when compositing. Video has zero wobble. Graeme

But that does make it ugly, don't you think ?
In comp its disturbing, but in projection I like to see a little wobble. In fact I was disturbed myself when I saw EpisodeIII with that rocksteady end-credits maing it totally artificial.

[EL_STUPIDO]

studio's don't want to OWN camera's .. they can buy arri's today and they don't ... Hollywood loves to RENT .. they rent whole systems for features -whatever they need - 2 cameras or 8 camera's they rent ..if something goes wrong with the camera they make a call and it is replaced within a hr in LA ... in the long run it's just easier to rent for the studio's/producers ...

so a Pan-Red, Clairmont-Red, Otto-Red IMO will happen ..they will be full system camera's ( they will have their own modified cages etc) so the camera can be used with all current gear at rental house ...
.

Yeah on that note I was reading an interview with Singer that he has his own set of lenses at Pana. They are his lenses and he has used them on every signle film from Suspects to Supes. It's a new look or something, but it's familar or something. I'd have to dig the magazine out again to be more specific.

Off topic, a couple of my friends worked on Supes in Australia and said Singer was allegedly loco. Obessive compulsive type. "Where's my hand wipes" & peanut butter jar replaced every day in his apartment type of dude. Also Parker Pose is supposedly being sued for trashing the apartment she stayed in whilst she was in Potts Point. Also allegedly Kate Bosworth broke up with Orlando Bloom during the shoot at started bonking a dude that looked like Orlando. Then Bloom showed up and they got back together.... Allegedly.

I guess film crews are gossipy. Take with a grain of salt. But I thought I'd share anyway.

El Stupido

[The Sarlacc]

Yeah on that note I was reading an interview with Singer that he has his own set of lenses at Pana. They are his lenses and he has used them on every single film from Suspects to Supes. It's a new look or something, but it's familar or something. I'd have to dig the magazine out again to be more specific.


Geez...lets not perpetuate the usual big budget gossip...I'm sure most of have stories, all third hand.

To the real stuff. Thomas Sigel's First AC...one of the industry top dogs is Jimmy Jensen. He is a really cool cat.

Anyway, when you are that big of an AC over at Panavision woodland hills you literally get what you want when you want it.

So, Most big ACs over there hand pick their sets of lenses, epsecially the primes. They go to the lens dept with the lens tech and look at the lenses on a projector to make the closest matching set they can.

Jimmy made his set and keeps it on hold on Panavision. Anytime he preps a show over there for Thom, he gets those lenses.

Its good to be the king.

[EL_STUPIDO]

The article I read about Singer was real... and then you pretty much said the same thing I said about another dude re: keeping stuff at Pana.

Say... what gives?

I'd say the real stuff is: get your hand off it.

[The Sarlacc]

The article I read about Singer was real... and then you pretty much said the same thing I said about another dude re: keeping stuff at Pana.

Say... what gives?

I'd say the real stuff is: get your hand off it.

The article you read is in fact real. I read it too. And it said exactly what I said about Jimmy.

Singer doesn't keep anything at Panavision. He probably has hardly ever set foot in there, unless they done their test shooting on the stage there.

So, I did say what you said....but in a more accurate fashion. Not trying to trump you, just getting the facts straight.

As for your get off it comment, dont know what youre trying to say.

[toke lahti]

There's also registration issues with film that have to be dealt with when compositing. Video has zero wobble.
Good film cameras' have also almost zero wobble:
http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/tec_svt_multiformat_v10_tcm6-43174.pdf

Problem is film projector's wobble...

[Policar]

Good film cameras' have also almost zero wobble:
http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/tec_svt_multiformat_v10_tcm6-43174.pdf

Problem is film projector's wobble...

Speaking of Superman, Singer wasn't able to use 65mm because he said it was "too expensive" even for his $230 million+ budget.

And yet that show is shot in 65mm at 50fps? What's the budget on an episode? That's insane....

[Christian Berg]

Speaking of Superman, Singer wasn't able to use 65mm because he said it was "too expensive" even for his $230 million+ budget.

And yet that show is shot in 65mm at 50fps? What's the budget on an episode? That's insane....

This film was only shot for test purposes. The Swedish TV needed good original material for investigation of future HDTV and digital broadcasting. They let a team create a short movie witch was shot on 65mm and onlined in full quality.

[Robert Sanders]

Well, Singer's AC wouldn't have been able to use his favorite set of lenses in 65mm.

Pulling focus would've been even harder considering the reduced depth of field characteristics of 65mm. Scanning thousands of feet of 65mm negative would've cost a bundle, that's for sure. Kodak would've had to produce additional stocks just for Superman so they could fulfill the contract.

But I'm sure the 4k D.I. would've been groundbreaking.

[lboyce]

Just got back from "Superman Returns". If RED is anything REMOTELY similar in quality to the Genesis, than they're going to have to come up with a stronger word than "Revolutionary" to describe it.

[EL_STUPIDO]

does that mean you thought it looked good or bad??

E S

[xstimux]

yeah just saw Superman .... best digital movie I've ever seen hands down .... Genesis is legit! A perfectly soft but saturated DI didnt hurt either.

[The Sarlacc]

I saw a film print tonight.

I need to see it digitally projected.

Some scenes look like film...hard to tell.

Some scenes look like the HD of all HD, not a bad thing, just the look. sometimes its just tooooooo sharp...See AWFUL MAKE UP below.

The motion blur in pans is still TERRIBLE, but this is something that is much more noticable on a film out then digital projection.

The make up on the actors is AWFUL...looks like thick make up layered and caked on....and this did not help the over all look at the movie.


I really can't say this movie solidifed me on the Genesis being as good as I hoped. But again this film had so many effects, and so many alterations, and problems during production...its not a good example to begin with. And it ended up being a big test for the Genesis.

I just can't drool over it like the other two members are.

I think pretty much all of the best looking footage wound up in the trailers.

I really want to see Click...I've been seeing the trailers for months and had no clue it was shot on the Genesis...Now, THAT is a true sign of quality.

[tonacidigital]

"The make up on the actors is AWFUL...looks like thick make up layered and caked on....and this did not help the over all look at the movie."

I'd have to agree the females looked cakey...but superman looked pretty cool to me. Does anyone know how they did that "flawless skin" effect for superman? Even though it made him plasticky and unreal looking, I liked the effect. In photoshop, it's easy to manipulate a person's skin to be perfect... how do they do the same thing in video? Do you have to painstakingly go in frame by frame to pull the effect off? I know makeup plays a huge role..but makeup alone couldn't have pulled off the effect. Any insight would be much appreciated. If you know any article links or books to go to, that would be cool too. thanks!

add on: I did a google search and stumbled onto this article.
http://scottwesterfeld.com/blog/?cat=4

Pretty interesting, however, it still doesn't explain the process of making perfect digital skin in video.

[The Sarlacc]

"The make up on the actors is AWFUL...looks like thick make up layered and caked on....and this did not help the over all look at the movie."

I'd have to agree the females looked cakey...but superman looked pretty cool to me. Does anyone know how they did that "flawless skin" effect for superman? Even though it made him plasticky and unreal looking, I liked the effect. In photoshop, it's easy to manipulate a person's skin to be perfect... how do they do the same thing in video? Do you have to painstakingly go in frame by frame to pull the effect off? I know makeup plays a huge role..but makeup alone couldn't have pulled off the effect. Any insight would be much appreciated. If you know any article links or books to go to, that would be cool too. thanks!

add on: I did a google search and stumbled onto this article.
http://scottwesterfeld.com/blog/?cat=4

Pretty interesting, however, it still doesn't explain the process of making perfect digital skin in video.

I'm pretty sure it was make up....you could see in all the close ups.

[bgundu]

I know for a fact that a lot of post was done to clean up the makeup. What I found strange is that they didn't bother to use colored contact lenses and instead changed eye colors in post. There was also alot of pimple cleanup in post for young clark.

[The Sarlacc]

Interesting if the look for superman's skin was intentional.

But I never picked up on it before (seeing as he is supposed to look human.)
So, no mention of Supes having this perfect ethereal skin made me not like the look of it.

[Greg Lowry]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but in the trailers I thought that the skin tones, particularly in the closeups, looked surprisingly waxy and unnatural -- almost like bad colorization. I thought it might be an unfortunate Panavision Genesis artifact, but it is more likely due to some post processing.

[lboyce]

I just saw the movie again this morning for the second time and have no idea what you guys are talking about. Didn't notice any "Bad makeup" or "bad skin". I thought it all looked amazing. The movie just blew me away. Every last bit of it.

[tonacidigital]

"bgundu"

could you please share the techniques that are done in post to clean up? Is there any particular plugin used to clean up with? Or is it all done painstakingly frame by frame?

[bgundu]

"bgundu"

could you please share the techniques that are done in post to clean up? Is there any particular plugin used to clean up with? Or is it all done painstakingly frame by frame?

To clarify, I only worked on the 3D Imax version of the film. Shots were constantly updated to the latest version. So I noticed with each version that we recieved, color grading and skin details were modified. If I had to guess how it was cleaned up, I'd guess making animated masks that revealed to blurred or smoothed out versions. And in some cases tracking and painting out stuff using interpolated paint strokes.

[The Sarlacc]

I just saw the movie again this morning for the second time and have no idea what you guys are talking about. Didn't notice any "Bad makeup" or "bad skin". I thought it all looked amazing. The movie just blew me away. Every last bit of it.

When was the last time you had your eyes checked? :nads:


;)

[lboyce]

2 weeks ago. Saw it again tonight. Just got back.

[The Sarlacc]

me thinks you are blinded by the hype then ;)

I do plan on seeing it at least one more time digitally projected. Perhaps at the Chinese...

I am watching the original right now...I will admit Singer does an uncanny job making Returns feel just likes Donner's 70's version.

[The Sarlacc]

And as I am sitting here watching the original I am realizing they literally took a TON of the exact same dialogue and out it in the new movie...not sure how I feel about that...omage or blatant rip off?

[lboyce]

Saw it for the fifth time tonight. Still no sign of bad makeup. Still brilliant. I'm desperately in love with this movie.

[Haakon]

I won't post my review of the movie here as it's not appropriate to this forum (besides which, lboyce would probably have me lynched), but as far as the visual quality of the "film" is concerned, I think it's one of the best looking movies I've ever seen. It's unbelievably clean (even as far as digital goes - I think the Genesis looks remarkably superior to everything else I've seen shot with the Viper), the colors are great, and the low light stuff looked stellar. If you're a fan of film grain, don't go see Superman Returns.

As far as the "makeup" issue, I wasn't aware of it being a big deal on anyone except Brandon (and even then, it didn't look like "caked on makeup" to me as much as some sort of plasticy digital touch up). I didn't care for it at all. I also wasn't aware that his eyes were color corrected in post, because it looked to me like he was wearing fake contacts the entire time. I guess the digital process ended up looking the same. Either way, neither the weird appearance of his skin or the fake look of his eyes have anything to do with what the Genesis was capable of, and I must say that in that regard, I was handily impressed.

[Gibby]

Hey Haakon-

I haven't seen it yet, but I'll check it out.

On another note, what an awesome California license plate - "I DO 24P". How did you score that? Way cool...

Gibby
RED camera #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

[Chris Stout]

I hear it's not a make up issue. Brandon Routh is actually made of plastic. They had to touch him up with computers to make him look more flesh-like, not the other way around. (But they could only touch up his acting so much.)

And yet that didn't stop the movie from completely ruling. God bless you, Bryan Singer.

And yes, the Genesis performed gorgeously. There was only one night shot (when he's dropping the girl off at the hospital) that I was aware of some digital grain. But that could just be a crappy Delaware print...

[lboyce]

Brandon did say in an interview that he had to wear contacts for the blue eyes. I remember because he said they kind of hurt.

[Jarred Land]

I hear it's not a make up issue. Brandon Routh is actually made of plastic.

jesus that made me fall off my chair.

[pretopost]

jesus that made me fall off my chair.

The 7:30 SHow is the Same as the 6:30!!!

[Thomas Mathai]

Superman was ok as far as the movie goes, way too quiet moments.

As far as the look, I saw it at Mann's Village where it was digitally projected.

It wasn't bad, some scenes looked better than other scenes.

Overall it was still lacking in the contrast range. A characteristic I see in all HD films is a grayish "veil" over the image.


Since this is still the beginning of HD for studio films, there will be more room for improvement

[alpha omega117]

Since this is still the beginning of HD for studio films, there will be more room for improvement

There will always be something better.

[The Sarlacc]

Superman was ok as far as the movie goes, way too quiet moments.

As far as the look, I saw it at Mann's Village where it was digitally projected.

It wasn't bad, some scenes looked better than other scenes.

Overall it was still lacking in the contrast range. A characteristic I see in all HD films is a grayish "veil" over the image.


Since this is still the beginning of HD for studio films, there will be more room for improvement

Actually, Scary Movie 4 and Click beat Superman to the big screen...both also shot with the Genesis...I recently learned all this.

Anyway, I saw it again tonight at the Mann's Chinese.

The Digital Projection looked much better as I knew it would. I still have some hang ups. My friend who was seeing it for the first time had the same complaints about Routh looking like plastic, and some of the make up (mainly on Parker Posey) just looking bad.

We both want to see Click for some comparision.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie a lot more this time, mainly because I re-watched the original...but again, some hangups.

[Batutta]

I was slightly underwhelmed by the look of the Genesis. Was expecting more of an improvement from the previoius panavision camera. I still saw the same, slightly pastelish quality to the colors, not quite as much color range as film. I think what people are seeing as bad make-up is this. Flesh tones appear as one solid color rather than a subtle gradation. And the blacks seemed to drop off to pure black much quicker than with film. The cinematography itself was gorgeous, but for me, it was too pretty. It gave everything a fake, backlot sheen...I've posted my thoughts on the film elsewhere on this message board. The short version -- I was bored for long stretches of this film, and not because there wasn't any 'splodo on screen. There just wasn't anything of interest going on.

[The Sarlacc]

There is a great article in this month's American Cinematographer about Superman. Thomas Newton Sigel, ASC even talks about the vertical line problem amongst everything else.

[hobbes]

Does anyone know of other projects (movies, commercials, music videos?) that have also been shot with the Genesis?

Just to complete the list - and I really dunny which ones have already been mentioned - here are some feature films shot with the genesis:

Flyboys
La Maison du Bonheur
Scary Movie 4
Click
Apocalypto
Emty City
Grind House
A Tiger's Tale
Deja Vu
Next
The Lookout
The Ferryman

And some TV stuff:

Night Stalker
Conviction
What About Brian
Faceless
In Case Of Emergency
Brothers & Sisters
52 Fights
Protégé

("THE FIRST YEAR - 8 COUNTRIES - 4 CONTINENTS - 1 LEADER - PANAVISION GENESIS" .... well, o-k, but, uhm - NO RED!!!!)

[acoreasc]

in regards to the blacks, in this months AC - Siegel talks about the extended range in the blacks for HD and he estimated about a 1/2 to 1 full stop lower in the highlights as opposed to film. HE also said he crushed his blacks in post to increase his contrast as the Genesis gave him even more detail in the blacks than he anticipated.