There is a video study on Panavision's website:
Go to:In 2007 a major automobile manufacturer commissioned a comparison test to determine if they should continue shooting their commercials on film or migrate into high definition using the top of the line Genesis camera from Panavision.
The test was shot and put through DI under the supervision of Allen Daviau, ASC independent from Panavision. After the process was complete we were provided the exact footage you are about to see.
And watch the test. Then see if you can guess. Sadly results are not avialable NOW, but we can discuss, and I will be sure to resurrect this forum topic when the results are released! I've already guessed and submitted. I'll tell you what I thought in a bit. I'll give others time to guess uninfluenced. ;)
Results 1 to 10 of 26
06-30-2008 12:31 AM
06-30-2008 07:51 AM
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- The Sunshine State
My guess would be A, C, E for the Genesis and the B, D, F for film. But I've been fooled before.
06-30-2008 10:15 AM
Actualy it all looks like video to me, thou there is som better lattitude on some scenes.
Assuming they want to show that the Genisis has better lattitude than film it may be exactly those clips.
06-30-2008 12:39 PM
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
If you're final output is going to be compressed SD like this video does it really matter that much whether you originate on film or digital except in terms of latitude?
Frank, they may not necessarily be trying to show that the Genesis has as good as or better latitude than film. Panavision rents out film cameras too so this is kind of a win-win test for them.
06-30-2008 01:32 PM
I cant concentrate on that, the music they used is the same music I used on a tv advert and it now irritates the hell out of me. I cant stop thinking about horses when I hear that tune....Be the HoFos friend: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pi...62&ref=profile
07-01-2008 06:48 PM
I can't tell the difference. You can't use highly compressed small clips like that to judge the difference between those formats.
07-01-2008 08:33 PM
I agree, its compressed to no end. I also think it was purposely shot in a such a way that the film is meant to look as much like video as possible and vice versa. I was trying to judge by dynamic range/softness but I couldn't tell the difference, however with me personally, I don't thing any of those images were cinematic.
07-01-2008 08:57 PM
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
i think that is the irony of the test: that they didn't spend 20 to 30K to do a test shoot with proper crew & lighting to make cinematographic magic--if they would have spent that much to prove genesis was the better camera with captivating imagery, it'd be a drop in bucket that they could easily recoup.
i had a hard time watching the whole thing all the way through. let alone get excited to determine the better technology.
07-01-2008 09:55 PM
Can still post a reply though, so what if it wasn't a perfect cinematic quality shoot or view.
It appears as if the second of each shot was the film one.
More of these independent tests need to be done but they must be kept independent as in no sponsoring by any manufacturer Sony, Red, Panasonic or Panavision. I tried to organize a shoot with all the top HD and high res cameras side by side 35mm got to expensive though.
As our eyes don't see resolution they see contrast and the differences between the detail in a shot. Tests like these should be a combination of a scene and resolution charts, to be able to tell color depth, dynamic range and detail. Either way the more votes the better as image quality and resolution tests are highly subjective.Nir Shelter - Data Wrangler/DIT/AC/3D engineer (3Ality)
07-02-2008 02:27 AM
i agree, the compression is terrible, too hard to tell.
BUT... I do know they had a white truck! I was watching the reflections trying to see the camera. haha, yeah I tried to cheat.--------------------------------------------------------