Panavision running scared from the 5DII
- Thread starter f64manray
- Start date
Hunter Hampton
Carbonite Member
Here is the thing, last quote I got on the Genisis= $5k/day for a full package (recorder with lenses and aks)- and to my knowledge the Genisis cameras keep busy as many TV series and features are shot on them. Which is why I say there would be no reason for them to be scared of the canon cameras.
I shoot with the canon 5dm2 almost every week and intercut with Red and film if needed but the 5dm2 still is not a "real" A-camera on larger budget critical projects- its an amazing B-camera and low-light/theft shot camera but its a long way from replacing a pro film style camera. Which is why Im calling BS on this : )!
I shoot with the canon 5dm2 almost every week and intercut with Red and film if needed but the 5dm2 still is not a "real" A-camera on larger budget critical projects- its an amazing B-camera and low-light/theft shot camera but its a long way from replacing a pro film style camera. Which is why Im calling BS on this : )!
No. But you'll see.
You're talking about a major cinema name that got its ass handed to them once this decade by Jim Jannard, and is still alive. Come on, now.
Nobody afraid of these things. Jim taught plenty of folks a lesson, those who paid attention to the substitute teacher figured out what to do when the next test came around.
Just wait. Lol.
ydgmdlu
Veteran
Feel free to show me an example of a TV show or movie for broadcast or theaters in which a high-level DP like Rodney Charters or Shane Hurlbut specifically shunned the Genesis, or any other digital cinema camera, or film, in favor of the 5D or any other DSLR. So we're not talking about "SNL" sketches and intros or commercials or online shorts or Web series. Do you think that Charters will shoot the entire next season of "24" on the 5D now? After all, he supposedly prefers it to the Genesis, not to mention the HD cameras that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I've read (from you, I think) that Charters did attempt to shoot one show using a bunch of 5Ds. But it was just a pilot (not even a full series!), and he wanted to simultaneously capture several different points of view. (Hmmm... Reminds me of what the Crank 2 guys were trying to do...) For something like that, or something small like a Web series, a commercial, or an SNL sketch, the Genesis wouldn't even make sense. Yesterday, I read that the Genesis costs $4000 to rent per day. It costs even more than a 35mm film package! So in that sort of scenario, a DSLR wouldn't be a bad choice at all. It would be a reasonably preferable choice, I agree!
BTW, what do you think was used to shoot Cloverfield? It has that cheap, crappy, home video look, right? So it must've just used a bunch of cheap prosumer camcorders like the HVX200, right? Wrong. It used a digital cinema camera for most of its shots.
There have been numerous screenings for members of the American Society of Cinematographers that have shown how similar footage from cameras like the Genesis and the RED One look compared to film. Panavision even has an online version of such a side-by-side comparison. These tests have been done sporadically over the last few years. So why haven't we seen the death of film yet?
I'm a digital guy. I wouldn't shoot film unless I could do it for nearly free, and if I didn't have to handle it at all from production through post-production. But even then, I might not prefer film. I've made my choice. It doesn't mean that I believe that digital is superior to film. It doesn't mean that I believe that digital is a suitable general replacement for film. I'm aware of digital's strengths and weaknesses in comparison, and if I attempt to use digital as a general replacement for film, it's because I accept and am willing to work with the limitations.
The same thing goes for DSLRs versus traditional prosumer camcorders like the XH-A1, EX1, and HVX200/HMC150. But why in the world would I choose a DSLR as a general replacement for a real digital cinema camera, if I could afford it?
You're the one hyping DSLRs like the 5D. Neither Rodney Charters nor Shane Hurlbut has said or implied anything to the effect of, "Now that I have a 5D (or two, or three, etc.) I don't want to shoot on the Genesis/RED/F35/Viper/Origin/Phantom/etc. or film anymore; this DSLR is a better choice for me for most of what I do," has he?
Strawman. I'm not talking about the difference in talent. I'm talking about all of the various technical gotchas that don't apply to high-end camcorders and digital cinema cameras.
Imagine this: Newbie wants to make videos that look like film. He reads about the amazing possibilities of DSLRs. Not just the great advantages of shallow DOF, 24p, low-light performance, and interchangeable lenses, but also stuff like "More and more DPs are choosing the 5D over the Genesis." Stoked, he eagerly drops a few thousand dollars on a basic kit. PROFESSIONAL cinema-quality at a too-good-to-be-true price! He attempts to shoot footage like he's used to seeing in the theatre. Action footage. Fine, repeating patterns. And oops, he just slightly botched the exposure and white balance, but he can fix it in post.
He downloads the footage to his computer and starts editing. What does he see? Rolling shutter skew. Moire, weird color fringing, sparking edges. Mud. He tries to color- and gamma-correct and what not, and the footage just falls apart before his eyes. So what's running through his mind now?
"But... But... Professional DPs like that guy who shot '24' (all handheld, lots of fast action) chose the 5D over the Genesis!"
Those problems wouldn't even occur, for the most part, with the HVX200. No rolling shutter skew. No aliasing. No mud. Much more forgiving to post adjustment. A real digital cinema camera, like the Genesis, is even better, and there's no need to compromise on resolution, DOF, or low-light. A digital cinema camera is technically superior to a DSLR in almost every single way. So why would a pro DP choose a DSLR over a digital cinema camera, unless the digital cinema camera was never really in consideration anyway?
Last edited:
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
That is kind of the point. If Jim Jannard handed Panavision their ass, it was first done by the making of a great camera, but a lot of the success of the Red camera can also be attributed to the unique relationship that Red has had with their customers. Red developed a line of dialogue with the end users, that has been very unique.
I think that Panavision could have a great opportunity to develop a similar relationship with up and coming DPs, who are now using the V-DSLRs, because of economics mostly, to start using Panavision glass. As these up and comers start to use more high end cameras, since they have developed a relationship with Panavision, by using their glass, many of them may migrate to using Panavision cameras. I mean, everytime someone comes to Panavision to test out or pick up a set of lenses, they could be pitched the advantages of using Panavision cameras. Since they have been using Panavision glass, when they get to the point where they have a $5k a day camera budget, and want to continue to use Panavision glass, wouldn't it be reasonable for them to now consider the Panavision cameras?
Ok, maybe I am being naive.... I still cry when "Ol' Yeller" dies! for gosh sake!
I really have no idea what these DPs future plans are, but I would doubt that a 5DII would replace the main camera on a multi million dollar production for a myriad of reason discussed here in the past which I'm sure we're both aware of (no need to repeat it). The idea that DPs are selecting these HDSLRS over the Genesis was taken from the Tweet exchange between these DPs. They were speculating that Panavision was destroying their EOS mounts in order to protect their digital cams. I don't know why Panavision would try to damage their lens rental sales by doing this, but that is the result of that action. It really make no sense. They were just speculating as to why.
I think the answer to this question is kind of obvious. This digital tech is all fairly new. Red is fairly new and they'll be making more serious advances in the coming year. VDSLRs just exploded in the past year. I have little doubt that the cine camera that we all envision that is based on these sensors is in the works unless Canon is completely tone deaf. Film is on it's way out, and I think you'll see the majority of features shot in digital within 10 years. Film is already essentially dead in still photography. Kind of sad because I have some state of the art Darkroom equipment. The writing is on the wall. I don't think it takes a bold visionary to say film is dying. ..and I've been a film guy for 20 years.
No, my enthusiasm comes directly from industry professionals like Hurlbut, Charters, Laforet and the director of "Chariots of Fire". Professionals that have decades of experience that are over the moon about the 5DII. Frankly, I thought the 5D would be just an adequate camera for what I needed it for until they started to pipe up about it. Then I thought, WTF, that's pretty cool. What happened to audio in the late 90's is now happening to cinema.
Again, the notion that Panavion was destroying their EOS mounts to protect their digital cameras came from the tweet exchange involving Bloom, Laforet and Charters.
Hurlbut uses the 5D for much of what he does. He has 15 of them in different configs to go at a moments notice on set ready to tackle any shot.
Charters used the 5D for 50% of the "Washington Field" shoot for network television.
They are very excited about it and are promoting the use of these HDSLRS professionally and (Hurlbut) recently at a film school. You would have to ask them if they would use it in place of the cameras you mentioned.
Really, who cares about this newbie? If he hasn't bothered to do his home work, then like everything else in life, garbage in, garbage out. The results are obtainable, and if he applies himself by gaining knowledge and experience, knows the stregths and weaknesses of hs gear, he will get good results.
ydgmdlu
Veteran
Thank for you for clarifying how you actually agree with me.
But again, that statement is equivocal. Equivocal meaning that it could be interpreted several different ways and probably the wrong way. When a DP uses the 5D instead of the Genesis, then in a sense he is choosing one over the other. But it's not really a choice if the Genesis didn't make sense for the situations in which the 5D was used instead. The Genesis so heavy that it's nicknamed the "Genocide," and it's expensive to rent even by Hollywood standards. The 5D is insanely small, light, and cheap by comparison. For productions in which video quality can be compromised in favor of the unique advantages of a DSLR, then a Genesis wouldn't even be considered. You can't even use several Genesis units on set all at once because Panavision's entire Genesis stock might be too limited to allow it.
What would you think if someone said that Hollywood filmmakers chose a prosumer and a consumer handycam over the Genesis? One of three things might come to mind:
1) The filmmakers were going for a very particular effect on a single project.
2) The filmmakers have lost their minds.
3) Viva la revolucion! Affordable video gear has finally become good enough to make expensive digital cinema cameras obsolete!
If you didn't know better, you'd think #3. #3 must be a common delusion nowadays given how much hype there is around the DSLRs. So ambiguous statements like "More and more DPs are choosing the 5D over the Genesis" just help feed the hype and delusion.
Look at it this way: When a gay man hooks up with another man, is he really choosing that man over a woman? (And I don't want to get into a political or religious debate — ha!)
A less misleading way to state what you were apparently trying to say would be, "More and more DPs are using the 5D professionally and want to rent Panavision lenses without having the Genesis bundled along with them." I would have absolutely zero objection to that.
Enthusiasm is good, but allowing that enthusiasm to mislead others is not.
But he still didn't trust it enough to use it for 100% of the shoot, did he? So he must've used his 5Ds because they offered him a unique shooting option, not a replacement for his A-camera.
I think that's a brilliant idea. Every film student should learn to shoot on a DSLR.
Now that's just arrogant. How was he supposed to know better if he was filled with falsely inspired confidence from statements like, "More and more DPs are choosing the 5D over the Genesis"? What a way to blame the victim. As I've said, traditional camcorders don't have the sort of serious technical gotchas that the DSLRs do. The only homework that should be necessary is reading the manual. But the manual doesn't talk about the rolling shutter, the aliasing, the inferior color space, possible compression break-down, and the limited dynamic range, does it?
How many people, a lot of them decently experienced, bought a 5D/7D/GH1/D90/etc. based on the hype and the potential, without knowing to spend serious time reading sites like DVXuser, DV Info Net, and cinema5D to learn about the shortcomings and the workarounds, information that isn't available anywhere else, information that's only become available thanks to weeks and months of testing and discussion by members of these forums? I'm very thankful to be part of this community, but I shudder when I think about all of the people out there who are attempting to shoot their movies on DSLRs without realizing that such important information is found at sites like this one. And even some people who do spend a lot of time here still run into problems, still lack understanding of certain crucial details, and still discover nasty surprises on their shoots, paid and otherwise.
Example: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=191338
You want to tell that guy, "Really, who cares about you? It's your own fault; you deserve what happened as a result of your ignorance and laziness"? Why don't you go post that in his thread? He has an HMC150. Can you really blame him for expecting his new 7D to not have those technical gotchas, which the HMC150 doesn't have?
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
THANK YOU. That's exactly what we're trying to do here, because whether people agree with us or not, our focus is on the users, not on the particular cameras. This is DVXUser.com, not DVX.com or 7D.com or HMC40.com. It's DVXUser, about the users (started with users of DVXs, but now encompasses all shooters).
And when new and disruptive technology comes along, there are frequently new rules to the game that need to be learned. It happened with CMOS. It's happening with aliasing. It needs to be explored, learned, figured out, gotten around, and taught. And we will always stand forth and teach folks what it is we've learned.
Falsely inspired confidence? I probably wouldn't have done most of what I've done in my life without being falsely inspired with confidence.
Look, get a grip. People are not going to just read that statement and go make a movie. And if you did give a newbie a Genesis for free and a 7D, which one will they return with the most usable footage from?
If you take me as overly encouraging, you could come across as equally overly discouraging. That's what's great about this site. Newbies that come here will get both points of view. Someone new trying to figure all this out might walk away from some threads here thinking the 7D/5DII are a POS and not worth their time, and you know that would be a mistake.
This site is invaluable with tremendous contributors, but some threads here might not inspire a beginning film maker to action.
As has been said here in the past by Barry and others. The 5D might not be the ideal vehicle to get you from point A to point B, but it will get you there. Charters, Hurlbut and others would agree. They are positive and uplifting. That tends to be my nature as well. There's plenty of the other to go around in this world, and I'd rather not be a part of it. It is not misleading to encourage people that are new to the process of film making to use these cameras. There will be technical hurdles no matter what camera they choose ... the camera being the least of them with talent being the most insurmountable.
Last edited:
ydgmdlu
Veteran
If by that, you mean, "Don't be afraid to take risks," or "You won't know what you can't do until you try," then yeah, I totally agree. I also agree that a major advantage of these new tools is that they will inspire a new wave of creativity, just like the tools that came before them. For that reason, I will be a cheerleader for the DSLRs against other people who will say that they're not good enough for serious work. I posted a supportive comment in that thread about whether or not a 7D would be suitable for a feature production. Why else would I trade my XH-A1 for a 7D and a GH1, if I did not believe in them? I have said, more than once, that I prefer a DSLR over any traditional camcorder now. And why else would I spend so much time posting in all of the DSLR forums here?
You don't see how it could give them the wrong idea? An equally encouraging and less misleading statement would simply be, "More and more DPs, big names like Rodney Charters and Shane Hurlbut, are using the 5D for professional work." There's no need to bring the Genesis, RED One, F35, or any other digital cinema camera into this. The problem is that in the English language, saying that "x has been chosen over y" is typically understood to mean that "x is generally better than y." You didn't even bother to qualify the statement with reasons why a DP might use a 5D instead of the Genesis. Hence, the impression that the statement gives is that the 5D is a better choice for general work than the Genesis. Under that impression, people will attempt to do things that the camera doesn't handle well at all, expecting it to be OK. And that's when they can get screwed on a shoot. Do you really expect them to just sit down in front of a computer for several hours reading page after page and thread after thread in these forums, instead of saying "Sounds great! Let's go shoot!" Talk to a bunch of people who are new to the 5D (or any other DSLR), and who are ready to go shoot, and see how many can recite for you everything that we have come to know through months of reading these forums. People just want to start shooting and putting their cameras to work as soon as possible. They might not even bother reading the manual first.
Do you think that a newbie gives any serious thought to how much work and knowledge and skill is required to shoot with the Genesis? Newbies are inclined to think that the more awesome the camera is, the better their projects will be, even though that flies in the face of reason. How many people who were new to DSLRs just bought one to jump on the bandwagon and then felt totally lost when they tried to use their new cameras? Good sense might dictate that one should understand the operating principles of DSLRs before attempting to shoot, but that's not the way that people think and behave.
And how do you know that the Genesis is any more confusing than the 5D to a complete newbie?
I don't recall anyone in these forums calling or implying that the DSLRs are a POS. Quite the contrary. If someone doesn't find the cameras to be worth his/her time, that's his/her problem. You can't force a person to like or invest in a camera. But being aware of reality (i.e. the issues with the cameras) shouldn't necessarily turn one's opinion 180 degrees. It should be used to protect oneself from unexpected failures. What's better: Understanding the problems and compensating beforehand, even if it means diminished enthusiasm, or being blindly enthusiastic until the camera fails to do with the user wants it to do, causing a loss of trust in the camera as a valuable tool? Which one's more discouraging and disturbing?
Do they all have to do that to be valuable?
A guy typed an entire novel on his smartphone while riding public transit every day. I find that to be positive and uplifting. It makes me look at my iPhone in a different way. It encourages me as a writer. But does it delude me into thinking that I could accomplish the same feat? No, I would never want to write a novel on my iPhone!
How are qualifying your statements, noting caveats, and discussing problems examples of negativity that leads to discouragement? Sometimes, the truth hurts, and you have to live with it and deal with it. Unless you're advocating blissful ignorance?
Encouragement is one thing. Acting like, or even outright saying that, the problems don't matter is another thing. Rolling shutter, aliasing, mud, etc. are a completely different conversation from how to get started shooting with a DSLR (which is what people really want to know and care about at first). I've had enough conversations around here to know that.
Last edited:
I could not agree more with this statement more. This site while about users, was spawned from a piece of technology that was ground breaking at the time for INDYS based on what was available to us at that price point. I think people loose sight of the whole "indy" thing here. How many Red owners are on here? How many people are still shooting with a DVX and giving blood on campus to buy a used one? I'm sorry after spending lots of money on adapters and cameras and never getting what I really wanted, these things are a god send. I don't have to light for 100 ASA with adapter, and spend my house payment on a 35 f1.4 lens to squeeze out an extra stop of light. These arguments are almost classicist, the few with access to any camera they desire and great rental prices (because you live in NY or LA), crushing the dreamers who are truly making independent no budget movies. I mean damn, did we all not just see what Paranormal Activity did? That POS would not have taken first place in the Monster Fest, but dream he did, a 60 million dollar dream! Now on the flip...these cameras are not Red's and the are not even close to a Genesis. LaForet was not a DP until he shot Reviere (still debatable), so until Claudio Miranda ditches a Genesis for the 5d, i'm not buying the Tweet of two shooters as a professional level movement. What's really hilarious in all of this is how many Hollywood DP's still hate digital.
If you would like to start a thread about all the things you just discussed, feel free, but none of them really have anything to do with this thread which is about "Panavision melting down their EOS mounts". Let's not hijack it. It was postulated in the Tweet exchange between some industry people that the reason was to protect their upper end digital cameras. The net effect of this action is an attempt to keep DPs from using Panavision lenses on these new Canon cameras. But why? If you have some speculation as to why. Please share THAT.
Shane Hurlbut has testified that the image quality is excellent and very sharp when projected on a 60 foot screen when used with Panavision lenses but soft with Canon lenses.
Does Panavision know this as well?
Has Panavision tested their lenses side by side with their Genesis and projected them on a 60 foot screen?
Did Panavision feel somewhat insecure when seeing how close the two cameras were in image quality thereby melting all of their EOS mounts?
I don't know. I'm just an American asking questions. But I really have a burning desire to see this 5DII I've heard spoken of projected on a 60 foot screen with Panavision lenses. It's too bad no one here has seen this either.
Are statements like this from Neil at Hdi making Panavision uneasy?
We've been totally surprised by the interest shown in our RED/Canon shoot with Rodney .... we're a strong RED post-house (very first images of the first RED prototype were graded in our theater) and have finished a ton of RED movies .... but this Canon thing seems to have caught everyone by surprise ... we're eagerly awaiting the arrival of Scarlet and Epic but in the meantime will continue to push forward the harmonious integration of RED RAW and Canon H.264 .... if you'd had told me nine months ago that I would be taking an 8 bit H.264 codec seriously as an acquisition medium, I'd have said you were crazy. It's being used on many TV shows now and if you've had a chance to see Vincent LaForest RED/EOS 5d MkII Surfer reel or 'Nocturne' you might be surprised .... we screened Vincent's Surfer video on the 60 ft screen and LA Film school and it looked amazing
.... as a professional DI house we care fanatically about every pixel we grade .... this was primarily an exercise in seeing if a $1700 HD DSLR could hold up against a $17,000 4k digital cinema camera when projected in a professional DI environment .... I was totally skeptical before the shoot but when Rodney Charters, ASC, takes the Canon cameras seriously, you have to at least give them a whirl.
After the shoot and grading all three cameras in our highly calibrated DI environment we've become much more open minded about the possibility of intercutting well shot 5D and 7D with well shot RED ONE.
Or is Panavision more concerned about the upcoming 1DIV?
we demoed the Canon EOS 1D MkII at the HD Expo Intensive Workshop last week and 150 experienced photographers were blown away by the low-light capability of the 1D .... we had Kalani (the model in the RED/Canon Intercut Reel) at one end of the long room and the 1D Mk IV at the other and turned all the lights off ... there was some reflected light of the projection screen but I could not make out the details of Kalani's face from the camera position ... we slowly cranked up the ISO setting and bang! .... it was like looking at Kalani in broad daylight with very little noise.
Yes, the low-light capability of EOS 1D Mk IV is truly amazing ... to hear 150 photographers in a crowded room all inhale at the same time and then start breathing again was quite something.
Disclaimer: If you're a newbie trying to decide on a camera, please disregard the previous statements. These HDSLRS were used by professionals. Your results and sad attempts to obtain anything matching those impressive results will only meet in frustration and disappointment. Results are totally dependant upon knowledge and experience. Anything you produce will most likely suck. Count on it. Expect it.
If you have a comment related to the topic of this thread, please share it.
Last edited:
ydgmdlu
Veteran
I'm curious to know (1.) why you started this thread, (2.) what the point of such speculation is, and (3.) why you titled the thread "Panavision running scared from the 5DII." I don't see how any of those leads to much productive discussion. Please correct me if I'm totally off-base, but my distinct impression is that it's a rhetorical tactic to hype the camera.
Who cares why Panavision melted their EF-mount adapters, other than a small minority of users here who could afford to rent Panavision lenses? What knowledge is to be gained from speculating, with a total lack of other facts, about why some company did something seemingly inexplicable? And if Panavision doesn't want to rent to Canon EOS users, so what, especially if third parties make off-brand adapters? There's a huge difference between reporting news and explicitly encouraging speculation about it and also spinning it like you have.
How does this news affect the average, money-strapped, guerilla-filmmaking member of DVXuser? I mean, really, what is the "average Joe" here supposed to think in response to a post entitled "Panavision running scared from the 5DII," with statements like "More and more DPs are choosing the 5D over the Genesis"?
I've crafted my response to be well within the stated parameters of the topic...
I totally agree that statements from serious professionals like the above are very encouraging to us users of DSLRs, as well as people interested in getting DSLRs. But still nothing is gained from glossing over the downsides of these cameras. And I'm sorry if you don't like that.
Last edited: