Jump to content


Flyboys are go!


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 Jim Murdoch

Jim Murdoch
  • Guests

Posted 25 May 2005 - 05:13 AM

Panavision are still clammed up tighter than a clam's proverbial concerning details of any current projects using the Genesis, but I stumbled on this war movies forum which contains some interesting information on Flyboys:

the-Pacific-war.com

You'll need to scroll down through the entries to the bottom to get to the one that's relevant. (I didn't want to quote the whole thing directly for copyright reasons)

It appears they chose digital cameras mainly because it allows them more flexibility with shooting the aerobatic stuff. In other words, they actually had a good reason :D

It's a smallish ($60 million) production, and to quote:

"It?s being financed completely independently - no studio, no distributor ? a major, if not unprecedented, accomplishment for our producer, Dean Devlin (INDEPENDENCE DAY, THE PATRIOT.) It was written by David Ward (THE STING, SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE) and it stars James Franco (SPIDERMAN, JAMES DEAN) and Jean Reno (THE PROFESSIONAL, RONIN). All the other lead actors are relative unknowns in their 20?s....no one?s faking their age. "

A radical concept for a radical format!

Edited by Jim Murdoch, 25 May 2005 - 05:14 AM.

  • 0

#2 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 May 2005 - 09:50 AM

Panavision are still clammed up tighter than a clam's proverbial concerning details of any current projects using the Genesis,


Are they really?

The following info has been available for weeks already on the Panavision-Alga website:

Aujourd?hui 6 caméras numériques GENESIS sont déjà en service en Australie pour le tournage du nouveau Superman, 4 tourneront en Grande Bretagne en mai prochain et pour la France les 2 premières rejoindront ALGA-TECHNOVISION à Paris dès le mois de juillet pour tourner début août sur un premier film français.


http://www.panavisio...&id=28&Itemid=2
  • 0

#3 Jim Murdoch

Jim Murdoch
  • Guests

Posted 28 May 2005 - 06:24 AM

Are they really?

The following info has been available for weeks already on the Panavision-Alga website:

Aujourd?hui 6 caméras numériques GENESIS sont déjà en service en Australie pour le tournage du nouveau Superman, 4 tourneront en Grande Bretagne en mai prochain et pour la France les 2 premières rejoindront ALGA-TECHNOVISION à Paris dès le mois de juillet pour tourner début août sur un premier film français.
http://www.panavisio...&id=28&Itemid=2

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And this is your idea of "details" is it? OK.
  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 28 May 2005 - 09:49 AM

And this is your idea of "details" is it? OK.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


What details do you want? A complete list of what items they are renting? I'm not sure what you think is being hidden.

I asked Panavision the other day who was using the Genesis and they pretty much told me. I don't recall all the details but I think currently they have almost 20 cameras built and nearly all of them are rented now (seven to "Superman", five to "Flyboys", two to "Click", and some 2-camera shoots I can't remember.) I think they said that the camera was $10,000/week to rent. Main problem they are having is that they can't build them fast enough for the demand.

I even asked "can I say publically that Dean Semler is shooting 'Click' with the Genesis?" and they said "sure".

I'm not sure why you keep trying to imagine some sort of conspiracy behind the Genesis. They built it... and now they are renting it. Seems pretty simple to me. Just because they aren't taking out adds in every paper to announce every production renting the camera does not constitute a cover-up. Just call Bob Harvey over at Panavision and ASK him.

Why wouldn't they want people to know that the Genesis is being used? It's like the line in "Dr. Strangelove": "Why build a Doomsday device... if you're going to keep it a secret???"
  • 0

#5 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 28 May 2005 - 10:21 AM

"Why build a Doomsday device... if you're going to keep it a secret???"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Now is DALSA afraid of a Doomsday gap ? :D

-Sam
  • 0

#6 Mike Brennan

Mike Brennan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 581 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 28 May 2005 - 05:12 PM

Will be interesting to see if any remote head f950s are used in cockpit on wing ect.

No remote head Genesis yet.

Mike Brennan
  • 0

#7 Jim Murdoch

Jim Murdoch
  • Guests

Posted 01 June 2005 - 06:32 AM

Why wouldn't they want people to know that the Genesis is being used? It's like the line in "Dr. Strangelove": "Why build a Doomsday device... if you're going to keep it a secret???"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have no idea WHY they didn't, I can only tell you that they didn't, and I know for a fact that they were told not to give out any more information than the misleading drivel on their website. Until very recently it was just about impossible to get any real technical information out of them.

Oh sure, it's common knowledge NOW, but mainly because outside people got the information through the back door and publicised it. Remember who broke the news about Superman Returns here? Not Panavision...

That remains the 64 million dollar question: WHY were they so reticent about it?
  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 June 2005 - 10:36 AM

First of all, they don't exactly publicize information about productions renting through them in general. I found out that the "Planet of the Apes" remake was shooting in anamorphic because I ran into them prepping the package there.

Second, they may not feel comfortable running adds until people have field tested the camera on whole productions.

Third, they may be waiting until they have more units to rent.

Fourth, after the negative reaction among cinematographers when Sony hyped the original 24P HD F900, people like Viper and now Panavision and Arri have been much more low-key.

Fifth, like Arri and the D20, they aren't exactly out of the film camera business either and see these new cameras as a supplement to their current line.

Six, with their F900's rented out almost completely year-round, and the Genesis going out the door almost as fast as they can build them, why spend money they don't really have on a marketing campaign? This is a much smaller company than Arri.

Or you can just believe there is some conspiracy of silence going on, I guess....
  • 0

#9 Michael Most

Michael Most
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 765 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 June 2005 - 12:18 PM

That remains the 64 million dollar question: WHY were they so reticent about it?


Gee, Jim, maybe they have a contract or an agreement with Warner Bros. not to talk about the picture in general, at least while it's still in production. Or maybe their policy is consistent with other projects they're involved in, which is to not publicise what's happening and where. Maybe their ability to keep their mouths shut when requested is one of the things that some of us happen to appreciate.

Your hatred for a well respected company knows no bounds, and is getting really, really tiresome.
  • 0

#10 Jim Murdoch

Jim Murdoch
  • Guests

Posted 02 June 2005 - 07:22 AM

Or you can just believe there is some conspiracy of silence going on, I guess....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heh heh heh... I don't "guess"; I know exactly why they're doing it, but my knowing this is not of any particular relevance. However....
  • 0

#11 Jim Murdoch

Jim Murdoch
  • Guests

Posted 02 June 2005 - 07:26 AM

Gee, Jim, maybe they have a contract or an agreement with Warner Bros. not to talk about the picture in general, at least while it's still in production.

----

Your hatred for a well respected company knows no bounds, and is getting really, really tiresome.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Maybe they do, but same ol' same ol': WHY would WB want to keep it a secret?

And nobody's forcing you to read my "tiresome" posts.
  • 0

#12 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 04 June 2005 - 07:42 AM

And nobody's forcing you to read my "tiresome" posts.

We all know that Jim is only frequenting this board so that he can find some info to post on his anti-Panavision site. Unfortunately he is prone to distorting facts and always bending the 'truth' to fit his rants. In his world, 'Collarteral' was 'mostly shot on film' you know...
  • 0

#13 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 June 2005 - 11:17 AM

Maybe they do, but same ol' same ol': WHY would WB want to keep it a secret?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I just talked to a marketing person at Panavision and the simple answer is bureaucracy. The WB marketing department hasn't yet approved many of the press releases regarding the film's production.
  • 0

#14 Jim Murdoch

Jim Murdoch
  • Guests

Posted 06 June 2005 - 08:46 PM

I just talked to a marketing person at Panavision and the simple answer is bureaucracy. The WB marketing department hasn't yet approved many of the press releases regarding the film's production.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


So have I, and every time I get a different answer. When they would give an answer that is.

Maybe WB are keeping it quiet, but why? I've know such reticence with any of their other productions.
  • 0

#15 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 June 2005 - 10:00 PM

What difference does it make? If they really wanted to hide the fact that they are using the Genesis, they wouldn't let Bryan Singer mention it and show it in use all over his video blogs. You can see some here at:

http://www.bluetights.net/

Maybe it's simply an indication that the camera is delivering images that look like 35mm that WB doesn't see what's newsworthy about that. Believe it or not, the general public might not care much about whether the movie is being shot with a Genesis...

So what difference does it make if WB has a press release regarding this now or later or never? What difference does it make if ultimately it is only noted in passing by articles on the film? I noticed that the press regarding the use of HD for "Revenge of the Sith" was much lower in volume than with the preceding movie. Digital is starting to become old news and people are concentrating on something else. Using HD instead of film may have been newsworthy a few years ago, but try and get journalists today excited about the subtleties of 4:4:4 versus 4:2:2 and 35mm depth of field....

I fail to see how one can even conjure up some sort of conspiracy theory here that makes any sense.
  • 0

#16 Jim Murdoch

Jim Murdoch
  • Guests

Posted 09 June 2005 - 06:56 AM

  I noticed that the press regarding the use of HD for "Revenge of the Sith" was much lower in volume than with the preceding movie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well yes, but then that might also have had something to do with the fact that it wasn't a Panavision job! But I don't recall Plus8Digital getting too much cinematic follow-up work either!



I fail to see how one can even conjure up some sort of conspiracy theory here that makes any sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Here" as in "on these Forums"? I don't as a rule come here expecting to find anything much that makes sense B)
  • 0

#17 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 June 2005 - 09:41 AM

Well, if WE can't come up with a conspiracy theory that makes sense, maybe you should tell us yours.
  • 0

#18 Landon D. Parks

Landon D. Parks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1730 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 09 June 2005 - 11:44 AM

"Here" as in "on these Forums"? I don't as a rule come here expecting to find anything much that makes sense 

Thats a pretty rude thing to say. You know Jim, I think your affraid that someone will actually know more than you do, and by god if your gonna let that happen...

As David said, they never really where "covering anything up".... It's called a phone, Internet is not the only means of a companies survival, more so Panavision.
  • 0

#19 Michael Most

Michael Most
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 765 posts
  • Other

Posted 09 June 2005 - 12:02 PM

Well yes, but then that might also have had something to do with the fact that it wasn't a Panavision job! But I don't recall Plus8Digital getting too much cinematic follow-up work either!


The simple fact is that there are very few significant projects being made on digital formats by anybody not named Lucas or Rodriguez. And of those that are, those making them (Michael Mann, David Fincher, some others) do happen to be Plus8 customers.
  • 0

#20 Elhanan Matos

Elhanan Matos
  • Sustaining Members
  • 432 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Santa Monica, CA

Posted 09 June 2005 - 07:13 PM

Well yes, but then that might also have had something to do with the fact that it wasn't a Panavision job! But I don't recall Plus8Digital getting too much cinematic follow-up work either!


What about "Miami Vice." They have a few vipers, a couple set of Digiprimes and some Digizooms as well, all from Plus 8.
  • 0


Ritter Battery

The Slider

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Visual Products

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

CineLab

CineTape

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc