Jump to content


Photo

Panavision Genisis


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Stephen Whitehead

Stephen Whitehead
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 124 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Toronto, Canada

Posted 22 September 2005 - 05:51 PM

Anyone care to comment on the difference between the panavision genisis and the f900, I am working on a feature right now and we are considering both these cameras.

cheers,

Steve
  • 0

#2 Landon D. Parks

Landon D. Parks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1735 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 22 September 2005 - 07:34 PM

to compare the F900 to the Genisis is like comparing Fudge Bars to Pop Cycles, there two different worlds. but yet they both taste good.

On the technical side of things:


===Feature:=========HDW-F900:==========Genisis:=====
...------------------- ....--------------------------- ....----------------------------
CCD/CMOS---------3-CCD (RBG) @ 2.2MP's-----Single CCD @ 12MP
Onboard Recorder-------HDCAM Deck-------------------NO
Frame Rates-----------23.98p, 24p, 60i, 50i---------------1 to 50 FPS
Lines of Resolution--------1080I/1080P----- Depends on mode and recorder
Actual CCD Pixels--------1080x19??-------------Unsure, but more than F900

Again, thats just a ruff overview of some basic facts... This does not mean the Genisis will be better in some cases than the F900... Like in the case of starwars, Lucas would gain little by using the Genisis over the F950 or F900... Different cameras work well for different things, but having never shot with either camera, I cant speak from first hand knowlege...

good luck with your project...

Edited by Landon D. Parks, 22 September 2005 - 07:36 PM.

  • 0

#3 Jim Murdoch

Jim Murdoch
  • Guests

Posted 23 September 2005 - 09:29 PM

Anyone care to comment on the difference between the panavision genisis and the f900, I am working on a feature right now and we are considering both these cameras.

cheers,

Steve

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


If it was me I'd wait until Superman Returns and/or "Flyboys" comes out, since despite all the hype, apart from a couple of ├╝ber-tightly-controlled "set piece" demos from Panavision, hardly anybody has seen any actual "real-world" film out from it! There are numerous reports of it performing badly in a candle-lit "shootout" between it and the the Arri D-20, and Nolan Murdoch refusing point-blank to release any of the footage.

A lot of people refer in glowing terms to the demo shot by Allan Davieu, but the ironic thing is, Davieu himself wasn't all that sanguine about its performance.

However, the Genesis theoretically has a resolution approaching the full 1920 x 1080 HD spec, whereas the f900 only does about 1,440 x 1080.

The Genesis will take just about any existing Panavision-mount lens, wheras with the f900 you're restricted to a much smaller range.

The Genesis has a depth-of-field characteristic similar to 35mm film, while the f900 is more like 16mm.

Other than that, there doesn't appear to be that much of a difference operationally, although I believe the Genesis is much harder on batteries.

The Genesis allows full-bandwidth RGB recording with an on-board recorder, although unless you're doing a lot of blue-screen stuff, I really doubt you'd be able to tell the difference.

Have you actually got a price for the Genesis daily rental? If you have, we're all ears!
  • 0

#4 Elhanan Matos

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

Posted 23 September 2005 - 09:32 PM

There are many differences betweent he F900 and the Genesis. The most important being the imager and the recording device. The F900 records in HDCAM, the genesis records in HDCAM SR. The F900 is a 6 MP camera, 3 CCD's at about 2 MP each. The Genesis uses a 12MP single CCD imager in a vertical stripe pattern. Also the Genesis is a simpler camera and much more user friendly, allowing you to change from video nomenclature to film nomenclature, this helps alot if you are not familiar with video cameras.
  • 0

#5 Mark Allen

Mark Allen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 27 September 2005 - 06:53 PM

Anyone care to comment on the difference between the panavision genisis and the f900, I am working on a feature right now and we are considering both these cameras.


The genesis looks better and costs 3 times or more the money to rent. My comment is if you can afford the genesis, you'l probably be happier with the look.

If you are in Los Angeles, schedule to see the genesis (and maybe some F900) at Panavision.
  • 0

#6 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11941 posts
  • Other

Posted 28 September 2005 - 06:29 AM

Hi,

I think what's more relevant is "does the Genesis look better than a Viper." The Viper's certainly got better colour performance on paper.

Phil
  • 0

#7 Mark Allen

Mark Allen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 28 September 2005 - 09:08 PM

I think what's more relevant is "does the Genesis look better than a Viper." The Viper's certainly got better colour performance on paper.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Anyone here actually seen raw footage from both?

I think as much as paper information is great, sometimes it doesn't quite correlate exactly to the aesthetic experience. If not, I'll try to add it to my agenda to go check out both I've seen the Genesis, but not the viper. I'd like to see unprocessed Genesis footage actually thought too.
  • 0

#8 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 02 November 2005 - 02:59 PM

Hi,

I think what's more relevant is "does the Genesis look better than a Viper." The Viper's certainly got better colour performance on paper.

Phil

Absolutely no contest. Genesis has DOF that the 2/3" cameras can never match. Color between the two is pretty much a wash.



-- J.S.
  • 0

#9 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 02 November 2005 - 03:09 PM

Absolutely no contest. Genesis has DOF that the 2/3" cameras can never match. Color between the two is pretty much a wash.
-- J.S.


Hi,

Have you seen a comparison? I think a shoot out is planned by Geoff Boyle if he can borrow or rent a Genesis. However Panavision and GB are not on good terms at the moment!

The digiprimes wide open equals around T2.8 on 35mm.

Stephen
  • 0

#10 Mike Brennan

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

Posted 02 November 2005 - 06:05 PM

Anyone here actually seen raw footage from both?

I think as much as paper information is great, sometimes it doesn't quite correlate exactly to the aesthetic experience. If not, I'll try to add it to my agenda to go check out both I've seen the Genesis, but not the viper. I'd like to see unprocessed Genesis footage actually thought too.


I have palyed with the Genesis and studied side by side footage of Genesis and HDC1500, both recorded on SR at I presume was 4:2:2 as 50fps was being demonstrated.

Two SR decks two monitors side by side.
Initially the Genesis looked sharper. (long lens shot of girl walking toward camera) than the HDC1500 (sports pictures, players on the field)
However on reflection I figured that resolution was the same (as displayed on these monitors at least) but the out of focus background of the Genesis made the girl look sharper.

Mike Brennan
  • 0

#11 Logan Schneider

Logan Schneider
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Bozeman, MT

Posted 02 November 2005 - 07:29 PM

I saw the test with the Genesis, D-20 and 435 Extreme. The Genesis seems to have a CCD flaw that resulted in a vertical streaking from the candles that were in the test. I was told that they are working on it though.

I didn't think the colors were that great on the D-20, so I guess it's a give and take. (the film looked the best, although what I noticed about the film later during the timing was that it has so much more range for manipulation.)

Slight streaking problem or not, the Genesis is pretty amazing. A friend of mine is shooting a TV show with it right now and he loves it. He is more than happy.

Logan Schneider
DP
www.thedmp.com
  • 0

#12 tylerhawes

tylerhawes
  • Guests

Posted 14 November 2005 - 12:37 PM

We're doing some work on films right now that are shooting Viper and Genesis (different films). While I've seen plenty of Viper material before, this is my first hands-on with Genesis in my own room (we're working on a Barco DP100 2k DLP Cinema projector on 20' screen). They are totally different films in terms of the look they are going for, but I have to say the Genesis material in this particular case looks more filmic to me. The highlights of the Genesis material are especial convincing (not that the Viper is doing highlights badly). Coupled with DoF that is pretty much identical to 35mm, on 90% of the shots I don't think even a trained eye should be embarrased if they were fooled into thinking this is a very clean film scan.

That said, there's a tremendous amount of time, money, and *talent* that went into achieving this result. Being completely different films and creative intents as they are, there's no way from this one film for me to know if I'm judging the technology or the talent using it. To compare apples/apples, we'll have to see a proper comparison test...

Now as far as F900 vs. Genesis, that's more a matter of budget, since the Gensis is quite visibly better in even a casual comparison. I think a better comparison might be Sony 950 vs Genesis, as the 950 saves you money but still achieves 4:4:4 to HDCAM-SR, albeit with only 2/3" lens. I'm not sure why there isn't more buzz about the 950, given its price/performance ratio. Maybe it's that budgets tend to gravitate toward one extreme or another...?
  • 0

#13 Giovanni Speranza

Giovanni Speranza
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 18 August 2006 - 04:57 PM

Numbers are numbers, but for a good picture sometimes numbers are not enough.
I saw the Superman trailer and the Scary Movie at the theater (Genesis), and Lost in translation + Star Wars (Sony) and i can say that the Genesis SUCKS! (or maybe some DOF sucks!!!!!) and that the F900 is AWESOME.
Not all the stuff done with an F900 looks awesome anyway, some films look crappy.
So at the end i would like to see the same DOF and Director working with both cameras and only that could convince me.
But for now i prefere the F900.

Edited by Giovanni Speranza, 18 August 2006 - 04:58 PM.

  • 0

#14 Jason Debus

Jason Debus
  • Sustaining Members
  • 311 posts
  • Student
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 18 August 2006 - 05:08 PM

I saw the Superman trailer and the Scary Movie at the theater (Genesis), and Lost in translation + Star Wars (Sony) and i can say that the Genesis SUCKS! (or maybe some DOF sucks!!!!!) and that the F900 is AWESOME.


Lost in Translation was shot on film, not the F900.
  • 0

#15 Giovanni Speranza

Giovanni Speranza
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 18 August 2006 - 05:16 PM

no
  • 0

#16 Giovanni Speranza

Giovanni Speranza
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 18 August 2006 - 05:46 PM

Oh yes, you are right. Sofia's father tried to convince her to shoot in HD but finally she preferred film. (too nice to be true....)
  • 0


Glidecam

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Opal

Abel Cine

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post