Ten-Eighty-Pee
So the other day I was catching up on Shane Hurlbut’s blog when I clicked on a link that took me to another link and then I happened upon on a Wikipedia entry. Which entry? I’m not sure. But after reading and clicking some more, I finally ended up on this one about a camera: Panavision Genesis.
There isn’t really anything that spectacular or all that interesting there. The Genesis isn’t a new camera. But it’s one in a line in digital cinema cameras that’s in use today. It’s what Dariusz Wolski used to shoot Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland and what Russ Alsobrook used for Superbad, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and Paul Blart: Mall Cop.
What makes this camera cinema-grade? Well, for starters it uses a CCD sensor (unlike DSLR’s that use CMOS sensors) which means zero rolling shutter. The Genesis has a big 35mm-sized sensor (much like the 5D Mark II) and can use “real” PL-mount lenses. Also, it captures video at a much lower compression (read: higher bitrate) than DSLR’s (which equals higher dynamic range, better color depth, less noise in the shadow areas), among other things.
Still, what’s so interesting about all that? And my answer is… nothing, really. Here’s the real reason I decided to write this blog entry. Just like the Sony F35, Viper FilmStream, and Arri D-21, the Genesis shoots in 1920×1080 resolution. Yep, that’s all. 1080p.
Now, I’ve never used a Viper or even touched an Arri. The closest I’ve been is owning the Sony CineAlta EX1, which we sold after we bought a Canon 5D Mark II. But maybe it’s because I’ve been a little bit obsessed with the possibility of owning a RED Scarlet sometime in the near distant future that I hear too much about high resolution video. I mean, 35mm film is scanned at a much higher resolution than 1080p. Even 16mm is usually scanned higher than that. So how can 1080p look so decent in a theater? I guess it’s not all about the resolution, after all.
Those cameras do produce better quality video than a DSLR, but it really kinda sorta makes you think doesn’t it? Especially given the fact that a Viper costs about 100 times more than a 7D.
I guess we’ll have to wait for the Zacuto Shootout to see how well DSLR’s hold up.
Long time reader. First time commenter.
As a fan of the RED ONE, its new M-X sensor, and the future of digital cinematography, one thing caught my eye here. Regarding “35mm film is scanned at a much higher resolution than 1080p,” that’s not necessarily true. Sure, it can be scanned, but it’s not automatically scanned through the roof.
Years ago, I had a 35mm project telecine’d to SD and another to 1080 HD. If a budget permits, the “standard” (since “O Brother, Where Art Thou?”) has been a 2k scan with 10 bits per color channel. If we’re big Hollywood circa 2004, maybe you can convince someone for a 4k (“Spider-Man 2″) or, in 2008, an 8k scan (“Baraka”).
With the Viper, which of course came before the RED and Canon 5D/7D/1D, it features uncompressed RGB and RAW, low-light sensitivity notable in its prime (circa “Collateral”), some fancy aspect ratio conversions, and rolls all that data to tape or deck. That’s all better than the body of a Canon 7D.
But price is what this is all about, I understand. This is why the Scarlet is going to rock the boat in the same way the RED replaced such “plain” HD cameras like the Viper and Varicam. That’s why they’re winning over that niche of the camera business: better quality at a lower price.
Hey Aaron, appreciate it. I obviously don’t know about film as much as you do. I heard my friend talking about how he shot his short film on 16mm and something about stock and processing, it all went over my head.
I definitely agree the Scarlet will change a lot. Possibly the next generation of the Canon DSLR’s will, as well. I hear they might actually support RAW video. I’m sure there’ll be some announcements at NAB
Hmm…a lot of this was a bit over my head….What I got out of it:
-learned what the ‘jello’ vibration effect is (rolling shutter)
-the Genesis, which was used to produce pretty high-quality feature films, shoots in a measly 1080p, yet still passes in the theaters. Go figure, resolution isn’t everything.
good day to you, sir.
Resolution really means nothing. Take a look at some footage from the Reel-Stream Andromeda modded DVXs. Uncompressed SD looks amazing (if shot right, of course). Also, FWIW, most 16 is scanned @ 1080 if not lower. Also remember that a 2K scan is only 128 pixels wider (and only wider) than 1920×1080.
Of course, many projects require resolution over color, CCD, etc. I’d rather have 4K of bad color for a lot of compositing and CGI than low res and 12bit
Having never really worked with film directly, I guess I wasn’t really aware of everything. It just really hit me one day when I realized just how powerful these small cameras can actually be. Thanks for the input, Jack
your blog is really excellent. it inspires the readers who have that great desire to lead a better and happier life. thanks for sharing this information and hope to read more from you.http://www.frasesparacelular.com