GEN: Superman Returns shot on Panavision Genesis - Page 2 at

Go Back   DV Info Net > High Definition Video Acquisition > HD and UHD ( 2K+ ) Digital Cinema

HD and UHD ( 2K+ ) Digital Cinema
Various topics: HD, UHD (2K / 4K) Digital Cinema acquisition to distribution.

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 28th, 2005, 02:10 PM   #16
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Duluth, Georgia
Posts: 248
I'm ignorant as to film work-flows. My first question is...WHY don't they view the HD dailies, and give the raw footage to the editor, and then color correct only the shots included in the final cut of the film? THEN go to make prints.
It seems that -as stated earlier- if they did testing ahead of time to insure the look they were striving for, they could take advantage of not needing time to process footage.
Okay, I'm going back to my audio mixer now......

Jeff Patnaude

They could in fact edit and color correct at the same time. Just replace the old footage with new color corrected files and they would fit in the timeline seemlessly (one would hope). View and edit quick, watch color corrected stuff later.
Jeff Patnaude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2005, 02:14 PM   #17
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 414
That's my point as well. The crew should not be hudled around a monitor on set. Dailies should be watched at the same normal time that dailies would be watched on a film set... except you're actually watching what you shot that day. Not what you did 2 days ago. Again, it seems to me that there's a need to rethink workflow. No, don't stand around on set second guessing yourself... but work with HD intelligently, don't stand by the hard and fast way of doing things when you shoot a different format (ie: film).
Kevin Dooley
Media Director, Pantego Bible Church
Kevin Dooley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2005, 02:21 PM   #18
MPS Digital Studios
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Palm Beach County, Florida
Posts: 8,531
I can say one thing about a digital workflow--color correct AFTER! I think going off the video isn't accurate, because things moved faster on the two Star Wars digital shoots, much faster. I am sure they're second guessing themselves.

My Final Cut Pro X blog
Heath McKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2005, 02:26 PM   #19
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 704
"With a properly exposed negative... you have the option of getting what you want in the processesing of the print. In the digital workflow... if the information is NOT IN THE DIGITAL NUMBERS it's not going to show up in the print, follow?"

Richard, that doesn't seem to make sense in terms of why they would be color correcting the footage before editing.

You are right in saying that if the information is not in the numbers then it won't show up on the print...but if the information is not in the numbers it's not going to show up during color correcting either.

I can't see what sort of 'correcting' they need to do before editing.
The ides of correcting ALL of your raw footage seems terribly wasteful both in time and money. I'm sure they have their reasons.
Luis Caffesse
Pitch Productions
Austin, Texas
Luis Caffesse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2005, 04:51 AM   #20
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 106
One major mistake is to think that just because these people are spending millions that they have the right answers.

Much of what happens in la-la land is very counter intuitive because they have the money to pay for it!

You would be amazed at how much more many of these people know on this board than many of the high paid guys working.

Now, I'm no poet, but in some ways the biggest freak out about HD is that the mystery is lost on set that is created by shooting negative film.

I am going to let it out of the bag! 35mm negative looks awful before it gets colored and timed!

Some random thoughts --

Lastly, consider this... Much of making movies is about making the movie. If Superman can boast about anything to any trade or publication and get any press its worth it.


Panavision may have brought them a killer deal on the kit


Even if the process saving are a wash between film and the genesis think of the savings that will present itself on the NEXT batch of films made by the studio using the camera.


Just imagine the exciting EPK stuff about "Superman Speeds Into the Cutting Edge"


Dean Bull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2005, 08:19 AM   #21
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 3,840
Okay, I'm going to jump back in here, and make an educated guess on their workflow bottleneck.

It goes back to DP's NOT being happy with screening "Digital Dailies". What you see on a High Def Monitor, or on a digital projector screen, is NOT what your image will look like, once it's transfered to negative, printed and projected.(The forums here and all over the net are full of posts like "Anyone seen what the footage from XYZ camera looks like when transfered to film?) In looking at a monitor, "what you see, is NOT what you get". Sometimes it's better, sometimes it's worse. Untill it is projected, it's an unkown. (I'm still scouring my back issues of magazines, for a great article called "Digital Dailies... can we trust them?" or something like that. It might have been in AC magazine, I read it about a year ago...)

This makes DP's uncomfortable.

SO, on a regular film set, you expose and shoot, (With a hundred years of knowledge behind you that tells you what to expect from that awfull looking negative.) Next day, you look at the images projected on the screen. If all looks good, you move on... if not you go back and reshoot. (And yes, you have a video tap on set to check between shots for continuity, performance, and framing.)

Enter HD. You expose... and look at the monitor... and adjust the monitor, and adjust the camera... and re-calibrate the monitor... and recalibrate the camera because it's changed temperature.... IF you are shooting some sort of FX heavy shot with green screening... you can even do a quick real time composite, and look at what you've got on the set! Great! This will save you from having to reshoot because the composite isn't going to work. You find out right away, if you got what you need... but you've moved what was normally a bit of 'post' into what is now the 'production' workflow. This may or may not be an acceptable trade off... it all depends on what's more expensive, recalling the actors, rebuilding the set, reshooting the shot, or fixing it in post. (This is one reason why people huddle around the monitor. And by people, I mean the DP, the Director, The Engineer, the Gaffer, PERHAPS the actors, people who NEED to see the image. Obviously, the prop guy and greensman don't need to see this - unless they've screwed up)

So, because DP's like to see images projected on the screen for dailies, you take the HD images, send them to a lab to be TRANSFERED to a negative, then developed into a print to be projected. You have, in effect added at LEAST one more step between shooting the image, and projecting it. I am not entirely savvy on what the process is, but I am assuming that you want to get as close to the final image possible on the projection, so that the director doesn't call a re-shoot.This is probably why the color corrector is looking at it. She is, in effect, responsible for the image that is captured on the neg. This goes back to the difference between lattitudes of film and video. IF the colors or lattitude is NOT present in the data she has to work with BEFORE it goes to film, it simply won't be there afterwards. Sure, they will be looking at a rough color transfer... but SOMEONE has to sign off on what is on the DATA before they strike and expensive set, or actor. I am assuming here is where SUPERMAN is losing the extra day in getting their dailies.

Dailes, by the way, are not always seen that day, or even the next... it depends on the location of the shoot, and the nearest LAB or transfer house.And if the lab and transfer house are in two different cities, add in the travel time between them. You don't get this stuff done at your local fotomat.

SO, by virtue of adding the need to transfer from data to neg, you increase the ammount of time to get the daily.

What I hear people complaining about in these posts, is "Why don't they trust what they see on the monitor on the set, and just use raw digital data as a screener?"

The simple answer would be that the workflow is still in it's infancy, and still not 'trustworthy'. That's a tough call. I suppose, when the entire process from exposure to projection is digital, then it will be a done deal. But as long as film is still the preferred projection medium, it's a bit of a conundrum.

Of course, in a real low budget, indy situation, you don't have the luxury of looking at dailies. Your "dailies" are used for performance, and continuitay and framing checks. So you are forced to trust what's on the tape. You shoot as best you can, and hope it's picked up for distribution,and the studio will spring for the extra money to transfer and 'correct' your captured data.
Richard Alvarez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2005, 01:41 AM   #22
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Atlanta GA
Posts: 1,427
I'm going to jump in here because I think there's some misinformation. Fisrt let me say I'm not intimately familiar with the genesis cam (few people are) but I do know the f900, the 950 (the "front of the genesis") and the work flow for the viper (sort of like the genesis). The issue they are probably facing is that if it's like the viper the image is raw data, if you view it on the monitor it's green. So they have to send it in to color correction in order to get an idea of what it will look like. This is a problem that has already been corrected and implemented in SCRATCH which allows real time color correcting and editing on the D.I. The other issue I believe is the genesis was not designed to shoot an entire movie with, it was designed to show pick up scenes that needed to be shot in 4:4:4 for special effects. Panavision for a while was only renting it to people that already were picking up a film package from them. Also I'm positive it's not an issue of the inofrmation not being there because it is RAW there is no compression, no information to be lost. So what happens is the footage which is green is going to the color correctionist who then removes that green, it's then printed to the D.I. and possibly to be printed to film. The bottle neck is more likely a human one then a problem with workflow. (it also looked like the editor was a little drunk and may have used the thursday example as a worse case scenario... but none of that is actually said)

The dailies issue is a curious one. It seems to me that they probably did there homework (most LOW budget movies would do a test film out to see what the image is going to look like afters it's transferred) and god knows this project has been around long enough to where they didn't "not have time." As far as tweaking the camera on set. On the similar camera "the viper" there really isn't much tweaking that can be done except to how it goes out to the monitor because all of the raw information is laid down regardless. In the case of the f900 you would only tweak the camera and you would do that from the D.I.T. work station. If the D.I.T. is worth his money and my guess is whoever did this job was probably top of his game they should just pull the downconvert out of the camera or the deck (which I'm told is an SRW1 deck the same decks they used to store data from a 950 which is what lucus used) So the interesting thing then becomes the digital dailies in that I find it odd that there is such a long wait. technically all that needs to be done is a single tweak so that the dailies aren't green they can then be passed onto the DP, director whomever who can view them. Then later on when the movie is wrapped will they do the REAL color correction to get an idea of what the film will look like projected. I think if the DP feels the need to see every daily color corrected and printed to film (which it doesn't sound like is the case for the record) then that is a fault of the DP not the camera or workflow. It's really difficult to pinpoint the problem (if there is one as such) from such a short clip but I think it's inaccurate to say that there is a problem in workflow.

The typical HD workflow is Image is acquired, while being laid down to tape it is simultaneously being downconverted to digibeta or beta, and looped through to video village for director producer D.P. to see. that is then taken and used as the digital intermediate directly to the editor, once it is cut the color correctionist then does his or her job and the movie is telecined to film.

I think it's just a waste of money to do actual finishing for your dailies because then they're not really "dailies."

Last edited by Nick Hiltgen; May 27th, 2005 at 02:00 AM.
Nick Hiltgen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2005, 10:10 PM   #23
MPS Digital Studios
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Palm Beach County, Florida
Posts: 8,531
GEN: Superman Returns shot on Panavision Genesis

You'll need broadband:

My Final Cut Pro X blog
Heath McKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2005, 07:29 AM   #24
MPS Digital Studios
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Palm Beach County, Florida
Posts: 8,531
Pics of Panavision's Genesis camera on Superman Returns.

My Final Cut Pro X blog
Heath McKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2005, 10:39 AM   #25
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Centreville Va
Posts: 1,828
Looks sort of like a TOW missle launcher.:)
Joe Carney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2005, 10:57 AM   #26
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Southwest Idaho, USA
Posts: 3,053
Do those guys look like they're having a blast, or what?? Gosh, that looks like fun.

Thanks so much for finding/sharing the link, Heath. That camera is amazing.

( I've got to do a Google search to see what a TOW missile launcher looks like, Joe...) :)
Lorinda Norton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2006, 07:38 PM   #27
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 90
Superman Returns shot using Panavision Genesis Hi-Def cam.

This works for me. I love that big budget movies (Star Wars II&III, Collateral) are being shot High Def. Supes is going to look good.
James A. Davis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2006, 07:55 PM   #28
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 3,840
Collateral wasn't all shot in HD, only parts of it.

The vast majority of films are still.... film.

HD is coming, but it's not here yet.
Richard Alvarez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2006, 08:17 PM   #29
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1
Don't Forget Sin City
Tyler Fillmore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2006, 09:11 PM   #30
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 327
Spy Kids 2 & 3,
The Hebrew Hammer,

Sin City 2
Ben Gurvich is offline   Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

Omega Broadcast
(512) 251-7778
Austin, TX

(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

(800) 238-8480
Glendale, CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > High Definition Video Acquisition > HD and UHD ( 2K+ ) Digital Cinema

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:05 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2015 The Digital Video Information Network