Talk:Panavision/Archives/2014

Digital revolution

Why was this reverted? The section as written now is hopelessly innacurate. For example the author doesn't even mention "Superman Returns". My version was pretty much word-for-word from CEO Bob Beitcher and other senior people at Panavision. The title "Digital Revolution" is very much somebody's Point of View. Panavision certainly aren't claiming that. MissTattyOldbit 11:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that an encyclopedia article on Panavision should no more mirror the POV of the company's executives than it should that of any individual Wikipedia contributor. Any material that comes "word-for-word" from anybody must be enquoted and properly cited; if it comes "pretty much word-for-word" its source must still be identified and properly cited. The article has no "author." The article has had many contributors--if they have failed to properly include Superman Returns, by all means do so with proper citation. The section header "Digital revolution" is not "somebody's Point of View." Many editors have passed on the section titles during this entry's Featured Article Review process. Panavision's claims are irrelevant to the structure of the article. Wikipedia is an informational resource, not a marketing vehicle.—DCGeist 20:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how Superman Returns is relevant to an article on Panavision the company. It was neither the first Genesis film to use the camera or be released. Girolamo Savonarola 00:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I worked on the set of Superman Returns. It WAS the first film to use the Genesis.

Checking the IMDb filming dates, it appears that this is correct. My apologies. Girolamo Savonarola 15:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Panavision protected its trademarks against cybersquatting

I live down the street from Panavision's Woodland Hills office on De Soto. That made me curious about them and, in researching them on the Internet, I found out that they played a significant role in discouraging cyber-squatting - agressively going after someone who had 'squatted' their trademarks. This page is so well done, however, that I don't know where mention of that fact would go without making the article more awkward.

Here are some external links regarding this:

Court Document

Mention of Case

• Perhaps it would be better to work it into the cybersquatting page? Girolamo Savonarola 06:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

70mm or 65mm?

From the second to last parapgraph in the Early history section:

"This employed using 65 mm film in.... This process was also named MGM 65 and Panavision 65.... ...due to the fact that all 70 mm theaters.... The first two films to actually be shown in 70 mm anamorphic...."

This seems inconsistent. Should those "70mm"'s really be "65mm"? Rangek July 5, 2005 00:43 (UTC)

• Yes, it can be confusing. The film that is shot is 65mm wide. The film that is projected has an additional 2.5 mm added on each side of perforations for the soundtrack. It's 65mm during production and 70mm for projection. This is also clarified in the 65 mm film article (which redirects to 70 mm film, btw). --Girolamo Savonarola 5 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)

"Filmed with panavision cameras and lenses"

I was just wondering; it says that if a film uses spherical lenses then it must display the above credit. Well that picture is from the matrix so does that mean that the matrix was not filmed with panoramic lenses? It is clearly a 'cinemascope' film, I thought all 'cinemascope' films used panoramic lenses? Borb 15:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Anamorphically projected films do not necessarily originate the image anamorphically. In the case of the Matrix, a Super 35 process was used with spherical lenses. Later in the lab, the frame is cropped to 2.39 and given an anamorphic squeeze. --Girolamo Savonarola 17:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Oh yes, i meant anamorphic lenses not panoramic. By the way, did you just know that about the matrix off the top of your head? Just curious. Thanks for the reply. Borb 18:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Heh, if only... No, I didn't, but the technical specs are available on the IMDb subpage for the film. If I couldn't find it there, I would've likely checked an old issue of American Cinematographer or an interview with the DP, one of which certainly would have said in detail. --Girolamo Savonarola 19:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes but the rights on those lens between 65mm to 70mm was under dispute with Leica own lens, Panavision was in the position to buy the patient

rights to all those lens needed to expand Panavision's len range.--80.82.68.111 (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Panavision Genesis

Hi. First off, I must say how excellent this article is. Very informative. But... I wonder... should we put the detailed information about the "Genesis" camera on the Genesis (Panavision) page? If we don't then we run the risk of having two pages which duplicate the same information (three if you count the WikiBooks Movie Making Manual page on the Genesis). Thanks, Dan AKA Jack 12:00 GMT, 4th Oct 2005

• I really think that while a cursory glance over the Genesis is important, the information depth and formatting is more suited for a separate article. I mean, if you read through this whole article, it sticks out like a sore thumb. And the massive digi-vs-film commentary and opinions really don't belong on the page much, aside from a brief - stressing brief - mention, IMHO. There's a lot of dedicated work put into this page, including most of this new info, and it's great, but it would be a shame for a featured article to descend into a forum for that discussion. This page is about the company at large. The major products should be discussed, sure. In depth analysis and detailed description of recent products which will likely remain in the film news for some time probably deserve independent delineation and discussion elsewhere. Just my opinions... --Girolamo Savonarola 00:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I've significantly cleaned up the digital section of the article - specifically making it more encyclopedic in format and trying to further NPOV and wiki-ize the content. Much of the details have been migrated to the Genesis page, so don't worry - the tech stuff still is online. As for the financial details, I can't corroborate it one way or the other - if those are true, I think that they are going to have to be listed with clear and well-sourced footnotes, as they contain serious charges. Until then, I've deleted them. Copacetic? --Girolamo Savonarola 20:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

They certainly are true, a simple link to Yahoo finance (or any similar outfit) will demonstrate this. I'll see what I can organize. Panvision's true external level of debt approaches $500 million, while they contimue to run up huge annual losses.

My point always was that the CineAlta was just another over-hyped failure in a long line of over-hyped failures. For technical reasons I believe the Genesis will fare no better, and even if it is successful, Panavison already command over 80% of the market, so whose customers are they going to pinch? All that would happen is that instead of a film camera going out, a Genesis would - basically they're "revenue-neutral" but will cost them a great deal of money to buy.

I also take issue with the notion that "Sin City" qualifies as a "Blockbuster". It might have enjoyed some success, but it's way out of the league of the "Star Wars" films.

First of all, I think that you should pay closer attention to the Wikipedia rules. This is not a place for independent research, and editorial opinions are not solicited. This is an encyclopedia article about the company and what they do. That being said, analysis is of course a part of all that, but as an encyclopedia, you will have to incorporate this as cited material and do so in a NPOV manner - this article itself cannot be primary source material. Whatever your personal assessment of the company, until it has massive documented and sourced concensus, let's just stick to the facts here.

Furthermore, it would be nice (though not required) for you to sign your postings here, preferably under a username, if you plan to do some serious editing work here. Thanks! --Girolamo Savonarola 13:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You don't understand. I wasn't commenting on the theatrical virtues or otherwise of any of those films, only the fact that far more people have seen the Star Wars films than "Sin City". In an article about a new technology, surely it can only be meaningful to describe its success in hard financial or acceptance terms. As far as the vast majority of the Film watching public is concerned, most low-budget, "Indy" and "Vanity" flicks simply don't exist. Put another way, the percentage of "person-view-hours" in the world devoted to watching films like "Sin City" amount to close to zero. Are we writing an encyclopedia as a soapbox for film-elitists trying to get laid, or for the film-going public generally?

The only "documentation" I need is the completely obvious lack of digitally-shot movies (ie ones you have to pay to see) in my local multiplex!

I have reverted and cleaned up a large part of this page, because the recent edits coming from a certain anonymous user in Sydney, Australia are massively in violation of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Specifically: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute, Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute, Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No_original_research, and Wikipedia:Wikiquette, among others. This article happens to be a featured article, which means that it is supposed to be among the best as far as standards go - one of which is conforming to major policy. I have no objection to much of the content per se (I happen to also be skeptical of the digital movement), but if the content violates encyclopedic and Wikipedia standards, it simply has no place on the page. I look forward to working with this user when he/she has become more familiar with the principles of this site. --Girolamo Savonarola 17:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

That will not be happening, as I'm not going to continue a pointless edit war with rank amateurs. All you're doing is reinforcing a lot of misconceptions cultivated by certain manufacturers' extravagant press releases over the years. You can write any namby-pamby don't-offend-anyone drivel you like from now on, I will not interfere will your personal mission to spread Pana-ignorance to the masses. (I will send a copy of this to the people in charge of the project though).

The facts are as I presented them; how many links to financial websites do you need? Anybody who doubts their accuracy can soon find verification on the Web. If necessary I could provide links to ALL of the compulsory SEC filings which prove the validity of the assertion that Panavision are grossly overemphasizing the importance of digital cinematography to their future. (Good luck in wading through that lot of financial-speak though, if you don't happen to have a financial guru to "translate" for you).

For example did you notice that what constitutes well over half of Panavision's so-called "assets"? So-called "goodwill"! Do you want to explain how Panavision managed to acquire so much in just a few short years, given that Pereleman paid well under 300 million for the place. The company is presently worth about MINUS 300 million; deal with it.

I had though it would be a nice thing if potential non-technical investors or their advisors had a source of accurate and verifiable financial information on companies like Panavision. It's not really "bias" if a person who doesn't particularly like Panavision chooses to reveal factual information that they would rather people didn't know about. Nor is it particularly out of order for someone more closely associated with the industry to enlighten outsiders as to how someone in their position might interpret certain incontrovertable facts.

By the way, this only became a "Featured Article" AFTER I started to tidy up some of the ludicrously misleading sections on Digital Cinematography.... And why do you keep removing the section about how cine lenses will not physically fit on 3-chip cameras?

First of all, you cannot delete content from discussion pages. And you still aren't signing your comments. Which only goes to show that you likely haven't read anything about the principles under which this site operates, which happen to be as important (if not more so) than the content itself. So once again, please read the links first. You are presenting speculative data on this site - which constitutes original research. Wikipedia does not allow for original research. I am not going to address this matter further - I attempted to compromise by rewriting the financial section to conform to NPOV. This was subsequently deleted. So be it. Technically, the Anti-Panavision site's view (which I assume you are a direct advocate for) probably falls into the "extreme minority view" clause, which actually would mean that it doesn't need to be vetted for NPOV to begin with. Again, if you have no idea what I'm talking about with NPOV, please read the policy links. Because if you continue to revert content in direct violation of Wikipedia policy without any attempt at understanding and respecting what it means, I am going to bring to matter into mediation.

As for the section on cine lenses and 3CCD cameras - this is an article about a company. There is a main article for the Genesis, and you can certainly make one for the CineAlta if you would like. But I don't think that lengthy discussions in intense technical detail about a particular part of a particular product really needs to be elaborated here. I wouldn't expect extensive discussions about the architecture of Windows Vista to be contained within the Microsoft article. Look, I think we both agree that the rapid obsolescene of the digital camera models means that none of these models will be around and used a decade from now. Whereas the Millennium XL likely still will be. Which one is more important? Any given article ideally shouldn't suffer from recentism - it should provide an overview of the company which includes perspective. Mentioning forays into the digital arena without being too biased or speculative or over-detailed fits that goal much better.

And for the record, this article went featured in June. Read the history page for it and let the record speak for itself. --Girolamo Savonarola 08:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Howdy folks. Wandered in from the RfC link. Is the Genesis section in this article still being disputed? Does the anonymous editor still want to contribute? Tarheelcoxn 01:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No; it would appear I'm in he "Extreme minority" and hence by definition automatically wrong. What a great to write an encyclopedia!! All you're producing is a compendium of common misconceptions.

Commercially, the people who make decisions about the choice of film formats are in theextreme minoriy, but all you're ever going to see is what they decide. The whole "Digital Cinematography" concept was just a stockmarket fantasy dreamed up by by Sony and Panavision in the 1990s to stave off bankruptcy. Ah well, you'll see... 210.8.232.3

I attempted to restructure very POV and potentially libellous material (and original research at that, too!) into something more NPOV in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. This was promptly deleted by the anonymous user. That's fine with me, if the user would rather delete a compromise than participate. But it should be noted that this user is accusing the company of fraud and using this article as a soapbox. Again, violation of NPOV and policy.

What I'd recommend is that you look at the edits from about November 2005 onwards, look at the link at the bottom to the Anti-Panavision site, and do some independent research for any documented or reported corroborating data. There has never been any mainstream support to document the accusations as anything other than a minor fringe view, presented by a site which operates itself under a completely anonymous policy.

In any case, I'm trying to write an article documenting the company - what it does, what it creates, etc. I'm not interested in crucifying the subject matter for the sake of a personal agenda. However, in the interest of entertaining the hypothesis presented, I went out and directly asked not only corporate representatives from Panavision, but ones from competitors like Arri and third parties such as Technicolor and Sony: none of them took this idea seriously.

Lastly, the editor shows no respect for the policies of the site and principles behind which it is created. I have attempted previously to compromise and conciliate, but apparently this is not acceptable to him. Such demonstrable inability to work within the structure of the site and in fact blatant belief that he's above it suggest that perhaps he should take his theories elsewhere? Girolamo Savonarola 15:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

210.8.232.3, why don't you suggest here in this talk space a possible revision that includes the elements you feel are needed? Please include links so that we can verify the accuracy of the points you want to make. Note that the link can't be to raw data (eg. stock prices). Your revisions need to be verifiable. Once we've got that out of the way, making it fit into the article shouldn't be too much of a problem. Maybe with more eyes we can find a wording that suits everybody.

Also, please consider signing up for an account. (1) It's free (as in no cost). (2) It gives you a bit more freedom (freedom from and freedom to) in that people can do annoying things to you if they know your IP, but joining the community (getting an account) puts a face on your posts, and people are much more likely to respect a face than a number. (3) It's polite. (4) You can easily sign your posts with four tildes (above the backtick on my keyboard). (5) It's free (as in no cost). (6) There is no six. (7) I'm asking you nicely. Tarheelcoxn 22:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've done that; what's the point? You pick a user name and that's it. There's nothing that particulary identifies me in any way. Thanks, but I really think I'm wasting my time here. Further esearch on the web indicates that the Wikipedia is rapidly becoming a laughing stock due to its "one-size-fits-all" editorial policies. The one thing that more people find more offensive than anything else is your automatic asumption that "the extreme minority view" must by definition somehow be wrong. Tell that to numerous Nobel Prize winners.

As for Girolamo Savonarola's statement: "but ones from competitors like Arri and third parties such as Technicolor and Sony: none of them took this idea seriously." I don't know who you've been talking to, but there's a vast army of employees of all those companies who can't be taken seriously! It appears that, as before, **Factual** information on Panavision is only going to be available from one source, and it's NOT this one.

"Filmed in Panavision" credit

I recently noticed that Panavision has been getting lax in enforcing correct usage of the Filmed in Panavision credit. Films such as The Matrix Revolutions and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy were filmed in Super 35, and yet both movies' end credits state that they were "Filmed in Panavision". In a reversal of this, Akeelah and the Bee, which was filmed anamorphic, is credited as being "Filmed with Panavision Cameras and Lenses". What is happening here? Green451 05:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the Matrix films had the "Cameras and Lenses" credit (see the image within the article). As for the others, I cannot say myself, having not seen them; however, David Mullen (DP of Akeelah) is very available at cinematography.com to answer questions. Theoretically the policy may have been changed, although I see no reason why. In any case, if you can provide some documentation (screencaps, particularly), that would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 00:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is allowed, but I didn't see anything against it in the image guidelines, so I decided to be bold and upload a screenshot from the movie Crimson Tide, which was filmed anamorphically (see the image below, which contains the "out-of-focus oval" effect). The credits of the movie say: "Lenses and Panaflex Cameras by Panavision". IMDb confirms this, and I find the technical data there to be correct 99 percent of the time. Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I just had to get all of my evidence together. I can provide more screenshots from this and Hitchhiker's if you need more proof. Thanks. Green451 01:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the Panavision credit in The Matrix Reloaded: http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/6592/snapshot20061208165216gi2.jpg and here it is in The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy: http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/2817/snapshot20061208165526ed4.jpg --Borb 16:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this needs to be reversed in the article. It would be helpful to have an actual citable source on this, though, since IIRC all of the old anamorphic pics were "filmed in Panavision". Girolamo Savonarola 18:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Merger

It was suggested to merge the information about Panavision 3D into this article. I support this also because DVPO Theatrical, who marketed it on behalf of Panavision discontinued it. http://www.dpvotheatrical.com/Home_Page.html --Fluffystar (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So who actually makes the Panavision lenses?

Elcan? Raytheon? Nikon? Leitz? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.172.231 (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)