Curiosity Question at DVinfo.net

Mitch Buss · September 24th, 2004, 12:47 PM

I was wondering, since the site does not post prices, how much do you think a 35mm Panavision film camera would cost? Any ideas?

Aaron Shaw · September 24th, 2004, 12:56 PM

I don't think Panavision sells their cameras. I may be wrong though as I have never used them before.

Jesse Bekas · September 24th, 2004, 10:21 PM

Panavision is rent only. If you could buy them, you'd be talking $100,000+

Charles Papert · September 25th, 2004, 12:57 AM

Actually, they are generally valued over $250,000 (but are, as Aaron and Jesse mentioned, only available for rent). This is for late model sync sound cameras.

Arri products being roughly equivalent in value, and actually available for purchase: the Arri 235 is the cheapest current production model at $80K, and the Arricam ST is around the $250K mark. One can buy 40 year old Arri 2c's for under $5K that will produce images exactly the same as the Arricam ST, but obviously with an entirely different feature set. Thus is the primary difference between film and video: the more expensive the video camera, the better the picture.

Robert Knecht Schmidt · September 25th, 2004, 01:07 AM

Chas, maybe the analogy still holds for film, it's just that the cost is transferred to the cinematographer's wages!

Jeff Donald · September 25th, 2004, 05:11 AM

On a movie set this last week a Panavision camera was dropped into a vat of chocolate and was declared a total loss. Value, $550,000 but that included the lens.

Richard Alvarez · September 25th, 2004, 08:57 AM

A fully refurbished Mitchell BNCR 35mm with 20-120 angenieux lens, worrell gear head, battery pack, six 1000 foot mags, and sticks can be had for $10,000. We recently shot a feature with it as well as our short, "After Twilight" www.nu-classicfilms.com

Go to www.roadsterproductions.com to see a pic of it.

Jesse Bekas · September 25th, 2004, 09:46 AM

How did the camera get dropped into the chocolate, and what set was it on?

I remember hearing some stoires of Spike Jonze, et al, doing ridiculous things with prosumer cameras, like putting them in ziploc bags for underwater shooting, taping them to the outside of moving cars, etc... and obviously losing the equipment. Who were in their camera departments?

Jeff Donald · September 25th, 2004, 09:53 AM

It was on a cine website, but I can't find it now to link to the story. It was on an English set of the remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. One of the camera crew had failed to properly secure a wire (wire held camera). They were testing the rigging to see how close they could get the camera to the vat of chocolate. They had even brought in a crew of technicians from the US to properly secure the camera. A lot of good that did.

Charles Papert · September 25th, 2004, 11:27 AM

I "lost" a Panflex on a movie called "Big Fat Liar" a few years back. I was shooting second unit on the Universal Studios backlot on the flash flood set. We had a Panastar (high speed version of the Panaflex) in a splash bag, which protects the camera from a light wash but not immersion, which was positioned on the rocks next to the flood area. Due to circumstances I won't elaborate on, it ended up completely immersed and although a dedicated grip managed to keep a hand on it as the current dragged him six feet across rocky terrain, the eyepiece and some other bits snapped off and ended up downstream. The damage and resulting insurance claim was not all that bad, around $50K, but had it been salt water it would have been worse.

You can see the actual shot, which was used in the movie (yup, the footage was recoverable and caused a gasp at dailies!) on my DP reel here at around 2:25.

Jack Barker · September 27th, 2004, 11:44 AM

Charles,

I watched both of your great demo reels and wanted to ask a couple of questions about TWW (SteadiCam reel).

The production values on TWW seem to be very high for even Prime Time TV. Right up there with studio film, or at least an expensive HBO special. Having worked on the set, is that your opinion also?

Is TWW on film or HD or both?

One general question; how long does it take to make such smooth SteadiCam shots? Most of them looked like either dolly or crane shots, even when I watched them a few times.

September 24th, 2004, 12:47 PM	#1
Mitch Buss Regular Crew Join Date: May 2004 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 184	Curiosity Question I was wondering, since the site does not post prices, how much do you think a 35mm Panavision film camera would cost? Any ideas?

September 25th, 2004, 12:57 AM	#4
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Actually, they are generally valued over $250,000 (but are, as Aaron and Jesse mentioned, only available for rent). This is for late model sync sound cameras. Arri products being roughly equivalent in value, and actually available for purchase: the Arri 235 is the cheapest current production model at $80K, and the Arricam ST is around the $250K mark. One can buy 40 year old Arri 2c's for under $5K that will produce images exactly the same as the Arricam ST, but obviously with an entirely different feature set. Thus is the primary difference between film and video: the more expensive the video camera, the better the picture. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

September 25th, 2004, 01:07 AM	#5
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	Chas, maybe the analogy still holds for film, it's just that the cost is transferred to the cinematographer's wages! __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

September 25th, 2004, 05:11 AM	#6
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	On a movie set this last week a Panavision camera was dropped into a vat of chocolate and was declared a total loss. Value, $550,000 but that included the lens. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

September 25th, 2004, 09:53 AM	#9
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	It was on a cine website, but I can't find it now to link to the story. It was on an English set of the remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. One of the camera crew had failed to properly secure a wire (wire held camera). They were testing the rigging to see how close they could get the camera to the vat of chocolate. They had even brought in a crew of technicians from the US to properly secure the camera. A lot of good that did. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

September 24th, 2004, 12:56 PM	#2
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	I don't think Panavision sells their cameras. I may be wrong though as I have never used them before.

September 24th, 2004, 10:21 PM	#3
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	Panavision is rent only. If you could buy them, you'd be talking $100,000+

September 25th, 2004, 08:57 AM	#7
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	A fully refurbished Mitchell BNCR 35mm with 20-120 angenieux lens, worrell gear head, battery pack, six 1000 foot mags, and sticks can be had for $10,000. We recently shot a feature with it as well as our short, "After Twilight" www.nu-classicfilms.com Go to www.roadsterproductions.com to see a pic of it.

September 25th, 2004, 09:46 AM	#8
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	How did the camera get dropped into the chocolate, and what set was it on? I remember hearing some stoires of Spike Jonze, et al, doing ridiculous things with prosumer cameras, like putting them in ziploc bags for underwater shooting, taping them to the outside of moving cars, etc... and obviously losing the equipment. Who were in their camera departments?

September 25th, 2004, 11:27 AM	#10
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	I "lost" a Panflex on a movie called "Big Fat Liar" a few years back. I was shooting second unit on the Universal Studios backlot on the flash flood set. We had a Panastar (high speed version of the Panaflex) in a splash bag, which protects the camera from a light wash but not immersion, which was positioned on the rocks next to the flood area. Due to circumstances I won't elaborate on, it ended up completely immersed and although a dedicated grip managed to keep a hand on it as the current dragged him six feet across rocky terrain, the eyepiece and some other bits snapped off and ended up downstream. The damage and resulting insurance claim was not all that bad, around $50K, but had it been salt water it would have been worse. You can see the actual shot, which was used in the movie (yup, the footage was recoverable and caused a gasp at dailies!) on my DP reel here at around 2:25. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

September 27th, 2004, 11:44 AM	#11
Jack Barker Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 342	Way off topic Charles, I watched both of your great demo reels and wanted to ask a couple of questions about TWW (SteadiCam reel). The production values on TWW seem to be very high for even Prime Time TV. Right up there with studio film, or at least an expensive HBO special. Having worked on the set, is that your opinion also? Is TWW on film or HD or both? One general question; how long does it take to make such smooth SteadiCam shots? Most of them looked like either dolly or crane shots, even when I watched them a few times.