Panavision Genesis Cost

[Landon D. Parks]

Can someone alert me to the expected cost of the Genesis per day and per week? Seems pretty expensive..... but then again, if they charge to much, then it could not compete with film.... so?

[Kevin Zanit]

I was told somewhere around $4,000 a day, with a two day week. This is a high book rate, but I am sure it will go down, and well, no one pays book prices.

 

 

Kevin Zanit

[Guest Pete Wright]

Hello,

 

What does it mean 2-day week?

 

If you'd pay for 20 days at $4,000/day, it's $80,000. Ridiculous. Would it not be better to buy two Kinettas instead?

 

How about renting F950 instead? You'd get the same picture quality. The only disadvantage is smaller aspect ratio and larger DOF.

 

I think that the Kinetta will start a trend that in couple of years we'll have Genesis quality at Kinetta prices. You'll rent it for $400/day, not for $4,000.

 

Of course, by that time Genesis will be converted to a 4K camera. I think that at that time the Kinetta will be 4K too.

 

I'm sure that Panasonic will not let this high end market to Sony for too long.

 

pete

[Max Jacoby]

What does it mean 2-day week?

It means that if you want to rent a camera for a week, you pay for the first 2 days and get the remaining 5 days free of charge. Most camera rentals are 3 day weeks. On the features that I work on, we usually get the camera equipment for 1 day weeks, but that is because there is a lot of equipment (at least 2-3 35mm cameras) and the production company has a long standing relationship with the rental place.

[Mitch Gross]

I'm sure that $4000/day rate would be for a complete package including lenses and accessories. The equivalent Panavised Cine Alta package is probably around $3000/day and a Millenium package around the same. And yes, no one pays book rate.

 

Standard rate structures are 3 day week and 10 day month. These are often discounted to 2 day and 8 day or less.

[David Mullen ASC]

Genesis will never be a $400/day book rental rate until it's old and considered fairly obsolete. You have to look at the video rental market and look at what Panavision charges for their F900's currently.

 

An NTSC Sony DSR500 DVCAM is nearly a $500/day book rental. A Digital Betacam is $1000/day. The Sony F900 is normally a $1700/day book rental.

 

Sure, you can get 2-day week rates on this stuff, which helps.

 

The HDCAM-SR deck attached to the Genesis alone will keep the rental price high until HDCAM-SR is considered an old recording format. Ever try and rent a HD-D5 deck? That's another $1500/day by itself.

 

Genesis will rent for more than their 35mm cameras (as does the F900 currently) but of course, the idea is that not having to pay for 35mm stock, processing, telecine, etc. will pay for the difference.

 

You can't really compared 35mm camera rental rates to HD camera rental rates because generally the film cameras will be cheaper to rent, since they don't obsolete as quickly and don't have to make their costs back as quickly. A rental company purchasing a video camera has to plan on recouping their costs within two years because by then, the camera might be obsoleted by a newer model. In comparison, I can rent a 35mm Panaflex GII or Arri-BL4S for less than an HD camera because they were purchased over a decade ago and have long since paid for themselves.

[David Mullen ASC]

A 2-day week at $4000/day is $8000/week. For 5 weeks, that would be $40,000. Now, if you had a 5-week shoot, what HD camera could you buy for $40,000? Not even a Varicam...

[Guest Pete Wright]

Thanks for the info.

 

The Kinetta is supposed to be $40,000.

 

Pete

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Mr. Jacoby, what kind of stuff do you work on? You talk about upscale features with three-camera shoots, but I know damn well there aren't more than two or three shoots in the UK like that in a really good year. Not trying to be confrontational here but where exactly do you get your stellar experience?

 

Phil

[Max Jacoby]

Mr. Jacoby, what kind of stuff do you work on? You talk about upscale features with three-camera shoots, but I know damn well there aren't more than two or three shoots in the UK like that in a really good year. Not trying to be confrontational here but where exactly do you get your stellar experience?

I work in Luxembourg. There is a tax shelter law that attracts a lot of medium budget features ($5-20 Million) that wouldn't get made otherwise.

 

Although we usually carry 3 cameras, 2 of those are sync sound cameras (mostly Arricams) and the 435 only comes out for high speed/stunt work.

[David Mullen ASC]

I almost got hired to shoot a 35mm auto racing feature in Luxembourg. Until the producers told me that I couldn't have the actual DP credit because they had to give that to a European cinematographer for tax reasons. Even though I needed the money, I turned down the job.

[Landon D. Parks]

$40,000 for 5 weeks?

 

I could shot 35mm film for that and shot plenty of it. And even more to the fact that the only added bonus to this camera right now that I know of is the fact it has 35mm depth of field... But it only record HD Quality i hear... 1080x1900 or somthing like that. Sony HDC-F950 w/ PRO35 and Recorder are cheaper than $4,000.00 day.

 

Oh well, I guess that puts that camera out of the picture for a while.... <_<

[Jason Rodriguez]

Sony HDC-F950 w/ PRO35 and Recorder are cheaper than $4,000.00 day

 

Where did you get that figure? I'm sure if you give Plus8Digital a quick phone call you'll see that the F950 is $2,000 per day, and the SRW-5000 is another $2000 per day. And I believe they have a three-day week. BTW, none of this even includes the lenses, that'll be another $1,000 per day for a set of Primes and the Pro35 (and you can't get that from Plus8).

 

Even Bexel wants $1800 per day for the SRW-5000, but I don't believe theirs has the RGB option installed.

 

I'm curious to know what rental facility you got your numbers from, because I might want to use them for the next green-screen shoot I have.

[Max Jacoby]

I almost got hired to shoot a 35mm auto racing feature in Luxembourg.

Was that last year?

 

If it was, you made the right decision. I worked on that shoot and it wasn't too pleasant. Also the film itself turned out to be garbage (as everyone expected btw).

[Landon D. Parks]

Ok, you win... lets compare the Viper to HDC then.

 

Viper: $1,200.00/day

Disk Recorder: $1,000.00/day

---------------------

$2,200.00/day @ Plus8Digital

 

I guess I got my prices mixed up on the HDC. I just went an checked, its the HDC-950 for $850/day, not the HDC-F950.

 

And also, 35mm lense are not $1,000.00/day... last time I checked anyway. Zeiss Ultra primes go for $150.00/each/day. and I figure on needed 2... 20 and 40mm. Brings my total too $300.00/day for the lenses... and if the PRO35 is more than $200.00/day, they can forget it.

 

But thats HD... I was really comparing to film. If Hd really hits over the $4,000/day mark, why would someone want to shot it over 35? Unless for just ease of use, or they where doing green/bluescreen?

 

I figure I can get 20 hours of film, Telecine, Lab and Equipment for $35,000.00/ TPT or less.

 

Not including the fact you would have to hire an HD tech on HD, which would top the $50k + mark w/equipment.

 

Not everyone will agree with me, But this is My opinion. not all HD is more than 35mm, but it appears the sony and panavision are.

[Landon D. Parks]

NOTE:

I am NOT a DP. So I dont know everything. This is just the way I view the costs... mybee Im viewing them wronge?!?!?!

[Guest Pete Wright]

Panasonic and Sony cornered the HD camcorder market. Their little empire is beginning to crumble. The Kinetta is just tip of the iceberg. If you could make a decent DV camera for $3,000 five years ago, you should be able to make a decent $3,000 HD camera five years from now, not $200,000 camera. It will not take long and no low to mid level indie filmmaker will rent this pro stuff.

 

Someone will see the market need and will make affordable gear, maybe the Koreans, or the Chinese.

 

Pete

[Landon D. Parks]

The reason I think Sony charges so much is only because they dont sell enough of them to really make a large profit.

 

I mean, You cant tell me they have more than $15,000 in one of those HDC-F950's... just cant see it.

 

And yet they find it fitting to sell them for $110,000.00 list price for the HDC-F950 alone.

 

But then again, even film cameras are just basic boxes with a motor and a few electronics and yet they still seem to find away to charge $150,000.00 for them. and they is no where near as much in a film camera as a Digital HD.

 

Good thing about film cameras are that you can rent them for so cheap... So many more people use them than Hd that they can afford to charge less and stay in buisiness....

 

Just my take on it. :blink:

[Landon D. Parks]

P>S)

 

I just go through listening to Robert on the SK3 dvd talk about how the film was made and stuff, and he has a point to make on Digital.

 

I found it inspired me to shot digital HD when he explained how people considered film "Organic", and he replys with "It dont grow on tree's"... lol.... And 99% of his argument about digital HD is true. I really think Him and George will be the ones that take us into the digital age of Filmmaking.

 

long live HD digital Robert and George...

[David Mullen ASC]

Actually a modern 35mm camera like an Arri-435 has more electronics going on inside than an HD camera. After all, you are talking about a camera that can do programmable speed and shutter angle changes... And the things are hand-built and only a few are sold per year, which is why they are so expensive. I'm more daunted by the menu on an 435 than I am on an F900...

 

As for Sony's prices for camcorders that are mass-produced on an assembly line, they seem too high but obviously if the cameras didn't sell, they would lower the price, so someone must be buying them.

 

It's simplistic to think that one can just make a $3000 camera with the same image quality as one ten or hundred times the price. You forget that a decent lens on ANY movie camera would cost more than $3000 so the optical quality of what you get on a $3000 digital camera will be compromised. That would be fine for the small screen but obvious on the big screen. HD zooms currently sell for $25,000 to $30,000 and while that seems too high even for me (or some of the people I talk to at the rental houses that have to buy the damn things), the point is high-quality optics will keep the price of a decent-quality digital camera above $3000.

 

Technology may be rapidly advancing in terms of digital, but the technology that produces good lenses is more stable than that so don't expect miracles. As it is, the consumer cameras do all sorts of internal tricks just to avoid building a zoom that can track and focus smoothly.

 

A film camera is more than a box with a motor, or at least, it's a damn precise motor! An analogy: my dad helped develop these high-tech laser gyroscope systems for missiles. I once asked him if they were better than the traditional gyroscope and he said "not really -- but a gyroscope is an expensive, hand-built precision device that can't be produced quickly, so putting one in a missile so that it gets destroyed with the missile is not cost-effective." In other words, just because something is new and electronic, doesn't necessarily mean it is better, just cheaper to mass-produce. You can't really punch out a camera movement easily on an assembly line. Someday people will look back at the 20th century as the Golden Age of mechanical engineering and construction.

[Landon D. Parks]

Actually a modern 35mm camera like an Arri-435 has more electronics going on inside than an HD camera.

Really? I'v never looked inside an 435, But it just seems to me more Electronics are in the Hd cameras.

 

Now if you include the Video assist, which is a Digital camera itself, then I can see it.

 

I once looked inside an Arricam, and what I seen did not impress me at all, But I'v never even seen a 435 in person.

 

You forget that a decent lens on ANY movie camera would cost more than $3000

Try buying a single Zeiss Digiprime for $3,000.00! They'll kick you out of the store!!!

 

I was using a "Box and a motot" as a point. I know there is a lot more in a camera now days.

[John Sprung]

they is no where near as much in a film camera as a Digital HD.

It's really apples and oranges.

 

The big expense in a good film camera is high precision machine work. Most of the innards of an Arri or Panavision camera are held to tolerances of plus or minus one ten-thousandth of an inch. That's give or take a layer of metal about ten thousand atoms thick. Not easy to do, it takes highly skilled and expensive machinists a long time to make a camera movement.

 

The expense in electronics is in the R&D that creates the mask set for a chip. That has to be divided over the number of units produced. The real cost of making the first chip may be in the tens of millions of dollars, the cost of making chip #2 and onward is in the tens of cents apiece. That's what drives the huge price difference between professional and mass produced consumer electronics.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Tenolian Bell]

I once looked inside an Arricam, and what I seen did not impress me at all.

I don't understand this statement. What did you expect to see?

[Tenolian Bell]

I found it inspired me to shot digital HD when he explained how people considered film "Organic", and he replys with "It dont grow on tree's"... lol....

Film can be called organic because it does exist in a physical form, and its made from organic materials.

 

While digital images don't really exist at all in a physical, tangible way.

[Max Jacoby]

I once looked inside an Arricam, and what I seen did not impress me at all.

I don't understand this statement. What did you expect to see?

Me neither. What does the look of the inside of a camera have to do with how it performs? The Arricams are pretty much the best cameras out there (along with the Panavision Milleniums).