Jonny Brady Posted November 11, 2007 Share Posted November 11, 2007 Looking on this website now... http://www.voicefilms.com/Voice_Films/crea...efequipment.htm It says that "This camera is worth a whopping one million dollars." That's not true, is it? Because I mean, an Arri 435 is something like 150-200,000 is it not? And I saw a video on Youtube of Panavision at some convention, and it was a demonstration of one of their cameras, just a standard 35mm - and in the description it mentioned the price "150-300,000 dollars" (even though you can't buy them)... Just curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted November 11, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted November 11, 2007 More like a half-mil maybe, with lenses. I think that's the minimal insurance you take out on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Hal Smith Posted November 11, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted November 11, 2007 (OT warning) Here's the last photo from that website (www.voicefilms.com). If a crew packed up my van by tossing gear in willy-nilly like this, I'd be having a major hissy fit. If it's my gear I want to keep it looking good, if it's rental gear I want the company to know that I take good care of their equipment, and if it's borrowed gear I'd be ashamed to return it with any new scrapes, scratches, or bruises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael Lehnert Posted November 11, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted November 11, 2007 I had the same thought, Hal! I once made a Direct Cinema documentary back in 1996 about a group of HFF Munich film students making their first serious private full-scale production, observing them from casting to screening. The way they treated the rented brand-new SR3 (DOP to AC: "Hmm, 'Pitch Adjust'. Dunno, shall we play around with that or better not? What do you think?"), the lenses (one Zeiss prime's front lens got scratched by a Maglite when they tried to check for dirt on it), the Panther dolly, the Nagra (or rather what remained of the Nagra ? they managed to break off one spool arm! No clue how they achieved that, Swiss-made as it is), plus the entire approach to filmmaking was just ... well ... formidable material for a documentary. My original 20 minute project ballooned into a 122 minutes "grand format" documentary as the "story" unfolded. Back to the hyperlinked website in the OP, however: what I find particularly enlightening is the intrigueing perspective of quality increments that manifests in the author's comment that the Panaflex's "...picture [...] is absolutely phenomenal. When I saw the developed film I could hardly believe my eyes. This makes my top of the line DV camera look like a Hi-8 camcorder from 1987..." What is this person implying? Look, 35mm is so good, it makes my consumer thingy look like a consumer thingy? At least we know that when we rent a Millennium or Elaine, we can expect better quality than from a Sony CCD-V 800 E. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Brady Posted November 11, 2007 Author Share Posted November 11, 2007 (OT warning) Here's the last photo from that website (www.voicefilms.com). If a crew packed up my van by tossing gear in willy-nilly like this, I'd be having a major hissy fit. If it's my gear I want to keep it looking good, if it's rental gear I want company to know that I take good care of their equipment, and if it's borrowed gear I'd be ashamed to return it with any new scrapes, scratches, or bruises. Exactly what I thought. Students. I had the same thought, Hal! I once made a Direct Cinema documentary back in 1996 about a group of HFF Munich film students making their first serious private full-scale production, observing them from casting to screening. Haha that's quite funny, for my uni project I'm making a film about students making a film for their uni project. Well, it's a mockumentary. Satirical. I love being me. Back to the hyperlinked website in the OP, however: what I find particularly enlightening is the intrigueing perspective of quality increments that manifests in the author's comment that the Panaflex's "...picture [...] is absolutely phenomenal. When I saw the developed film I could hardly believe my eyes. This makes my top of the line DV camera look like a Hi-8 camcorder from 1987..." What is this person implying? Look, 35mm is so good, it makes my consumer thingy look like a consumer thingy? At least we know that when we rent a Millennium or Elaine, we can expect better quality than from a Sony CCD-V 800 E. Hahahahahah! Yeah that's what I thought, it sounded dead naive - it made me wonder how these people had even got round to using a Panavision... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael Lehnert Posted November 11, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted November 11, 2007 It made me wonder how these people had even got round to using a Panavision... Hmm, yes, now that you raise that... After all, it took me three phone calls of several weeks (!) to settle for a date with ARRI UK to get a presentation (!, no renting or test-shooting) of the 416. I should have gone to PV instead and rent an XL. (Joking aside: I must disclaim that during the period of my efforts for a 416, ARRI UK were actually moving their office and also suffered from a high staff turnover as well; so not to have the good people of Oxford Road stand in bad light through my comments!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Keth Posted November 11, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted November 11, 2007 That number could have come from the usual insurance requirements being around a million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted November 11, 2007 Share Posted November 11, 2007 Weird website for someone who's attempting to startup a production company. It almost seems as if they raided some studio's junk drawer and made a film with what was still working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Brady Posted November 11, 2007 Author Share Posted November 11, 2007 Weird website for someone who's attempting to startup a production company. It almost seems as if they raided some studio's junk drawer and made a film with what was still working. Hahahaha. I'd be put off ever hiring them purely because of the reference to their 'top of the range DV camcorder'. A bit like saying "this F1 car makes my Nissan Micra seem like a lawnmower!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Gläser Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 IBack to the hyperlinked website in the OP, however: what I find particularly enlightening is the intrigueing perspective of quality increments that manifests in the author's comment that the Panaflex's "...picture [...] is absolutely phenomenal. When I saw the developed film I could hardly believe my eyes. This makes my top of the line DV camera look like a Hi-8 camcorder from 1987..." What is this person implying? Look, 35mm is so good, it makes my consumer thingy look like a consumer thingy? At least we know that when we rent a Millennium or Elaine, we can expect better quality than from a Sony CCD-V 800 E. The funny thing is, I am not sure if anyone noticed... that is an ELAINE... a short lived, shrouded in secrecy (LOL) 16mm camera that Panavision built in the 80's I think. they were converted to Super16mm , but they are more of a museum piece and oddity (although I am sure they run just fine). I think only Panavision in hollywood has the remaining bodies now. oliver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now