Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Joseph Arch

Panavision 65 HR Camera

Recommended Posts

Just curious as to why cinematographers don't shoot on 65mm cameras? Emmanuel Lubezki used the Panavision 65 HR Camera and system 65 lenses on The new world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious as to why cinematographers don't shoot on 65mm cameras?

 

 

Much of the latest Batman film's beginning was shot with 65mm Imax cameras, if it's a studio film the stock costs and camera rental is insignificant. Seems similar to an indie mixing some 35mm with Super16, but better.

 

-Rob-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that 65mm is that more expensive. Just remember that shooting 65mm and shooting with two 35mm cameras would cost the same. It is my understanding the Arri is trying to remarket 65mm as an alternate to 4k digital cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that 65mm is that more expensive. Just remember that shooting 65mm and shooting with two 35mm cameras would cost the same.

The 765 rents for less than an Arricam, but stock and development are about twice the price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend had access to a pile of leftover 65mm stock (from "The Patriot") that we thought of using for a short he wanted to do. What we discovered was that we could get a killer deal on a 65mm camera (Panavision) but as soon as you took the film to the lab, all of the post costs were epic.

 

And then what do you do with it, make a 70mm print? To show where?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A friend had access to a pile of leftover 65mm stock (from "The Patriot") that we thought of using for a short he wanted to do. What we discovered was that we could get a killer deal on a 65mm camera (Panavision) but as soon as you took the film to the lab, all of the post costs were epic.

 

And then what do you do with it, make a 70mm print? To show where?

Hey, if he doesn't want the film.... I'd be more than happy to take it off his hands? 8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes 65 mm is used for commercials. As much as I know the original of a Bacardi spot is 65, reduced to 35 CRI (at the time). In the theatres you felt being on that white sand south sea beach. I liked it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone who's seen 65mm projected on a 35mm print would agree that it's a world of difference. Not only is it sharper, but it gets bokeh that's impossible to achieve any other way. Even on DVD it's a massive difference. There's no substitute for size (of the capture medium).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't forget there are many 65mm format.

 

motion picture industry will use the 65 5 perf vertical (765 arri and 65 HR panavision cameras)

 

another industry will use the 65 8 perf vertical mostly for destnation theatres (iwerks cameras)

 

japanese industry will use the 65 10 perf vertical wich is a square format for destination theatres as well

 

an the you have the bigest format called 15/70 wich is 65 mm 15 perf horizontal called IMAX (image maximum) it will be imax cameras or the fries camera

 

70 mil is the size of the positive stock to include the sound track, useless now as the sound is provided on a separate tool, often the sonics sound system in Imax, an 8 tracs sound device.

 

hope it helps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just curious as to why cinematographers don't shoot on 65mm cameras? Emmanuel Lubezki used the Panavision 65 HR Camera and system 65 lenses on The new world.

 

It's been a topic of a lot of debate. What some people don't realize is that a big incentive to shoot in 65 back in the "golden days" wasn't so much the visual quality, but the SOUND quality. 70mm prints were prized for their six tracks of audio, which blew 35 out of the water. But when digital audio came around, and suddenly you could get that kind of sound onto a 35mm print, you lost half of the incentive to shoot in large format.

 

Also, thanks to VHS, DVD and such, the time between a film's theatrical release and it's home video release has become increasingly shorter. It used to be that films premiered in the cities, and slowly made their way around the country; why, Gone with the Wind was in circulation for a good two years after it's initial debut in 1939. Now, studios depend on that big, simultaneous release on 3500 screens. It's all about that opening week; after that, it usually drops off. They have little staying power, with a few exceptions like The Dark Knight, or Titanic. Now what does this mean? It means more theaters: multiplexes, megaplexes, googolplexes (okay, not quite that far); it means cramming more screens into a given space, which usually means smaller screens. That's another blow against 70mm, which for the full effect needs that massive screen in an auditorium type setting, like your classic movie palace.

 

And because you've got to release thousands of prints, as opposed to a few hundred, the cost becomes an issue. As someone else mentioned, it isn't so expensive to shoot in 65m. But to finishing in the same format is where it hurts the pocket book. And because there are so few theaters equipped to screen in 70mm, studios figure why bother to shoot in it?

 

Now that said, I'm a ardent supporter of shooting in 65mm as an acquisition format. It's the future of all film, if you ask me. Digital Intermediates are quickly becoming the standard, and in a few more years, so will digital projection. But the technology is so volatile, and so prone to change, that I see film existing as insurance, as a future proof medium, and 65mm is the most future proof of all films. It is versatile: you can print to 5 perf 70mm, or blow up to 15 perf Imax, or reduce it to 35, and still yield a product superior to films originating on 35mm. You can also do a DI. It has such high resolution, that it will outlast many news trends to come. Why, they're already working on the successor to HD! To me, it is simple. Why constantly reinvest in new cameras and equipment to shoot in the latest new thing, when you can shoot in 65mm, and everytime some new format comes out, you just dig out the negative, and do a new transfer. And as was already mentioned, it is not that more expensive to shoot in 65. If I were a studio chief, I would at least be shooting my big budget productions in the format, so I would know that it could continue to be a moneymaker for decades to come.

 

Best,

BR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  


  • Serious Gear



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Ritter Battery



    Wooden Camera



    The Original Slider



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Tai Audio



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Rig Wheels Passport



    G-Force Grips



    Glidecam



    Abel Cine



    FJS International



    Metropolis Post



    CineLab



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Just Cinema Gear



    Visual Products



    Paralinx LLC


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...