Jump to content
Tim Tyler

Panavision Millennium DXL. Powered by RED. Color by Light Iron.

Recommended Posts

The current forum software started running in 2003 but I was posting here before that, maybe starting in 2001, maybe even as far back as 1999 -- I seem to recall writing a journal here while I was shooting "Jackpot" on the F900 in 2000, but certainly did while shooting "Northfork" in 2002.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Murdoch, who used to be the resident anti-Panavision poster and was also based in Australia.

Is that right? I could show you several emails that prove otherwise.

(There are certain people who I imagine would rather desperately hope you'll drop that particular subject, but carry on :rolleyes:)

And I actually did find the original posts here about the Genesis and worked through the first couple of pages of thread titles. I have yet to a single post by him thus far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just another white effluent from a company that hasn't made an operating profit in nearly 5 decades.

 

 

And your point is..?

 

Panavision have supplied camera and lens packages for many of the greatest movies of all time. They have weathered the digital revolution and are still producing new lenses and cameras to add to the filmmakers toolbox. Why trash them for some perceived lack of financial success?

 

As David mentioned, the DXL is a specialised camera for a format that is still relatively rare for most feature films, and it's really only been less than a year since it's been properly available. How many features were shot on the Alexa 65 in its first year? Do cinematographers want other options or should everything just be shot on Arri cameras?

 

I don't know exactly when that Panavision article that I linked to was released, but the films mentioned were all filming before October 2017, so there may well be more examples since then. It's also worth remembering that there are now several options for larger format cinematography, so there's a smaller piece of a rather marginal pie to go around, but more choice can only be a good thing for the filmmakers wanting to take that route.

 

One of the main reasons Panavision developed this camera was as a vehicle for their Primo 70 lenses, which from personal experience checking them for Aquaman, mostly shot here in Australia, are exceptionally well-designed large format lenses. In that particular feature they were used with Arri Alexas in Open Gate, but they were designed with the DXL in mind. Panavision have always been primarily a lens company, but they have also always made cameras on which to mount them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And I actually did find the original posts here about the Genesis and worked through the first couple of pages of thread titles. I have yet to a single post by him thus far.

 

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=14532

 

But I don't feel the need to continue discussing Jim Murdoch -- and I admit that I may be misremembering him as being from Australia. Most of those forum posts pre-2003 (when Jim was complaining about the Panavised F900) don't exist anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why trash them for some perceived lack of financial success?

 

Aha! You've hit the nail on the head! As it happens, there is actually a VERY good reason, which will become more apparent over the next few months.

"Perceived lack"? Hmmm This must be some new useage of the words "perceived" and "lack" I haven't encountered before...

http://www.doddlenews.com/panavision-sued-over-unpaid-loans/

 

"Panavision have always been primarily a lens company, but they have also always made cameras on which to mount them."

You mean the film cameras that run so quiet you have to take the lens out to hear if the movement is actually running? Those lens mounts...?

For a long time Panavision made the best lenses and film cameras in the world. And I mean they **made** them.

On the other hand, Panavision have never made a digital cinematography camera, they've simply been mechanically modified cameras bought from other companies. The difference is, if you wanted to use a Panavision film camera you had to rent it from Panavision; there was no other option. However if you desperately wanted the images from an F900 or a Genesis, you could get the same thing from Sony.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aha! You've hit the nail on the head! As it happens, there is actually a VERY good reason, which will become more apparent over the next few months.

"Perceived lack"? Hmmm This must be some new useage of the words "perceived" and "lack" I haven't encountered before...

http://www.doddlenews.com/panavision-sued-over-unpaid-loans/

 

"Panavision have always been primarily a lens company, but they have also always made cameras on which to mount them."

You mean the film cameras that run so quiet you have to take the lens out to hear if the movement is actually running? Those lens mounts...?

For a long time Panavision made the best lenses and film cameras in the world. And I mean they **made** them.

On the other hand, Panavision have never made a digital cinematography camera, they've simply been mechanically modified cameras bought from other companies. The difference is, if you wanted to use a Panavision film camera you had to rent it from Panavision; there was no other option. However if you desperately wanted the images from an F900 or a Genesis, you could get the same thing from Sony.

 

 

making a lens mount is relatively easy and a good machinist can make you one from scratch in no time.

even your average Chinese eBay seller can make a user installable PV mount to a digital camera (or I could make one by myself in the garage if having slightly better milling machine, a suitable lathe I already have ;) )

 

Making a film camera movement + the rest of the camera is completely different matter, as well as making a movie lens from scratch, even if some of the elements are pre made by other companies. Making cameras and lenses = cool stuff , modifying lens mounts = meh :lol:

 

that said, I can't see much reason on renting a digital camera from Panavision unless there is a very good package deal with their own lenses and stuff or the camera is very specially custom modified one, like the DXL seems to be.

maybe it is more reliable than your average RED stuff? that would be a good selling point, especially if the cooling system works correctly and is silent enough :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why it matters to a cinematographer whether Panavision is turning a profit or not. To an investor or an employee, yes.

 

It is indeed rather odd that a random cinematographer in Australia revels in joyful glee from the failure of Panavision.

 

But, to put it into perspective...

 

 

post-10433-0-94906100-1515028797_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aha! You've hit the nail on the head! As it happens, there is actually a VERY good reason, which will become more apparent over the next few months.

"Perceived lack"? Hmmm This must be some new useage of the words "perceived" and "lack" I haven't encountered before...

http://www.doddlenews.com/panavision-sued-over-unpaid-loans/

 

Ah, that most reputable news organisation, Doddlenews..

 

You do realise that article came out in 2013? Complete with references to Panavision's "DigiPan 70" camera and a nonsensical quote from Shane Hurlbut. I seem to remember there was a thread about it here, which you were part of:

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=60021

 

I will wait with bated breath for the latest Doddlenews scoop coming in the next few months..

 

 

 

For a long time Panavision made the best lenses and film cameras in the world. And I mean they **made** them.

On the other hand, Panavision have never made a digital cinematography camera, they've simply been mechanically modified cameras bought from other companies.

 

Their first cameras were modified Mitchells, which remained the basis for all their subseqent film camera models. Pretty similar approach to what they're doing now with digital cameras, I think.

 

I did a quick search for DXL jobs, there have been more than 10 features, multiple TV series, pilots and ads shot on top of the productions listed previously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's strange; a link posted in 2013 connects you to an article dated 20 July 2017. :blink:

 

"Their first cameras were modified Mitchells, which remained the basis for all their subsequent film camera models. Pretty similar approach to what they're doing now with digital cameras, I think."

 

Hogwash. Although they copied some aspects of the original Mitchell design for their film cameras, they still largely built the things themselves in their own machine shops. They sure as hell didn't do anything like that with their video cameras.

 

 

"I did a quick search for DXL jobs, there have been more than 10 features, multiple TV series, pilots and ads shot on top of the productions listed previously. "
Aha! And how did you do that exactly?
That was the only information I was really after, and I was only able to turn up the same slack handful of non-events as everybody else here did. Is there some sort of database that lists productions by camera model?

Most of the replies here have been just the usual Pana-luvvie affirmations mixed with a sprinkling of incomprehensible drivel from the usual suspects, plus a couple of new ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not happy about Panavision wasting resources, that should go to their film camera department, on digital cameras. I think of it as indeed they might be losing money, because you only reach for digital when you're out of money for film.

 

So could they have panicked due to the number of productions embracing digital? Possibly. That's not a good sign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys think it’s odd for a cinema camera company in 2018 to invest in digital technology instead of in film? So ARRI should give up on the Alexa and go back to building Arricams?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys think it’s odd for a cinema camera company in 2018 to invest in digital technology instead of in film? So ARRI should give up on the Alexa and go back to building Arricams?

 

What do you think, David?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not happy about Panavision wasting resources, that should go to their film camera department, on digital cameras. I think of it as indeed they might be losing money, because you only reach for digital when you're out of money for film.

 

So could they have panicked due to the number of productions embracing digital? Possibly. That's not a good sign.

This is the kind of comment that people made a lot back in 2007. These days it's just naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the kind of comment that people made a lot back in 2007. These days it's just naive.

 

I'm no stranger to profit-based business decisions. I'm just saying I don't like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was never happy with all the money spent on the round wheel.. I had invested heavily in the square variety ..that worked well enough ..

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that, you're just 10 years too late.

 

I wonder if people will know film ever existed 100 years from today.

 

If they do it will be because of people like me. Except, of course, I'm buying a digital camera at some point in order to earn a living, so I guess I'm not a good example. Pressure to stay in business is going to ruin everything. Digital is the new Walmart. "Welcome to Costco, I love you."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hogwash. Although they copied some aspects of the original Mitchell design for their film cameras, they still largely built the things themselves in their own machine shops. They sure as hell didn't do anything like that with their video cameras.

 

Hogwash, eh?

 

From Wikipedia:

" That year, MGM's Camera 65 production of Mutiny on the Bounty went so far over budget that the studio liquidated assets to cover its costs. As a result of this liquidation, Panavision acquired MGM's camera equipment division, as well as the rights to the Camera 65 system it had developed for MGM; the technology was renamed Ultra Panavision..

During this period, the company's R&D department focused on retrofitting the industry standard 35 mm camera, the Mitchell BNC. The first cameras produced by Panavision were Mitchell cameras, and all standard 35mm cameras made by Panavision to this day are based on the Mitchell movement."

 

After a few years they did indeed make their own cameras, but their first cameras were Mitchells, and the movement - the heart - of all subsequent cameras remained Mitchell based.

 

post-46614-0-28875800-1515036513_thumb.jpg post-46614-0-83715300-1515036539_thumb.jpg

 

At top a Mitchell movement, at bottom a Panaflex one.

 

But anyway, what does it matter if Panavision don't make their own video cameras? Plenty of companies outsource the production of components and assemblies, how many camera companies make their own sensors for example? Seems like a complaint made for the sake of complaining.

Edited by Dom Jaeger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was never happy with all the money spent on the round wheel.. I had invested heavily in the square variety ..that worked well enough ..

Is it true you still have several thousand square wheels stored in a factory in Tokyo, Robin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aha! And how did you do that exactly?

That was the only information I was really after, and I was only able to turn up the same slack handful of non-events as everybody else here did. Is there some sort of database that lists productions by camera model?

 

Not one that Google can find.

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.



  • FJS International



    G-Force Grips



    CineLab



    Paralinx LLC



    Ritter Battery



    Visual Products



    Serious Gear



    Glidecam



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Abel Cine



    Tai Audio



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Metropolis Post



    Wooden Camera



    Just Cinema Gear



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS


×
×
  • Create New...