And where in the world does one look to rent it? Thank you!
Edited by Jeremy Val, 23 June 2011 - 10:56 PM.
Jump to content
How much would it cost to rent?
19 replies to this topic
Posted 23 June 2011 - 10:56 PM
How much would it cost to rent a Panavision 35mm for three weeks in the United States?
And where in the world does one look to rent it? Thank you!
Edited by Jeremy Val, 23 June 2011 - 10:56 PM.
Support Cinematography.com and buy gear using our Amazon links!
PANASONIC LUMIX GH5 Body 4K Mirrorless Camera, 20.3 Megapixels, Dual I.S. 2.0, 4K 422 10-bit, Full Size HDMI Out, 3 Inch Touch LCD, DC-GH5KBODY (USA Black)
Posted 23 June 2011 - 11:13 PM
The camera body itself isn't that much to rent, maybe $700/day, so a 3-day week rental charge would be $2100, times three weeks, that's $6300...
but all the accessories -- mags, batteries, lenses, sticks, heads, maybe video assist monitor, etc. would probably make it a $10,000/week package...
But you should talk to Panavision -- they make deals all the time. And the cost will depend a lot on the lenses you need, and whether you get the cheapest Panaflex Gold, or a Platinum or Millenium for example.
If you get them down to a 2-day week rental, if you can use the older lenses and Panaflexes, etc. you probably can get the cost way down.
Posted 23 June 2011 - 11:26 PM
Unless you really want to use Panavision lenses, there's no reason to use Panavision cameras, so you could almost certainly get a better deal elsewhere on an Arri camera package.
Posted 23 June 2011 - 11:30 PM
Thank you for the reply, much appreciated!
But to be honest, I'm completely new to all of this. I KNOW I want to shoot my short on a 35mm Panavision, however I have NO clue about all the accessories you mentioned. Like film lenses for example. I want my short to look beautiful. Would the lenses play a part in that?
Posted 23 June 2011 - 11:42 PM
Kinda hard to shoot a movie without lenses...
A 35mm Panaflex package is not really simple enough for someone to use who doesn't understand the basic accessories needed, or what lenses to order... I suggest you hire a cinematographer (and he should hire a camera assistant.) This package comes in several cases after all and takes skill to assemble.
You can get a sense of what is needed just by going to their online catalog because the basic accessories are included and listed.
Generally you are talking about a camera body, lenses, mattebox, follow-focus, batteries & charger, magazines (1000' and 500' usually), tripod sticks (regular, baby, and hi-hat), head, spreader, filters.
But do you need a zoom lens or just primes? If so, what size zoom? What filters besides the basics (ND's, pola, for example)? How many stocks will you be carrying? Do you need to shoot a lot of handheld or Steadicam? Do you want a video tap monitor? A lot of handheld may mean ordering more 400' rolls (5 minutes of film) rather than 1000' rolls (10-minutes of film). And that brings up format -- 3-perf? 4-perf? 1.85 or 2.35? Is this for digital finish? Or straight contact printing and projection?
"Beautiful" is a broad term -- that could mean older, softer lenses or the sharpest most modern lenses. Could mean diffusion filters. But do you need anything beyond a normal range of focal lengths, let's say, between 18mm and 85mm? Do you need the zoom?
Posted 24 June 2011 - 12:00 AM
Ha, yes. I meant was " will my lenses play a part in making the film look beautiful".
I'm hiring a cinematographer as well. Which confuses me, is the Cinematographer supposed to order the camera and equipment needed for the shoot?
Will do, thank you.
So, because I have little knowledge about all these things, would the cinematographer (once hired) put together everything I need for my desired look, and then I order?
Well, if you could, could you explain the difference between the two? (Primes, and Zooms) My knowledge between the two is very limited. Also, I'll be using a stedicam. And yes, I'm shooting in film, and will print.
I greatly appreciate your answers, thank you!
Posted 24 June 2011 - 12:25 AM
What is your rational behind shooting specifically on Panavision? Yes, lens has a prominent roll in "making your film look beautiful' which is a extremely vague statement in itself. Although I am still a humble film student it seems extremely irrational to begin a full fledged 35mm production when zoom/prime lens basics and the functions of a cinematographer are not understood. I feel that film production is more complex than simply renting out a camera and shooting haphazardly. I would suggest you take time- takes years- to seriously study the art before you embark on such an ambitious endeavor. That would certainly help get the results you like and make your "film look beautiful".
Posted 24 June 2011 - 12:54 AM
I'll take your advice on one condition, how do I go about learning this kind of information? I refuse to go to a school, so what you would you recommend me do? I'm extremely interested in learning more about these things, and would love to hear ways I can.
Posted 24 June 2011 - 01:03 AM
I understand your refusal to go to film school. Some people do not like to learn under those conditions. I have friends who have gotten internships or assistant jobs. Even in film school I feel that you learn most from being on set, even if your job is directing traffic. I suggest that you find shoots around your area and even volunteer to help on as many productions as you can. Good luck and I assure you that you will have fun along the way!
Posted 24 June 2011 - 01:42 AM
You hire a cinematographer, discuss what you need -- he can give you a list of equipment to be bid out based on your input. I suggest he makes both a Panavision list and an ARRI list so you can get competing bids from at least two rental houses (probably the Panavision bid will come in the lowest - they have a lot of gear so can cut deals more easily).
Besides the cinematographer, if you are completely new to this, you might find a line producer type to help you figure out budgets, insurance requirements, etc.
This is one reason why, if you really want to learn all this yourself, you start small and work your way up. For example, maybe do a weekend-long shoot in Super-16 first and take it through all the steps before you tackle a 3-week 35mm project. Then it's easier to figure out how to scale up everything.
Posted 24 June 2011 - 02:06 AM
Okay. Thank you to you both! As well as finding PA jobs, is there any research I can do at home? Like books, internet sites, ect? Can either of you recommend me some that deals with my situation? Thanks!
Posted 27 June 2011 - 03:11 AM
There are books listed here:
Also check out the "Music, Stage & Screen" of the books on Amazon (or other book sites), many of them have comments, which give an impression of their usefulness. Books tend to go into more depth than web sites, which are useful for keeping yourself up to date
Posted 26 September 2011 - 10:19 AM
Since you have little to no experience in the art of 35mm filmmaking, let alone 35mm photography; you should really consider holding off on your ambitious project. The study of filmmaking takes a least a year to cover the basics and at least 4 years to really get a grasp of the art.
If you really want to make this short, then look into a digital alternative like a RED or a DSLR camera.
Don't get me wrong I am a dedicated film only filmmaker, and I love hearing people who want to shoot on film. However if you do not know the basics of proper FILM EXPOSURE forget lenses, and camera prices. You will waste lots of money on renting the equipment, time and frustration after getting an underexposed (or overexposed), out of focus, and barely viewable negative. If you do not know how to use film then don't even trouble yourself at the moment. Learn.
I know it may be hard to go to film school, because of money or maybe even politics. There are other alternatives. If you want to know how to shoot 35mm or film in general then take a 35mm black and white photography class, this is an important class to go to. You can find these classes in your local community college (tuition is cheap), do a search online for a private instructor; sometimes adult school have it in their classes. In photography class you will learn proper exposure, depth of field, f-stops, shutter speed, lenses, and proper lighting. Also you will even get to learn how to process your own negatives (pretty cool), and make prints in the dark room (really fun).
Unless you have lots of money and you don't want to learn cinematography don't get a cinematographer. If you want to understand the concepts, the theory, and how to use it in real life then learn now. I recommend that you first learn about proper exposure and lighting, take a photography class that uses and processes 35mm black and white film, this is the cheapest way to learn without spending lots of money. Read books there are a lot of reliable filmmaking books that you can find at book stores; I recommend The Filmmaker's Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide for the Digital Age (this is a must for all students) it talks about the whole process of (film) filmmaking and Digital filmmaking; amazon has very cheap.
Sorry if this did not answer original question, but after reading the other replies it is best as a fellow filmmaker to steer you in the best direction. If you have question let me know. If you are in my area I could teach you all that I know about filmmaking.
Make your dreams a reality by learning, creativity and action.
Posted 19 May 2016 - 04:32 PM
Why so keen on Panavision? Their camera will not make your film look any better than Arri. Not saying one is better than the other, but why so dead set on Panavision? You'll find better deals if you're willing to look at ALL options and not just one.
And really, as others have said, a film camera like a Panavision is not something you get in a box in the mail one day - pull it out and load film in it. The accessories list is huge to make it really usable, and you need to know how to set such a camera up. It's also almost impossible for one person to operate a large studio camera like many Panavisions are - you'll need a camera assistant at least; and probably someone who can at least show you the ins and out's of how to operate the thing.
In February of this year I 1st AD'ed for a friend of mine going to Indiana University Bloomington in their media program. He was shooting a short film over a weekend, and demanded it be shot on film. So he rented a 35mm film camera package (a 416). Of course, he had never shot film in his life, and I had never even seen a film camera in person. They spent much of the first day on set with the rental company on the phone trying to figure out how to make it work. His 1st and 2nd AC were both media school grads who had never worked with film either.
IF you must shoot film, either shoot a smaller format that is friendly to first timers (like 16 or maybe even 8), or hire yourself a crew of at least someone who has worked with 35mm film cameras before. Your First AD is not going to like it when you spend an entire production day learning how to put it together and operate it.
There is so much difference between shooting even 16 and 35 that the two are not even in the same ballpark, really. 16 can be shot by one guy if he is probably aware how to operate the camera and expose film... I have never seen one guy doing everything for a 35mm camera. They are big, bulky, require a lot of things to operate successfully, etc.
Edited by Landon D. Parks, 19 May 2016 - 04:33 PM.
Posted 19 May 2016 - 04:39 PM
just for clarification a 416 is not a 35mm film camera.
That said; this post is also from 2011....
Posted 19 May 2016 - 04:47 PM
Sorry, meant 435 - not 416. Film camera's aren't my thing and the numbers are fuzzy to me. Didn't look at the date, but it was in the 'newest post' list along the side, so I assumed it was newer.
Edited by Landon D. Parks, 19 May 2016 - 04:48 PM.
Posted 19 May 2016 - 06:14 PM
Just for your education, there really isn't much of a difference between shooting with modern professional 16mm and 35mm cameras. It's true the 35mm cameras are heavier, but if you were to pickup an Aaton Penelope, it feels very much like the 16mm Xtera. They're both magazine driven cameras and are very easy to use. Honestly, loading 16 magazines is sometimes more complex then 35, as most of the modern ones have internal sprockets. I never found using 35mm cameras difficult, though having a camera cart helps. I've been the DP and operator on several shoots using 16 and 35, without any problem. Really the only reason you'd need help shooting 35 would be on a 4 perf show, where each 400ft mag is 5 minutes. That's a lot of loading, so having someone do that job is helpful.
Also, what "accessories" do you need? It's all the same stuff you'd run with a digital camera. Dovetail, rails, matte box, follow focus, monitor, batteries, tripod/head, none of this is any different. People make shooting on film so complicated, but its really not. The only thing you need to shoot film is a good light meter, hopefully with a spot option and an understanding of what those numbers mean. You should have those things on a digital shoot ANYWAY.
I taught my high school students how to load and operate the 35mm camera in 2 hours. They're pretty straight forward.
Posted 19 May 2016 - 06:39 PM
Like I said, film is not my thing... Just pointing out that someone who knows nothing about film should not start out shooting with a Panavision Millennium, unless of course there is someone there to show proper setup and operation. Like I said, I witnessed first hand a 'crew' of media school grads trying to put together and operate a 35mm film camera - and it was pretty comical. Yeah, it took them about 2-3 hours on the phone with the rental house to figure it out - but that was 2-3 hours lost of the day when we couldn't shoot anything.
While I have never shot with any cinema film (though I did shoot more than my share of stills film), there is more to shooting any film than there is digital. I do not feel someone who has spent all their time in digital can make a jump immediately to film and do it successfully. Operating the camera is one thing, knowing how to properly expose film with light meters and things is a whole other - this I know from my days in shooting stills film. I would suggest if you're going to try and play around with film - to do it on a smaller format that is easier to work with, and cheaper to buy and process - so that when you waste 90% of it on playing around, you're not breaking the bank doing it.
Keep in mind this 'shoot' I'm talking about was hardly professional. I spent 4 days of my life working on it (only because I was paid). I am talking matte boxes, follow focus (and even how to properly focus with one), video taps, monitors, tripods heavy enough to handle the weight... On and on. These media students where use to shooting small things on an HVX200 with no real support. So it took them a long while to figure out how to assemble the rail system with the matte box and follow focus... Then it took them forever to figure out how to load the mag in the blackout bag - ruining one entire 400' roll in the process. Finally got it loaded.
Basically, it was just about 3 or 4 hours of utter waste of time while they figured out how to operate the damn thing. My point in sharing that story is that please, anyone who might read this in the future: do not run out and rent a $700/day camera unless you know how to operate the thing. If you have the money, rent it a few days in advance - get it setup and working before you bring it on set. As a First AD, I was the one who suffered from the half-day loss of time trying to cut some shots from the shot list to make it work. In the end, they ended up shooting themselves in the foot, because the film they made suffered dramatically from that setback.
So bottom line, don't go renting top of the line professional equipment until you know how to use it; or if you must, at least don't bring it set.
As for 35 v. 16: What I mean to say is, the two formats are pretty different. Yes, 'film is film' so to speak, and the cameras all basically do the same thing. However, it's much cheaper to play around and experiment with 8mm or 16mm (which you're going to need to do if you plan to shoot anything professional looking). The camera's are smaller and more manageable. You can often times pull focus yourself do to the smaller frame size - where 35mm will surely require an AC to pull proper focus. The cameras are lighter, and as such you don't need big, bulky sticks to hold the thing up... On and on.
Edited by Landon D. Parks, 19 May 2016 - 06:42 PM.
Posted 19 May 2016 - 08:14 PM
Yea, those cameras are rented in multiple boxes, so it's very confusing.
Generally, it's smart to know how to work the equipment you are renting.
If you're in a media arts program and nobody taught you how to use a light meter, that's a big problem.
It's more expensive to shoot/experiment with 35mm, that's for sure. I wouldn't ever recommend shooting on 35 for beginners, but mainly due to the expense and the fact Super 16 looks so good, why bother?