Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#61 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20179 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 January 2018 - 07:39 PM

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.


  • 1

#62 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1199 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 03 January 2018 - 08:20 PM

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...

 

 

panavision.jpg


  • 0

#63 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1785 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 03 January 2018 - 09:39 PM

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.doddlenew...r-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.cinematog...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. 


  • 0

#64 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2253 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 03 January 2018 - 10:10 PM

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. 


  • 0

#65 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1199 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 03 January 2018 - 10:20 PM

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.


  • 0

#66 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20179 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 January 2018 - 10:29 PM

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?
  • 0

#67 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1199 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 03 January 2018 - 10:42 PM

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?


  • 0

#68 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3395 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 January 2018 - 10:45 PM

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.


  • 0

#69 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1199 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 03 January 2018 - 10:47 PM

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.


  • 0

#70 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3395 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 January 2018 - 10:52 PM

 

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

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


  • 0

#71 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2348 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 03 January 2018 - 10:54 PM

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 ..


  • 0

#72 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1199 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 03 January 2018 - 10:58 PM

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."


  • 0

#73 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1785 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 04 January 2018 - 12:06 AM

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.

 

Mitchell movement.JPG        Panavision movement.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, 04 January 2018 - 12:16 AM.

  • 0

#74 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3395 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 January 2018 - 12:35 AM

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?


  • 0

#75 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1785 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 04 January 2018 - 12:52 AM

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.


  • 0

#76 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2253 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 04 January 2018 - 05:13 PM

Aha. You're obviously using the RectalSeach™ search engine.
It can find anything :rolleyes: 


  • 0

#77 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1785 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 04 January 2018 - 07:10 PM

Aha. You're obviously using the RectalSeach™ search engine.
It can find anything :rolleyes: 

 

Ha! That is a popular one, but I try not to use it too often. Terrible user interface..


  • 0

#78 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2348 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 04 January 2018 - 08:11 PM

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

 

 

Yes..gathering dust.. they are so much nicer looking than the round ones.. I sometimes weep into my Sake with the thought that future generations will only ever think of wheels as being round.. its so utilitarian and lacking in "wa".. it is a somewhat smoother motion but it lacks grit and tenacity .. its ..well..too easy ..I have argued hard and long with the CEO,s or Toyota and Nissan.. but they shrug off the mantle of the true sprit of Yamato..claiming they need to turn a profit and stay in business.. such a disgraceful way to lead ones life.. so small ..so narrow..


  • 0


Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Visual Products

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

CineLab

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS