Panavision Panastar II
Posted 18 September 2006 - 03:02 PM
Posted 18 September 2006 - 04:16 PM
The Panastar isn't a very loud camera at all. I used it recently for sync sound stuff. It's louder than a Gold or Platinum, but not by much. Check with Panavision for exact db #'s.
Be aware that it's a heavy camera. It can work for handheld, but it can be taxing on the body. Here's a picture of me with a Panastar II and a 10-1 zoom. It was heavy!
Posted 18 September 2006 - 04:38 PM
I like the Panastar alot. It is quieter than an Arri 35-III and because you can mount the mag off the back, I have found it OK for limited handheld work (with a prime). Also, I have had nothing but bad luck with 1000' mags on the 35-III, don't know about the 435.
Posted 19 September 2006 - 12:12 AM
Posted 19 September 2006 - 01:24 PM
Posted 19 November 2006 - 04:51 PM
For some reason however, the camera is not popular in New York. I believe that is mostly attributable to its rarity here versus the ubiquity of the Arri 435. (I don?t think Panavision New York even has one without shipping from LA). AC?s, being out of their comfort zone of the familiar 435 would complain of the Panastar not being up to date, being heavy, and having to oil it after high speed takes.
As far a noise level goes, at 24 FPS, it is very quiet compared to a 435. In a noisily environment, like a city street, the mics will not hear it at all. Even on stage, go on a longer lens, throw a furniture pad on it, and shoot sound takes. Also on pure MOS jobs, the lack of noise makes for a much nicer set experience for everyone. You of course hear it at 120 FPS, but still it is much less so than other cameras and thus more pleasant to work with.
Dennis A. Livesey