Jump to content


Photo

Panavision preview


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 11 October 2007 - 10:57 PM

Couldn't stay for the whole luncheon event today due to a previously scheduled doctor's appointment, but the highlight for me was seeing a set of the new "G-Series" anamorphic lenses.

They look great, more or less similar in appearance and size to a regular spherical Primo lens. T/2.6, focus to 3'. They are also similar to each other in size and lens diameter, which is nice for lens changes.
  • 0

#2 Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1291 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Olympia, WA (US)

Posted 12 October 2007 - 12:04 AM

What did you think of the 2-Perf camera they had, David?

I couldn't figure out its significance since Bob Beitcher said in his intro that Panavision has been making 2-perf movements for their cameras for many years. Maybe he's just bringing attention to the fact they support 2-perf? You were looking for a 2-perf rental camera for a job a while back, weren't you?
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 October 2007 - 12:14 AM

I had to leave early, didn't know they had one.

They have two 2-perf movements built that can be used in anything from a G2 to a Platinum, and they are building more. But as far as I know, they only had the movements on the drawing boards for years, not available until Henner Hoffman asked for them last year.

They did help make a 2-perf Arri-2C for the underwater dive to the real "Titanic" for that movie, but they probably started with an existing 2-perf Arri-2C.
  • 0

#4 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 12 October 2007 - 04:15 AM

Couldn't stay for the whole luncheon event today due to a previously scheduled doctor's appointment, but the highlight for me was seeing a set of the new "G-Series" anamorphic lenses.

They look great, more or less similar in appearance and size to a regular spherical Primo lens. T/2.6, focus to 3'. They are also similar to each other in size and lens diameter, which is nice for lens changes.

Do you know what focal lenghts they come in?
  • 0

#5 Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1291 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Olympia, WA (US)

Posted 12 October 2007 - 08:08 AM

The six G-Series anamorphics primes come in 35mm, 40mm, 50mm, 60mm, 75mm, and 100mm all at T-2.6.

Their two new anamorphic zooms are the AWZ-2 (40-80mm) and the ATZ which is 70-200 t3.5 (only one available currently).
The zooms each have a front anamophic element.
  • 0

#6 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 12 October 2007 - 09:48 AM

Thanks Tim.

The 40-80mm has been around for a while already actually. Front anamorphic zooms are very nice, they are faster and give you that scope look. The 40-80mm is an adapted stills lens, I would suppose the Nikon 17-35mm T2.8. No idea what the 70-200mm is based on though.
  • 0

#7 Andy Romanoff

Andy Romanoff

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Woodland Hills, CA

Posted 12 October 2007 - 08:04 PM

I had to leave early, didn't know they had one.

They have two 2-perf movements built that can be used in anything from a G2 to a Platinum, and they are building more. But as far as I know, they only had the movements on the drawing boards for years, not available until Henner Hoffman asked for them last year.

They did help make a 2-perf Arri-2C for the underwater dive to the real "Titanic" for that movie, but they probably started with an existing 2-perf Arri-2C.



Hi David,

Actually the movements were built in 1984 and sat in Jurgen Sporns drawer until Henner asked for them - talk about being ahead of your time. We installed them in the cameras and went right to work. The reason Bob Beitcher talked about 2-perf yesterday was because we are building new 2-perf movements to service demand.

BTW, (totally commercial message begins here) if anyone wants to see a 2-perf camera, or our new anamorphic lenses or the new solid state recorder for Genesis and F23 come to Panavision tomorrow Saturday 13th, from noon to seven to see all that and more. The RSVP link is https://123signup.co...gister?id=xdvnd

If you cant make it check out the webcast of yesterdays press launch at http://www.eventbywi...st/?EventID=821

Regards,

Andy

Andy Romanoff

Panavision Woodland Hills
  • 0

#8 Chris Walters

Chris Walters
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 13 October 2007 - 04:51 PM

Thanks Tim.

The 40-80mm has been around for a while already actually. Front anamorphic zooms are very nice, they are faster and give you that scope look. The 40-80mm is an adapted stills lens, I would suppose the Nikon 17-35mm T2.8. No idea what the 70-200mm is based on though.


Hey max you mention front anamorphic zooms. I was wondering how other anamorphic lenses are put together and what the difference between the two are. I went to Panafest today and saw the new anamorphic lenses and they looked like matted fisheyes. Look very nice though and much smaller and lighter than previous anamorphic lenses I've encountered.

Also in regards to the 2 perf I'm wondering how common that is among post houses? Is an optical print or DI required for the release print or does it fit right on to normal 4 perf? Is it possible to extract a 1.85 image out of it I guess by matting the sides? Is there a noticible difference in the grain structure since its not using the whole film.

I know I asked a lot but thank you for any advice you can share.

Chris Walters
  • 0

#9 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 13 October 2007 - 07:59 PM

Almost all anamorphic zooms are spherical zooms with a small anamorphot element added at the rear. The drawback is that they lose a stop compared to the spherical version, so they are T4 at best. Also because the rear anamorphot is so small, these zooms do not look too good wide-open (sharpness and contrast wise). To intercut them seamlessly with primes you need to close them down, but shooting at T5.6 or T8 is rarely an option for interiors or night scenes so their use is very limited.

Anamorphic primes on the other hand have the anamorphot either up front (Panavision, JDC, all of which are really converted spherical lenses) or in the middle (Hawks, Elite, which are specially designed anamorphic lenses). Because that way the anamorphic element can be bigger, it gives you better quality and you do not lose a stop like with the rear anamorphot.

Scanning 2 perf is not a problem on modern scanners as far as I know, although Keycode matching might be a bit harder. But it's been done and with both Arri and Panavision releasing 2 perf movements for their cameras you can bet that more post houses will start to offer it as well.

If you want to shoot 1.85, 3 pef is a better option since you maximize the area of the negative for that ratio.
  • 0

#10 Chris Walters

Chris Walters
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 October 2007 - 01:37 PM

If your shooting on two perf does that requre anamorphic lenses to get the 2.39 image or can you shoot with spherical lenses.

Chris Walters
  • 0

#11 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 17 October 2007 - 02:09 PM

Max Jacobi worte:
"Scanning 2 perf is not a problem on modern scanners as far as I know, although Keycode matching might be a bit harder. But it's been done and with both Arri and Panavision releasing 2 perf movements for their cameras you can bet that more post houses will start to offer it as well. "

Yeah, if you are doing the 2 perf thing you need to do a DI for there is no optical process available last time I checked. Key code should stay consistent, though . . . Aaton has the Penelope camera that is user switchable between 3 and 2 perf. Should one not be sure which aspect ratio to use . . .
Shooting 35mm at 2.31 to 1 with the spherical (faster, lighter, cheaper) lenses at the same shooting ratio as if shooting 16mm is a dream come true. Even if Keycode needs to be tweaked to make it work 100%, it is a small price to pay for the overwhelming advantages of the system.
  • 0

#12 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 October 2007 - 04:11 PM

You get 2.35 with normal spherical lenses. Actually you get more than 2.35 if you use the full aperture width.

It's simple math. If the 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture gate is 1.33 : 1 (as it has been starting with the Silent Era), then a gate that is half that height, 2-perf, would be a 2.66 : 1. So you don't use quite the Full Aperture width, more like the Academy Aperture width.
  • 0

#13 Jon Petro

Jon Petro
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Film Loader

Posted 17 October 2007 - 06:04 PM

You get 2.35 with normal spherical lenses. Actually you get more than 2.35 if you use the full aperture width.

It's simple math. If the 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture gate is 1.33 : 1 (as it has been starting with the Silent Era), then a gate that is half that height, 2-perf, would be a 2.66 : 1. So you don't use quite the Full Aperture width, more like the Academy Aperture width.


David,

I know this is off topic from Panavision, but since we are talking aspect ratios. When a film is shot 1.85 aspect ratio, is that 1.85 of the Academy Aperture, or of the full aperture? I know there is no one way, but what is the most common.

I have shot 1.85 before and I am pretty positive it was the cropped academy aperture and not the full aperture. I think.

Thanks,

Jon
  • 0

#14 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 17 October 2007 - 06:18 PM

When a film is shot 1.85 aspect ratio, is that 1.85 of the Academy Aperture, or of the full aperture?

It can be done both ways. If it's shot Academy 1.85, you can contact print all the way to release. If it's done within the full aperture, that's called Super 35. You need either an optical or a DI to get the Super camera image put where the projectors need it to be.




-- J.S.
  • 0

#15 Jon Petro

Jon Petro
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Film Loader

Posted 17 October 2007 - 06:20 PM

It can be done both ways. If it's shot Academy 1.85, you can contact print all the way to release. If it's done within the full aperture, that's called Super 35. You need either an optical or a DI to get the Super camera image put where the projectors need it to be.




-- J.S.


Oh, I thought Super 35mm was strictly for 2.35. But it makes sense that it doesn't have to be.

Thanks,

Jon
  • 0

#16 Chris Walters

Chris Walters
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 October 2007 - 06:38 PM

Oh, I thought Super 35mm was strictly for 2.35. But it makes sense that it doesn't have to be.

Thanks,

Jon

Thats what I love about super 35 if I have a common headroom ground glass I could get away with 2.4 or 1.85 if I change my mind later. If your going to shoot super35 I suggest 3perf if you can because you are going to have to DI or optical print anyway might as well save money of film that will go to price of the DI.

Chris Walters
  • 0

#17 Kevin Zanit

Kevin Zanit
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1223 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • LA

Posted 17 October 2007 - 07:03 PM

Though 3-perf S35 has very little room for re-framing in post.
  • 0

#18 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 17 October 2007 - 07:48 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35

I haven't scanned the article for accuracy, but there it is. Check out the diagrams.
  • 0

#19 chuck colburn

chuck colburn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Other
  • orygun

Posted 17 October 2007 - 08:21 PM

Some early S-35 stuff.

http://www.cameragui...ogy/formats.htm
  • 0

#20 Chris Walters

Chris Walters
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 October 2007 - 03:07 PM

Though 3-perf S35 has very little room for re-framing in post.


Very true kevin, I guess you better get it right in camera lol... Btw glad you posted the genni jumping all over the place. I really hope they serviced it the next day or some poor best boy gonna go crazy.

Chris W.
  • 0


The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Opal

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Glidecam