Jump to content


Photo

Panavision 65 HR Camera


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Joseph Arch

Joseph Arch
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Director

Posted 12 June 2008 - 02:24 PM

Just curious as to why cinematographers don't shoot on 65mm cameras? Emmanuel Lubezki used the Panavision 65 HR Camera and system 65 lenses on The new world.
  • 0

#2 Patrick Neary

Patrick Neary
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Portland, OR

Posted 12 June 2008 - 07:38 PM

ha ha ha.

try to talk any producer into buying 65mm filmstock. :)
  • 0

#3 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 12 June 2008 - 08:08 PM

65mm doesn't have an agent. ;-)



-- J.S.
  • 0

#4 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1582 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 12 June 2008 - 10:19 PM

Just curious as to why cinematographers don't shoot on 65mm cameras?



Much of the latest Batman film's beginning was shot with 65mm Imax cameras, if it's a studio film the stock costs and camera rental is insignificant. Seems similar to an indie mixing some 35mm with Super16, but better.

-Rob-
  • 0

#5 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 June 2008 - 11:41 PM

A general lack of available 70mm projection doesn't help either.
  • 0

#6 Arni Heimir

Arni Heimir
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Other
  • Reykjavik/Barcelona

Posted 14 June 2008 - 06:24 AM

I don't think that 65mm is that more expensive. Just remember that shooting 65mm and shooting with two 35mm cameras would cost the same. It is my understanding the Arri is trying to remarket 65mm as an alternate to 4k digital cameras.
  • 0

#7 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 June 2008 - 11:34 AM

I don't think that 65mm is that more expensive. Just remember that shooting 65mm and shooting with two 35mm cameras would cost the same.

The 765 rents for less than an Arricam, but stock and development are about twice the price.
  • 0

#8 Patrick Neary

Patrick Neary
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Portland, OR

Posted 14 June 2008 - 12:43 PM

A friend had access to a pile of leftover 65mm stock (from "The Patriot") that we thought of using for a short he wanted to do. What we discovered was that we could get a killer deal on a 65mm camera (Panavision) but as soon as you took the film to the lab, all of the post costs were epic.

And then what do you do with it, make a 70mm print? To show where?
  • 0

#9 Joseph Arch

Joseph Arch
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Director

Posted 17 June 2008 - 11:04 AM

You could shoot with it then convert it to 35 for cinema projection. Some films are downgraded anyway.
  • 0

#10 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 17 June 2008 - 11:06 AM

A friend had access to a pile of leftover 65mm stock (from "The Patriot") that we thought of using for a short he wanted to do. What we discovered was that we could get a killer deal on a 65mm camera (Panavision) but as soon as you took the film to the lab, all of the post costs were epic.

And then what do you do with it, make a 70mm print? To show where?

Hey, if he doesn't want the film.... I'd be more than happy to take it off his hands? 8)
  • 0

#11 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1405 posts
  • Other
  • Basel, Switzerland

Posted 01 October 2008 - 07:56 AM

Sometimes 65 mm is used for commercials. As much as I know the original of a Bacardi spot is 65, reduced to 35 CRI (at the time). In the theatres you felt being on that white sand south sea beach. I liked it.
  • 0

#12 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 01 October 2008 - 11:57 AM

Everyone who's seen 65mm projected on a 35mm print would agree that it's a world of difference. Not only is it sharper, but it gets bokeh that's impossible to achieve any other way. Even on DVD it's a massive difference. There's no substitute for size (of the capture medium).
  • 0

#13 Delorme Jean-Marie

Delorme Jean-Marie
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • paris, france

Posted 01 October 2008 - 01:25 PM

don't forget there are many 65mm format.

motion picture industry will use the 65 5 perf vertical (765 arri and 65 HR panavision cameras)

another industry will use the 65 8 perf vertical mostly for destnation theatres (iwerks cameras)

japanese industry will use the 65 10 perf vertical wich is a square format for destination theatres as well

an the you have the bigest format called 15/70 wich is 65 mm 15 perf horizontal called IMAX (image maximum) it will be imax cameras or the fries camera

70 mil is the size of the positive stock to include the sound track, useless now as the sound is provided on a separate tool, often the sonics sound system in Imax, an 8 tracs sound device.

hope it helps
  • 0

#14 Brian Rose

Brian Rose
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Student
  • Kansas City area

Posted 04 October 2008 - 11:54 AM

Just curious as to why cinematographers don't shoot on 65mm cameras? Emmanuel Lubezki used the Panavision 65 HR Camera and system 65 lenses on The new world.


It's been a topic of a lot of debate. What some people don't realize is that a big incentive to shoot in 65 back in the "golden days" wasn't so much the visual quality, but the SOUND quality. 70mm prints were prized for their six tracks of audio, which blew 35 out of the water. But when digital audio came around, and suddenly you could get that kind of sound onto a 35mm print, you lost half of the incentive to shoot in large format.

Also, thanks to VHS, DVD and such, the time between a film's theatrical release and it's home video release has become increasingly shorter. It used to be that films premiered in the cities, and slowly made their way around the country; why, Gone with the Wind was in circulation for a good two years after it's initial debut in 1939. Now, studios depend on that big, simultaneous release on 3500 screens. It's all about that opening week; after that, it usually drops off. They have little staying power, with a few exceptions like The Dark Knight, or Titanic. Now what does this mean? It means more theaters: multiplexes, megaplexes, googolplexes (okay, not quite that far); it means cramming more screens into a given space, which usually means smaller screens. That's another blow against 70mm, which for the full effect needs that massive screen in an auditorium type setting, like your classic movie palace.

And because you've got to release thousands of prints, as opposed to a few hundred, the cost becomes an issue. As someone else mentioned, it isn't so expensive to shoot in 65m. But to finishing in the same format is where it hurts the pocket book. And because there are so few theaters equipped to screen in 70mm, studios figure why bother to shoot in it?

Now that said, I'm a ardent supporter of shooting in 65mm as an acquisition format. It's the future of all film, if you ask me. Digital Intermediates are quickly becoming the standard, and in a few more years, so will digital projection. But the technology is so volatile, and so prone to change, that I see film existing as insurance, as a future proof medium, and 65mm is the most future proof of all films. It is versatile: you can print to 5 perf 70mm, or blow up to 15 perf Imax, or reduce it to 35, and still yield a product superior to films originating on 35mm. You can also do a DI. It has such high resolution, that it will outlast many news trends to come. Why, they're already working on the successor to HD! To me, it is simple. Why constantly reinvest in new cameras and equipment to shoot in the latest new thing, when you can shoot in 65mm, and everytime some new format comes out, you just dig out the negative, and do a new transfer. And as was already mentioned, it is not that more expensive to shoot in 65. If I were a studio chief, I would at least be shooting my big budget productions in the format, so I would know that it could continue to be a moneymaker for decades to come.

Best,
BR
  • 0

#15 Mitchell Yount

Mitchell Yount
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Director
  • Lansing, MI

Posted 08 October 2008 - 08:32 AM

Imax is 65mm right?
  • 0

#16 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 08 October 2008 - 08:59 AM

Imax is 65mm right?


Yes, it is 65mm 15-perf horizontal, as opposed to the 5-perf 65mm used on "2001" and "Lawrence of Arabia", etc.
  • 0


Tai Audio

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Technodolly

The Slider

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio