Panavision vs. Arriflex

Director_by_nature

Director_by_nature

I need to know. Why is it that most all of the Professional film shoots use Panavision camera's instead of Arri? Is panavision suppose to be better?!?

Thanks,
Landon :roll:
 
Like the age old Ford vs. Dodge debate
or the Mac vs. PC debate
or the Canon vs. Sony debate
I suspect it comes down to the preference of the DP.

I know Panavision is very agressive in marketing their product to begining filmmakers. Two years ago they gave me an entire package for six week for the price of two days rental. Arri could come close to matching that deal so we went with Panavision.

My DP has since shot three features with them.
 
With aspect ratios of 2.35:1 and 1.85:1, Panavision became the most successful maker of widescreen lenses, and in the 1970s their Panavision lenses became the "standard" for widescreen. They basically put Cinemascope out of business.

Arriflex cameras are great too!
 
Panavision is by far, hands down, no question, irrefutably the best cinematic camera maker in the world. The innards and mechanics aren’t too special. The only thing is Panavision does not sell their cameras, you can only rent them, and after every rental they are serviced by the house, so they are almost always in top shape. The biggest thing is the lenses. Pana’s standard primes are about 6 to 8 inches in diameter while an Arri is only about 3 or 4. This means that there is more available light for the lens, and any imperfections will be less noticeable. Basically, the cameras are fine, the mags are sometimes finicky, but the lenses are always superb.
 
Well see,
I want to buy the camera for my future films... Im not a fan to rent ANYTHING on a film set. somthing always seems to go wronge in that event. Id prefer to own my camera's.. Lighting.... Grip.... and the like.

Can you give me an Example of some Films shot with an Arri? If Panavision Sold there cameras, I would buy one. But I just dont rent unless i have to. and in my opinion, the camera used really does not matter a whole lot... for example, look at Spy kids 1... shot with Arri Moviecam.... I dont think I have seen a film with such Vibrent colors and contrast in a while.

But I thank everyone for there advice! And im not trying to turn anyone against Panavision either... they are a great camera maker.

Thanks,
Landon
 
I'm always interested in opinions that differ from mine.

I always rent. Owning a top of the line 35mm Arri package will run $120,000. Even if you shoot 2 features a year it won't pay for itself for 5 to 8 years. If you're like me and can only afford a 35mm show once every couple of years, that six figure package just sits in storage for most of its life. And NO WAY do I want to rent it out to make a couple of bucks! In 2 years that top of the line camera will be second or third best. When renting, I always have the very best, top of the line camera.

If it DOES go bad on a shoot, you're stuck. At least when you rent, the house will usually have a new camera delivered to the set in a matter of hours - under one hour in most cases.

I just don't have the space to store a decent grip/electric set up. I rent a fully loaded fiveton on each show - a good cube van fully loaded will do for a small show. Storing all that equipment would cost more in storage fees than the truck and equipment. Plus, once again, I have well maintained equipment that I can have replaced in under an hour if something fails.

Dollies and jibs can run in the high five figures. I can't imagine owning a Fisher or PeeWee.
Im not a fan to rent ANYTHING on a film set. somthing always seems to go wronge in that event.
Click to expand...
Do you say this from experience? Have you often rented equipment that breaks down?

Where would you store all the equipment?
Would you maintain it yourself?
 
er... what?

Director_by_nature said:
Well see,
I want to buy the camera for my future films... Im not a fan to rent ANYTHING on a film set. somthing always seems to go wronge in that event. Id prefer to own my camera's.. Lighting.... Grip.... and the like.
Click to expand...

My God! You must have fairly big budgets for your film projects :shock:

Especially if the conversation is about buying 35mm cameras and lighting gear!!!!!!!!
Suprised you say you don't like to rent - Most major professional independent film companies rent!

All the films i've done I've rented Arri's or at the very basic level Eclair's. I always rent grip and lighting at a high level.

The last film I did, with all the kit I was using, I would have spent £300,000 to buy... so... that's around double for $'s. Hired lights, Chapman PeeWee, Moy Track, Jib, Arri SR3, etc etc...

In all my experience in camera rental I've never had a problem... apart from a hire company saying my team had lost something when they hadn't!
 
Anyway...I'm surprised to read that most people use Panavision stuff. I usually hear independent filmmakers talk about using Arris. Then again, Hollywood may use different equipment, or I just don't hear about the Pans being used as much.
 
Again, Im not a maillionare.... But the Studios are. I will only be able to buy if the Studio funds my film. I still rent most of my stuff, from Panavision NY. I see the next films budget at 9 - 12 million. Im looking to associate with a large studio to make it. I will use that money to get the equipment. Unless the just will not let me, then I guess I'll still rent.

I hate to give up my "vision" to a studio, and let them have crative control. But Im ready to get out into Mainstream films. I guess you just have to sacrafice sometime?

Landon
 
I see rental of equipment like I see studio space or any of the other tools I use. I have some equipment, but it’s inexpensive, and while it does sit in the closet more than I’d like (I want to see that thing used every day to pay for its self), the cost per day to me that I don’t use it is negligible. We were looking into office spaces, and I was proposing that we find someplace with a warehouse or garage type rear section so we could set up a small studio for the stuff we want to shoot. While discussing it with a business advisor he brought up the point: how often do we expect to use it? Realistically, it would only be about 5 to 7 days a month. On the other hand we would be paying rent on that space 30 days a month. We’re only using it like 1/6 the time at best. And wasting 5/6 of our money. After looking into other options, if we judiciously use our studio time, it comes out substantially cheaper (over the course of the year) to rent. On the other hand, with the camera, portable lights, and microphones, I could buy new ones after 3 or 5 days of rental, so I just bought them.

Often I’d like to have the coolest toys, but if I shelled out the money for it, it would be horribly obsolete by the time it paid for its self. I rent because for a fairly consistent price, I always have the newest toys and never have to worry about maintenance or service. Besides, if something breaks and it really hampers production and costs a lot of money, then that is what production insurance is for.
 
Director_by_nature said:
Again, Im not a maillionare.... But the Studios are. I will only be able to buy if the Studio funds my film.
Click to expand...
Then they would own it not you. Besides, any sensible budget would allow for camera rental, not purchase.
 
Don't take this the wrong way, but who are you? I've never heard of you...how did you get a studio to put you in charge of a $9 million shoot?! You're not in IMDB (that doesn't really mean anything, but most seasoned filmmakers are there)...

...Are you sleeping with the producer? Just kidding.
 
To: Indietalk....

Rahter they own it or not, If they deside to make my film, I figure shooting days to be 60 days. now, add that up, and it Becomes much cheaper to buy then rent. at least for the vast equipment I like to use. BUT, that is up to the studio. Not me.
 
Not really. If you have a 60 day shoot, you can usually work out a deal where you pay for a 2-day week .. or even a one day week, meaning you pay one day's rental for an entire week .. The last film I made I got a 1-day week deal for an arri package (and it was a 5 day shoot .. so it was an awesome deal.)
 
I figure shooting days to be 60 days. now, add that up, and it Becomes much cheaper to buy then rent.
Click to expand...

Okay, a 60 day shoot - 5 day weeks - is 12 weeks.

I've rented from Clairmont - they will do a two day week ($2,000/day for a top of the line Arri package) Like indietalk said, you can probably get a one day week but we'll stick to two - so you're talking about $4,000/week - $36,000. The camera package without lenses is $120,000. Even a three day week will run $72,000.

I can't begin to calculate the cost of buying all the grip and lighting equipment you'll need for a shoot - but I know a fully loaded 10 ton has got to be over $500,000 worth of equipment. If you throw in a crane and dolly and jib and 12K's the cost is going to be over $900,000. You can rent all of that for around $70,000 for 12 weeks.

So I added it all up - as you requested - and I get:
Camera Package with lenses - $170,000 to buy, $72,000 to rent.
10 ton grip package without truck - $500,000 to buy, $70,000 to rent.

I understand that you would rather own then rent. I don't see how this is realistic.
Again, Im not a maillionare.... But the Studios are. I will only be able to buy if the Studio funds my film. I see the next films budget at 9 - 12 million. Im looking to associate with a large studio to make it. I will use that money to get the equipment. Unless the just will not let me, then I guess I'll still rent.
Click to expand...
I've never directed a 9 - 12 million dollar film - though I have worked as crew on a few. Do you actually put the purchase of camera, grip and lighting equipment into your budget? If the studio that funds your film lets you buy, do you get to keep it all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top