OTHER: I have never seen a camera review of a Panavision Genesis XL2 camera?

Zachadoodle

Zachadoodle

Well-known member
Hi I'm interested in researching about Panavision cameras. Have you all ever seen a review of the camera as I'm trying to find one? If you have used it, what's your opinion on it? The Panavision XL2 is the most widely used camera in Hollywood, yet I haven't found a review of it on Youtube.
 
Last edited:
Which camera are you asking about? The Panavision Genesis, Panavision XL2, or Panavision DXL2? Three entirely different cameras. I've shot with the Genesis and the XL2, have never used the DXL2. Two are digital, one is film.

As far as the XL2 being the "most widely used camera in Hollywood", what metric are you using for that statement? I would be surprised if there were any that put Panavision ahead of Arri at the current time.

I don't want to sound dismissive of the medium, but generally speaking, those who use cameras at that level don't tend to be inclined to post camera reviews on Youtube.
 
No, there are no reviews. Cameras on that level don’t need YouTube reviews, because there is NO consumer market for them. Those cameras are rented, not owned, and the common YouTuber doesn’t operate on that level and doesn’t have the budget for it.
 
I'm reading its manual now. This camera is completely the opposite of an FX6 or a phone. You need at least 3 operators for this camera.

It appears it is an industry standard camera that requires multiple operators who treat each part of the camera with extreme care. The real image quality is say from either a fujifilm reel or a kodak reel. It's a highly technical camera focused on having an efficient workflow for imagery that can be archived and used on any movie theater.

 
Last edited:
It might be the most used film camera but rarely anyone shoots on film anymore and it's mostly ARRIs and Venices in Hollywood these days, although you'll see others here and there as well.

As far as reviews, I'm sure there are some out there or were (and were lost on the Internet over time).
 
Zachadoodle said:
IYou need at least 3 operators for this camera.

It appears it is an industry standard camera that requires multiple operators who treat each part of the camera with extreme care. The real image quality is say from either a fujifilm reel or a kodak reel. It's a highly technical camera focused on having an efficient workflow for imagery that can be archived and used on any movie theater.

Click to expand...

Not quite sure where to start.

The Millenium XL2 was the last (to date) 35mm film camera that Panavision brought out. Compared to previous Panaflex models, the XL series was much smaller and lighter, and had improved electronics.

As far as requiring multiple operators, the term "operator" within the camera department refers to the person who physically frames the shot while rolling. In theory, the only part of the camera that an operator interfaces with directly is the eyepiece. The 1st assistant (aka 1st AC) threads the film, checks the gate, mounts lenses, adjusts frame rate and shutter angle and a myriad of other maintenance and operational tasks. The loading and unloading of the magazines is done by a separate assistant in a dark environment, usually a darkroom on the camera truck or within a tabletop loading tent. So, I suppose it is fair to say that three people (or more) are responsible for the activity surrounding this camera--but this is also true of any current digital camera on a similarly staffed production.

I would be happy to try to answer any questions that are specific to the XL2 or film cameras in general.

Below are pics from one of my last features shot on an XL2, in 2007. I believe the last time I worked with one was on "Act of Valor" in 2010, also my last film job to date.



GBH1_large.jpgGBH1jpg-topaz-low resolution v1-2x-faceai.jpg
 
CharlesPapert said:
Not quite sure where to start.

The Millenium XL2 was the last (to date) 35mm film camera that Panavision brought out. Compared to previous Panaflex models, the XL series was much smaller and lighter, and had improved electronics.

As far as requiring multiple operators, the term "operator" within the camera department refers to the person who physically frames the shot while rolling. In theory, the only part of the camera that an operator interfaces with directly is the eyepiece. The 1st assistant (aka 1st AC) threads the film, checks the gate, mounts lenses, adjusts frame rate and shutter angle and a myriad of other maintenance and operational tasks. The loading and unloading of the magazines is done by a separate assistant in a dark environment, usually a darkroom on the camera truck or within a tabletop loading tent. So, I suppose it is fair to say that three people (or more) are responsible for the activity surrounding this camera--but this is also true of any current digital camera on a similarly staffed production.

I would be happy to try to answer any questions that are specific to the XL2 or film cameras in general.

Below are pics from one of my last features shot on an XL2, in 2007. I believe the last time I worked with one was on "Act of Valor" in 2010, also my last film job to date.



View attachment 5711822View attachment 5711823
Click to expand...
Tell me more about your experience with the XL2 and how did it differ from other cameras? Would you prefer the XL2 over other cameras?
 
The last generation of general production film cameras (again, to date) was the XL2 on the Panavision side and the Arricam ST and LT (studio and lightweight) on the Arri side. I liked working with both pretty equally. Compared to their predecessors, the viewing in the viewfinder was bright and sharp, and they were more compact and lighter bodies so better for handheld and Steadicam. They balanced decently in handheld, due to the backloaded weight of the 400 ft mag (something that remains more elusive in the digital realm, usually recreated via double or larger batteries at the back--none of these type of film cameras had onboard batteries). They were all but silent so no need to throw a jacket over them in small rooms to mute the chatter.

The general thought amongst myself and my fellow operators in the mid-2000's was that 35mm film cameras had reached a sort of pinnacle, and they weren't going to get much better than the aforementioned models. The physics of the film path and movement were such that the cameras could only compact so far and remain silent. Had digital not come along there surely would have been continued advances in viewing--the taps (video relays) upgraded to HD as they indeed have been, but also more sophisticated electronics in the camera bodies. I do wonder with film experiencing a mild comeback, will there be new camera models introduced by either company to supplant the XL2 and LT? It could happen.
 
CharlesPapert said:
The last generation of general production film cameras (again, to date) was the XL2 on the Panavision side and the Arricam ST and LT (studio and lightweight) on the Arri side. I liked working with both pretty equally. Compared to their predecessors, the viewing in the viewfinder was bright and sharp, and they were more compact and lighter bodies so better for handheld and Steadicam. They balanced decently in handheld, due to the backloaded weight of the 400 ft mag (something that remains more elusive in the digital realm, usually recreated via double or larger batteries at the back--none of these type of film cameras had onboard batteries). They were all but silent so no need to throw a jacket over them in small rooms to mute the chatter.

The general thought amongst myself and my fellow operators in the mid-2000's was that 35mm film cameras had reached a sort of pinnacle, and they weren't going to get much better than the aforementioned models. The physics of the film path and movement were such that the cameras could only compact so far and remain silent. Had digital not come along there surely would have been continued advances in viewing--the taps (video relays) upgraded to HD as they indeed have been, but also more sophisticated electronics in the camera bodies. I do wonder with film experiencing a mild comeback, will there be new camera models introduced by either company to supplant the XL2 and LT? It could happen.
Click to expand...
Interesting, so the Panavision was the most sophisticated film camera of the time?
 
I wouldn't be able to make that distinction between the XT and the Arricams I listed above (memory is getting fuzzy on the features and differences, it's been 15 years), but arguably it is the most sophisticated film camera Panavision has made to date.

All film camera production came to slamming halt with the introduction of the Panavision Genesis in 2005, within a year of the XL2. It was apparent that high end digital filmmaking had arrived, and while it took a few years to refine the rough edges (ergonomics, internal recording), the only major film camera I know of that emerged after that was the Aaton Penelope.
 
Alex H. said:
No, there are no reviews. Cameras on that level don’t need YouTube reviews, because there is NO consumer market for them. Those cameras are rented, not owned, and the common YouTuber doesn’t operate on that level and doesn’t have the budget for it.
Click to expand...
So I suppose it's like asking why doesn't the average boat owner has the chance to own a Navy submarine? Likewise, the Panavision is made for Hollywood but say an average camcorder or mirrorless camera is more for the average user?
 
You’re talking about a film camera. The XL2 is the most recent Panavision made iteration. Film cameras essentially aren't as affected by technology. They are a light tight box that moves film. Some are lighter. Some go faster. Some have a more steady gate movement. But they ae the pinnacle of electro-mechanical design.

Panavision have a kind of Cadillac mentality so everything tends to be bigger and for the comfort of the operator. They have an accessory that holds your sunglasses for example. But you can get a 100 year old hand cranked camera and with modern film stocks footage won't look that different to a XL2.

Or did you mean a DXL2?
 
Even if the XL2 was for sale, it's such a unicorn being it's film and most people don't want to bother with that hassle (forget about processing it themselves, I'm talking about just sending it to someone who can).

The Sony F35 had a similar mystique to it - once a $250,000 camera that barely any Joe or Jane would ever be in the same room as one until a decade later when they were irrelevant - but it was digital and once it went up on eBay all over the world (more than a Genesis), people were grabbing them.
 
Zachadoodle said:
So I suppose it's like asking why doesn't the average boat owner has the chance to own a Navy submarine? Likewise, the Panavision is made for Hollywood but say an average camcorder or mirrorless camera is more for the average user?
Click to expand...
Not the best analogy.

The highest-end cameras used in motion picture are often rented from their parent companies, rather than being sold to owner/operators. At least, that’s the way it was. These days, there are popular options that cost much less, like the ARRI Alexa and Amira, Sony Venice, etc. Not sure what you’re getting at in this thread at all… did you think you were going to buy a Panavision film camera?

Maybe master using the camera you have first, then contemplate something better (if you need it) that’s suited to a hobbyist, or for a beginner trying to get paid work. There are many affordable options currently being manufactured, that can yield excellent results in skilled hands.
 
Alex H. said:
Not the best analogy.

The highest-end cameras used in motion picture are often rented from their parent companies, rather than being sold to owner/operators. At least, that’s the way it was. These days, there are popular options that cost much less, like the ARRI Alexa and Amira, Sony Venice, etc. Not sure what you’re getting at in this thread at all… did you think you were going to buy a Panavision film camera?

Maybe master using the camera you have first, then contemplate something better (if you need it) that’s suited to a hobbyist, or for a beginner trying to get paid work. There are many affordable options currently being manufactured, that can yield excellent results in skilled hands.
Click to expand...
Oh no, I was not thinking of buying it; I was researching it out of curiosity. I was just inquiring about it more trying to learn about it as a piece of history. I find cameras interesting from a scientific, technological, and historical standpoint. There's a history of how cameras like those of Panavision worked. That camera has been on films like Jaws, Star Wars, and several Quentin Tarantino films. I'm trying to get a concrete understanding of this camera from a cameraman's personal experience. It gives me more insight about the film industry and what it is like working for them. I'm not asking for a new camera. I only have like $500 which is nowhere near the millions of dollars required to operate a Panavision. It's a joke for me to think about using this camera as of now.

Here is an example of what I was looking for from the perspective of someone going over the Arri 35mm film camera:

To put in layman's terms, I'm just geeking out about cameras.
 
Last edited:
The BL's were workhorses, I shot a lot with those. I came up in Boston and we didn't have any Panavision gear locally, the rental house was all Arri. The BL's were built like tanks, for better or worse. Worse if you had to handhold or do Steadicam with them! The sideways film displacement was the most challenging aspect of the BL for us on Steadicam because you had 4 lbs of film migrating several inches throughout a take, which played major havoc with what is supposed to be a perfectly balanced rig. Nevertheless, many amazing Steadicam shots were made on those including The Shining and the Copa scene from "Goodfellas".

I think what would probably blow a lot of current folk's minds is what the image looked like from the video tap on the older cameras, as I've alluded to earlier in this thread. Everyone outside of the camera operator was looking at a small flickering image on a standard def monitor that was at best an approximation of the final image. Bright windows were blown out, dark scenes were mush, it was entirely different experience than the WYSIWYG people are used to today. Also the constantly reloading--with a typical 4 perf 35mm shoot you got about 4 minutes per 400 ft roll (handheld, Steadicam, underwater etc) and 11 minutes per 1000 ft roll, so there was a lot of starting and stopping, and very little of the "keep it rolling" mentality we have today. After every keeper take the AD would call "check the gate" and the AC would inspect the gate (apurture) of the camera to see if any "hairs" or errant pieces of emulsion had stuck to the corners during the roll--if there was one, we'd go again. Sometimes you'd roll the camera and it would emit a scraping sound as the film had migrated to the side of the magazine (aka dishing) and you'd have to loudly smack the sides to get it to quiet down. Other times the pitch of the camera needed adjusting, or the loop size was off in the load and the camera would make more noise than usual. I mean--I could go on at length; shooting on film presented a whole other set of procedures and troubleshooting. I've probably forgotten more than I remember!
 
Alex H. said:
The highest-end cameras used in motion picture are often rented from their parent companies, rather than being sold to owner/operators. At least, that’s the way it was.
Click to expand...

Really just the case with Panavision, as they were rental-only. Quite a few DP's owned Arri packages, and some of the other players that came along like Moviecam. I owned an SL Cine which was a converted ultralight Arri 2C for Steadicam work--I'm actually about to donate it to a museum!
 
For anyone wanting to find out about professional film cameras in general, I gather you can still get this, although the price seems to have gone up since I bought my copy! A used copy would make more sense.

Note: you can see what's involved in the camera assistant's job in the sample pages.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top