Panavision running scared from the 5DII

[Chris_TC]

Comment from Shane on his Blog: I have stopped using all Canon lenses because I feel that they are too soft when it comes to projecting the image on a 60 foot screen, this is why the Panavision Primos primes are my go to lenses of choice.

This is ridiculous. Panavision lenses certainly have many advantages for film production, but calling Canon glass unsuitable for a large projection makes zero sense.

Even a 4K digital projection doesn't have anywhere near the 20+ megapixels that these lenses have to resolve in still photography. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon L whooped Panavision's butt in a direct 24 megapixel comparison.

 

[f64manray]

This is ridiculous. Panavision lenses certainly have many advantages for film production, but calling Canon glass unsuitable for a large projection makes zero sense.

Even a 4K digital projection doesn't have anywhere near the 20+ megapixels that these lenses have to resolve in still photography. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon L whooped Panavision's butt in a direct 24 megapixel comparison.

I really hope your right because Canon glass is the glass I have. I'm a long way away from having anything worthy to project on a 60 foot screen, but it's always good to plan for the future when purchasing lenses now.

Hurlbut says his second choice is Zeiss, but still not close to Panavision.

 

[Ian-T]

I look at his statement as more a careful play on words. He does not want to piss off Panavision, especially seeing how they are reacting to all of this. It’s still encouraging to those who own one of these DSLRs but still a sort of “safety-net” in my eyes. In other words he was trying to be politically correct. But we are smarter than this....I hope.

 

[f64manray]

I look at his statement as more a careful play on words. He does not want to piss off Panavision, especially seeing how they are reacting to all of this. It’s still encouraging to those who own one of these DSLRs but still a sort of “safety-net” in my eyes. In other words he was trying to be politically correct. But we are smarter than this....I hope.

Well, I don't know. I have zero experience with Panavision lenses. Maybe they're magic or something. At those prices there should be some witchcraft involved. I would dearly like to see this footage with both Canon and Panavision projected on a 60 foot screen.

 

[Ian-T]

Well, I don't know. I have zero experience with Panavision lenses. Maybe they're magic or something. At those prices there should be some witchcraft involved. I would dearly like to see this footage with both Canon and Panavision projected on a 60 foot screen.

Well, I believe the colorist on those 7D/Red/5Dll clips stated to at least one user that if he contacted him he could set up an appointment for him to check out the footage on the big screen. If you live in the LA area this might be something you could do.

 

[f64manray]

Well, I believe the colorist on those 7D/Red/5Dll clips stated to at least one user that if he contacted him he could set up an appointment for him to check out the footage on the big screen. If you live in the LA area this might be something you could do.

Yeah, Neil seems pretty friendly, but I'm about 7-8 hours away.

 

[Chris_TC]

I really hope your right because Canon glass is the glass I have. I'm a long way away from having anything worthy to project on a 60 foot screen, but it's always good to plan for the future when purchasing lenses now.

60 feet don't matter much. Even a 4K projection system doesn't reproduce the kind of detail you see on your monitor when you zoom to 100% into that 20 megapixel still.

And every still photography lens review in the world zooms to 100%, putting the lens under a lot more pressure than a regular 60 foot projection ever could.

 

[f64manray]

60 feet don't matter much. Even a 4K projection system doesn't reproduce the kind of detail you see on your monitor when you zoom to 100% into that 20 megapixel still.

And every still photography lens review in the world zooms to 100%, putting the lens under a lot more pressure than a regular 60 foot projection ever could.

So would you say if it looks good at 100% magnification in photo shop, it might look good projected on a 60 foot screen?

I know sharpness in a theatre is heavily dependant on where you sit. Sit in the middle and toward the back, 35mm film is sharp when projected. Sit in the front and you see how truly crappy a 35mm projection is.

So if it looks good at 100% in photo shop, would that be the same as saying it will look like that when sitting in the middle seating position in the theatre or will it look like 100% magnification in the front row seat.

Really, sharpness/resolution is an illusion. If you say it's not sharp. I'll tell to stand back another 10 feet. This whole sharpness thing is all about viewing distance in alot of respects.

 

[Barry_Green]

Okay, back to the original topic -- I just called Panavision Woodland Hills, and here's the deal:

Nobody's "running scared", nor are they "melting" their adapters. Panavision's policy is this: you don't rent lenses without a camera body. No lenses-only. You want Panavision, you rent the whole package. That's the way they want to conduct their business. Under the prior president of Panavision USA, the policy was that lenses-only could be rented out, but under the current president, that policy has been reversed and they are no longer renting out lenses-only.

But that may be a USA-only thing. If anyone feels like calling their non-American divisions of Panavision and asking about their policies, it may prove interesting.

Also, in the USA, that lens+body policy is subject to change on a case-by-case basis; the example given to me was "Soderbergh owns his own Reds, and so if he wanted to rent lenses from us, he could talk to the V.P. here and they might make an exception to the policy for him."

So I'm pretty sure that if Rodney Charters or Shane Hurlbut wanted to rent Panavision lenses for their next major production, and they wanted a few EOS adapters thrown in for use with their 5D or 7D bodies, they wouldn't have much trouble getting that to happen.

 

[Martti Ekstrand]

Panavision melting equipment didn't sound that plausible when all they need to do is hide them on a shelf somewhere in their storage facility.

 

[Ben_B]

I vote for thread closed. Unsubstantiated and now refuted rumor, good conclusion from Barry, good joke from Marrti, the end.

 

[Barry_Green]

I wouldn't say it's "refuted" yet; it's possible that Panavision UK is indeed melting down their adapters; someone would have to call Panavision UK to ask them. But that's not what the USA is doing, and I've heard tell that another division from another territory is not doing that either.

 

[f64manray]

I wouldn't say it's "refuted" yet; it's possible that Panavision UK is indeed melting down their adapters; someone would have to call Panavision UK to ask them. But that's not what the USA is doing, and I've heard tell that another division from another territory is not doing that either.

It seems like that policy is even more effective than destroying their EOS mounts would be in restricting the use of their lenses. This seems like it effectively stops any indie production from using Panavision lenses if the lenses can only come with a $4,000 a day camera.

At least if they were only disposing of the adapters, you could still rent a lens and get an adapter from a third party. This policy has just made Panavision lenses very rare ..... especially for me.

 

[yoclay]

Okay, back to the original topic -- I just called Panavision Woodland Hills, and here's the deal:

Nobody's "running scared", nor are they "melting" their adapters. Panavision's policy is this: you don't rent lenses without a camera body. No lenses-only. You want Panavision, you rent the whole package. That's the way they want to conduct their business. Under the prior president of Panavision USA, the policy was that lenses-only could be rented out, but under the current president, that policy has been reversed and they are no longer renting out lenses-only.

What I tried to say back in post #15

 

[Kholi]

So if they aren't gonna rent just lenses, and you have to rent a camera body too... class?

 

[David G. Smith]

So if they aren't gonna rent just lenses, and you have to rent a camera body too... class?

Right, and I like as is noted in Barry's post, "We don't rent lenses, but if your "Somebody" like Steven Soderbergh, well, we would rent to him..."

Now don't that just give ya the Warm Fuzzies for Panavision!.

 

[Barry_Green]

Well here's the deal -- Panavision rents to feature films and television dramas. Not to "indie films" who want a half-day week; they are after the guys with the budgets. They want a six-week movie deal, or an 18-week tv series rental. Their business model is not set up around the indie guy who wants to rent a single 50mm lens for a weekend. That is more of a hassle to them than it's worth, because it breaks up a package and could potentially cost them a bigger job.

Panavision doesn't court the no-budget customer. They don't want that customer. They're not set up to deal with that customer. They don't want to have a technician spend a day calibrating a set of primos, to have one part of that set go out on a two-day EOS 5D shoot.

Panavision rents sets, and kits, and packages. That's what they rent, that's what they support, that's what they do. It's a complete package. And they usually want it to go for a long time.

If Soderbergh went to them and said "I need two sets of Primos for 11 weeks, but I don't need a body, I'm using my Red Ones", then yeah, they might indeed take that deal. Not because it's Soderbergh, but because it's the kind of business they do, it's the type of rental they're used to, and the costs will pay for their setup and maintenance and service and everything else they do.

There are places on the web that will rent you a single 50mm/1.4 Nikon lens for five bucks a day. That's not Panavision's business. They don't want that customer. They don't know how to work with that customer, they can't make money off that customer.

Having now spoken to them and to other rental houses at length about business practices and reasoning, I'm now confident that Panavision is not "running scared" from the 5D. They're making a decision to clarify their position in the market.

 

[cinebuddy]

Well here's the deal -- Panavision rents to feature films and television dramas. Not to "indie films" who want a half-day week; they are after the guys with the budgets. They want a six-week movie deal, or an 18-week tv series rental. Their business model is not set up around the indie guy who wants to rent a single 50mm lens for a weekend. That is more of a hassle to them than it's worth, because it breaks up a package and could potentially cost them a bigger job.

Panavision doesn't court the no-budget customer. They don't want that customer. They're not set up to deal with that customer. They don't want to have a technician spend a day calibrating a set of primos, to have one part of that set go out on a two-day EOS 5D shoot.

Panavision rents sets, and kits, and packages. That's what they rent, that's what they support, that's what they do. It's a complete package. And they usually want it to go for a long time.

If Soderbergh went to them and said "I need two sets of Primos for 11 weeks, but I don't need a body, I'm using my Red Ones", then yeah, they might indeed take that deal. Not because it's Soderbergh, but because it's the kind of business they do, it's the type of rental they're used to, and the costs will pay for their setup and maintenance and service and everything else they do.

There are places on the web that will rent you a single 50mm/1.4 Nikon lens for five bucks a day. That's not Panavision's business. They don't want that customer. They don't know how to work with that customer, they can't make money off that customer.

Having now spoken to them and to other rental houses at length about business practices and reasoning, I'm now confident that Panavision is not "running scared" from the 5D. They're making a decision to clarify their position in the market.

Word. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Ian-T]

It seems like that policy is even more effective than destroying their EOS mounts would be in restricting the use of their lenses. This seems like it effectively stops any indie production from using Panavision lenses if the lenses can only come with a $4,000 a day camera.

At least if they were only disposing of the adapters, you could still rent a lens and get an adapter from a third party. This policy has just made Panavision lenses very rare ..... especially for me.

Exactly!!!

In other words the gentleman who spoke with Barry does not have to admit or deny those rumors....it basically works out to the same thing if you read between the lines. I understand the "new management" can mean "new changes" but you have to ask yourself "what's driving these changes?"

Edit: Just read Barry's response...and yes that makes sense also.

 

[Kholi]

Well here's the deal -- Panavision rents to feature films and television dramas. Not to "indie films" who want a half-day week; they are after the guys with the budgets. They want a six-week movie deal, or an 18-week tv series rental. Their business model is not set up around the indie guy who wants to rent a single 50mm lens for a weekend. That is more of a hassle to them than it's worth, because it breaks up a package and could potentially cost them a bigger job.

Panavision doesn't court the no-budget customer. They don't want that customer. They're not set up to deal with that customer. They don't want to have a technician spend a day calibrating a set of primos, to have one part of that set go out on a two-day EOS 5D shoot.

Panavision rents sets, and kits, and packages. That's what they rent, that's what they support, that's what they do. It's a complete package. And they usually want it to go for a long time.

If Soderbergh went to them and said "I need two sets of Primos for 11 weeks, but I don't need a body, I'm using my Red Ones", then yeah, they might indeed take that deal. Not because it's Soderbergh, but because it's the kind of business they do, it's the type of rental they're used to, and the costs will pay for their setup and maintenance and service and everything else they do.

There are places on the web that will rent you a single 50mm/1.4 Nikon lens for five bucks a day. That's not Panavision's business. They don't want that customer. They don't know how to work with that customer, they can't make money off that customer.

Having now spoken to them and to other rental houses at length about business practices and reasoning, I'm now confident that Panavision is not "running scared" from the 5D. They're making a decision to clarify their position in the market.

Key sentence bolded.