Panavision 19-90's

Panavision 19-90's

In my experience, it's always been hard to find a well matched pair of zoom lenses for a stereo shoot. The Optimo 15-40's and 16-42's are very popular for 3D because they're a useful focal range for this application and they're also quite light and compact. For that reason, they can also be a little hard to come by because they're a fantastic Steadicam lens so they often live on episodic productions for months on end. These lenses despite their useful range hardly ever track through their zoom though and by that I mean maintain the same optical center from their widest side to their longest side. This can be tested by putting up center crosshairs on the video output or LCD viewfinder of the camera. Next make a big "+" sign on the wall about 15-20' from camera. On the wide side of the lens put the crosshairs on top of the +, lock the sticks. Now without touching anything else, zoom in all the way. If at the end of the range the crosshair is still lined up over the +, you have a zoom lens that is optically centered. More likely what you will see though is the + gradually drift away from the crosshairs as you zoom in. Either a lot or a little bit of tracking error is quite common in all zoom lenses and is hardly noticeable for 2D applications. However in 3D, lenses need to be as closely matched as possible and a change in focal length on lenses that don't track inevitably means the cameras will need to be re-aligned to one another. The Optimo zooms in the hands of a skilled lens technician can be made to track to one another within the margin of error but this is always a time consuming task that I have yet to see completed successfully during an equipment checkout for a 3D shoot.

Enter the Panavision PCZ 19-90mm T2.8

Not only are these the ideal focal range for 3D but they're also pretty fast at T2.8. And like all Panavision products, built like a naval destroyer. These are the only zoom lenses I've ever encountered that track almost perfectly throughout their entire range, have minimal breathing, and also make beautifully rich and contrasty images with gorgeous focal fall-off. For S3D, these are the lenses to get if you're able to get them but like all Panavision glass, the demand far exceeds the supply. 

Check out this Beast Master -

The Genesis cameras are an intimidating size on their own but take this pile of hardware, motors, and electronics, put it in the ET Quasar Rig and you've got something that looks more like a Transformer than a camera. More than meets the eye! Nerd.

Panavision Dynamax-35 ULTRA Video Sensor

Panavision Dynamax-35 ULTRA Video Sensor

The DYNAMAX-35 sensor is a multimode video sensor capable of operating up to 120 frames-per-second at 6x HDTV resolution and 30 frames-per-second at full resolution of ~37 Mega-Pixel. The DYNAMAX-35 is designed to capture high quality, low noise video, while consuming a modest power of 4W typical.

-High Dynamic Range (HDR) Video

-Oversampled Video

-37 Mega-pixel

-120 frames per second

-Key Features:

• LVDS ports capable of operating at a speed of 330MHZ

• Several modes of readout

• Very High Gain

• 18x HDTV full resolution

• Low fixed pattern noise (FPN)

• 60db dynamic range in Normal mode

• Distributed Analog to Digital Converter

• XtremePIX sensor technology

• 3.3v Analog and 3.3v/1.8v Digital core

• Pb-free package

Be sure to read the product brief for additional details.

http://www.panavisionimaging.com/imagers_DMAX.htm

The specs are pretty insane. To my knowledge there has been no official announcement of the Dynamax-35 and no one is talking about it in the blogosphere. Even as long as 3 years ago I had heard about a new Panavision digital camera in development. Could this be what's going into Genesis Part Deux?

This is what I'm talking about when I say that the market is now in the driver's seat. All the vendors want to stay in the game. Everyone wants to make the best solution and have their gear on every set around the world.

Hey Panasonic, where are you?

Fish Tank

Fish Tank

I saw the exquisitely crafted film, Fish Tank, at IFC yesterday and thought I'd share a few thoughts. This British feature was written and directed by Andrea Arnold and lensed by Robbie Ryan, BSC. The female lead is Katy Jarvis, a non-actor who the director spotted shouting at her boyfriend on a subway platform east of London. Unhappy with who the casting agency was offering for the lead, she followed the teenage girl home and asked her if she wanted to be in a movie. After some persistence she agreed to take the role and the performance Arnold was able to get out of her is nothing short of stunning. This film is very much in the style of Ken Loach and Lynne Ramsay in the naturalism of the images, performances, and the unfolding of the narrative. This is independent filmmaking done right and for every incredible film like this there are 1000 that are made and never find their audience. After working camera department in the indie film trenches for several years here in New York, that's just the sad reality of it. This film is the exception and is a fascinating look at the English underclass from the perspective of a 15 year old girl lashing out against her troubled Council Estate existence and dead beat mother. The direction and storytelling are expert but this isn't a blog about the all the wonderful artistic merits of cinema so much as it is about images and the technology used to produce them. 

From my perspective, what's most interesting and unusual about this film was the decision to frame and release in the old school 1.33:1 aspect ratio. Very few feature films have done this in recent history and seeing it in the cinema like this is a very different experience; a bit like watching a giant old TV screen. For Fish Tank, that's 100% from the perspective of the young girl and her inescapable, claustrophobic existence; this aspect ratio was a masterful aesthetic decision. It has such an intimate quality as if all that exists in the world is the tiny bit of frame around her Close Up. 2 shots also have a heightened intensity because of the tighter frame and the scenes with her and her mother's boyfriend are elevated because of it. I love this approach. A director I worked with a few years ago who is a vehement Tarkovsky enthusiast suggested working in 4:3 but we were shooting HD and at the time it seemed like a bad idea to me. These days I don't think I would be as opposed. Fish Tank however was shot on film and with the resolution celluloid affords, I don't think the quality is as compromised for 4:3. I'm assuming this film was shot on 16mm because of the gain structure, depth of field quality, and how nimble the camera operation was. However, it could have been shot on 4 perf Super 35 and the grainy look derived in the DI. I saw in the credits the cameras were Panavision and the stock was Fuji. It looked incredible so if anyone reading this knows more about the process, I'd love to learn more. Hopefully American Cinematographer will take notice and do an article. 

UPDATE:

I've just heard that it originated on 35. Fuji stocks used: Eterna Vivid 160, Eterna 400, Reala 500D. Apparently a lot of work was done in the DI to make the look as "photochemical" as possible.   

If think if I were to shoot something 4:3 digitally,  I would go with the Arri D-21 because the sensor is a 2k x 2k square. It's designed to be matted down to 1920x1080 or to be used with Anamorphic lenses but I'd just keep the picture right off the sensor. The D-21 is also very beautiful in low light and available light. Cinematographer Rain Li made some gorgeous images with this camera in another indie feature, Uncertainty. This film was shot in NYC and she did a fantastic job of capturing its energy and vibrancy especially the Chinatown sequences. Shooting in Chinatown is an art form unto itself! There is some absolutely stunning low light photography in this film and I highly recommend anyone who is afraid of underexposure to watch it.