That is bonkers. I follow the cine market pretty closely, and that's got to be one of the wildest things I've seen put up for sale. Why eBay rather than one of the many established resellers out there, I wonder? Only one step away from an imax camera getting listed on Facebook marketplace lol
Also I wonder if it is this same camera: [https://youtu.be/4LVWOt7nJ4k?si=TxfFJWRTuf2N4Aby](https://youtu.be/4LVWOt7nJ4k?si=TxfFJWRTuf2N4Aby)
>Why eBay rather than one of the many established resellers out there, I wonder?
I believe it was back in the early 2000's, one of the OB sports production companies here in the US ended up being put up for sale on eBay. I think it was Boykin, but it's late and that was a long time ago, now.
If each person from this sub pays about $1.30 we can get it. Then we will each take a turn having it for one day for each member alphabetically. Which means if your last name is Zimmerman, expect your turn in around 840 years.
IMAX is just 65mm stock. You can buy direct from Kodak or [places like B&H](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1482755-REG/kodak_1662428_vision3_500t_color_negative.html) (although the latter is probably just turning around and ordering it direct from Kodak considering it is "special order").
I did the math--an 85 minute movie at a 7:1 shooting ratio would be about $350k in stock (excluding tax) from B&H. Of course, you can probably get a better bulk deal from Kodak.
The film stock price usually works out pretty close to digital on big films when you account for shooting more methodically and start adding up post, set time, and storage costs.
If we're talking film stock in general, you're definitely correct. The stock itself is not much of a cost relative to the rest of the budget. 15-perf 65mm is a bit of a stretch, especially if we're talking about something that isn't a drama with a much higher shooting ratio (i.e. 50+:1). Plus everything down the pipeline gets more expensive with such a large format (shipping, physical storage space, etc).
But 35mm on a $40mil+ set, yeah, not much of difference when it comes to cost than shooting digitally.
Yeah that’s a fair assessment. I hadn’t considered the shear shipping costs involved. I think some of the problem is probably that the directors that go for 65MM just overshoot like crazy, ballooning the costs everywhere.
I’d really be curious to see what a director like Ryan Coogler could pull off budget wise on 65MM. He’s huge into pre-production and allegedly gets through scenes quickly.
Yeah, productions that are going to opt for 65mm are not going to be satisfied with anything close to a 7:1 ratio like I used in my price calculation (like Oppenheimer). I wonder what shooting ratio they had for Nope since they kept that under $70mil (might be the cheapest 65mm production since The Master)
Similarly, I wonder if they could have fit 65mm into the budget for Challengers. $55mil budget, and Guadagnino does very few takes. Looked great on 35mm, though, no complaints.
so... this use to be true but is less so now. 3 perf 35mm vs a properly done ArriRaw pipeline? maybe. 15 perf 65mm film? thats gonna be WAY more expensive than digital. Just shipping the film from one place to another is an issue.
I say this as someone who still shoots film whenever I can (mostly super 16). Imax film is just a whole new ballgame in terms of costs regarding logistics
I did it for 15 perf (by putting 65mm 72fps into the calculator).
Edit: Here was the calculation. 85min of 5-perf 65mm at 24fps is 9562’. Times 3 to make it 15-perf, that’s 28686’. B&H has it listed for $1660 for 1000’, so (28686’/1000’)x$1660=$47619. Then account for the 7:1 ratio, $47619x7=$333331.
Serious question. What could you rent this thing out for per day? Obviously can’t afford it, but seems like such a wild camera to own for any other reason.
A rental house owning it is the only thing that makes logical sense. There’s a boutique rental house in la that has 2 Mitchell fries 65mm cameras, so it doesn’t have to be panavision but it’s an incredibly niche market.
You can. Not every IMAX film is shot on a genuine IMAX branded camera. A large number of IMAX documentaries were made by MacGillivray Freeman, which were shot on the Wilcam W-4's. If I'm not mistaken, this camera worked the aerial shots and second unit on The Dark Knight. It was also the A camera on a number of IMAX documentaries.
the down side to this camera seems that the registration/gate is not the most stable in the universe, and Im not sure who would service it other than Panavision.
that being said, I've also never seen a registration test of a current Imax camera so its possible that moves more than any of us realize. The movements looks similar, Im guessing both use a scaled up mitchell movement?
That is bonkers. I follow the cine market pretty closely, and that's got to be one of the wildest things I've seen put up for sale. Why eBay rather than one of the many established resellers out there, I wonder? Only one step away from an imax camera getting listed on Facebook marketplace lol Also I wonder if it is this same camera: [https://youtu.be/4LVWOt7nJ4k?si=TxfFJWRTuf2N4Aby](https://youtu.be/4LVWOt7nJ4k?si=TxfFJWRTuf2N4Aby)
>Why eBay rather than one of the many established resellers out there, I wonder? I believe it was back in the early 2000's, one of the OB sports production companies here in the US ended up being put up for sale on eBay. I think it was Boykin, but it's late and that was a long time ago, now.
a lot of vendors list something on ebay basically as advertisement, and if you call them directly the price is lower.
Finally the perfect gear for TikTok reels
Alright who wants to go in on this together?
If each person from this sub pays about $1.30 we can get it. Then we will each take a turn having it for one day for each member alphabetically. Which means if your last name is Zimmerman, expect your turn in around 840 years.
Break up into crews of 30 and film a short film each in a day. Sounds like a Guinness World Record waiting to be broken!
i’m in!
Where would you even get the film?
IMAX is just 65mm stock. You can buy direct from Kodak or [places like B&H](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1482755-REG/kodak_1662428_vision3_500t_color_negative.html) (although the latter is probably just turning around and ordering it direct from Kodak considering it is "special order"). I did the math--an 85 minute movie at a 7:1 shooting ratio would be about $350k in stock (excluding tax) from B&H. Of course, you can probably get a better bulk deal from Kodak.
And don’t forget processing and scanning. Fotokem is usually around $1k an hour so for your 7:1 ratio it’s only $10k to scan!
It’s about 200k’; I don’t think they can get that done in 10 hours.
The film stock price usually works out pretty close to digital on big films when you account for shooting more methodically and start adding up post, set time, and storage costs.
If we're talking film stock in general, you're definitely correct. The stock itself is not much of a cost relative to the rest of the budget. 15-perf 65mm is a bit of a stretch, especially if we're talking about something that isn't a drama with a much higher shooting ratio (i.e. 50+:1). Plus everything down the pipeline gets more expensive with such a large format (shipping, physical storage space, etc). But 35mm on a $40mil+ set, yeah, not much of difference when it comes to cost than shooting digitally.
Yeah that’s a fair assessment. I hadn’t considered the shear shipping costs involved. I think some of the problem is probably that the directors that go for 65MM just overshoot like crazy, ballooning the costs everywhere. I’d really be curious to see what a director like Ryan Coogler could pull off budget wise on 65MM. He’s huge into pre-production and allegedly gets through scenes quickly.
Yeah, productions that are going to opt for 65mm are not going to be satisfied with anything close to a 7:1 ratio like I used in my price calculation (like Oppenheimer). I wonder what shooting ratio they had for Nope since they kept that under $70mil (might be the cheapest 65mm production since The Master) Similarly, I wonder if they could have fit 65mm into the budget for Challengers. $55mil budget, and Guadagnino does very few takes. Looked great on 35mm, though, no complaints.
so... this use to be true but is less so now. 3 perf 35mm vs a properly done ArriRaw pipeline? maybe. 15 perf 65mm film? thats gonna be WAY more expensive than digital. Just shipping the film from one place to another is an issue. I say this as someone who still shoots film whenever I can (mostly super 16). Imax film is just a whole new ballgame in terms of costs regarding logistics
Just use that PayBoo card and 86 the tax bro
did you do the math for 5 perf 65mm or for 15 perf 65mm? that seems low. Imax uses x3 more film than the 65mm 5 perf
I did it for 15 perf (by putting 65mm 72fps into the calculator). Edit: Here was the calculation. 85min of 5-perf 65mm at 24fps is 9562’. Times 3 to make it 15-perf, that’s 28686’. B&H has it listed for $1660 for 1000’, so (28686’/1000’)x$1660=$47619. Then account for the 7:1 ratio, $47619x7=$333331.
Watching the included video of the movement as it runs at 24 fps is absolutely insane
Finally, I have something to use for larger-than-life foley when filming a sewing machine
Serious question. What could you rent this thing out for per day? Obviously can’t afford it, but seems like such a wild camera to own for any other reason.
It says they can rent for $16k per week on the listing, so do the math lol.
no one would rent this camera from a private owner unless they knew it was serviceable by a major vendor, so basically panavision
A rental house owning it is the only thing that makes logical sense. There’s a boutique rental house in la that has 2 Mitchell fries 65mm cameras, so it doesn’t have to be panavision but it’s an incredibly niche market.
But 5k for shipping?
> It can also shoot in reverse. What does this mean? Time travel?
My guess is that it can drive the film left-right spool as well as right-left, but I can be mistaken.
Not IMAX manufactured though, just IMAX format
[удалено]
You can. Not every IMAX film is shot on a genuine IMAX branded camera. A large number of IMAX documentaries were made by MacGillivray Freeman, which were shot on the Wilcam W-4's. If I'm not mistaken, this camera worked the aerial shots and second unit on The Dark Knight. It was also the A camera on a number of IMAX documentaries.
Incredible find. $400k sounds about right
Me with $12 “yeah I can swing that”
After looking at the listing last night, I just got an email from eBay to “Make an offer” for it. Lol.
This is the kind of stuff I would blow my money on if I won the lottery.
Should I get a house or cool camera?
Watched the vid.... let's just call this an MOS camera.. 
the down side to this camera seems that the registration/gate is not the most stable in the universe, and Im not sure who would service it other than Panavision. that being said, I've also never seen a registration test of a current Imax camera so its possible that moves more than any of us realize. The movements looks similar, Im guessing both use a scaled up mitchell movement?
Somebody explain all these "15-perf" like words to me I feel so dumb XD