Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Original Star Wars Camera Sells For $625,000

Posted by samzenpus on from the that's-a-lot-of-drallish-crowns dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A Panavision PSR 35mm motion picture camera used by George Lucas to film Star Wars: Episode IV — A New Hope was was sold for $625,000, surpassing all expectations and setting a new world record. The camera package included a Panaspeed motor, matte box, follow focus, a Moy geared head, Italian-made Elemack camera dolly and lens, and two 1000-foot magazines. True Star Wars fans will be delighted to know the camera is still functional and has been completely restored."

65 comments

  1. There was a lot of carbon scoring on the unit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    But they decided to repaint it anyway, since it had seen a lot of action.

    1. Re:There was a lot of carbon scoring on the unit by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      It may not look like much; but it's got it where it counts....

    2. Re:There was a lot of carbon scoring on the unit by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      I thought it had been replaced with a walkie-talkie...

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
  2. A New Hopewas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that a documentary?

  3. As long as George Lucas didn't buy it... by MrTrick · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...coming soon; All new revisions, extra footage, Han Solo shot accidentally!

  4. Psft....Oh yeah, look what I just bought by bigredradio · · Score: 1

    My holiday shopping this year is complete! I have the ultra-rare Grunt FB-11426

    --
    Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
    1. Re:Psft....Oh yeah, look what I just bought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just so you know, the link won't work. Copy and paste is necessary.

    2. Re:Psft....Oh yeah, look what I just bought by bigredradio · · Score: 1

      Fine... how about this link.

      --
      Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
  5. What? by cyachallenge · · Score: 1

    Never underestimate how much rich nerds will pay for props while still living in their mom's basement.

    1. Re:What? by squidflakes · · Score: 2

      Yes, it is just a camera, but Panavision cameras have never been cheap, especially with the dollies and the follow focus which has to be custom geared to the dolly's wheel diameter and the lens you're using.

    2. Re:What? by squidflakes · · Score: 1

      And then lets not forget you can't actually purchase one.

    3. Re:What? by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      Only if it it has Lucas' DNA on it, so I can clone him and then kill him without getting into (too much) trouble.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    4. Re:What? by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      I understand that the camera used to film the sweded version (an iPhone) sold for a whopping $1.98.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    5. Re:What? by Synerg1y · · Score: 2

      You obviously don't know what it feels like to have "too much" money. I don't either, no regrets.

    6. Re:What? by muon-catalyzed · · Score: 1

      If the item has a solid record of verifiability, is scarce and famous then the resulting artifact could be a good non-degrading value/money carrier.

    7. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They aren't cheap since Panavision doesn't sell their gear at all (except in very very rare cases). Also, "follow focus geared to the dolly's wheel diameter"?? What? Having been a focus puller for 10 years at one point, I have never seen this done even once - or even considered.

    8. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think what you mean is "If it isn't fake, it could be a good hedge against inflation".

    9. Re:What? by HaeMaker · · Score: 1

      ...an obsolete one, at that...

    10. Re:What? by youn · · Score: 1

      Lucas DNA! I have a brilliant ida... let's clone him and have a show about the clones growing up as a disfunctional family... let's call that clone wars... oh wait.... oops :)

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    11. Re:What? by iluvcapra · · Score: 2

      Panavison rarely sells cameras, and the entire package's market value without the provenance is probably at least a quarter million dollars.

      This equipment is just going to get rarer. Don't have the link at the moment, but were you aware that Panavison, Arri and Aaton, the last 35mm camera manufacturers, haven't actually built a new camera in about 18 months? This gear is EOLd and increasingly harder to get a hold of.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    12. Re:What? by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      It's a freaking camera. A book by it's operator would be more interesting.

      The camera's operator was a guy named Gil Taylor. Taylor is famous as a british DP for shooting Dr. Strangelove and the Richard Lester's Beatles films, A Hard Day's Night and HELP!, among other things, but he was a notorious fuddy-duddy ass on the set of Star Wars and was constantly undermining Lucas to the crew. He's had little positive to say about the experience.

      He's still alive, at 97, if you wanna shoot him an email :)

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  6. It will be resold by jd · · Score: 4, Funny

    In an extended version, a digital version, a re-digitized digital version and a Jar Jar Binks version at a later date.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  7. This isn't... by surfdaddy · · Score: 1

    ...the camera you're looking for. Move along....

  8. Vistavision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Didn't they make a big deal out of the fact that it was shot with Vistavision cameras?
    Or were those only used by the special-effects unit?

    1. Re:Vistavision by tekrat · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, that was for the effects work. All the live action was shot with a Panavision camera, as Panavision has a near-monopoly on Hollywood due to contracts/union deals.

      However, because of the demands of the effects work, the only thing accurate enough to shoot 10 passes exactly the same (at the time) was Disney's Vistavision cameras.

      Remember that hardly anybody had been doing blue-screen at the time for over a decade. Even 2001 was shot mostly with "in camera" effects work (which is why it's not grainy, you never see matte boxes but to it's detriment, nothing can pass in front of each other, which would have made shooting the battle sequences near impossible).

      --
      If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    2. Re:Vistavision by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      However, because of the demands of the effects work, the only thing accurate enough to shoot 10 passes exactly the same (at the time) was Disney's Vistavision cameras.

      Do you mean Disney's Vistavision cameras *on computer controlled mechanisms*?

      I thought that one of the big advances at the time was the computer controlled camera mechanisms, to _do_ the multiple passes.

    3. Re:Vistavision by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      Even 2001 was shot mostly with "in camera" effects work

      I was pretty surprised to learn that most of the FX in "Moonraker" were shot in-camera by winding back the film.

      Bit of a silly movie, but FX are pretty impressive considering how they were done.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NI6ygeZxUBA

    4. Re:Vistavision by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Informative

      I thought that one of the big advances at the time was the computer controlled camera mechanisms, to _do_ the multiple passes.

      The cameras themselves also have to spool the film accurately. Slippage means a bad composite.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    5. Re:Vistavision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember that hardly anybody had been doing blue-screen at the time for over a decade.

      True, although one major exception to this was "The Towering Inferno" in 1974, which had some very impressive blue screen work for its time. The recent DVD / Blu-Ray releases have some great behind-the-scenes info about this, including some unprocessed versions of shots that show the blue screen, compared against the final composite, which actually looks very good in some (but not all) cases. But other than that, you're right; this was all unusual stuff for the time.

      Funny other thing about 1977 is that after so much time in Hollywood without much of bluescreen work, both Spielberg and Lucas directed movies that year which required lots of optical compositing, and they kind of stepped on each others toes a bit. Lucas originally wanted to hire Douglas Trumbull for "Star Wars", but he was busy on Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" at the time, and so ended up recommending John Dykstra to supervise the effects work in Star Wars (really great article about the work he did here).

    6. Re:Vistavision by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      How's about a working light saber themed fleshlight...

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    7. Re:Vistavision by John+Bresnahan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Paramount, not Disney, first used the VistaVision format.

      The advantage of using a larger format, such as VistaVision or 65MM, was the greater detail captured on the larger negative. That allowed the copying required to produce the effects shots to still retain the same quality as the original 35MM non-effect filming

      The more stable image was also helpful, but not the primary reason to go with a larger format.

    8. Re:Vistavision by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      I know of no contract ot union deal that locked Panavision cameras in (I'm a member of IATSE, why does everyone always blame the union?). The real reason was Panavison had a patent to the world's first non-distorting 2.35 CinemaScope lens system, and they made the lens mountings incompatible with anything but Panavison camera bodies.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    9. Re:Vistavision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some corrections to the parent post, from someone who has studied cinematography at great length...

      "...as Panavision has a near-monopoly on Hollywood due to contracts/union deals."

      I've never heard anything about any contracts, and certainly no union deals requiring Panavision cameras to be used. They just make good cameras. It's a small market, and Panavision (along with a few other companies) has to compete just like everyone else.

      "the only thing accurate enough to shoot 10 passes exactly the same (at the time) was Disney's Vistavision cameras."

      VistaVision was used for effects work because the negative size is bigger (35mm 8 perf running sideways) than the normal Super 35mm size (4 perf at most, running vertically).

      "Even 2001 was shot mostly with "in camera" effects work (which is why it's not grainy, you never see matte boxes..."

      A matte box is a device that goes on the front of the camera to hold filters and reduce lens flares.

  9. What? by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's a freaking camera. A book by it's operator would be more interesting.

    Next up, the coffee pot that was used on set during the filming of SW:EPIII

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  10. Article left out... by msauve · · Score: 2

    The obvious question is, how much were they when new?

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Article left out... by squidflakes · · Score: 2

      Panavision doesn't sell their cameras, they operate as a rental house only.

    2. Re:Article left out... by msauve · · Score: 1

      They didn't build them for nothing. Just because they didn't sell them (although, they apparently sold this one at some point), doesn't mean they didn't cost anything. One could probably figure out a reasonable retail price if they knew the rental fee, expected lifetime, and guessed at PV's profit margin.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:Article left out... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Is it a requirement of the rental agreement that they appear in the credits? Of course the camera type has been mentioned in the end credits of most if not all movies for decades.

    4. Re:Article left out... by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Is it a requirement of the rental agreement that they appear in the credits?

      I don't know if it's a requirement as part of the contract, but if it isn't, you can be it's there because Panavision gives them a financial incentive to put it there (or a financial *penalty* if they decided not to put it there).

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  11. Ten bucks says Paul Allen bought it by RobinEggs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That guy probably has the best sci-fi cinema collection in the world; TFA doesn't say who bought it, but I bet it's him.

    The full-size science fiction museum he opened in Seattle seems to get mediocre reviews, but when I saw a small traveling exhibit of his collection I almost creamed my pants. An original, full Darth Vader suit, Arnold's leather jacket from Terminator, Luke's severed hand model with lightsaber, Dan Akryod's suit and proton pack from Ghostbusters, several Bladerunner costumes, the original witch's hat from the Wizard of Oz, many artifacts from Star Trek and TNG, etc.

    Best damn hour of my life.

    1. Re:Ten bucks says Paul Allen bought it by morcego · · Score: 2

      the original witch's hat from the Wizard of Oz

      Ok, now THAT is a real jewel, a piece of history. The rest is nice and all, but nowhere in the same league.

      --
      morcego
    2. Re:Ten bucks says Paul Allen bought it by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 2

      It makes me wonder where this piece of memorabilia ended up.

    3. Re:Ten bucks says Paul Allen bought it by raftpeople · · Score: 1

      I'm normally not into this type of stuff (collecting), but I saw a movie at his house once and he had a display with some items from some movies - it was actually kind of fun to see the originals on display. And I liked that it was just a few select items - when I go to museums there is so much stuff the novelty seems to be diminished for each individual item.

    4. Re:Ten bucks says Paul Allen bought it by RobinEggs · · Score: 1

      the original witch's hat from the Wizard of Oz

      Ok, now THAT is a real jewel, a piece of history. The rest is nice and all, but nowhere in the same league.

      Well, it's not in the same league yet, I guess, but it's all kind of arbitrary. You're making it sound like only ubiquitous appeal plus a certain age qualify something as 'a real jewel'. And if you feel strongly about the age part - not saying for sure that you do, but while I'm thinking - The Wizard of Oz is only 70 years old. You don't think a culturally significant number of people will feel the same way about Star Wars or Bladerunner in the year 2040?

    5. Re:Ten bucks says Paul Allen bought it by RobinEggs · · Score: 2

      And I liked that it was just a few select items - when I go to museums there is so much stuff the novelty seems to be diminished for each individual item.

      Which is why I spent probably 30 minutes of my hour groveling in front of the Darth Vader costume. Seriously, it's fucking terrifying up close, even when you can see the cheesiness of all the 'life-support equipment' being only painted fiberglass.

    6. Re:Ten bucks says Paul Allen bought it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all like sci-fi, but to quote Robin Williams in "Good Morning Vietnam", you're more in need of a blowjob than any white man in history, if looking at Luke's severed hand is the best hour of your life.

    7. Re:Ten bucks says Paul Allen bought it by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      Best damn hour of my life.

      And... now we know why you're single and always will be.

    8. Re:Ten bucks says Paul Allen bought it by Ihmhi · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      God damn, talk about showing off.

      I mean, an enthusiast of anything might go as far as to dedicate a display case or room in his house. Paul Allen said, "Fuck that!" and decided to ship his collection all over so that other people may enviously stare at it. He's managed to outsource envy.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
    9. Re:Ten bucks says Paul Allen bought it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      much as I dislike the M$ crew, you could also look at it this way...
      Maybe he enjoyed it so much he wanted to share...?

      Sure being an M$ guy it unlikely, but not impossible.

  12. Put the camera to good use by failedlogic · · Score: 1

    Hey, this camera can be put to good use! Use it to film another great Star Wars movie.

  13. If Lucas bought it... by Sarusa · · Score: 1

    ... you can count on him destroying this too.

  14. Really? by x1r8a3k · · Score: 5, Funny

    Star Wars fans should know better by now when something from that franchise is "restored"

  15. But the biggest money maker.... by RobinEggs · · Score: 2

    After all those versions Lucas will release the real money maker: the version where he takes Jar Jar back out.

    1. Re:But the biggest money maker.... by eggstasy · · Score: 1

      I think Jar Jar should be placed in a prominent role in all SW movies, if not as the protagonist.
      Luke... I am your father... and Jar Jar is my gay lover.

  16. What? And Lucas hasn't glued a Digital SLR to it? by bADlOGIN · · Score: 1

    I would have expected he'd fucked up the camera just like he fucked up his movies with "improvements"...

    --
    *** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
  17. Purchased by Mr. H. Ford... by sootman · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... so Han can shoot first!

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:Purchased by Mr. H. Ford... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

      Actually that brings up a point.. this camera DID witness Han Solo shooting first....

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  18. And a 1000ft holds how much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By my calculations, a 1000ft magazine holds about 11 minutes worth of film. So having two 1000ft magazines lets you shoot about 20 minutes before having to find a darkroom to reload your magazines.

    dom

    1. Re:And a 1000ft holds how much? by catbertscousin · · Score: 1

      That's what the Film Loader is for. I was a Film Loader / Focus Puller for about 4 years and while it's rare to shoot a whole 11 minutes in one shot, you can still go through 1000' pretty quick in 10-30 second shots. So you have a guy who reloads the magazines while you shoot and when you pull a full one off, he's got a new one ready to go. And another half-dozen loaded and waiting. It's really hard to shoot with only 2 magazines if you're doing any kind of serious filming, but a lot of camera packs sell with 2 and you buy (or rent) more when you're getting the other lenses and stuff you need.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
  19. Fandom, and all that by Animats · · Score: 2

    I'm amazed what fans will pay for.

    A few years ago, I was over at Kerner Optical, the Lucasfilm spinoff for practical effects, and they were showing off an early 3D camera with variable separation between the lenses. (Watching that, wearing shutter glasses and looking at a monitor, while someone played with the separation, produces weird feelings in your eyes.)

    Since we were in the camera shop, they showed us some of the stuff they had around, including the first 35mm movie camera with a carbon-fiber case. They built that in-house, for scenes where the camera was going to be banged around. It had been used for some Star Wars job and many times since. They just viewed it as a working tool, not a collectable. It was a film camera, so it's probably been retired by now.

    I'll say one thing for Lucas's operation. People stay there a long time. Most of the people at Kerner had been there for decades. One guy with five years on the job said he was still the new guy.

  20. Painful website by lucm · · Score: 1

    The website linked to this story is horrible, it has so much ads, it looks like a placemat in a cheap pizzeria. It will take me a while to regain my moral equilibrium after seeing that eye sore.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  21. Nope by danwesnor · · Score: 1

    The camera was used to film Star Wars. Star Wars: Episode IV — A New Hope was made on a computer.