Slashdot Mirror
Original Star Wars Camera Sells For $625,000
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."
But they decided to repaint it anyway, since it had seen a lot of action.
...coming soon; All new revisions, extra footage, Han Solo shot accidentally!
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)
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
The obvious question is, how much were they when new?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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.
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.
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
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.
You obviously don't know what it feels like to have "too much" money. I don't either, no regrets.
Star Wars fans should know better by now when something from that franchise is "restored"
After all those versions Lucas will release the real money maker: the version where he takes Jar Jar back out.
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.
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
... so Han can shoot first!
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
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)
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.
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.
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.