Amazing feature-film Magellan is shot on the Panasonic GH7

[Andrew Reid]

Looks fantastic.

Any interviews with the cinematographer / crew out there?

They used Panasonic GH7 + Lumix 12mm F1.4 for most part

https://www.eoshd.com/news/in-ny-and-la-theatres-january-major-new-movie-magellan-is-shot-on-the-panasonic-gh7/

[PannySVHS]

Thank you for sharing, Andrew. This is looking great. I will watch it as soon as they show it in the cinemas over here. I am still curious to test a GH5 MK II due to it been tested by slashcam for displaying great rendering of texture and offering one of the best 4K images of any dslms out there in that regard. Its optional 1.4 crop mode makes it a great digital 4K S16 cinema camera. GH7 in 4k pixel per pixel mode might be closer to 16mm crop though. I would love a M43 sensor sized lumix pocket cinema camera with flexible cropping, like S16 1:1.66, S16 4:3 with full Super16 width, 2/3" 1:1, you name it. And while you are at it, Panny please give it an internal ND and still keep the EVF and great battery life plus full size Hdmi.:)

[fuzzynormal]

Thankfully, we're so far beyond the camera being the gatekeeper to accomplishing beautiful cinema.  There's no real technical limitation affecting the cinema we see here.  I've always been partial to portrait focal lengths because of what they take away from an image, but it's great to see more creative cinematographers shooting wide.  Lubezki pretty much hangs out there most of the time.

[Andrew Reid]

The gatekeeper is talent.

[newfoundmass]

I think we learned long ago that the "camera" was one of the least important parts of telling a story. You can take an iPhone and create beautiful art if what you're filming is compelling, you are skilled enough, and the story you're telling is good. Frankly I'm surprised that we haven't seen more folks using mirrorless cameras, because if anything, they are overkill for a lot of films being shot today, especially ones that will never be seen on the big screen.

My buddy made me re-watch Terrifier 3 since he just got into the series. It was filmed on an ARRI Alexa 35 using Panavision anamorphic lenses, but honestly, you never would've been able to tell if they'd shot it on a S1/H, S5/S5II, GH6/7, A7Siii, R5C, etc. and using any of the budget anamorphic lenses that have been released for these cameras. It's great to have an ARRI Alexa 35 and Panavision lenses, I can't really fault any low budget director using them if they have the opportunity to, but it didn't make the film any better and, no offense to the director and editor, but he wasn't skilled enough to get anything more out of using that camera and lenses than if he'd just used any mirrorless camera released in the last 5 years. 

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

It was filmed on an ARRI Alexa 35 using Panavision anamorphic lenses, but honestly, you never would've been able to tell if they'd shot it on a S1/H, S5/S5II, GH6/7, A7Siii, R5C, etc

I think very few of us would know and even less care, what anything was shot on unless told.

I do not know too much about the movie industry except that in Hollywood, it’s a massive racket of control, tradition and expectation whereas outside of Hollywood, filmmakers are saying fuck off to your control, tradition and expectation and making films with less kit, less bodies and far less BS.

I suspect like all great empires, it’s had its day and is falling apart with something else taking over and that something else is the rise of the less controlled, less traditional, less expectation and almost a return to how it began with a more pioneering filmmaking style.

I rarely go to the cinema these days and it’s even more rare for me to have even the slightest interest in any big budget movies because as has been mentioned, if they are not an over AI’d bunch of balls, so much is badly scripted, poor story, woke rubbish…made by companies who lack any passion for the craft and are simply about making as much money as possible.

It’s not the camera and never really has been. 

One thing is for sure…I think…and that is the industry is not dead or even dying, just the structure of it is changing, coupled with the mass market viewing practices, but that is another topic and one I suspect we can’t get past.

[Davide DB]

Read this:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/oceanfootagemastery_underwatercinematography-myoctopusteacher-activity-7396815155616989184-C-CD

 

[Andrew Reid]

The gear doesn't matter thing is so boring, it does matter and you can't shoot much without it.

The GH1 opened a door, because the aesthetic on offer was very different to the small chip digital camcorders at the time or Mini DV.

It opened the door to all those interchangeable lenses, and there's a big difference in look between these lenses let alone between a GH1 and a Mini DV cam.

Actually you can tell the Magellan is going for a certain look too with the GH7 - it isn't Hollywood, it's documentary style and looks quite clinical in places with a deep DOF, which they didn't have to do but the Lumix lenses are like that and it works well.

So choice of gear, informs the look of what you're making and does matter greatly.

The difference in image quality between a GH6 and GH7 doesn't matter quite so much...

But the format of camera, and era of camera does.

[Davide DB]

Well, if you talk about eras, I absolutely agree, but if we consider a single "historical period", the camera doesn't make a difference, except in extreme cases. We have seen many examples over the years. Your works with the mighty GH2, Independent films shot with the GH2. Blind tests where the GH2 was mistaken for a cinema camera. We have the shorts shot by Filippo Chiesa with a GH5S which has a better look than this film with the GH7. We have the blockbuster shot with the FX3.

The reality is that in common use cases, the camera doesn't make a difference. The difference is made by the lights, the set, the lenses, and the skill of the DOP. Certainly, with a more limited camera, the DOP is forced to work harder with the other tools. In this forum, everyone is still nostalgic for the 5D MKII with Magic Lantern, which scientific tests have shown does not have more than 9 stops of DR, and yet here, we are declaring the death of a camera over 13 or 14 stops of DR.

Run&gun is different of course. Other extreme cases that come to mind are wildlife documentaries where you don't have the possibility to set up cinematic sets (up to a certain point), and therefore the camera and lenses make the difference between having or not having the result. Here, in fact, RED cameras and their crazy mix of resolution and frame rate (and pre-recording) still reign almost supreme. Yet, as the article I posted wrote, action cameras are also used out of necessity simply because it is the only way to film certain situations, and then it is up to the colorist and editor to manage to prevent you from seeing the difference.

Returning to the film with the GH7, I personally don't like it at all. The look is banal, heavily color graded, and with heavy grain added in post. But I believe it was a personal taste of the authors and that it was not something done to cover the limitations of the camera. Perhaps more the limitations of the production budget. I repeat, this is a very personal opinion.

[newfoundmass]

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The gear doesn't matter thing is so boring, it does matter and you can't shoot much without it.

The GH1 opened a door, because the aesthetic on offer was very different to the small chip digital camcorders at the time or Mini DV.

It opened the door to all those interchangeable lenses, and there's a big difference in look between these lenses let alone between a GH1 and a Mini DV cam.

Actually you can tell the Magellan is going for a certain look too with the GH7 - it isn't Hollywood, it's documentary style and looks quite clinical in places with a deep DOF, which they didn't have to do but the Lumix lenses are like that and it works well.

So choice of gear, informs the look of what you're making and does matter greatly.

The difference in image quality between a GH6 and GH7 doesn't matter quite so much...

But the format of camera, and era of camera does.

I really do think the camera is the least important aspect these days though. Lighting, set pieces, costumes, locations, etc. are so much more important. Magellan could have been shot on pretty much any camera from the last 10 years and looked just as good, because everything else about it looks good and it's clearly made with skill and talent.

28 Years Later was a huge disappointment for me as a film (28 Days Later is one of my favorite films of all time) but it's still a gorgeous looking film that was shot on iPhones. If it was shot on a ARRI Alexa 35 it wouldn't have changed what I disliked about the film. And watching it, I didn't think to myself "jeez, this would've looked so much better if they'd film it on a better camera." A LOT of gear went into making it look as good as it does, but the camera itself was pretty low on the list, I think.

 

[fuzzynormal]

11 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Magellan is going for a certain look too ... quite clinical in places with a deep DOF

I'll return to Lubezki's work.  Feeling the same vibes.  The stuff he does with Cuarón, and overall in general I guess, really nurture the deep dof.

Here's a film he shot in my back yard.  I can literally see the location from my office -- which I still get a kick out of being able to 'name-drop'

 

10 hours ago, Davide DB said:

therefore the camera and lenses make the difference between having or not having the result. Here, in fact, RED cameras and their crazy mix of resolution and frame rate (and pre-recording) still reign almost supreme.

As an indy documentarian, I gotta say, I can't really get completely behind this notion, but I do think I know what you're getting at and why useage-context with a camera is important. 

I just came off a project where the cinematographer was leaving an insane amount of shots and potential in the field.  Why?  He was trying to wield a bunch of large production shit on an full-fledged ARRI set up rather than just shooting good extensive coverage with a small simple rig. 

Yes, sometimes what he got looks great.  But, trust me, what he missed (and missed often) had better potential.  You can chalk some of it to him not being that spry anymore ... which to me would demand you go light and small to mitigate that, but he is definitely a boy-with-his-toys kind of guy rather than a remarkable creative.  Wants to have the best most powerful super car, even if he can't drive it, y'know?

Anyway, IQ superior?  Yes.  Practicality?  Debatable.  Which, coincidentally, practicality is the DP's argument for the GH7 and a 12mm lens on this Magellan movie.  I kind of like the 'too-much-grain' treatment, but, yeah, it's a choice.

Damn.  I'm rambling.  Too much wine tonight.

[Davide DB]

17 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

As an indy documentarian, I gotta say, I can't really get completely behind this notion, but I do think I know what you're getting at and why useage-context with a camera is important. 

I just came off a project where the cinematographer was leaving an insane amount of shots and potential in the field.  Why?  He was trying to wield a bunch of large production shit on an full-fledged ARRI set up rather than just shooting good extensive coverage with a small simple rig. 

Yes, sometimes what he got looks great.  But, trust me, what he missed (and missed often) had better potential.  You can chalk some of it to him not being that spry anymore ... which to me would demand you go light and small to mitigate that, but he is definitely a boy-with-his-toys kind of guy rather than a remarkable creative.  Wants to have the best most powerful super car, even if he can't drive it, y'know?

 

Yes, long story short. the right tool for the job.

I am a wildlife enthusiast and despite being an amateur, I find myself facing "on a small scale" the challenges I see in blue-chip productions, and there I realize how truly fundamental the equipment is in these situations. A true watershed between getting the shot and not getting it.

For a project on the marine fauna of the sand, I spent hours filming various types of mollusks burying themselves. I have a rebreather and therefore no time limit underwater. But the camera in an underwater housing does not have a V-mount battery (unless you have a RED with a 30K euro housing) and therefore you have battery limits. A clam took an hour and a half before burying itself, and I had to film the initial moment. It took me 3 hours and two dives before succeeding. Dives in which I filmed and every minute I stopped and started again. A couple of times that damn clam buried itself while I was stopping and restarting the recording. The same thing happened while waiting for a crab to eat a fish.

I cursed because my GH5M2 does not have the pre-recording function (the GH6 has it and the GH7 does not). I thus discovered that the pre-recording function is one of the most useful functions for those who do wildlife. A practically mandatory choice if you shoot in RAW and fill memory cards in a few minutes.

[Andrew Reid]

On 11/25/2025 at 6:26 PM, newfoundmass said:

I really do think the camera is the least important aspect these days though. Lighting, set pieces, costumes, locations, etc. are so much more important. Magellan could have been shot on pretty much any camera from the last 10 years and looked just as good, because everything else about it looks good and it's clearly made with skill and talent.

28 Years Later was a huge disappointment for me as a film (28 Days Later is one of my favorite films of all time) but it's still a gorgeous looking film that was shot on iPhones. If it was shot on a ARRI Alexa 35 it wouldn't have changed what I disliked about the film. And watching it, I didn't think to myself "jeez, this would've looked so much better if they'd film it on a better camera." A LOT of gear went into making it look as good as it does, but the camera itself was pretty low on the list, I think.

 

I'd argue it is the MOST important because without the camera, you don't have a picture.

It is the small differences between the latest sensors and codecs that's the unimportant thing.

In cinematography, our job isn't to worry about the costumes or set pieces, that's the job of someone else.

So lighting and camera are the most important for a DP.

What has happened is the gap between the top-end i.e. ARRI and the cheap stuff has closed up.

This has been going on ever since the start of the DSLR revolution so it's not a new thing but there's never been a smaller gap that exists now, for example between something like the Alexa 35 and a $1000 used Panasonic S1H.

By the way although Magellan has beautiful content and really nice camera-work, the sharpness of it and the deep DOF isn't everybody's cup of tea. It does look a bit too soap opera in parts of that trailer, I think.

It looks very different to an IMAX shot film.

So there's big differences between formats and lenses still...

The same cinema focal length for example on 16mm has always looked vastly different to same on IMAX or large format.

Also there are big differences in grading style, camera movement style, and so on.

I think most relevant for us is that you don't need to make a massive rig any more to get good results.

It's horrible having the weight as a one-man DP.

Probably why they used such a small camera on this.

[Alt Shoo]

I think people are mistaking pretty with good cinematography. There’s good cinematography and there’s bad cinematography, and then there’s cinematography that’s right for the movie. In this case it looks right for the movie. 

[EduPortas]

I'd lime to know why the GH7 was used for this particular movie/documentary.

Practical reasons regarding size? Cost? Absolute technical image quality?

We just don't know.

I also think camera choice is the most important reason any creator is going to make, aside from script. If the piece doesn't look right no one will watch it, even if it's Citizen Kane Part Deux. That's why some Hollywood creative trios are almost set in stone: director-writer-photographer. 

If I go to an IMAX I expect to see something spectacular. If I go to the cinema for an indie doc, my expectation changes. If I turn on my TV and watch channel 6 I pretty much expect soap opera visuals.

 

[newfoundmass]

10 hours ago, EduPortas said:

I'd lime to know why the GH7 was used for this particular movie/documentary.

Practical reasons regarding size? Cost? Absolute technical image quality?

We just don't know.

I also think camera choice is the most important reason any creator is going to make, aside from script. If the piece doesn't look right no one will watch it, even if it's Citizen Kane Part Deux. That's why some Hollywood creative trios are almost set in stone: director-writer-photographer. 

If I go to an IMAX I expect to see something spectacular. If I go to the cinema for an indie doc, my expectation changes. If I turn on my TV and watch channel 6 I pretty much expect soap opera visuals.

 

I think it CAN be the most important choice for SOME films, but for MOST films, I genuinely think it matters less now than ever before. I'm not going to say that the ARRI Alexis 35 doesn't have a place and that everything can just be shot on a GH7 or FX3, because that's not true at all either. But how many of them could have been shot on something else and not been any worse for the wear? One of my favorite films of the year is "The Long Walk." It's shot on the ARRI Alexa 35 with Panavision anamorphics (just like the much uglier "Terrifier 3" I mentioned in a previous post!) and looks very good. But if you had switched that ARRI Alexa out for something else, I don't think it'd have had any impact on the film because the acting and story was that good and was what stood out the most about the film. That's not a reason to NOT to film with an ARRI, but it's an example of how less important it is today than ever before.

"28 Years Later" is one of the highest grossing films of the year and was shot on an iPhone. Can anyone honestly say that it would've been more successful, financially or artistically, if it'd been shot on an ARRI? Probably not. Conversely, you can't really say that "The Conjuring: Last Rites" would have been less successful if it had been shot on something other than an ARRI, say a PYXIS or lower end Sony. 

[Chrad]

Director Lav Diaz has shot films on the GH3, GH5 and GH5s before. Occasionally when he has more funding or is chasing a particular aesthetic he works with 16mm film or a pro digital cinema camera. I had assumed this was one of those times, based on the international star and the generally stunning image. 

It's a wonderful and thought provoking film with some of the most memorable cinematic imagery of the year. The tech was more than capable in the right hands.