|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: Mitchell 300 BNCR cameras...
|
|
|
Simon Wyss
Film Handler
![](/ubbmembers/6218b.jpg)
Posts: 80
From: Basel, BS, Switzerland
Registered: Apr 2011
|
posted 11-11-2013 12:49 PM
Isn’t it an interesting point about heavy cameras that the very picture-making machine calls for a sturdy support and planned moves rather than being swivelled to and fro or being run around with? Jacques Tati, for example, couldn’t have made better use of the Mitchell than how he outlined his movies: deliberate, calm, controlled.
I have experienced magic moments in movie theatres due exactly to a so-to-say stubborn camera which, in turn, produced a pull-in effect along the optical axis and, more important still, to narrative heights. Or depths.
Antonioni knew about it, too. It got all lost.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simon Wyss
Film Handler
![](/ubbmembers/6218b.jpg)
Posts: 80
From: Basel, BS, Switzerland
Registered: Apr 2011
|
posted 11-12-2013 01:27 AM
quote: Dan Kessler Camera movements typically pull the film down in about 180 degrees of the total cycle, and expose the frame for the other 180. That's too slow for a projector.
Not only this. Pin movements would never stand up the sometimes adventurous joints that prints are full of plus the billions of shifts made in cinemas. The intermittent sprocket drive has proven the only reliable means to withstand constantly changing amounts of shrinkage. The Geneva drive projector is still the state of technology of 1896. Only the IMAX rolling-loop projectors had pilot pins.
But back to the cameras I’d like to say that 1) the BNC(R) does not slow down shooting that much, lack of discipline and high shooting ratios are worse, 2) Tati certainly would have had the same images with a younger type of camera, and 3) the whole thing is gone. I mean to say that cinema is no longer something social, happening out of community but is entirely money games now. Theatres are ugly, cinema-goers can’t behave, the films are like Chinese chop. It’s back to the fair, to children’s amusement.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/30f.jpg)
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 11-12-2013 08:11 AM
I am sure that most know this, but most (all?) portable 16mm projectors use claw movements. That said, the cinema machines with intermittent sprockets always do better with film damage and bad splices than the claw machines. This is a nonissue for cameras, though, given that they will always be running new undamaged film.
Not sure about 35mm, but plenty of 16mm cameras are not pin-registered. Home-movie cameras like the Bolex are not, and some of the professional cameras (like the Aaton) seem to do perfectly well without registration pins. Arriflexes are pin-registered, as are Oxberry animation cameras, which have registration pins on both sides of the film and require double-perf film for this reason.
I believe that the modern 35mm Panavision movement is almost identical to the Mitchell movement, and the film compartments of the cameras look almost identical.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|