Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Mitchell 300 BNCR cameras...

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Mitchell 300 BNCR cameras... (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Mitchell 300 BNCR cameras...

Steve Matz
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 672
From: Billings, Montana, USA
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 11-11-2013 09:51 AM

I have always been fascinated with these workhouse camera's of the industry before Panavision came on the scene.You may have seen this video before but I love the part where he holds the noise decibel meter 3 ft from the camera with it open and again right next to it after its closed up.Check out that reading.Think of all the thousands of Movies these Great Cameras shot over the years.Just like some of the old Projector mfger.They made a product that would probably last a lifetime if properly maintained. I imagine a lot of these are in storage somewhere or have been scraped altogether....s.m.

[Confused]

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-11-2013 10:09 AM

A few were actually still in use on sitcoms until very recently and any aspect of them can still be repaired today! The noise level of course is easy to attain today and an Arri 35BL is every bit as quiet and only weighs 1/8th as much or about 20 pounds with 400' load.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Simon Wyss
Film Handler

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

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-11-2013 01:55 PM

It's all about time and money. Large cameras slow a crew down and limit what can be done. The style of film making hasn't been hampered by smaller light weight cameras it's actually made film making a much more diverse artform than it was. Tati could have made his films films with an Arri BL, a Panaflex or a hand held 16mm if he wanted to and achieved exactly the same look...

Mark

| IP: Logged

Steve Matz
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 672
From: Billings, Montana, USA
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 11-11-2013 02:56 PM

This is unrelated but don't all or most 35mm cameras(Mitchell,arriflex,panavision,etc) use some form of a claw pull down type system for advance and registration. If a camera can produce a rock steady image when filming the camera/master negative why was it necessary to produce a Geneva type Intermittent for projection.This is something that has always puzzled me for years....s.m. [Confused]

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-11-2013 05:57 PM

Watch this... http://youtu.be/Ekwh5O_wZu8

| IP: Logged

Steve Matz
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 672
From: Billings, Montana, USA
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 11-11-2013 08:37 PM

Thanks Mark, that was great;I always liked that show "How its made" even though they have to abbreviate the segments its still an interesting and informative show.Having used CNC machines in automotive related racing engine building their consistent accuracy is mindblowing. We have had a couple instances where we needed 1/100 thousands tolerance on a dozen components. number 1 through twelve were all in spec of the original called for index.

What still amazes me as far as camera work goes is how fast super slo-mo travels through a camera and those registration pins don't miss a beat in keeping that image rock steady and flowing like normal fps. I equate that camera's performance to an old Moto GP type engine from the 60's where they were turning 20,000 plus RPM's through out the race and held together never missing a beat...s.m [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 11-11-2013 09:04 PM

quote: Steve Matz
You may have seen this video before but I love the part where...

What video?

[Confused]

| IP: Logged

Dan Kessler
Film Handler

Posts: 10
From: Newport Beach, CA
Registered: Oct 2011

posted 11-11-2013 11:06 PM

quote: Steve Matz
This is unrelated but don't all or most 35mm cameras(Mitchell,arriflex,panavision,etc) use some form of a claw pull down type system for advance and registration. If a camera can produce a rock steady image when filming the camera/master negative why was it necessary to produce a Geneva type Intermittent for projection.This is something that has always puzzled me for years.

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.

Genevas pull it down in 90 degrees. Your projector has a shutter that exposes the frame twice in the remaining 270 degrees, effectively doubling the projection rate to 48 fps, thereby reducing flicker.

| IP: Logged

Steve Matz
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 672
From: Billings, Montana, USA
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 11-11-2013 11:49 PM

Here it is Manny!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrW-rM0JLs

| IP: Logged

Simon Wyss
Film Handler

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

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

posted 11-12-2013 02:49 AM

quote: Simon Wyss
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.

Rear projection machines in studios had Mitchell camera type pin-registered mechs due to the very accurate registration required. Admittedly a highly specialised application.

| IP: Logged

Richard Fowler
Film God

Posts: 2392
From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Registered: Jun 2001

posted 11-12-2013 07:45 AM

There have been some cameras based on geneva or drunken screw intermittent sprocket pull down but very rare; used in some newsreel / animation cameras. Many camera shuttles with register pin have adjustment pins to match pitch of film for silent & steady operation. 8/70mm Linear Loop projectors use gate mounted, non moving register pins, with a microprocessor + air to control the transport

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

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

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-12-2013 12:17 PM

quote: Simon Wyss
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.

Of course Stan Kubrick would have laughed at this!

Simon.... There is also electronic pull down and it's been around since the late 1970's. It has it's own registration of sorts where the film is pulled down and then optical sensors look at the perfs and stop the film in an exact position on every pull down. It works well and is very reliable. It's just more expensive and there is more to break down. I would say however that electronic pull down is today's state of the art in 35/70mm projector pull down for exhibition. Linear Loop is way too fussy of a system to even be considered here!

Mark

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.