|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: American Parlor Kinetoscope paper prints??
|
|
|
|
|
Gerard S. Cohen
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 975
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: Sep 2001
|
posted 09-15-2003 11:47 AM
I have a print copy of the catalog listing those paper prints sent by Edison, and have viewed a number of such films on the Library of Congress website.
But as paper images from Mutoscope negatives were used in penny hand-cranked machines, could it be possible that an attempt was made to project paper prints of movie films uncut, as a home parlor entertainment?
Weirder methods have been marketed, such as projectors using revolving glass disks, or even large rectangular plates with an ox-like zig-zag movement. So why not paper prints, safer than nitrate film, but with loss of light reflected from the print, as in the opaque postcard projectors of old?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 09-15-2003 12:55 PM
If you can think of something, then somebody, somewhere has probably already thought of it, and done it.
Paper prints were used, or at least attempted to be used for projection at least once. There was a machine known as the Cam-pro, or Campro, not to be confused with various other devices with the same or very similar name, which did project paper prints. These were 35mm. The machine was rectangular box shaped, with two external lamphouses attached to the front of it, either side of the lens. It did indeed project by reflection, but I'm not sure if it could take conventional nitrate film as well. It would have suffered from the massive light loss common to all episcopes, and given that an 8 inch page in a normal episcope was not exactly bright when enlarged to two feet or so I seriously doubt that this device could have produced a usable image more than a few inches across at most. Photographs of this device exist in various publications, and I have seen an actual machine on non-working display. I think it was at the now closed Museum of the Moving Image in London, but it could also have been the Science Museum, also in London, or the Museum of Photography Film and Television, in Bradford.
From its name I suspect that this machine, as did many early ones, served as both camera and projector. If so, I'm not sure how it would have worked, did it produce a paper negative, or a film one? If paper, how was it printed? Was the original paper strip reversal processed to produce a direct positive? I'm not sure when the black and white reversal process was first introduced. The machine must have projected with the emulsion facing the lens, which would have resulted in a correct image with a reversal proceses, as with 8, 9.5 and 16mm reversal camera film which is projected with this geometery. If a positive print process was used the screen image would have been reversed; perhaps they didn't worry too much about that sort of thing in those days. It might have been interesting to measure the screen brightness from this thing, if anybody could find a sensitive enough meter.
Leo, if you read this, do you remember seeing this thing when you were at MOMI? I think it was towards the back of the right hand corner display case, quite near the beginning of the museum.
Several Campro machines are mentiond Here , including the 35mm paper one, which it says was 1927, but the only picture is of a much better known 9.5mm machine. The description on this site confirms that it was indeed a combined camra/projector.
I wrote the above while at work, and was thinking about it on the bus coming home. Had I read that date correctly, 1927? I have just checked, and that is what it says. If this is correct, then this machine seems to make absolutly no sense whatsoever. It didn't look like a piece of high quaality precision engineering, I would guess that it was intended either for home use, or, possibly, somewhere like a school classroom If it had been made in the first decade of the 20th century, then the sensible desire to eliminate the use of nitrate film might have justified the use of paper. However, by 1927 diacetate safety film had long been available, and was widely used. Pathe used it in 1912 on 28mm, which was quite popular for a few years, Kodak used it in, I think, 1922 (correct me if I'm wrong John) Pathe used it again in 1923 for 9.5mm. All of these guages were quite suitable for images of the size which the Campro could have produced, and the small formats reduced the cost of the rather expensive safety film. Even the rather dim 9.5mm projectors of the day would almost certainly have put more light on the screen than the Campro, and some of the prints were of very high quality. The paper prints were non-standard. What possible advantage did somebody think this system had over the then widely available 16mm film?
The use of paper prints for copyright purposes is much better known, and some films have been restored by re-photographing the images from them. Although not the intended purpose, this seems like a much better use of paper prints than the Campro.
Gordon, have you considered purchasing a pair of Campros to replace the DP70s on your 79 foot screen? You might need to increase the 7k lamps somewhat. The mind boggles ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Gerard, try putting the name into Google. It comes back with four hits, pointing to sites dealing with fairground coin slot machines, video games etc. There is a manufacturer listed, but no photograph. sounds like Johns idea is pretty close. The realtively large frame size would have been useful for a direct view machine.
[ 09-15-2003, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Stephen Furley ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 09-16-2003 06:58 AM
Dick, I'm pretty sure it was at MOMI, but it's possible that it was at Bradford or Kensington. If it was at MOMI, I don't know what happened to their collection when the BFI decided that they were not going to open a new museum after all. I suspect that very few of these machines were ever built. The web site I pointed to seems to suggest that the much better known 9.5mm Campros were built by the same company.
I read about this machine in a book many years ago, and remembered the name. When I saw the actual thing I noticed the front mounted lamphouses, and thought that must be what it was; sure enough, when I walked over to the display case to take a closer look, there was the Campro name. After that I came across the machine in another book, this time with a picture. I think it was a book by Brian Coe, with a pinkish cream cover. I think the title was something like 'The ?????? of motion picture photography. It's been out of print for many years now.
Must stop now, my last post was far too long.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gerard S. Cohen
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 975
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: Sep 2001
|
posted 09-16-2003 07:34 PM
Many Thanks!
John, Stephen and Dick, for your links, suggestions and shared incredible knowledge. I'm trying to bring Alan Kattelle into Film-tech directly. After wearing out his Mac computer writing a book, he replaced it with somethng called a "cube" which he first sweared by, but now swears at, and he hasn't navigated websites well with it as yet.
But Alan thanks you, and replies:
"I would like to send you what information I have which you could pass it on if you think worthwhile.
To begin with, anyone who has access to my book [HOME MOVIES]can find the Parlour Kinetoscope briefly described on page 54 with an illustration of the front of the device. Most of that nformation came from an article by Ben Singer which appeared in Film History, Vol 2, 1988. From Singer's article and from a sales pamphlet by the manufacturer showing the rear of the machine, it is clear that the Parlour Kinetoscope was an extremely simple device, no more than a wooden box about 3" thick, perhaps 15" wide, by 18" tall, designed to carry endless loops of paper prints past the viewer's eyes by hand crank, and illuminated solely by room light. You can see from one illustration that the loop or "belts" as the mfr called them, just collected in the bottom of the box in loose folds. It sold for exactly $6.00 The following is a list of the belts that I have examined; there are no titles, so I have given each a brief description title:
Two Boxing Women - 22ft.; Jumping Dog-15ft.; Mounted soldiers, 15ft.; B&O Royal Blue Trains 27ft. (this title is from a sign visible in all frames as the train passes the observer); Umbrella Dance -Two women 21ft; Beach Scene - 54in.; Equestrian-44 in.
As to the source of the photographs, the mfr's bulletin states "taken by our own photographers", however some the titles shown above are very reminiscent of products of the Edison Black Maria. I am sending you a sample copy of one of the belts that shows two ladies boxing!
If anyone would care to suggest a value for those "belts" I would be most grateful.
Thanks again Gerard and to all who responded. I will try more searches.
--Alan"
P.S.--
I see that you posted my query on Film-tech.com, which I
suppose is what I should have done with my response?
I'd love to try making a Parlour Kinetoscope, if I had the time and energy to copy one of the loops that have been loaned to me to evaluate.. But I am trying to write our family history, and should not take on another distraction until that is done.
--Alan
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 09-17-2003 05:57 AM
Some of these loops are very short, espically considering the relativly large frame size. Two are also much shorter than the others. Are they complete, or are they part of an originally longer loop?
I have no idea of the value of them, if they were sold at auction, and there were two owners of the machines bidding against each other, both keen to acquire loops for their machines, then the price could go quite high. On the other hand, if there were no nobody who recognised what they were, and the subject matter itself was not particularly interesting, then there might be no bid made at all.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 09-17-2003 10:33 AM
quote:
Leo, if you read this, do you remember seeing this thing when you were at MOMI? I think it was towards the back of the right hand corner display case, quite near the beginning of the museum.
No memory whatsoever, I'm afraid. The only paper-based devices I can remember at MOMI were Mutoscopes (of which there were several, all on working display) and a Kinora.
quote:
I think the title was something like 'The ?????? of motion picture photography. It's been out of print for many years now.
It's called The History of Movie Photography and I've got a copy at home. If I get a moment this evening, I'll check it out.
Alan Kattelle's book is tremendously useful, especially the appendices containing stock mark and camera aperture diagrams. It gets used pretty much every day here in cataloguing small gauge elements.
Dick: Sorry to try your patience with yet another query, but does the Bradford museum have a Prestwich camera? Simon Popple has asked me to do a chapter on technology for his Mitchell & Kenyon book (with a 4,500 word limit, sadly, so there won't be much room for meaty detail) and when I finally get some free hours to make a start on the research I would like to see one, and have so far drawn a blank.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 09-17-2003 03:56 PM
Dick - many thanks for your off-list response.
Stephen: Coe has the following about Campros.
quote:
[...] The campro combined camera and projector, shown at the Royal Photographic Society on 15 November 1927, was different [from other combined camera/printer/projector devices marketed to amateurs around the same time]. It offered the option of making the films on paper instead of celluloid, although the latter could be used. Perforated 35mm paper rolls were used, and the prints on paper were shown by illuminating them with two lamps which attached to the front of the camera. The idea was novel, but the camera was not well made and did not prove to be a commercial success. (p. 168)
quote:
[The following ends a paragraph about the first generation of 9.5mm equipment marketed in the UK] The 9.5mm Campro camera-projector, shown at the British Industries Fair in February 1935, was less well engineered and designed [than other 9.5mm camera/projector combo devices]. It used a clockwork motor to drive the film and a small electric lamp was built into the camera to project the processed film. It was capable of projecting a picture only a few inches across if anything like adequate brightness was needed. (p. 170)
Presumably you removed the bulb when using it in camera mode. Annoyingly, he doesn't say whether these two devices were produced by the same company. But the fact that (i) he notes the poor build quality in both of them, and (ii) they were both multi-function devices, suggests to me the same source.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 09-17-2003 05:30 PM
Leo,
I think the Coe book must have been where I first read about the 35mm paper Campro, it was the reference to the two lamps attached to the front which made me recognise the thing when I later saw it. I can't remember what the other book was, which had a picture. I found two more web sites which mentioned the machine, but again, no pictures.
Combined camera/projectors were quite common, the 'Cinematographe Lumiere' being an obvious example. There were also several other 9.5mm devices, the best known probably being the 'Midas'. The idea was by no means unique to Campro.
The 35mm Campro was quite big, at least as big as a conventional 35mm camera of the day.
Acording to Brian Coe, the Campro could also take conventional 35mm film. The ability to do this would make the thing illeegal in any place of public entertainment, and in most other places, unless the full facilities required for the use of nitrate film were provided. Campro was a London based company, and so presumably intended their product to be used in this country, and therefore subject to British regulations. Since the ability to run conventional film, would have banned it from the sort of places where it might have been of any use at all, e.g. school classrooms, the thing seems to make even less sense.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 09-18-2003 06:22 AM
35mm safety film was used on a limited scale pre-triacetate. The references I've found in trade journals and technical publications from the '20s and '30s suggest that diacetate and butyrate was used quite widely for distributing adverts, trailers and other shorts, because the cost saving of being able to send them through the ordinary post more than offset the increased stock cost. The lower durability of early safety stock wasn't an issue in these cases because ads and trailers didn't have to last as long as feature film prints.
These stocks were also used, again on a limited scale, for educational use and for distributing politically contentious features as a means of circumventing censorship. Remember that the restrictions on public exhibition contained in the 1909 act only applied to nitrate. In the '20s and '30s, as the BBFC started banning more and more (mainly European and Soviet) titles on the grounds of political undesirability, groups such as the Film Society and the Documentary Movement turned to safety film as a means of sticking two fingers up at the BBFC. There was an incident in 1928 in which a public screening of Battleship Potemkin in London was stopped by the police and the 35mm diacetate print seized on suspicion of being nitrate. By the time the print was returned the left-wing group which had organised the show had gone bust. As for education, 'The Film in National Life' (the government report which led to the foundation of the British Film Institute in 1933) noted that the use of 35mm projectors showing safety prints in schools was well established.
So it might have been that the 1927 Campro was aimed at these markets. For example, in a school, it could have been used to screen hired prints of educational titles on diacetate, but also for teachers to shoot and project their own short films on paper. Tungsten-lit 16mm projectors which were capable of lighting anything more than a small, home movie screen did not become widespread in Britain until the late '30s.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic