Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Why didn't Mitchell continue building Projectors? (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Why didn't Mitchell continue building Projectors?
Steve Matz
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

- posted 06-01-2014 11:13 PM      Profile for Steve Matz   Email Steve Matz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I was doing some research on the Mitchell Camera Corporation which was a staple name in Motion Pictures going back to the early part of the 20th Century and has probably filmed more MP and Television Films in it's history than anything even close to second place.

I was surprised to see that they did build some Carbon Arc Projectors at one time;more specialized to work with their camera's for "Gone with the Wind" and also background projectors for VistaVision Effects...

So I kind of wondered why they didn't continue building 35mm Projectors since their Name was probably the best known in the Industry and their Reputation for building Professional Quality Built Camera'a was intact. I would have thought their name would have been a selling point if they would have decided to Mfger Production Theater Projectors. Maybe because they were making enough different Cameras for the Industry they didn't need to concentrate on producing a Theater Projector. It would have been interesting if they did to see what it's sales would have been like competing with the likes of Simplex,Motiograph,etc.

Mitchell made a pin-registered background plate projector with a carbon arc lamphouse which was synchronized with the film camera. One of the first MPRPPs (Mitchell Pin Registered Process Projector) was used in Gone with the Wind. Two and three-headed background projectors evolved for VistaVision effects.

Camera Models made by MITCHELL

Mitchell Standard - The original Mitchell camera, introduced in 1920

Mitchell GC - High-speed camera system able to run at variable speeds up to 128 frames per second

Mitchell NC/BNC ("Newsreel Camera"/"Blimped Newsreel Camera") - Improved model designed for production sound-shooting, introduced in 1932. This camera became the de facto standard for Hollywood Production for the greater part of the century. Mitchell NC and BNC camera heads became "donors" for Cinema Products Corporation XR35 cameras, which incorporated many of CP's improvements to the basic Mitchell production sound camera, and which were formerly available as separate features from CP.

Mitchell SS - Single-system camera - Used mainly by the U.S. Army Signal Corps units during WW-II; was a highly modified NC

Mitchell VistaVision - Production camera for sound shooting using Paramount's VistaVision process (The Ten Commandments (1956 film), 1956 and later; earlier VistaVision productions used converted Stein and/or converted Technicolor Three-Strip cameras). VistaVision was used by George Lucas in Star Wars for its larger negative while avoiding costly 65mm special-effects shots.

Mitchell FC/BFC ("Fox Camera"/"Blimped Fox Camera") - 65mm version of NC and BNC, introduced with Fox's improved Todd-AO system (South Pacific, 1957, and later)

Mitchell R35 - a pin-registered, hand-holdable and tripod-mountable reflex 35mm camera with multiple magazine mounting positions and an available sound blimp. Proprietary R35 lens mount. Succeeded by the R35R (industry-standard BNCR mount) and the R35RC (BNCR mount and crystal-controlled motor).

Mitchell NCR/BNCR - Reflex version of NC/BNC

Mitchell 16 - a pin-registered 16mm camera with the versatility of the Standard, and the high speed of the GC

Mitchell R16 - a pin-registered reflex 16mm camera which was relatively silent and was available in double-system (Model R16DS) and single-system (Model R16SS) models for newsgathering and newsfilm production. This relatively expensive model found use mainly with CBS's 60 Minutes. The single-system model incorporated a Davis (tight) Loop drive system, unique in all single-system cameras. The double-system model simply eliminated the Davis (tight) Loop drive system, and the lower sprocket, thereby reducing the complexity of the internal gearing and lowering the camera's acoustic noise signature.

 |  IP: Logged
Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

- posted 06-03-2014 04:21 PM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
BMW is a household name in the motor industry, but they don't build trucks. Novo Nordisk is a household name in pharmaceuticals, but they don't make anti-cancer drugs. Etc. etc.

My guess would be that by the time Mitchell became established as a leading camera maker, the market in theatre projectors was a crowded and saturated one, and they didn't have any killer technology that would have enabled them to grab market share away from the established players. Look what happened to Kodak and inkjet printing.

quote: Steve Matz
and has probably filmed more MP and Television Films in it's history than anything even close to second place.
I would have thought that the Bell and Howell 2709 would be at least in a not-too-distant second place. OK, it proved too noisy to be easily usable for sync sound shooting, but for MOS photography and as an animation rostrum camera, this model remained in mainstream use well into the '80s. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the same physical camera that shot the cels for Snow White (through filters, to achieve the YCM successive frame seps) also did so for The Lion King (on chromogenic color negative stock). I believe that the SMPTE test films (e.g. RP-40) were also shot on a 2709, too.

 |  IP: Logged
Frank Cox
Film God

Posts: 2234
From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada
Registered: Apr 2011

- posted 06-03-2014 04:37 PM      Profile for Frank Cox   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Cox   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
BMW apparently makes trucks.

/pedantic

 |  IP: Logged
John Eickhof
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 588
From: Wendell, ID USA
Registered: Jan 2000

- posted 06-03-2014 04:55 PM      Profile for John Eickhof   Author's Homepage   Email John Eickhof   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The answer is fairly simple, as stated above the market was full of high quality proven equipment designs. Simplex quit making cameras in the late teens because of companies like Mitchell and Wall. A commercial projector from Mitchell would not only be too costly for the open market plus even with their high standard of quality would be overkill in comparison to the other makes of the day. The machines that you refer to were known as 'process projectors' and along with Mitchell, hundreds of variations were built to custom specs by the studio shops as well as other vendors like Straight Industries (Howard Straight, Also known as one of the co-designers of the Simplex XL, and a consultant to the industry for decades) Studios had the propensity to build one-offs or custom special purpose machines in house. Studios like Disney even designed and built their own projection systems for many of their amusement rides and special venues. Granted some of the machine work was farmed out to companies like LaVezzi, and CFS/Rentec as they had better set up facilities for the stringent demands of the studios. Of course all this is pretty much a moot point nowadays unless someone figures out a better way for pixels to line up!

 |  IP: Logged
Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 06-03-2014 07:43 PM      Profile for Frank Angel   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Angel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, they need to figure out how NOT to have them lined up, but have them randomly placed....and then have them move around! [Big Grin]

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Matz
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

- posted 06-03-2014 09:33 PM      Profile for Steve Matz   Email Steve Matz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Actually Leo;BMW makes a nice looking PU Truck like this X5.They also make a line of Fleet Style Trucks...

BELL & HOWELL made a MP Printer usually Just referred to as a Model C that was pretty much the staple of the industry for years also. [Smile]

-

 |  IP: Logged
John Eickhof
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 588
From: Wendell, ID USA
Registered: Jan 2000

- posted 06-03-2014 10:22 PM      Profile for John Eickhof   Author's Homepage   Email John Eickhof   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
to add, Bowell & Growell made the Model D which was in more printing rooms during the 20s 30s and 40s than any other make. I made many positive release prints on the model D that I have. It came from a little studio called United Independent Productions that was in Oakland, CA. In my high school years I shot 35mm on an old B&H 71Q Eyemo that was the model used on front line combat in WW2 by the Signal Corps and Navy. Later I bought a JM Wall 35mm sound camera (Military version of the Mitchell NC) I still have both and lots of film shot by them. The D was a continuous contact printer long before modern step printers, and wet gate printers. Lots of memories! Sam C ought to remember UIP! and it's owner Robert M. Dominic. (LOL Sam!)

 |  IP: Logged
Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

- posted 06-04-2014 01:11 AM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
We can ask the same question on why didn't Motiograph keep making projectors..

They built them too well to where they wouldn't break down. Thus, building a perfect machine was what shut them down since they couldn't sell parts.

 |  IP: Logged
Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 06-04-2014 10:05 AM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The Mitchell projector was far to expensive for comercialtheatre use and was designed around pin registration of B&H perf stock not regular KS perfs
Also it coulkdnt handle damaged film and rear projection prints had to be replaced every couple of takes as the wore badly

On Motiograph they were too expensive in a declining market and Wolk bought it mainly for their tooling to make parts

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Matz
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

- posted 06-04-2014 11:20 AM      Profile for Steve Matz   Email Steve Matz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Speaking of MOTIOGRAPH; Our 3 outdoor theaters in the 50's all used BRENKERT BX Projectors with Strong Mighty 90 Lamps. Its interesting to note that when Cinemascope Came out in 53;two of the theaters rebuilt their Screens while one left it's old 1.33-1 size even until it closed in the late 70's(originally called the City-Vu,it was always considered the low end Drive-in) The Motor-Vu rebuilt a huge Scope size Screen compared to the Sage which was still Large compared to it's old one.When the Motor-Vu built the larger Screen they also switched to a Motiograph Projector(AAA I believe.I'm thinking maybe why they did this was something John Eickhof said to me when I was conferring with him on the differences between the AA and AAA Projectors.

John said:
quote:
The Motio AAA was their answer for 4" diameter lenses, the AA had the conventional 2 25/32 lens holder, and with the larger screens and longer throws, the faster speed 4" lenses made a big difference in brilliance and sharpness plus the ultra high intensity arcs were at a faster focal speed too, so the combination made Motio the preferred drive-in machine. Plus the barrel shutter due to tight gearing was able to pass 20% more light than a Brenkert or Simplex E-7. (even though it's size and location required lamp manufacturers to make longer working distance reflectors so they could pass light past this highly efficient Shutter.
This made sense since this Drive-in's Projection Booth was much farther back than the other Drive-in's and with the much larger Screen. I guess Motiograph had an issue with it's Shutter being made of aluminum and the extreme heat from the powerful Lamp/Reflector caused the bearings to prematurely fail. All in all most of the old-timer projectionists I talked with through the decades praised Motiograph as being one of the Finest Projectors they ever used.

I also believe when Television was taking away audiences in the early 50's that Companies like Motiograph and Devry were victims of making a Product that was MAYBE too Good and Reliable. If no new theaters were being built in this time frame;your not selling any new projection equipment and selling a minimal amount of repair parts then what are your options.Filing Bankruptcy comes to mind.I don't know what it relates to but between 1953-55 there were more CHICAGO Based business's (not just MP based Equipment) that closed their doors for what ever reason.I don't remember hearing or reading that the economy in the early 50's was that bad to cause so many long time Business Mfger's to have to close their doors. [Eek!]

 |  IP: Logged
Jim Cassedy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1661
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Dec 2006

- posted 06-04-2014 03:08 PM      Profile for Jim Cassedy   Email Jim Cassedy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
An early (1939) Mitchell Process Projector (Minus lamphouse & base)
-
-jc-

 |  IP: Logged
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 06-04-2014 03:12 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
As optical effects came into being and were perfected background projection fell out of use. There were still limited us of it but not as widespread as in the beginning. At least two of the films I worked on used background projection one of them being Uncle Buck. They hired Bill Hansard to bring one of his Mitchell projectors in to Chicago. He was there a total of two days and all it involved was a night background out the rear of a car's window.

As to why Mitchell didn't build theater type equipment... Their movements would have never held up to day in day out use in a movie theater. They are ultra precision pin registered movements that have to be oiled by hand every couple thousand feet of film.

Mark

 |  IP: Logged
Robert Koch
Film Handler

Posts: 93
From: Williams Ca USA
Registered: Apr 2006

- posted 06-10-2014 01:54 PM      Profile for Robert Koch   Email Robert Koch   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I`m 92 and never thought I`d live long enought to hear Devry described as good and reliable.

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Matz
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

- posted 06-11-2014 01:03 AM      Profile for Steve Matz   Email Steve Matz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well Robert their is never 100% reliability or agreement in almost anything made.Of all the old school projectionists that I talked with over the decades(most of which are gone now)I never heard one of them complain about the 12,000 series or Portable XD's used in Military situations; being unreliable or troublesome projectors. I can't speak for your expierences with Devry but during my research of the Company they always had a good reputation...

 |  IP: Logged
Robert Koch
Film Handler

Posts: 93
From: Williams Ca USA
Registered: Apr 2006

- posted 06-30-2014 08:34 PM      Profile for Robert Koch   Email Robert Koch   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Steve:
Ive tried to respond to your admonition of me for being critical of Uevry for quite a while; but, with my limited experience with computers ,some how they dont come thru. Obviously you have no experience , hands on with Devry~s. Well I have and believe me it wAS all bad.I diont know what corruption existed in the navy{Bu ships] at the time but ghe purchase of Devry projectors had to be at the top of the list. I worked for RCA Photophone for many yearsand while the higher ups were delighted when we received the navy contract, myself and my associAtes who had to work withis miserable crap were crestfallen. You had to know the existence of professional equipment available at the time. With the Devry your very existance depended upon a New Departure bycicle chain. Devry was a miserable piece of equipment and from your admonition of me,I can tell you have never worked in the business. Pay attention to my mention of corruption because I1m sure it happened and the Navy was saddled with inferior equipmentfor however many years

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.