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

This is topic Mitchell 300 BNCR cameras... in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=011548

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 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]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 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

Posted by Simon Wyss (Member # 6218) on 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.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 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

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 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]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-11-2013, 05:57 PM:

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

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 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]

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 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]

Posted by Dan Kessler (Member # 6607) on 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.

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 11-11-2013, 11:49 PM:

Here it is Manny!!!

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

Posted by Simon Wyss (Member # 6218) on 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.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 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.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 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

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 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.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 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

Posted by Simon Wyss (Member # 6218) on 11-12-2013, 01:40 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Linear Loop is way too fussy of a system to even be considered here.

Agreed.

Let’s not lose the subject. Actually, I wanted to see a positive aspect with the bulky, heavy camera. Stanley Kubrick has made films that age remarkably less well than other productions, so seen lately with Barry Lyndon. I loved the movie at the time but today the myth has faded. Sometimes it gets boring.

There was the Dogma 95 movement, a foolish game in my eyes. Cinema is a most artificial thing, so trying to maintain or even gain any kind of realism by handholding the camera can only be seen as childish, can’t it?

My admiration in the American cinema was always for the Western with horses and trains. Especially the horses films are unique worldwide, and there were Mitchell cams most of the time. They could tell stories back then, plain stories for plain people! The camera was carefully leveled to the horizon, something more and more disregarded. Cat on the shoulder? Crap in the head!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-12-2013, 08:00 PM:

Yes, well we have John Ford Point at Monument Valley. Making Westerns here is pretty easy. Just add horse, saddle and rider as my Friend Rochard Strange did to get this picture.

Getting back to Stan Kubrick... So you're saying that Dr. Strangelove didn't age well? Or that Clockwork Orange has actually aged at all or The Shining? I disagree... and much of Strangelove was shot with hand held Arri 2C's, Shining with a BL on a Steadicam. Some pretty remarkable achievements in all those films if you ask me. Barry Lyndon's cinematography never gets boring... but the script was very boring from the very beginning, at least to me!

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-12-2013, 08:45 PM:

I agree with Mark G here. His best films still work as well as ever. I still get goose bumps at certain scenes out of Dr. Strangelove and The Shining. Paths of Glory still works. "Spartacus" not so much for me.

I ran "Barry Lyndon" way too many times and it was an innovation to work with available light but the story seemed just plain bland and boring despite all the beauty.

Ryan O'Neal was a bad choice for a lead. He played a General in some big WW11 movie and one reviewer said, "Follow Ryan O'Neal into Battle; I wouldn't follow him into the Men's room!".