First time with 35...Mitchell NC vs Eyemo...

Kirk Anderson · April 3, 2009

So I want to shoot some 35.

I have my own bolex 16mm and arri S which I have shot with a ton, so I feel this step shouldn't be too difficult. I just moved to LA and now I can rent some cameras. I was looking online and for under $150 a day I can rent a fully set-up Mitchell NC or a Motor Driven Eyemo with Mags.

Which one should i rent? Most likely for a no budget music video. Hope to shoot 800 feet or so. That would make around 9 minutes of footage for a 3 minute song.

I feel the eyemo would be easier to load and have newer nikon lenses.

I'm worried about the complex Mitchell loading and that the lenses are probably old as dirt.

Mainly this would be a reel builder and a chance for me and some other film geeks to try 35.

I only found rates this cheap with Alan Gordon, anyone have any other rental houses in LA with comparable rates?

Also I'm wondering if there is any way to get around insurance? Like putting down a $1000 deposit or something. I'm just a young 20's film geek that wants to try 35, I'm not strapping a $10,000 35mm Arri to the hood of my car and jumping it.

Thanks!

Kirk

John Sprung · April 3, 2009

They're two different cameras for very different purposes. The Mitchell is a classic studio camera with big magazines and pin registration. It's intended to go on a gear head and dolly. Ask what kind of lenses it takes, very often they have newer mounts. The Eyemo was designed to be the smallest object that could shoot 35mm, using the available technology in 1927. It's ideal if you want to run around with a hand held camera. Personally, I'd take the Mitchell. Your style may differ.

-- J.S.

Michael Kubaszak · April 3, 2009

Also I'm wondering if there is any way to get around insurance? Like putting down a $1000 deposit or something. I'm just a young 20's film geek that wants to try 35, I'm not strapping a $100,000 35mm Arri to the hood of my car and jumping it.

Thanks!

Kirk

fixed

Edited April 3, 2009 by Michael Kubaszak

Patrick Neary · April 4, 2009

fixed

(what's fixed?)

Threading a Mitchell builds character. (And it's really not that hard) :)

John Sprung · April 4, 2009

Threading a Mitchell builds character. (And it's really not that hard) :)

There's more to do on the Mitchell, with pin registration and stroke. There's less room to do it in on the Eyemo, and you have to keep the slide pushed forward as you put the door on, so in some ways it's harder. Both are easy compared with a Konvas magazine.

-- J.S.

Satsuki Murashige · April 4, 2009

Hey Kirk,

Why not go for an ARRI 2C and make your life a lot easier? Otto Nemenz rents the 2C for $150/day according to their website: http://s202098837.onlinehome.us/home/22/page/1

Bruce Taylor · April 5, 2009

Both are easy compared with a Konvas magazine.

Hey! I was just going to suggest he rent one of my Konvi! Loading those mags builds character too, especially when everyone's waiting for it.

Bruce Taylor

www.indi35.com

Kirk Anderson · April 6, 2009

Great Site! I think I'll definitely look into getting one of those arri's for $150.

The konvas would be cool too, but it's a little more.

Thanks for the advice, maybe someday i'll get a mitchell for the fun of learning to thread it.

Bruce Taylor · April 6, 2009

...look into getting one of those arri's for $150.
The konvas would be cool too, but it's a little more.

Actually, the Konvas rental is quite a bit less. Remember that the $150 a day Arri II needs mags, a motor, matte box, lenses and batteries. All of which is included in the Konvas package. The Arri is easier to thread though.

Bruce Taylor

www.indi35.com

John Sprung · April 6, 2009

The main thing on that Konvas mag is that it's actually easier to thread the film on the wrong side of the takeup sprocket, so you get both sprockets trying to cram film into the gate. It makes a lot of chips.

-- J.S.

Tim Carroll · April 6, 2009

It makes a lot of chips.

I love that expression. Reminds me of some of the Arriflex 16S cameras that I service for different university clients. I'll occasionally open one up and the inside looks like a sandbox it's so full of film chips. With a pulldown claw and a registration pin, when the students load the film completely wrong, it generates chips real fast. Still runs though. :P

Best,

-Tim

Tom Jensen · April 6, 2009

If you are doing this for spec, you'd be better of shooting a commercial. You'd have a lot more control and you wouldn't have to shoot as much footage. If you are shooting the video for friends, shoot on Super 16. That way you can have more stock. Most music videos are (at least were) shot on 16. 35 is great but you aren't projecting it so save your cha-chings$$. 900 feet is just not that much film.

John Sprung · April 7, 2009

With a pulldown claw and a registration pin, when the students load the film completely wrong, it generates chips real fast.

I've heard that in the very early days, there were cameras that used unperforated film, and let the pulldown claws make the holes. Never seen one in person, though.

-- J.S.

Kirk Anderson · April 7, 2009

ha ha ha very cool.

I have a fully arri S package and a bolex package.

I also have about 2000 feet of 16mm film in the fridge dying to be used.

I hear fotokem does developing for .08 a foot for film students.

I had to laugh, I just moved to LA a month ago and last week I was driving in burbank and my girlfriend wrinkled her nose and said, "what's that smell?"

I said it smelled like the inside of a film can, just then we drove by the fotokem sign.

That whole place smells like film, even outside on the street.

I hope to shoot some 35mm for the experience. I don't know why, just sounds like fun and I want to see the footage.

The only issue is the transfer, short ends are cheap, fotokem student discount is cheap....but even a 35mm telecine to hard drive is expensive.

Satsuki Murashige · April 7, 2009

I hear fotokem does developing for .08 a foot for film students.

So does Deluxe.

I hope to shoot some 35mm for the experience. I don't know why, just sounds like fun and I want to see the footage. The only issue is the transfer...

You should, it totally beats the pants off of digital! :P Check out this transfer facility: http://www.cinelicious.tv/?page_id=4. 1080P telecine direct to hard drive for $275/hr. Can't beat that.

Leo Anthony Vale · April 7, 2009

The Mitchell is a classic studio camera with big magazines and pin registration. It's intended to go on a gear head and dolly. Ask what kind of lenses it takes, very often they have newer mounts.

The Mitchell NC was most probably designed to be used on the famous mitchell friction head,

same as the standard.

While the Worrall gear head was probably designed to be used with the BNC. It's such a perfect fit.

The NC requires a riser for use on the worrell head. But the BNC can also be used on the Mitchell friction head.

When I was at Sawyer, a Japanese camera crew came in looking for a mitchell friction head.

They had been searching around for one, with no luck.

They were so excited to finally find one.

As to newer mounts on an NC, it'll probably be a Nikon adapter.

Tom Jensen · April 7, 2009

The Mitchell NC was most probably designed to be used on the famous mitchell friction head,
same as the standard.

While the Worrall gear head was probably designed to be used with the BNC. It's such a perfect fit.

The NC requires a riser for use on the worrell head. But the BNC can also be used on the Mitchell friction head.

When I was at Sawyer, a Japanese camera crew came in looking for a mitchell friction head.

They had been searching around for one, with no luck.

They were so excited to finally find one.

As to newer mounts on an NC, it'll probably be a Nikon adapter.

I believe that is a Mitchell BNCR.

Patrick Neary · April 8, 2009

I believe that is a Mitchell BNCR.

a BNC, note the finder.

Tom Jensen · April 8, 2009

a BNC, note the finder.

You are correct sir. The R stands for reflex and finder was a dead give away. The R wasn't added until the 60's and that is obviously not the 60's. Patrick, you're pretty smart for a chimp. You must be a trained chimp. :D

Edited April 8, 2009 by Tom Jensen

Leo Anthony Vale · April 8, 2009

Patrick, you're pretty smart for a chimp. You must be a trained chimp.

Just don't get him mad. First things an angry chimp goes for are fingers and balls.

If no balls, they'll tear off your face.

Tom Jensen · April 8, 2009

Just don't get him mad. First things an angry chimp goes for are fingers and balls.

If no balls, they'll tear off your face.

That picture is classic. Now, I know the astronauts must have felt when Ham was the first man, I mean chimp in space.

Chris Keth · April 8, 2009

Hey Kirk,

Why not go for an ARRI 2C and make your life a lot easier? Otto Nemenz rents the 2C for $150/day according to their website: http://s202098837.onlinehome.us/home/22/page/1

I think this is the correct answer. It is easy to work with and the size makes sense for a "no-budget" production. What I haven't seen mentioned is that the mitchell weighs about 90lbs. It's not all that tough to thread or load mags for but its size does pretty much require a 1st and a 2nd and that they at least reasonably know what they're doing. If you don't have a dolly, things move much slower since you can't go up on sticks or move very quickly with a 90lb camera on top.

A nice 2C would serve you well.

Simon Wyss · April 19, 2009

The Eyemo was designed to be the smallest object that could shoot 35mm, using the available technology in 1927.
-- J.S.

The Bell & Howell Eyemo was released in the spring of 1925. It is based on the 1923 Filmo which again goes back to a split film World War camera.

Simon Wyss · April 19, 2009

I've heard that in the very early days, there were cameras that used unperforated film, and let the pulldown claws make the holes.

-- J.S.

That's the Biograph camera of Lauste and Casler, 1895. It punches a neat perforation out of 35-mm. strips, has a suction pump that assures flatness in the aperture and is not very noisy.