Jump to content

A tiny 2-perf camera.... what you think ?!


Doug Palmer

Recommended Posts

....Well, not that tiny.  It does take 400ft rolls of 35mm film.  Full 2.39:1 Techniscope.  Multiple speeds.  Reflex of course.  But, wait for it ! ...SELF-BLIMPED. 

It was invented by the late Laurie Buckingham, and as you see it's called the Buckingham "Silent".  These pictures have just been discovered by his son Steve. And there's more if you go to

https://filmisfine.com/blog/an-amazing-techniscope-35mm-camera/

It was completed way back in 1976, and it's believed this prototype still exists somewhere.  But it was never put into production for us !

Would you have used this light-weight camera ?  It ran from just a few frames per second to 50. The "Silent" one was 24.  It had a pin-registered movement Steve believes. And within the camera body was housed the nicad batteries. The shutter angle he thinks was 90%.  But how was it possible to construct such a camera without having an external blimp ?  There may have been something special about the mechanism itself ?   I'd really like to know if anyone here has heard before about this camera.  Apparently, Laurie did try to get interest in manufacturing it, but I get the impression he was wary of losing his rights over it or something like that. Also apparently it didn't run in reverse, maybe due to the pin-regd movement?  Who knows.  Also, does anyone know what lens-mount he employed ?  The lenses were Angenieux.

 

 

IMG_20210305_100327 resized tech cam 70%.jpg

IMG_20210305_100913.jpg

IMG_20210305_100801.jpg

Edited by Doug Palmer
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

When asking how he made it silent the question I guess is how silent was it really? There's very little wall thickness for insulation, no space for vibration isolation etc. I doubt it would have been as quiet as a Panaflex or a 35BL. 

Still an interesting camera though. The front protrusion looks like it houses a spinning mirror. Love to see it.

Where did you find this information, Doug? Just from Laurie's son? Is he still in Australia?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is, I think, a worthwhile subject for an episode of 'Australian Story' on ABCTV, or some similar program. An Australian designed and manufactured film camera, the whereabouts of the prototype being unknown. I think it would be a cool show to watch. Might put together a proposal and seek funding. Australia also had a major input in the invention of the IMAX camera - which I hope to research soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some further details:  son Steve thinks it weighed around 2kg without film.  The body was made of aircraft duralium or similar, with sound deadening treatment. Although no db tests were made apparently,  the camera "purred" at 24fps, OK for sound recording, but as Dom says, how it compared with other 35mm cameras is unknown. He thinks the movement was "unconventional" and that this was maybe a big part of the quietness.  The battery pack comprised "two 8-button cell 500mah nicad packs".

Yes Henry Laurie Buckingham was indeed Australian, and he worked on many other projects too.  https://filmisfine.com/blog/henry-l-buckingham-widescreen-pioneer/

And Dom and Jon, yes Steve is still in Oz too ?  and he's hoping some day to make some kind of website about his amazing father. I agree, ordinary people as well as film-makers should know about his life and work.  I get the idea from Steve that he was over-secretive about this Techniscope camera, as he'd had a previous bad experience on another project.  He really made it for himself maybe, as he had great plans for making a film with it...  know that feeling ??

tech cam right side.jpg resized.jpg

tech cam steve's face.jpg

This is Steve Buckingham back in '76 he estimates from the hair !  I gather he also helped his father with the electronics.

Edited by Doug Palmer
add word
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2021 at 11:58 PM, Dom Jaeger said:

When asking how he made it silent the question I guess is how silent was it really? There's very little wall thickness for insulation, no space for vibration isolation etc. I doubt it would have been as quiet as a Panaflex or a 35BL. 

 

Firstly, Dom, congratulations on your Australian Cinema Pioneers certificate which I understand Amanda has just mailed you !

And I've just had from Steve more details on the sound level of the 2-perf camera.  He says the following:

It's awkward not having an official sound level, but I've heard it and remember that it was undetectable from a meter or two away. An estimate 10 to 20 db. Perhaps the Sydney cinematographer who evaluated the camera will surface and could confirm its performance, but he may by now be deceased. I know how the movement worked but don't know how much it is part of the quietness success, or if dad designed/adopted the movement for that reason. It's predictable people are going to query what "silent" is. I note a Wiki list of several cameras' noise level is quoted as "sync-sound quiet" (rather than db), and dad's was certainly that.
 
 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
43 minutes ago, Doug Palmer said:

Firstly, Dom, congratulations on your Australian Cinema Pioneers certificate which I understand Amanda has just mailed you !

Thanks Doug! You must be in with the Australian Cinema Pioneers crowd.. but you’re in the UK, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Thanks Doug! You must be in with the Australian Cinema Pioneers crowd.. but you’re in the UK, right?

UK yes,  not in your impressive crowd, sorry !   I got this news from Steve, son of Laurie.

He also told me that the 50fps speed on this camera was something his Dad worked on for  "many months"  to get right, even though he probably wasn't going to use it himself. That's perfection for you ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 hours ago, Doug Palmer said:

UK yes,  not in your impressive crowd, sorry !   I got this news from Steve, son of Laurie.

Oh that’s interesting! Maybe I’ll run into him at a Cinema Pioneers dinner and I can ask him about his dad. I wish he knew what happened to the prototype.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1456310443_2-perftestresized60.jpg.9338242a82e5b69feba521d0c42ecfc7.jpg

On 3/25/2021 at 3:38 PM, Dom Jaeger said:

Oh that’s interesting! Maybe I’ll run into him at a Cinema Pioneers dinner and I can ask him about his dad. I wish he knew what happened to the prototype.

You still do dinners in Australia ? ?

Just found this little 'film-clip' photo that Steve sent me a while ago.  It shows frames from this camera.  Note the frame numbers too.  Laurie had some kind of numbering apparatus that would have made editing and conforming easy.  Apparently, he also made one for 16mm which Steve helped him with.

Edited by Doug Palmer
change word
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, Doug Palmer said:

You still do dinners in Australia ? ?

They just had their first dinner after nearly a year! ?

We’re pretty COVID free here in Oz, occasional outbreaks get stomped on so we’re doing a good job of keeping it under control. And most of us have no problem wearing masks or getting tested or isolating when we need to, which is a big factor I think. We were in hard lock down for over a hundred days in Melbourne last year, but it was worth it.

It’s been great for our film industry because lots of international productions feel safer filming here. But while it’s good for us at the same time I really feel for those countries where poor political leadership and large anti-mask movements have led to unnecessary deaths. I find it baffling to be honest..
 

1 hour ago, Doug Palmer said:

1456310443_2-perftestresized60.jpg.9338242a82e5b69feba521d0c42ecfc7.jpg

 


Nice clean frame lines, no bleeding or overlap.. looks good! Curious about the frame numbering..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

 


 


Nice clean frame lines, no bleeding or overlap.. looks good! Curious about the frame numbering..

Steve doesn't remember too well the 35mm frame numbering, but I understand that the 16mm numbering was done using Bolex camera and a simple calculator display believe it or not.  Steve did the electronics.  It was done before exposure, whatever that means. Maybe then the 35mm set-up was similar.  If you talk to him at dinner, keep filling his glass ?

The copy of that film-clip above is fuzzy, but you may discern a decimal point after the frame-numbers. That was Laurie Buckingham's way of proving it was his !

He certainly sounds like a great character. Always coming up with incredible ideas, and constructing them in a meticulous fashion.   And when you read the AC Nov 1964 article on his 16mm Varispect system, imagine the complexities of modifying a Bolex to take a registration pin + curved rear gate plate + AIR-PUMP !  Who knows then how his 2-perf 35mm camera was constructed...

Maybe one day we'll know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice !

I think 2-perf is in many ways a perfect system nowadays. You have economy plus quality, far better than in the past. When I saw the movie Titanic (itself getting old now) on the big screen, I was totally fooled by the 2-perf underwater footage. Also it must have been shot at a wide aperture.

Coming back to the Buckingham 2-perf camera, I'm told that there was no problem at all with hairs in the gate. This is the usual criticism of 2-perf, with no room for cropping.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 3/31/2021 at 9:58 AM, Doug Palmer said:

Nice !

I think 2-perf is in many ways a perfect system nowadays. You have economy plus quality, far better than in the past. When I saw the movie Titanic (itself getting old now) on the big screen, I was totally fooled by the 2-perf underwater footage. Also it must have been shot at a wide aperture.

Coming back to the Buckingham 2-perf camera, I'm told that there was no problem at all with hairs in the gate. This is the usual criticism of 2-perf, with no room for cropping.

It's a long time since I saw Titanic, but have just watched the TV doc https://www.channel4.com/programmes/titanic-into-the-heart-of-the-wreck/on-demand/71942-001 where James Cameron shows us the miniature wreck he used in the film, due I think to the lack of light and visibility for the wide shots. So likely I was fooled by some of the 'underwater' footage ? and I'm guessing that it was super-35 on the miniature, although maybe Techniscope to match better and improve depth of field?  .... Whatever, it looked great.

Edited by Doug Palmer
add words
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...