Patrick Neary

Hi- Why would it be any more difficult than posting a project that shot 3-perf?

Hi-

A B&H filmo (with a crank in the motor-socket) would be the cheapest and easiest. Devry 16mm cameras are harder to find, double perf only, and only give you 6 frames per turn (the filmo is 8, so 2-turns for 16fps).

Hi-

For anyone really interested in this stuff I highly recommend Richard Koszarski's "An Evening's Entertainment - The Age of the Silent Feature Picture, 1915-1928"

I'm in the middle of it right now, it's very well researched and has a nifty chapter on cameras, stock, labs, etc. of that period. He maintains that in 1915 Kodak had one orthochromatic negative stock (later labeled type 1201) with an asa around 24 (although ASA ratings weren't around at the time), and one print stock. He also says that labs initially resisted the panchromatic stock because they couldn't check the developing neg with their red lights.

Everyone I worked on sucked the big whazoo. Buy the Cookes.

Hey now! I haven't sent the neg in yet, but just looking at the ground glass, this Pan Cinor isn't THAT bad...OK it has a distinct, ummm, gentleness about it...not as crisp as a Baltar ( ! ) but it is a unique look.

Does anyone want it? It's too big and bulky for me.

We are in the process of moving Mitchell camera, which was not part of the equipment sale to Panavision. We still have all the records and spare parts stored.

Thank you for entering the discussion! I would love to find out how to access the Mitchell records, especially anything pertaining to Mitchell Chronograph #1074, to be specific! :)

Hi-

That looks like a Mitchell standard mount-

Hey Everyone-

I have a good, heavy-duty rain/weather cover for CP-16R camera. It's still in great shape, the blue leather (or vinyl maybe?) is very pliable and no mold/mildew stains or smells. The only flaw is that someone cut a square piece of the clear plastic out of the back cover which would cover the on/off switch and speed control. Other than that, it's in pretty good shape. If anyone is interested please PM me, it was recently on fleabay with no takers, I'm asking $25 + $10 USPS priority shipping. PM me if you're interested.

I can invoice through Paypal if that makes it easy. Or send a check, or a couple chickens or whatever, I just want a CP somewhere to be cozy and dry. :)

- Ideally, you want to make all the changes in lighting level with your lights and not the lens aperture or with ND filters, as these variables can change the contrast, color cast, and sharpness of your final image. Then you won't know for certain whether a certain effect was due to the emulsion or the glass. Practically, you may have to change the lens aperture or use NDs but be aware that they can alter image.

Hi-

First, everyone has their own way of doing these things, but...

For practical purposes it's a lot easier to just light your set-up to 5.6, shoot 10-15 feet or so, open up to 4, shoot 15 feet, open up to 2.8, shoot 15 feet, then 2.0, then do the same thing at 8, 11, 16 and 22 (if you want to go that far.)

Lens/aperture color, contrast and sharpness changes aren't really a factor when you're talking about over/underexposing the neg that much (it brings its own effects), and a timed print will make small color shifts (from a lens iris change) a moot point anyhow, and the one light will be so dark or light at the extreme ends that those shifts disappear into the tortures that the neg is experiencing just in the exposures. At 3 stops under or over you'll see color shifts inherent in the neg more than anything caused by an iris change.

And unless you're lighting your reference scene with 10Ks (and a LOT of wire!), I can't imagine it being a terribly practical or time-efficient way to work.

Angenieux also made some special zoom lenses for non-reflex 16mm cameras, with this kind of finder built in. I don't know if that was ever done for 35mm zooms.

 

-- J.S.

Hi-

Pan Cinor had a 38-155 zoom with a big side-finder. I'm shooting a few tests with one right now to see just how little diffusion I need to add to it. :)

Another good one:

http://www.cameraguild.com/index.html?inte...htm~top.main_hp

Down the page a bit you'll find Russ Alsobrook's 5-part "Machines that Made the Movies" series. Good stuff!

Quite right about the Nikon mount, it also has a quick-set mount on one port which is handy for the Mitchell-mount lenses.

My reference to the 2709 was more about the shape of the turret, I've never seen a Mitchell with this 2709-ish turret. I've only seen the more common round disc set into the square standard. I suppose this turret design accommodates the data port.

The other cool thing is the tach, which is part of the shutter-angle control assembly on the rear. Although it does interfere with the mounting of the standard ac/dc variable speed motor (the motor's tach bumps into the shutter lever if it's set anywhere above 50-degrees or so) My solution was to just remove the tachometer from the motor, although this camera will be used primarily for hand-cranking fun, so the on-camera tach is handy for that! I'm finding that the 2-turns/sec for 16fps is pretty easy to hit and maintain though :)

I'd love to see a B&H movement up close and in action; the guts of any Mitchell are just awe-inspiring in their precision and simplicity!

Hi Marc-

It has the plugged hole: here's (I'll try at least) a terrible photo (from the original seller):

Hey fellow Mitchellonians!

I recently picked up what is essentially a GC, but it's placarded as a "Mitchell Chronograph"

The main difference seems to be a facility for adding some kind of data imprinting to the gate. The turret also looks a bit more like a 2709 in that it's round (but still mounted on a flat-back standard)

It also has a slightly different shutter lever than the stock GC, and has a built in tach on the back of the camera.

It has a high serial number (10xx) but I wonder if that many were actually made, or the first numbers refer to the model?....

Hi Paul-

If this is for your aforementioned 35mm scanner project, it seems to me you should be looking at a low-distortion, flat-field lens, like a good apochromatic process or (more likely) enlarging lens (El-Nikkor, Schneider Componon or Rodenstock Rodagon), something designed for flat, close-reproduction work rather than out-and-about shooting. Those lenses tend to be razor sharp, and something like that would be far easier to rig to the camera body, like on a sliding stage or macro bellows. After all, this would be a locked-down, fixed focus, stationary system, correct?

Hi-

I've read that Mitchell Camera Co. kept very good records of who bought their cameras and where they went, but how you get a hold of that info is something I haven't figured out yet...anyone know where to start?

I wonder if that's an isue with the GC, I see old photos of James Wong Howe and others cranking away on standards that seem to be driven directly. Someone has a standard on fleabay at the moment (pl mount, no less!) that also appears to be sans-gearbox.

Does anyone know if empty 50' 16mm daylight spools are available, and, if they are, where I could get some?

 

Thanks,

 

Aaron

This is a strange coincidence- I literally just came back from here: http://www.bluemooncamera.com (they're in No. Portland) to get a 25' R8mm spool, and the owner there also pulled out a 50' metal spool that was for r8 as well (it had a #1 on one side and #2 on the other), but looked like it could maybe be used in a 16mm camera. The center hole may have been slightly smaller, but I'm sure they could try to fit it onto one of their 16mm cameras to see if it works. try them!

I don't see how they can "win" when they already have a superior product, except to now sell it for half the price, but then, what about their profitability? How will the fund R&D then?

double the prices on their print stocks. :)

Hi again-

could you post a photo of your homemade crank? I'm curious how you fashioned it.

we had a problem mounting a primo 11-1 on a pana-435, and it turned out to be the tiniest bit of grit on the lens mount, it looked like a pencil smudge. Those tolerances are tight!

now if they can just come up with a term for narrative features that are shot the same way...

talking head-talking head-talking head-talking head-talking head. ugh.

Hi Bjorn-

Does your Devry have the crank? if not how do you hand crank it, did you have to make your own to fit the shaft?

yup. your nikon (camera) is just using more of the image circle projected by the lens.

I haven't kept up with Nikon glass. I have used the 15 extensively and it's great. The lenses that require mirror-lockup are obvious, because they have what looks like a long pipe sticking out of the back of the lens.

http://www.johnhelmer.com/prod.itml/icOid/10

(notice it's "oversized"!)

Hi Jay-

Well, you're getting the FOV of an 18mm lens. But it's no different if you got an 18mm Zeiss or Cooke, you'd get the same composition and FOV through your viewfinder with any of those lenses.

If you wanted the same FOV on your Fries that an 18mm gives you on a Nikon still camera, then yes, you need to find something wider, like the 15mm I mentioned.

I believe the problem you will run into though with wider lenses on your Fries is that some rear elements may stick back too far into the camera and bonk into the pellicle.

Stephen Williams and Paul Breuning are the resident Fries owner/experts here, maybe they will chime in on what they have found works best in the wide-angle arena!

(congrats on getting the camera, by the way- if it's one of the units he had up on ebay recently, it looked like a really nice set-up!)