Dave Campbell

There is a Mitchell DSR-16 Newsreel camera on sale on Ebay right now 8/8/11. This was a camera designed by Mitchell and ordered by CBS News in the 1960's for their 60 minutes TV show. They wanted their reporters to have a camera that they could use for interviews in the field. It's a sound on film camera, like the Auricons, and you have the option to thread the film to shoot silent, and use separate sound equipment. Being designed for interviews in the field, it should run quiet enough for dialog, and it uses 400ft magazines.

Which cameras have a 400' magazine capacity that are affordable (under 1k)?

 

I have a 100' only camera. I may be able to get 400' rolls for a considerable discount, so I'm looking if there are any 400' mag cameras that could possibly save me the exorbitant cost of film stock.

 

Thanks!

Actually, that is Always the way that sound on film works. The Mag Striped cameras recorded the sound with the right advance for mag stripe projectors/telecine units. The advance is just a bit different thna for optical sound, and the cameras like the auricon that do both tipicaly have two slightly different threading diagrams. (Actually come to think of it - the auricon just has the film pass both positions.)

 

Cutting to the soundtrack would mean that sometimes the action on the screen would show "silent lips" or that the scene would have to start a few seconds before the subject started talking. maybe that is where we get those "Fred Smith", "XYZ News", "Iqaluit Nunavut" signoffs on news items.

My Mitchell SSR16 has a sound on film threading diagram and a 2nd threading diagram for shooting silent.

Is there a good book on the topic of editing on a flatbed?

Kev,

Maybe I didn't read close enough, but what is your output for your feature? Are you going to try for a theatrical release?

Is there one book that gives you the step by step procedures to make a film from script to pre-production to shooting to all of todays post production and release options, including image capture on film, 16mm and 35mm. One all encompassing book on procedure?

I've been watching some of the old British mysteries on PBS from the 80's, Sherlock Holmes and Inspector Morse. The camera listed in the credits is the Panaflex 16. I've read all of the threads about this camera, but could not find the answer to this question. Were those mysteries shot in r16 or s16? I read a thread that said the Elaines were at some point converted to s16. Does anyone know the history? :P

Tried to connect to Stecica.com and couldn't. Anyone know if Martin is still doing s16 conversions in the UK? :blink:

Thanks Tom. That answered it for me. Adrian, the process is spherical, but the lens is aspherical? I'm going to have to do some of that reading that you suggested. Thanks all.

Thank you all for your answers to my query. Adrian, I'm going to pick up Cinematography-3rd edition. I'm still not sure which lenses are spherical. For instance, I'm holding in my hand an Angenieux 10-150 for my 16mm camera. Would this lens be considered spherical? Can any of you give me some more examples of spherical and non-spherical lenses? Please - not too technical, remember, this is the idiot section of the forum. Thanks.

:blink: I've seen the term "spherical lens" in a few 2 perf Techniscope threads. Does this mean any lens that is not anamorphic? Are most or all primes and zooms spherical lenses? Are there non-spherical lenses?

By the way, I think there is a concept missing from this thread - one that is often not understood by newer filmmakers. It's the idea of offline editing. In principle, that means that the copy that you edit is not the copy that will be used to produce the final show copy. Instead, you make a low cost (and therefore low quality, or unreproducible) version and cut that, then go back to the origin

 

In tape-based processes, you make a quick and dirty (cheap) transfer of all of your original negative, digitise and edit that on your FCP system, then go back and retransfer just the takes you need at higher quality, and match-edit them based on your EDL. (This is most advatageous when you have a lot of original footage with complex cutting. In your case, a simple conversation might not be too hard to manage whichever way you go.)

 

With fully digital postproduction, the costs of transferring to a good standard in the first place probably aren't that much more than transferring to anything else, so offline really isn't such a significant saver. But it's still a concept that needs to be understood.

 

 

I remember years ago helping a friend make a 16mm sound short. I remember the lab made two prints, one a work print, and the other held in reserve and not touched. The A & B rolls. He cut the work print on a flatbed, then the lab used the pristeen print and an optical printer to make the master. I'm guessing that was the then way to do it and your explaining the now way. I think I understand the concept. Budget wise, if I do a cheap transfer initially, the more takes I do, the more money I would save. Thank you for that very good information.

Wow, didn't know that. Thanks Brian!

 

William, whatever post path you choose to make 35mm prints will be expensive, I thought you were finishing on HD? You should call your lab for more specific info on going to 35mm and for price quotes.

 

 

 

 

 

Right now it's all theoretical. I'm trying to understand the process. Thanks, great information.

Thank you both for clearing up the process for me. I was over thinking and making it complicated. What if the output of the s16 film was to be a 35mm negative dup? What format should the s16 film be transferred into for the best chance of a quality blow up?

Best way would be to get the neg telecined onto as high a quality format as you can afford - some places will transfer onto a hard drive and then sync everything up on your FCP. Cut it and then grade it. Work prints are projection contrast, so don't telecine that well, plus the splices will show.

 

You should also plan the track laying and then mixing your sound.

[/quote

 

 

Thanks Brian. The process is becoming more clear. What does the term "grade it" refer to?

This is a budget question, but also a theoretical workflow question. Planning (not really) to make a 10 minute film, mostly of a conversation between two people in s16. Output to HD or SD for television viewing. Trying to save money in post. Sound recorder is a non timecode field recorder. Using clapboards at beginning of takes. After I get the color negative film processed, would it be practical to get a work print, (being s16 - minus the sound, of course), and edit the entire film on a flatbed, (I have access to one), and then send it to the lab to be Telecined, color adjusted, and the soundtrack synced up? Would this be worthwhile, or alternatively have the lab process the film, and Telecine the unedited film so that I do the sound sync and edit on my computer in FCP at the end of the process? Which do you think makes more sense, if either? I have a fear of the guy at the lab sound syncing takes that won't be used while the meter is running and running.

Where might I find this camera (Mitchell SSR 16)?

Ken Stone is selling a Mitchell SSR-16 on Ebay right now with the single claw pulldown movement. Ebay item #190247485370.