Frank Wylie

Search for a seller named "Kinemaman" on Ebay and inquire if they have any leads on an original Mitchell unit. From what I know, they have one of the largest stockpiles of original Mitchell camera gear in the World.

Others will perhaps chime in with better responses, but I suggest if you want to keep the black background, move the subject forward and apply a back light on the two items. There is nothing to separate the subjects from the background. Moving the subjects forward allows you to shine a light source on the rear of the items without illuminating the background. This should bring out the shape and volume of the items and give you the separation needed to fully comprehend the shape of the items. Be sure to use barn doors or flags to keep the light from spilling into the taking lens and onto the background.

I have a 16mm Technicolor Salesman Reel somewhere around here. It promoted their process for that brief period portable projectors were the rage with traveling salesmen and product point of sale booths. Imagine, you could have had a IB Tech reel for selling your windows and vinyl siding! ' I have to think they would have had to have done 35-32 dual rank prints and then slit them down to 16mm rather than fabricate an entirely separate printing facility. We programmed a fair number of Cinemascope 16mm prints at the University I attended as part of the English Literature series for Freshmen. (couldn't get them to read, but they would watch movies) I specifically remember screening the full restoration (at that time) of Abel Gance's "Napoleon" (1927) that was a grueling 330 minutes and the final reel of triptych scenes were on a separate reel in anamorphic. The film was great but, I think the cheering of the audience when the curtain closed was no small measure of relief that it was ending, as much as respect for the artistry the film. I still have an Elmoscope Anamorphic projection lens on my shelf to remind me of those days...

I really don't know; the death-rattle of Technicolor was long and shrouded in mystery. We will probably never know the full story...

I think you would be much better off studying the spectral responses of the actual dyes used on the printing matrices (the spectral response and upper and lower limits of each dye) to replicate the look than actually trying to make the physical product. It WAS a lithographic process, so the only color synthesis possible was by the interaction of those limited dyes and the density matrix. I feel the key to the "Technicolor Look" is more defined by what is left out of the image by the gaps in the spectrum overlaps of the colors of the dyes used and the addition of a neutral density matrix to bring the image up to density standards. Starting with a color image, strip out the RGB as seperate MONO channels and then create a digital color matrix of each channel by substituting the dye spectral qualities for that particular channel. Then recombine them with a totally desaturated density mask made from the combined RGB channels to balance density. Treat it like a lithograph, but in the RGB color space, not the CYMK color space. Besides, the 35mm matrix film used to create the printing elements has not been produced in many decades. Good luck getting that made today...

You could ask around various equipment dealers to see if they happen to have a dynamic TBC (time base corrector). It was kind of a "poor man's slow-mo" that allowed you to vary playback frame rates; usually from a U-Matic 3/4 inch video playback machine. It won't do anything but vary the interval between existing frames (no synthesis of images) but it was a workable substitute for real, high frame rate slow-mo. I used it to replay horse race finishes at a race track on a Sony Jumbotron early in my career. God I am old...

" It's true that in the 1920s, movies seemed to have uneven development in the midtones and dark areas ..." *SIGH* No. The copies you watch may have this issue, but it is most certainly due to poor storage, copying or any number of factors that impact a 100+ year old film screened today. I can assure you, having handled hundreds of original negatives from that period and earlier, the quality of the images from that time period were equal or superior to anything made today. Film was considered a disposable medium; perishable due to it's subject matter like a newspaper. There was no ancillary markets to monetize other than 2nd and 3rd run theaters and the "junk men" of distribution who ran the prints until the sprockets burst. Many camera original negatives were chopped-up and the silver reclaimed because there was no future perceived value of the content, therefore battered prints are the only surviving elements today. Only a very small percentage of the entire output of motion pictures from 1897 to the end of the Silent Era survive as camera original negatives. Of that small percentage, only a small percentage of those are in very good condition, but the ones that remain in good condition are usually stunning in their clarity and detail. I can't tell you how many times I have timed an original from the 'teens or 'twenties for a screening, only to have some member of the audience insist the print was "digitally mastered", despite me telling them to their faces it came straight from the original negative. Were there poorly produced and processed films of that era? Of course, but by in large what you see today as poor production values were introduced in the intervening years by poor storage or handling. I don't mean to single you out or embarrass you with this information, but it's something I see and hear on a daily basis online and in person that makes me cringe.

The camera has detachable magazines. Most common sizes are 400 and 1000 feet, with some specialty magazines of 100, 200 and 2,000 feet (rare). The camera you posted has been modified with a Mitchell-type rack-over base. Any competent camera repair person can work on these. I owned 2 of these beasties at one time, but no longer have them. The shuttle movement in this camera is perhaps the most steady registering movement ever designed. Sven Nykvist shot background processing plates for Ingmar Burgman's "Fanny and Alexander" (1982) with a 2709 hand cranked camera. They are superb cameras, but a bit awkward to operate if compared to "modern" cameras.

Bell and Howell 2709. This one is setup for hand cranking, but they were able to be fitted with an auxiliary motor. This camera was produced from 1909 to the late 1970's.

Luuk, As you can see, there are many ways of cutting your film; just use what works best for your end result. I have worked with many film cutters over the years and I don't think any two of them do it exactly the same way, but all have produced excellent work. Good luck!

The film lab needs to splice your film to the processing leader and you give yourself added protection by NOT shooting important footage at the very start or tail of a roll or magazine for that fact and others. Film is most susceptible to damage and injury at the head and tails of a roll. The few extra feet you "waste" are not really waste, but insurance from damage.

Luuk, One advantage of having the splicer before the editor/viewer is to immediately check the splice for proper timing and quality of the splice through the viewer. Any discrepancies can be instantly addressed before winding the film to the left-most reel. With reversal film (assuming that is what you are cutting), the less you handle it, the less damage occurs to wind up on the screen. Good luck, Frank

https://www.usajobs.gov/job/750970800 Open & closing dates: 09/25/2023 to 10/09/2023 The position of Photographic Preservation Specialist (Chief Motion Picture Timer) is a preservation administration/conservator position in the Film Preservation Laboratory of the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center (NAVCC), Library Collections and Services Group at the Library of Congress in Culpeper, Virginia. The incumbent uses expert knowledge and skills to preserve and conserve the Library's oldest, most fragile nitrate-base and safety-base motion picture films with a great deal of independence in an exemplary manner. The incumbent maintains high standards of practice as defined by relevant professional associations for the long-term preservation and photochemical duplication of the Library's unique, historic, fragile and irreplaceable collections. The Library of Congress holds the largest public collection of nitrate-base and safety-based 16mm and 35mm film in the country. The Film Preservation Laboratory is responsible for preserving the collection at the Library’s photochemical film lab. This lab opened at this location in 2007. The laboratory staff inspects and prepares film for printing. The motion picture printers include a BHP contact wet/shrunken (model 7700 RD) and dry/non-shrunken (model 6127) and an Oxberry 1500 wet gate step optical printer for 35mm, 28mm, 22mm, 16mm and Super 16mm, 8mm and Super 8mm blow-up printing to 35mm. The lab also includes photochemical processing for black and white positive and black and white negative, and a 35mm QC theater. Performs in more than one specialty area. As a motion picture timer, incumbent sets equipment parameters and conducts testing as needed for black and white motion picture film processes. Makes daily densitometer checks by plotting density readings obtained from a pre-calibrated step wedge against standard readings. Examines and times film for printing, whether for prints, master positive, or duplicate negatives, for both picture image and soundtrack. Selects light intensity to be used for each scene; prepares a punched tape for automatic light change control consistent with the recorded light selections. Assigns the proper gamma level for duplicate negatives to be made from masters or prints. Selects the printing equipment best suited for printing the film in each production job. As a technical expert, the incumbent assigns jobs to the inspector/printers, tracks the progress of jobs through the lab, gives technical assistance on difficult and complex work problems, and inspects completed work to assure it is of acceptable quality. In addition, they participate in the design of special test equipment when existing equipment fails to provide acceptable results. Modifies testing programs to obtain and evaluate required data under varying operating conditions. Develops innovative procedures and equipment to meet specialized and unique requirements and recommends changes in procedures or equipment when existing procedures and equipment do not produce acceptable quality prints. Modifies established testing programs to test entire systems. Determines characteristics, capabilities, and limitations and performance of conventional systems. Applicable guides and precedents are available. Establishes a program to test required data under varying operating conditions. Analyzes data for evidence of improper function. Determines cause of malfunction. Analyzes and evaluates the significance of test data and writes an evaluation report of findings and recommendations. Develops innovative photographic systems and equipment to meet specialized challenges associated with the preservation, conservation, and reproduction of photographic media. Evaluates projects for the application of new technological developments in the field. Addresses unexpected situations, for which no precedents exist, nor any relevant preservation, conservation, or reproduction procedures. Evaluates work representing the most difficult and most unusual problems with preservation of audio and moving­ image materials. Evaluates the technical quality of audio and moving image preservation materials. Evaluates such image factors as proper image registration, density, gamma, critical focus, granularity and gradation, as well as audio synchronization, sibilance, modulation, noise, and frequency range to determine if they meet archival standards of quality. Determines the correct light value for each scene, the printing equipment that can best duplicate the original nitrate-base and safety-base film, and the proper gamma to control the developing of the film. The position description number for this position is 056784. The salary range indicated reflects the locality pay adjustments for the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan area. The incumbent of this position will work a flextime work schedule. This is a non-supervisory, bargaining unit position. Relocation expenses will not be authorized for the person(s) selected under this vacancy announcement.

How do you agitate the film? If you rock the tank or spin the reel in a set pattern, you can form standing waves within the developer that will produce varying densities. Unfortunately, you're not going to get commercial quality with small tank development on a reel, but you can get better results when you vary/break-up the agitation scheme to make liquid movement more random. Of course, there are physical limits to how much force and direction you can apply to both the tank and the spool, so be careful not to break anything. That's why commercial processors weigh several tons and take up hundreds of square feet; to provide the huge chemical reservoir of developer that is blasted impingement style against the emulsion as it runs through the development bath.

Thanhouser, "The Evidence of the Film" (1913) https://www.thanhouser.org/films/Evidence.htm

If you are doing the traditional "Left to Right" editing flow, I would just place my splicing block far enough before the viewer (left) to be able to twist the film over and place it in the splicer without causing undue strain on the film. Pull enough slack back to the left to avoid putting strain on the editor gate and damaging the frames in the gate. Pre-marking is not a bad thing either, regardless of how you wind up cutting the actual film. Be sure your splicing tape is the proper width; it should go frameline to frameline across the film splice, otherwise splice lines will show-up and be distracting. Also, make sure you have several layers of tape down on the actual metal bed of the splicer to form a cushion or pad to make a better splice. Peel off any existing tape, clean the bed with alcohol to remove all traces of adhesive and then pull across and cleanly punch at least 3 layers of tape onto the bed. Keeping the splicer clean and the cutting blades sharp will also help make much better splices. The blades and perforation punches do tend to get gummy with adhesive and this will transfer to your film and smear on the splices, causing jumps at splices and eventual damage. Start with a clean splicer and you'll be much more happy with the results. Use the butt-end of an art knife to smooth out the tape splice, starting from one side and burnishing to the other, but keep it off the actual film itself. Try to get all the bubbles out of the splice; with some practice, you can make a crystal clear splice with no ragged edges.

Also, are you watching film prints or digitally corrected "reconstructions" of these titles you quote? Chances are, you are watching a digital file that has been re-graded and any problematic color balances or even grain could have been subtracted in the remastering process. Even supervised transfers aren't immune from this misrepresentation; look at "Repo Man" by Alex Cox or pretty much anything pre-digital by Coppola. IMHO, Cox ruined "Repo Man" by sticking the midtones down in the mud and killing a lot of the visual humor of the film, but that's just my opinion. Sorry, looks different and I can't blame the filmmakers for wanting to make changes they might have wanted to or could not in the era in which it was shot. The whole take-away from this I want to drive home is, you may NOT be looking at a 198X film that retains it's inherent limitations of the era, but a digital re-interpretation of the film that can't be done legitimately in a full photo chemical pipeline. So, if it turns out the films you quote have been digitally remastered, then you need to add this into your equation for post production.

Todd, The yellow/amber tints of the Kodascope Library made it harder to dupe with high quality, but didn't entirely prevent duplication and it probably was also a kind of trademark look for the library. A former colleague (since passed) who worked labs for decades told me with judicious bleaching, the amber tint could be removed for a better copy. No, the Houdini print is tinted and toned for artistic effect. Brian Prichard has a good website that briefly outlines tinting and toning in the Silent Era: http://www.brianpritchard.com/Tinting.htm Sorry but due to various restrictions, I can't release the title name but can confirm it is not "The Grim Game".

Just thought I'd share this; been timing silent motion pictures for 25 years and this is the first time I ever ran across a Harry Houdini film! Making a dupe neg from this original print that was distributed on "Bay State" film stock. I've seen lots of 16mm Bay State film stock, but this is the first time to see 35mm nitrate Bay State film. Two rare things at once! BTW: Should anyone have any additional information on Bay State Film, please get in contact with me. I am always looking for solid references to this manufacturer; it's a pet research project.

ACVL (Association of Cinema and Video Laboratories) *might* have had a newsletter, but I know they put out a Handbook of Recommended Procedures. I think the last one was the 5th Edition, which a copy resides in our filing cabinet. I think they are defunct (the current web presence is for a video lessons and unrelated) but their address was: The Association of Cinema and Video Laboratories 7095 Hollywood Blvd., Suite #751 Hollywood, CA 90028 Other than that, some commercial labs in the USA put out their own bulletins/newsletters, like WRS in Pittsburgh, PA. and MPL in Memphis, TN., among others. I have thick folder of MPL bulletins in my basement, but they are concerned with A/B rolling and assorted suggested standards for film processing and editing.

Both examples you show appear to have electronic simulations of the effects you are seeking. "Shutter dragging" was pretty popular a couple of decades ago, when the DP would shoot on 16mm on (typically) a Bolex and ease off on the shutter release until the stopping mechanism was partially engaged (horrible rattling sound) which slowed the speed of the camera according to varying amounts of shutter release pressure. It is certainly not good for the camera, but it was done. The effect can be replicated on perfectly good exposed images with a good NLE using dynamic speed reduction curves, ramped exposures, key framing color shifts and so on, but it takes a lot of work and a good working knowledge of the NLE.

Not trying to discourage you but the subject is quite complex depending on the system; it simply cannot be plugged-in and fed an audio input. There can be precision, stabilized power supplies for the lamp, audio compressors, impedance matching networks, patch panels, a dedicated (and proprietary) microscope for trace alignment and focus, tone generators for test and alignment procedures... On and on. Have a look at the procedure for doing Cross-Modulation tests to obtain proper exposure on Variable Area tracks: https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/Cross-Modulation-Distortion-Testing-H-44.pdf Try to dig up a operator's manual for any sound camera and see what it takes. I had one that went with the RCA unit; it was several inches thick. GOOD optical sound is hard. An Auricon (and I have owned every model made) can give you a reasonable track if great care is taken, but its not on par with a dedicated sound camera. You can treat it like a dedicated sound recording camera by simply plugging the lens port with a cap and just record track. BTW; the Auricon came with both Variable Area and Variable Density track recording capabilites, depending on the galvo installed in the camera. Take great pains to avoid the Variable Density models if you can. You also may not be aware of the potential sync issues with the Auricon and modern digital sound recording systems, which are inherently synchronous. Unless modified, the Auricon depends upon AC Mains sync of the line voltage frequency, which will drift in relation to a highly sampled digital recording. You would probably have to replace the Auricon motor with a crystal sync motor. There is much more to this than meets the eye...

Only if it has every bit of electronics you need and I suspect it doesn't. I would strike up a conversation with the seller and see if they can supply everything you need; again, I suspect they may not have it. Too bad I sold my RCA 16mm optical sound recorder about 10 years ago. It had everything and all the accessories that came from the factory. It sold for $5K USD and, at the time, I was very glad to get that much for it.

Last ditch suggestion: Go down to the next "adhesion" on the roll and try gently inserting an Xacto or scalpel in between the winds to see if you can divide the stuck mag oxide without it popping-off. Pull up slightly and with gentle wiggling, try to break the surface in the middle where the adhesion begins and sometimes it will allow you to separate stuck elements. May or may not work, but I have done this lots of times with melted nitrate film and managed to save footage that seemed hopelessly stuck together...

There is a Westrex RA-1231E on USA Ebay out of Florida right now.