Jump to content

Matthew F. Leonetti's Ultracam 35


Guest Nisar Bazmi

Recommended Posts

Guest Nisar Bazmi

Extensively used by him, also by his brother, John, no one could top the Ultracam 35 system back in 1991. The camera itself is a thing of the past, but wont be forgotten. It has amazing magnification, color spacing for any other competitor around that time. May look like a dated camera, but I saw its listing on ebay about a year ago. Whoever purchases one of these, you are in for special treat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Nisar Bazmi

It had just a few flaws, yet was a complete masterpiece of a camera. One of the most mass-produced cameras ever created, with allocation and collocation that could not be surpassed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Nisar Bazmi

The color spectrum was used to matrix certain objects and persons. Also, the inspiration came from their father, Frank Leonetti.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I have a very different opinion. I had to actually use the Utracam  and it was truly one of the worst cameras ever made. We called it the Ultrajam due to it’s inherent issues of film jamming. Depending on the film manufacturer, the camera could run very noisy. The viewfinder was incredibly dark and muddy as well. Terrible camera. In Hollywood, I know of several camera crews who would turn down the job if using the Ultracam was a requirement. I became one of them after enduring it only once for a few weeks. The only real competition Panavision ever had in film cameras was the Arricam for narrative filmmaking.  My 2 cents...
 

G
 

 

Edited by Gregory Irwin
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
On 3/28/2020 at 7:46 PM, Nisar Bazmi said:

Whoever purchases one of these, you are in for special treat.

Yea, a camera that is completely unsupported lol ?

On 3/30/2020 at 1:48 AM, Nisar Bazmi said:

Produced to keep up and actually surpass Panavision, the Ultracam was truly a marvel.

Sadly, due to them being rushed into production, they had many flaws. The biggest one is that it was quite common for lenses to actually hit the spinning mirror. The mirrored shutter was more angled than most cameras to try and reduce the flange distance. This caused some lenses to hit the mirror and replacing mirrors was actually a common thing. The other issues were mostly user oriented, like the consistent jamming came from low voltage on the battery. The camera didn't display the voltage properly, so when the battery would get low, the camera would jam. So the camera was notorious for jamming and screwing up lots of shoots. 

One of the other big problems is that with Kodak film it was louder than with Fuji film. Remember, certain studio's had contracts to only shoot certain films. So this further limited what productions the camera could be used on. 

17 hours ago, Nisar Bazmi said:

One of the most mass-produced cameras ever created, with allocation and collocation that could not be surpassed.

Eh? They made 15 cameras total. Matthew owned 2, so that means 13 cameras at rental houses. By contrast, it's competitor the Panavision Gold II, had a world wide inventory in the 100's. Panavision dominated the industry but by the time the Ultracam came out in the early 80's, there were even more options from Arri and Moviecam. Arri (for 35mm) and Aaton (for 16mm) made THOUSANDS of cameras. 

The Ultracam was made by Wilcam Photo Research, who made one-off cameras, mostly unusual ones like Vistavision and High Speed variants. If you look at the Ultracam movement and over-all design, it pretty much matches what Panavision was doing at the time. It's just a modified Mitchell movement, so nothing unique. Arri and Moviecam were WAY ahead of the game and in a lot of ways and to this day, they still make the best 35mm cameras because their movement is so much smaller and quieter. 

16 hours ago, Nisar Bazmi said:

The color spectrum was used to matrix certain objects and persons. Also, the inspiration came from their father, Frank Leonetti.

I don't know what this means or where you got this information from. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Nisar Bazmi

I mean the video processing was magnificent for the single operating of the system itself. Its a budget camera, so for its pricing and features it was just phenomenal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I worked on maybe 6 shows with this camera, including a few with John.

Not a bad camera, just an inferior "copy" of a Panaflex.  And they were a little bit heavier than a Panaflex.

If I recall, not all parts would fit correctly on each camera, such as a viewfinder from one body wouldn't fit on another.

The viewfinder does have a nice zoom feature that wasn't on the Panavision cameras.

There was an "in-house" set of prime lenses with ziess glass, in a Mitchell mount,  that we usually used with these cameras that were quite good.  And all the common zoom lenses of the day worked fine on the camera as well.

Some camera bodies were noisier than others, but all in all, they were quiet cameras.

And I can't recall any issues with the cameras jamming more than others.

And about "color spectrum" and "matrix"?  This is a film camera and these comments make no sense whatsoever!  Maybe you are referring to the nice blue paint on the camera body?

Edited by Bruce Greene
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 hours ago, Nisar Bazmi said:

I mean the video processing was magnificent for the single operating of the system itself. Its a budget camera, so for its pricing and features it was just phenomenal.

Now I’m confused. We are talking about a film camera. Not a video camera. What am I missing?

G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, Bruce Greene said:

 

And I can't recall any issues with the cameras jamming more than others.

 

Oh Bruce, it was infamous for jamming! That was the one thing the camera was reputed for! ??‍♂️?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Nisar Bazmi
2 hours ago, Bruce Greene said:

I worked on maybe 6 shows with this camera, including a few with John.

Not a bad camera, just an inferior "copy" of a Panaflex.  And they were a little bit heavier than a Panaflex.

If I recall, not all parts would fit correctly on each camera, such as a viewfinder from one body wouldn't fit on another.

The viewfinder does have a nice zoom feature that wasn't on the Panavision cameras.

There was an "in-house" set of prime lenses with ziess glass, in a Mitchell mount,  that we usually used with these cameras that were quite good.  And all the common zoom lenses of the day worked fine on the camera as well.

Some camera bodies were noisier than others, but all in all, they were quiet cameras.

And I can't recall any issues with the cameras jamming more than others.

And about "color spectrum" and "matrix"?  This is a film camera and these comments make no sense whatsoever!  Maybe you are referring to the nice blue paint on the camera body?

Color reproduction or spectrum are correlated within a camera system, just like an automobile is correlated with a motor and transmission. But nice to know you worked with him sometimes. Ever seen his debut stance as a cinematographer in Child's Play 3?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
17 hours ago, Nisar Bazmi said:

Color reproduction or spectrum are correlated within a camera system, just like an automobile is correlated with a motor and transmission. But nice to know you worked with him sometimes. Ever seen his debut stance as a cinematographer in Child's Play 3?

Hmmmm. I would say that When talking about color reproduction, you are talking about the film stock and lens choice. The film camera simply transports and exposes the film at a governed speed. 
 

G

Edited by Gregory Irwin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
4 hours ago, Nisar Bazmi said:

Color reproduction or spectrum are correlated within a camera system, just like an automobile is correlated with a motor and transmission. But nice to know you worked with him sometimes. Ever seen his debut stance as a cinematographer in Child's Play 3?

Many people think the reason why classic movies look a certain way is due to the camera system, but the reality is, that's a very "digital" way of thinking. Motion picture cameras are just boxes that move film, they don't create the image. The lens and film are what create the image. If you put 50 film cameras next to each other, all with the same stock and same lenses, they would all look identically. 

If you were to use one of these cameras today, with modern lenses and modern stocks, it would look like modern movie. 

7 hours ago, Nisar Bazmi said:

I mean the video processing was magnificent for the single operating of the system itself.

I don't understand what this statement is suppose to mean, it's not a video camera. 

7 hours ago, Nisar Bazmi said:

It's a budget camera, so for its pricing and features it was just phenomenal.

Who said it was a budget camera? I'm unaware it was available for general consumer purchases, I believe they only made a few in order to meet the demands of a few rental houses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
5 hours ago, Gregory Irwin said:

Oh Bruce, it was infamous for jamming! That was the one thing the camera was reputed for! ??‍♂️?

I talked to another friend about it today because I didn't know anything about them. Turns out the jamming problem was the take up motor on the magazine shutting down when the amperage of the battery got below a certain point. It was a HUGE problem with the camera, but he said it was mostly due to the wrong battery being used. They had a special battery system for the camera evidently and if you didn't use it, the camera wouldn't work right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
7 hours ago, Bruce Greene said:

If I recall, not all parts would fit correctly on each camera, such as a viewfinder from one body wouldn't fit on another.

Yea every one was different according to my friend. They were all hand made and hand machined. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
9 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I talked to another friend about it today because I didn't know anything about them. Turns out the jamming problem was the take up motor on the magazine shutting down when the amperage of the battery got below a certain point. It was a HUGE problem with the camera, but he said it was mostly due to the wrong battery being used. They had a special battery system for the camera evidently and if you didn't use it, the camera wouldn't work right. 

If I recall ( it’s probably been over 30 years!), only one or two rental houses offered the Ultracam in Los Angeles. Leonetti’s and maybe Ultravision? Can’t remember. Whatever the case was, the rental house would supply their batteries and those were the ones you had to use - for better or for worse. In my experience, the camera never worked well whether it was battery related or something else. We had a group of very experienced ACs and we were all struggling!
 

G

Edited by Gregory Irwin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Nisar Bazmi
2 hours ago, Stuart Brereton said:

What does this even mean? Are you just picking words at random?

Randomization is critical at times, hence the profound words i use on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 minutes ago, Nisar Bazmi said:

Randomization is critical at times, hence the profound words i use on here.

You're not helping yourself Brother.  This is a group of very experienced camera people. Most here have forgotten more than others have learned!

G

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
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...