Chaplin's Bell & Howell 2709 camera?

[c***@hotmail.com]

There was an article in the Sydney Morning Herald(Australia) on 26th
July 2007 concerning the auction of Chaplin's camera(which he used to
film many of his features). Extra information by Australian director
Rolf de Heer suggested that this camera was no longer suitable for use
these days because it relies on a form of focusing where the image is
focussed through the base of the film which cannot be done today
because of the thickness of the emulsion and the anti-halation
backing. Is this correct?
I would have thought that many non-reflex cameras such as the Mitchell
BNC and NC were focussed without
Reflex Finders(although they did employ Rake-over mechanisms)?

If the image on the actual film was used as a focussing aid wouldn't
the light coming through the viewfinder destroy the latent image on
the film?

Any information will be much appreciated.

Regards,
Peter Mason

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by c***@hotmail.com
There was an article in the Sydney Morning Herald(Australia) on 26th
July 2007 concerning the auction of Chaplin's camera(which he used to
film many of his features). Extra information by Australian director
Rolf de Heer suggested that this camera was no longer suitable for use
these days because it relies on a form of focusing where the image is
focussed through the base of the film which cannot be done today
because of the thickness of the emulsion and the anti-halation
backing. Is this correct?

That's one way you can focus. You can also do the by-guess-and-by-golly
method. Or you could get lenses with proper calibration and then use
a tape measure.

Post by c***@hotmail.com
I would have thought that many non-reflex cameras such as the Mitchell
BNC and NC were focussed without
Reflex Finders(although they did employ Rake-over mechanisms)?

For the most part, those cameras aren't considered suitable for use
today either.

Post by c***@hotmail.com
If the image on the actual film was used as a focussing aid wouldn't
the light coming through the viewfinder destroy the latent image on
the film?

Yes, it does. With most cameras (and I cannot say specifically about
the 2709) you fog a foot or so of the film when you open the camera
to put the pellicle finder in, then you focus, then you pull the finder
out, close the camera and shoot.

This means if you have a shot with two or more focus points, you have
to find them all before the shot and mark them all on the lens before
rolling. You cannot focus when the camera is rolling.

Note that you CAN use current B&W stocks with a pellicle finder although
the image isn't very bright. The only stock I know of that works really
well that is currently available is 5366... which come to think of it
has about the right spectral sensitivity and speed to make a nice silent
movie. You'd have to pull on the processing to bring the gamma down a
little bit it could be fun.

RAR Film 2615 also worked great with a pellicle finder but Kodak
dropped it about five years back.

Attempts to use films with a rem-jet backing with a pellicle finder
will be very frustrating.
--scott

[Scott Norwood]

Post by Scott Dorsey
That's one way you can focus. You can also do the by-guess-and-by-golly
method. Or you could get lenses with proper calibration and then use
a tape measure.

Why would you not just use the tape measure method? Lots of older
amateur cameras don't have rangefinders or through-the-lens viewing,
so one must depend upon the lens markings. Or were lenses not
properly marked in that era?

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Scott Norwood

Post by Scott Dorsey
That's one way you can focus. You can also do the by-guess-and-by-golly
method. Or you could get lenses with proper calibration and then use
a tape measure.

Why would you not just use the tape measure method? Lots of older
amateur cameras don't have rangefinders or through-the-lens viewing,
so one must depend upon the lens markings. Or were lenses not
properly marked in that era?

Most lenses were not properly marked in that era, and a whole lot of
still camera lenses are not properly marked today. On top of which,
the standards for sharpness on a frame you're going to project on a 50
foot screen are necessarily much higher than for that which you will
print on a 4X5 piece of paper.

What you WANT is a lens with a real vernier, and really, really accurate
back focus calibration.
--scott

[peterh5322]

Post by c***@hotmail.com
There was an article in the Sydney Morning Herald(Australia) on 26th
July 2007 concerning the auction of Chaplin's camera(which he used to
film many of his features). Extra information by Australian director
Rolf de Heer suggested that this camera was no longer suitable for use
these days because it relies on a form of focusing where the image is
focussed through the base of the film which cannot be done today
because of the thickness of the emulsion and the anti-halation
backing. Is this correct?

The 2709 offered two movements: 1) the famous Unit-I movement, and 2)
the so-called high-speed movement.

In both cases, the emulsion was referenced to the aperture plate. The
thickness of the base, and the back-of-base coating, if any, would in
no way effect focusing. In fact, the Unit-I could accept three
thicknesses of film, or two thicknesses and one splice, when emplyed in
optical printers. Bi-pack 2709s were offered.

The Unit-I movement is the basis of all current super-precision
movements, such as ACME (Photo-Sonics, Producer's Service, etcetera)
and Oxberry.

Perhaps the article was commenting on the very primitive critical
focusing method employed by the original 2709, before the rack-over
feature was added.

In this method, the turret was rotated 180 degrees, thereby placing the
taking lens in front of a focusing device. Of course, the resulting
parallax would render any composition irrelevant.

The rack-over feature, most probably copied from Mitchell, had no such
parallax.

Sure, Mitchells with rack-over (just as the several generations of
Panavisions which were also rack-over) are obsolete, in so far as
current production techniques are concerned, as reflex viewing and
video taps are now expected.

But those now obsolete cameras worked very well for many decades, and
at least in the case of the Mitchell movement, which was later copied
by Panavision, there has never been a steadier or quieter production
(sound) camera movement made. And Mitchell made that movement, or a
variation of it, in 16mm (initially 2R, but a 1R version was also
made), in 35mm in 4, 6 and 8 perf versions and also in a Three-Strip
version (left and right halves), and in 65mm.

And, those Mitchells were later updated to incorporate reflex viewing,
anyway, in the BNCR and NCR, and also in newer models which were reflex
from the outset and were never offered in non-reflex versions.

The Mitchell proved to be far more adaptable to sound shooting, and by
the early 1930s a self-blimped model with about 26 dB noise level was
available. Many were used for four decades before being retired.

The 2709 (Design 27, dated 1909) was never significantly updated, and
in its Unit-I version it was considered too noisy for sound shooting.
It was usually relegated to background plate shooting, or to animation
or to sfx use. Bell & Howell supported the 2709 into the 1960s,
although by that time its Unit-I movements were made by Photo-Sonics,
under contract, not by itself.

The 2709 probably distinguished itself as the first all-metal camera.

Focusing through the base is still possible with the Oxberry 3100 film
recorder camera, although this is purely an initial setup operation.

[c***@hotmail.com]

Post by peterh5322

Post by c***@hotmail.com
There was an article in the Sydney Morning Herald(Australia) on 26th
July 2007 concerning the auction of Chaplin's camera(which he used to
film many of his features). Extra information by Australian director
Rolf de Heer suggested that this camera was no longer suitable for use
these days because it relies on a form of focusing where the image is
focussed through the base of the film which cannot be done today
because of the thickness of the emulsion and the anti-halation
backing. Is this correct?

The 2709 offered two movements: 1) the famous Unit-I movement, and 2)
the so-called high-speed movement.
In both cases, the emulsion was referenced to the aperture plate. The
thickness of the base, and the back-of-base coating, if any, would in
no way effect focusing. In fact, the Unit-I could accept three
thicknesses of film, or two thicknesses and one splice, when emplyed in
optical printers. Bi-pack 2709s were offered.
The Unit-I movement is the basis of all current super-precision
movements, such as ACME (Photo-Sonics, Producer's Service, etcetera)
and Oxberry.
Perhaps the article was commenting on the very primitive critical
focusing method employed by the original 2709, before the rack-over
feature was added.

The camera was purchased by Chaplin in February 1918 and was serial
number 227.
Do you know when the rake-over was added to the 2709?

Also before the rake-over was it common for cameras to actually focus
off the film?
Was there an enlarger in the viewfinder?

In any event the three strip Technicolor camera didn't have reflex
viewing nor did it have
off the film focussing and yet the results it achieved were
spectacular using originally
5 ASA and later in 1938 10ASA film.

Regards,
Peter Mason

Post by peterh5322
In this method, the turret was rotated 180 degrees, thereby placing the
taking lens in front of a focusing device. Of course, the resulting
parallax would render any composition irrelevant.
The rack-over feature, most probably copied from Mitchell, had no such
parallax.
Sure, Mitchells with rack-over (just as the several generations of
Panavisions which were also rack-over) are obsolete, in so far as
current production techniques are concerned, as reflex viewing and
video taps are now expected.
But those now obsolete cameras worked very well for many decades, and
at least in the case of the Mitchell movement, which was later copied
by Panavision, there has never been a steadier or quieter production
(sound) camera movement made. And Mitchell made that movement, or a
variation of it, in 16mm (initially 2R, but a 1R version was also
made), in 35mm in 4, 6 and 8 perf versions and also in a Three-Strip
version (left and right halves), and in 65mm.
And, those Mitchells were later updated to incorporate reflex viewing,
anyway, in the BNCR and NCR, and also in newer models which were reflex
from the outset and were never offered in non-reflex versions.
The Mitchell proved to be far more adaptable to sound shooting, and by
the early 1930s a self-blimped model with about 26 dB noise level was
available. Many were used for four decades before being retired.
The 2709 (Design 27, dated 1909) was never significantly updated, and
in its Unit-I version it was considered too noisy for sound shooting.
It was usually relegated to background plate shooting, or to animation
or to sfx use. Bell & Howell supported the 2709 into the 1960s,
although by that time its Unit-I movements were made by Photo-Sonics,
under contract, not by itself.
The 2709 probably distinguished itself as the first all-metal camera.
Focusing through the base is still possible with the Oxberry 3100 film
recorder camera, although this is purely an initial setup operation.

[Peter]

Post by c***@hotmail.com
The camera was purchased by Chaplin in February 1918 and was serial
number 227.
Do you know when the rake-over was added to the 2709?

Probably not offered by Bell & Howell, but definitely available from someone.

Mitchell's patent on rack-over dates back to the 1920s, but the 2709 is
almost two decades older than that.

Post by c***@hotmail.com
Also before the rake-over was it common for cameras to actually focus
off the film?
Was there an enlarger in the viewfinder?

In any of the cameras mentioned previously a disassembly would be
required for a "permanent" viewer.

At least the main drive sprocket would have to be removed.

The Oxberry 3100, which is essentially the end of the line for a
2709-inspired camera, has provision for such a viewer, and its main
drive sprocket assembly is instantly removable as the camera is a 35/4,
16 and 8 machine, with three shuttle drive cams in one, and each
sprocket assembly having a different drive dog and/or being a different
diameter in order to accommodate the film gauges mentioned.

35/8 and several 65/70 models were made, all also being 2709-inspired,
although probably not in a film recorder camera.

Post by c***@hotmail.com
In any event the three strip Technicolor camera didn't have reflex
viewing nor did it have
off the film focussing and yet the results it achieved were
spectacular using originally
5 ASA and later in 1938 10ASA film.

Check the Technicolor patent on the Three-Strip.

I recall seeing a provision for critical focusing.

The finder came out the rear of the camera body, just above the
"multi-duty" motor.

Recall that the Three-Strip patent shows Mitchell Standard movements,
yet the camera was actually supplied with Mitchell "Compensating Link"
movements (as on BNC, NC, BFC, FC, etcetera), and that these were in
more-or-less identical mirror-image pairs in a Three-Strip.

The green record is the direct image, the bipacked blue and green
records are the reflected images.

The green movement is more or less directly in front of the putative
critical focusing viewer.

And, as you are probably aware, a Mitchell movement's pressure plate
assembly was instantly removable.


AFAIK, all 2709-inspired movements had an open back, and no pressure
plate, per se.

[peterh5322]

Post by Peter

Post by c***@hotmail.com
In any event the three strip Technicolor camera didn't have reflex
viewing nor did it have
off the film focussing and yet the results it achieved were
spectacular using originally
5 ASA and later in 1938 10ASA film.

Check the Technicolor patent on the Three-Strip.

U.S. Patent 2,107,623.

A reflex viewer is disclosed.

A bit different than I described it.

[c***@hotmail.com]

Post by peterh5322

Post by Peter

Post by c***@hotmail.com
In any event the three strip Technicolor camera didn't have reflex
viewing nor did it have
off the film focussing and yet the results it achieved were
spectacular using originally
5 ASA and later in 1938 10ASA film.

Check the Technicolor patent on the Three-Strip.

U.S. Patent 2,107,623.
A reflex viewer is disclosed.
A bit different than I described it.

Thanks Peter for the info.
Regards,
Peter Mason