American Cinematographer - July 1984 - 90

Based on their analysis of
existing 16mm cameras and trends in
production, Holzman and Al Mayer each
drew up a list of specifications for the
proposed camera in the first part of July
1982. Mayer, who has been with Pan¬
avision for 16 years, supervised the
design of the Panaflex and has a wealth
of experience in camera design. Holz¬
man, who had founded Elektra/None-

be capable of sync at 30 fps. In addi¬
tion the specs called for the speed to be
variable from 4 to 50 fps. This inciden¬

tally meant that much of the design
work that had been done

on

a

new

16mm movement was already obsolete
since that movement was designed

purely for 24 fps. One of the things that
happened as work on the camera

such Records and came to Panavision
after a lengthy tenure as chief technolo¬
gist for Warner Communications, essen¬
tially approached the project as an
informed observer of the film and video

Above: The back of

the Panaflex-16

showing the variable
shutter control and
the

digital speed

control which

can

be

1/10th of a

set to

frame per

second.
Right: The modular
matte box designed
for the

camera.

Below: The research
and

development

team

the

responsible for
The lady

camera.

is Elaine Collins for
whom the

camera

is

named. Holzman is

fourth from the left
on

the front

row

and

Mayer is between
the

camera

Collins.

and

Aaton and Eclair cameras were acquired
and studied in an attempt to define
where a 16mm Panavision camera

might contribute most to the market. In
general the conclusion was that the ex¬
isting 16mm cameras were excep¬
tionally well suited to documentary type
productions and there was no need to
develop yet another camera for that
shooting style. What Panavision had to
offer was experience in the development
of camera systems for studio type work
requiring maximum degree of control
over the image, and Holzman is quick to
emphasize that the Elaine camera was
conceived as a system and not just a
camera.

Provision for all of the

accesso¬

ries associated with Panavision
eras

was

cam¬

designed into the basic

from the outset and improve¬
in the overall system were devel¬

camera

ments

oped for the Elaine which will inevitably
be adapted to the Panaflex.

production industry. His familiarity with
16mm production dates back to the time
when he was the proud possessor of a
Victor camera as a 15-year-old boy in
New York. He recalled having been im¬
pressed by Ken Richter's classic 1978
article on the factors determining 16mm
image quality (American Cinematogra¬
pher, Oct. 1978), and he referred to that
article as he thought about the specs for
a

16mm Panavision.

Perhaps the paramount con¬
image steadiness, and from
the very beginning the specs called for
twin pin registration with a pin above
cern

was

and below the frame. No other 16mm
camera

currently being manufactured

has twin pin registration and even the
16mm Mitchell cameras which did have
dual pins had one on each side of the
film so that they required double perfo¬
rated stock.
A second major consideration
was that the camera should be de¬

signed for

fps as
film at
30 fps for transfer to videotape offers
substantial benefits in terms of image
quality, and it was recognized that any
camera designed to interface with video
post-production and/or distribution must
well

as

sync shooting at 30
24 and 25 fps. Shooting

progressed
vised

was that Gary Slayton de¬
for controlling the speed

a means

of the

which permitted crystal
speed between 4 and 50
fps at 0.1 fps intervals.
Another ambitious specifica¬
motor

sync at any

tion

was that the camera should have a
variable shutter. This posed two prob¬
lems from a design point of view. First
of all, it made the design of the move¬

complex since a wider
opening necessitates a faster
pulldown. Originally the specs called for
a shutter angle of up to 216° in order
to facilitate shooting with HMI lights.
Although it seemed feasible to achieve
this at first, it proved to be impossible,
due to vibration caused by the move¬
ment of the registration pin; and a com¬
promise of a 200° shutter was
accepted rather than limiting the high
speed capability. The second complica¬
tion posed by a variable shutter resulted
from the specification for the lens flange
ment even more

shutter

focal distance. A variable shutter takes

between the lens and the film
plane. Since it was deemed essential
that the flange focal distance for the
camera be compatible with existing
up room

16mm lenses, there

was

no

room

to

play with and it became necessary to
devise a completely new configuration
for the rotating mirror.
Other specifications called for
a 22 dB noise level, a built-in high
sensitivity video assist, a removable ap¬
plate, thin profile displacement
magazines, a new modular matte box,
an adjustable viewfinder which can be

erture

88

American

Cinematographer

July 1984
American Cinematographer - July 1984

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Cinematographer - July 1984
