Introduction
No more than two decades elapsed between the invention of the basic cinema apparatus in the final years of the nineteenth century and the advent of a hegemonic filmmaking model in the 1910s centred on narrative cinema and studio work. This model aimed to increase the efficiency, and thus the profitability, of the commercial enterprises funding film production, by creating tools and resources which enabled filmmakers to tightly control the conditions under which moving pictures were made. The construction of dark studios relying on artificial illumination, for instance, drastically reduced the waste associated with location shooting, which routinely involved delays brought on by inclement weather.
The aesthetic and narrative dimensions of cinema were deeply impacted by the advent of the new material resources developed for the making of studio films. Filmmakers began to rely on sophisticated lighting schemes fully exploiting the batteries of spotlights and floodlights equipping dark studios. These increasingly complex lighting schemes could be used to modulate the narrative information disclosed to the viewer, to create evocative atmospheres, or to showcase the stars on which both the narrative system and the marketing of films relied.
This production model, which quickly established itself as a transnational norm over the latter half of the 1910s, evidently relied on a wide array of technical devices, as well as on the expertise of many technicians and craftspeople. The creation of guilds and professional associations, such as the American Society of Cinematographers founded in 1919 and still active, fostered innovation in studio filmmaking by facilitating exchanges between film workers, disseminating information about new technology, and facilitating the creation of industry-wide standards. The areas of operation covered by various categories of technicians and craftspeople, however, varied significantly over time and across studios and national film industries. The crafts relevant to image capture, for instance, involved both the handling of the camera itself (selecting the lens, setting the aperture and focus, framing the image, producing camera movements, etc.) and lighting the set and performers. On some film shoots, these two extremely important sets of operations were supervised by a cinematographer, while on some others, a camera operator and a director of photography – each supported by assistants – shared responsibilities.
In addition to the studio spaces themselves, the film stocks, lenses and light sources used by these craftspeople had a profound impact on the look of Hollywood cinema and its international alternatives. Yet, only one instrument truly stands out as an iconic representation of this production system in popular culture: the 35 mm moving picture camera. This situation is not purely arbitrary, as the camera is the tool that dutifully records on light-sensitive film the sum of the multiple crafts and expertises deployed on set, and thus undoubtedly constitutes the heart of the system.
Recognizing the central position of the camera in film history should not, however, bring us to neglect its interactions with the countless others material devices, tools and artefacts used in film production and post-production. Indeed, any discussion of the history of the many moving picture cameras developed for studio work over the years must take into account that of the film stocks and accessories also used by cinematographers and camera operators. A crucial piece of information here is the lack of any film stock making it possible to duplicate camera negatives before the end of the 1920s. As a result, the optical effects and trick shots of most films of the silent era had to be created, not in post-production, but with the camera during production. This situation helps explain why film cameras from the first decades of the twentieth century often incorporated many masking devices and features which were missing from later models and made possible the creation of multiple exposures, composite images and fades.
Another key fact in this history of studio film cameras is that all of them, including the models that did not offer multiple features, were relatively large and heavy. This was due to a combination of factors. One is that 35 mm film is itself bulky. Another is that visual quality was a core component of the production values associated with studio work, and only sophisticated mechanisms and intermittent movements made out of precision-machined metal parts, in conjunction with high quality lenses, could produce images that were both sharp and extremely stable. The advent of sound cinema, which obliged camera manufacturers to add electrical motors to their products and find ways to dampen the various mechanical noises, accentuated this trend towards large cameras. The specificity and unique potential of the other moving picture cameras designed for reporting, documentary filmmaking or amateur use can only be grasped if one fully understands the challenges associated with the use of the highly sophisticated cameras developed for studio filmmaking.