Tweet De Brit 'Humanised' Camera?

I have come across the following mention in a report from 1935:

Another acquisition is the de Brit camera, referred to in Hollywood as the "humanised camera." Its effeet is to keep the audience close-to the actors all the time, tending to make the observer a part of the story's action.  

I've looked at some cinematography trade magazines from that era and can't find a single mention. Does anyone know what this thing actually was, and what made it 'humanised'?

I have gained the impression from some cinematography websites that the term refers to giving the camera a subtle sense of movement, so that the action has a rawer, more realistic feel.

That's very common in modern movies (hello Shakycam) but I don't recall it much in movies of the 30s. I haven't found the brand name De Brit anywhere, either - if it is indeed a brand name. Any insights?

I have come across the following mention in a report from 1935:

Another acquisition is the de Brit camera, referred to in Hollywood as the "humanised camera." Its effeet is to keep the audience close-to the actors all the time, tending to make the observer a part of the story's action.  

I've looked at some cinematography trade magazines from that era and can't find a single mention. Does anyone know what this thing actually was, and what made it 'humanised'?

I have gained the impression from some cinematography websites that the term refers to giving the camera a subtle sense of movement, so that the action has a rawer, more realistic feel.

That's very common in modern movies (hello Shakycam) but I don't recall it much in movies of the 30s. I haven't found the brand name De Brit anywhere, either - if it is indeed a brand name. Any insights?

No, unless they misspelled Debrie. Or De Vry. The number of brands of cameras used then wasn't large, and some weren't really suitable for feature use unless used MOS.

No, unless they misspelled Debrie. Or De Vry.

AH - of course, I'll bet they did exactly that. I should have said it out loud. This was from a small newspaper which probably wasn't very tech-minded.

I'm still stuck on the 'humanised' camera, though. The few references I've found suggest it was description of a technique of shooting rather than something that required a specific camera to be achieved. Perhaps it was just a lightweight camera that could be easily used for handheld footage? It could be that they meant the Debrie Parvo, which was developed to take footage on a safari.

No, unless they misspelled Debrie. Or De Vry.

AH - of course, I'll bet they did exactly that. I should have said it out loud. This was from a small newspaper which probably wasn't very tech-minded.

I'm still stuck on the 'humanised' camera, though. The few references I've found suggest it was description of a technique of shooting rather than something that required a specific camera to be achieved. Perhaps it was just a lightweight camera that could be easily used for handheld footage? It could be that they meant the Debrie Parvo, which was developed to take footage on a safari.

The Debrie Parvo had been around quite some time and makes sense in a way. What strikes me is there were a number of different newsreel type 35mm cameras around, and with cranks or battery-powered motors, they were not that amenable to being handheld, so the quote is just as confusing to me. The De Vry was spring-driven, looked something like an overgrown Cine Kodak magazine camera, and it was meant to be handheld, but I can't get De Brit from De Vry without some uniquely awful typing and editing.

That sounds more like it. I don't think it's out of the question that a reporter was given a verbal report and simply made a guess at the spelling of whatever he heard, and didn't expect most readers to be knowledgable enough to call them on it.

De Brit Hume......

Fox News?