Any advice on which Super 16 camera to buy?

[Johnny Liu]

On 2/24/2024 at 7:40 PM, Dom Jaeger said:

Ultra 16 is a bit of a dodgy format honestly, a sort of cheap DIY attempt to replicate S16. Many of these conversions have been done by amateurs who just roughly file out the gate on both sides, though it should be OK if Bernie O’Doherty did it. The gate extends a bit into the S16 side, and also into the side where the perfs are, so you end up with an image that has the perfs cropping in top and bottom. On some cameras like the K3 this allows light leaks from the perfs, like this:

You end up having to crop the top and bottom to remove the perfs, and then crop in the left side to remove the perf flare, and you end up almost back where you started. 

Some cameras are a bit better with perf flare, but you still need to crop the height to remove the perfs. You can also sometimes get scratching between the perfs since the film slides over a support rail there, and there is an opening for the pulldown claw. It’s also the area where edge code is printed on the film stock. Here’s an Ultra 16 conversion by Bernie:

 

Below is roughly where the original 1.37 gate would be, to get a wider aspect ratio like 1.78 or 1.85 you also just crop top and bottom. As you can see, a good Ultra 16 conversion does give you a little more width, but as mentioned not all scanners are set up for it and not all wide angle lenses will cover it. 

I would definitely ask for footage from any Ultra 16 converted camera, to check how bad it might be.

The other thing to consider is that the original viewfinder optics and ground glass may not cover the expanded area, so you might not be able to frame accurately.

 

Thanks for the diagrams/pics and letting me know that the Ultra 16 frame slides over a support rail - I did not realize that.  Yeah, if I am still considering one of these cameras, I would definitely ask to see some footage taken with the camera

[Johnny Liu]

22 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Ultra 16 is not really a "workable" format. It's kind of a gimmick. The concept is to use the area between the perfs, but that area isn't protected by the camera. So it can be damaged very easily by the camera. Also, because the lens isn't centered for Ultra, you will be getting unusual vignetting related to the Ultra format, you would not get on standard 16 as most standard 16mm lenses which are wider than 12mm will just barely cover the 16mm format. So if you use long lenses, it maybe ok, but the moment you go to zooms OR shorter than 12mm, then you're in trouble with any wider aspect ratio format using standard 16mm lenses. 

So yes, Ultra is a no-go for many reasons.

Thanks for the info.  Yes, Ultra 16 is sounding more like a not so great format.  I don't like the fact that part of the image frame could possibly be damaged by the camera

[Johnny Liu]

22 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I always wondered why people go down this path of "commercially acceptable" product in a world where 9 times out of 10, everyone's show will be presented on a streaming platform. Theatrical is such a dead medium, only the absolute top of the top tier films will ever get US releases anymore. So to pressure yourself into conforming to some theatrical standard, is just a useless waste of brain power. Also, there have been a few 1.67:1 native Super 16 mm releases. Jackie is the most notable of this and even on BluRay, it's got bars on the right and left, not top and bottom. It went global theatrical as well, all be it digitally. So it does not matter and frankly, formatting for 1.78:1 HD TV is what you'd wanna do anyway. You aren't cropping that much at all. The nice thing about a crop is that you have room to shift your frame around a bit, which is nice. So I actually prefer cropping over not cropping. 

Thanks for the practical advice here!  I will chew on it!

[Johnny Liu]

22 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Na, don't bother with the R16, entirely different camera. Just keep your eye open. The 2016 does show up now and again. 

Aside from the electronics difference - is the film transport/gate mechanism the same between Beaulieu 2016 and R16?  Does the R16 take as steady an image as the 2016?

[Johnny Liu]

8 hours ago, steven jackson said:

Deals are out there but you have to dig.  A super16 Eclair NPR converted by Les Bosher just sold on Ebay for 2300€ and amazingly,  It took two goes on Ebay for it to finally sale at that price.!  For info, I may be selling my Visual Products converted Eclair ACL II camera that comes with a pile of accessories and a newly serviced motor.  It's a gem of a camera.

Thanks a lot.  Yes, I saw the Super 16 Eclair NPR the other day, but the posting was expiring in like 2 hours at the time and I had to go out and take care of things so didn't have time to look closer at it/research it.  Oh well!  Next time I guess!

[Johnny Liu]

5 hours ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

I decided I could sell my CP16R camera too. have to move later this year and figured out I don't have time to shoot with the camera anymore so it has to go.  N16, the ultra rare video optics with an angle prism (no tap but you can figure one out by yourself), one good mag and one in mediocre condition for repair or parts. new belts installed, will include additional spare motor belt and mag belt.

it is a test camera I used for developing my 1-speed crystal sync electronics and has a 1-speed system installed which will be fine tuned before shipping. Single speed of either 24 or 25fps, no shutter parking but inching button is easy to use for shutter positioning and testing. additional speeds can be inputted via accessory connector. I can include a CP to Arri bayonet adapter for using most lenses with the camera, or alternatively can include a screw locked arri standard to cp adapter. Can sell a 10-150 Angenieux with it too if needed. The camera has the cool-and-sometimes-useful gelatine filter holder set for using in-gate gelatine filters. Butterfly shutter. the camera could use some CLA to make it run really nicely for large projects but it works pretty OK in current condition. Please note that the camera has all electronics updated to my 1-speed crystal sync system so it does not have internal battery leaks etc. issues, the only original electronic component is the motor drive itself. everything else is updated

Thanks for letting me know.  I started this post last week with the idea that I was set on getting a CP-16.  Now, after all the information everyone has given me, I have found that I need to at least think this over some, including maybe re-assessing what I can expect to accomplish/my end goals, etc.

If I am interested, I will send you a private message to discuss this more.  Thank you again very much for letting me know about this opportunity!

[Tyler Purcell]

10 minutes ago, Johnny Liu said:

Aside from the electronics difference - is the film transport/gate mechanism the same between Beaulieu 2016 and R16?  Does the R16 take as steady an image as the 2016?

It's a totally different camera outside of a single part of the movement, the camshaft. The original R16 doesn't even have the same drive mechanism, it uses a horrible gear drive that literally falls apart over time. The 2016 is a proper gear drive movement. 

[Johnny Liu]

12 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

It's a totally different camera outside of a single part of the movement, the camshaft. The original R16 doesn't even have the same drive mechanism, it uses a horrible gear drive that literally falls apart over time. The 2016 is a proper gear drive movement. 

Oh wow - I had no idea that they were so different.  Thanks for the insider info on this as there is not much info online about the 2016 - much less a comparison of differences between it and the R16!

[Johnny Liu]

If I have a CP-16 that was  converted well to Super 16 - and well serviced - and had a lens mount that could accept Arri PL or Arri standard mount lenses - and if I used one of the better lenses of this type of mount - would I be able to take footage that is about the same as what an Arri SR2 or SR3 could take?

[Tyler Purcell]

3 hours ago, Johnny Liu said:

would I be able to take footage that is about the same as what an Arri SR2 or SR3 could take?

Theoretically yes. The lens and the film really create the image. A properly calibrated CP16 would create a good crisp image. The problem is stability. The CP ain't known for its good stability. A well maintained SR will be rock solid. 

[Matthew J. Walker]

I love my Arriflex SR2 as it was my first and only 16mm camera; it has always been reliable. I'm forever committed to the Arri brand.

[Geffen Avraham]

21 hours ago, Johnny Liu said:

If I have a CP-16 that was  converted well to Super 16 - and well serviced - and had a lens mount that could accept Arri PL or Arri standard mount lenses - and if I used one of the better lenses of this type of mount - would I be able to take footage that is about the same as what an Arri SR2 or SR3 could take?

I will also point out that there is a GSMO on eBay right now. There were two at the time of the original post. I do not own one however, so I do not know much about it, and it seems few people do so it may be difficult getting support for one.

I do have two CP-16s, a functioning CP-16A and a CP-16R I am still repairing. I have not used either of them yet, they are fairly recent.

My suggestion for eclairs is to find them somewhere other than eBay, they are usually more expensive there. Facebook and Craigslist are where I got mine.

There is a relatively inexpensive Aaton LTR for sale in Vancouver if you are willing to fly there. It is standard 16 and is of unknown maintenance condition, but comes with lenses.

https://vancouver.craigslist.org/van/phd/d/vancouver-aaton-ltr-16mm-camera-with/7715168941.html

[Aapo Lettinen]

the cp16r has this weird ball-bearings-embedded-in-the-gate-holding-the-film-better thingy which works fine when it is in good condition and is pretty unusable if it is worn out. Additionally the soundproofing materials have often deteriorated and may need replacing if it hasn't been done already. the electronics may work or may not, often the originals can be repaired but there is no guarantee how long the repairs will hold. Mechanics are relatively simple and well working but again, 50 year old camera is not going to run properly without CLA and one can't expect that old electronics to be super reliable and long lasting anymore.

overall great cameras and may be cost effective but CLA is mandatory with all old film gear and you will need to calculate it to the total price of the project, it is not just the camera body but it is mags, cla, batteries, lenses and support too. The same with Eclairs, Arris, Aatons etc

[Kamran Pakseresht]

3 hours ago, Geffen Avraham said:

There is a relatively inexpensive Aaton LTR for sale in Vancouver if you are willing to fly there. It is standard 16 and is of unknown maintenance condition, but comes with lenses.

https://vancouver.craigslist.org/van/phd/d/vancouver-aaton-ltr-16mm-camera-with/7715168941.html

I actually took a look at this one and it's in pretty bad shape - it is one of the very very early LTRs (Serial # was B76). It does not run properly (shutter just kind of lurches and then stops) and all of magazines would certainly need to be completely gone over (the rubber belts had completely disintegrated and gotten into basically everything). Definitely not a running camera and possibly a money pit if the electronics are in bad shape.
 

[Kamran Pakseresht]

In my opinion, for the price you're looking to spend - buy an Eclair NPR (that's running) on Ebay for ~2k - send it to Tyler or Visual Products for a CLA (VP does a CLA for between 3 and 400 dollars) - and spend whatever is left-over on adapters and lenses. Once you have one that's been looked over by a professional (assuming it was running to begin with) - they should run well for many years to come. They are relatively quiet sync-sound cameras that are a great intro to the format if you're just trying to get up and running. At 4k - this is probably where you could realistically start.

If it was me and I'd never shot on 16mm before and I could give myself advice - I'd tell myself to just buy a Arri 16s or a Beualieu R16 that was gone over by someone and already running - you can do so much with just a solid camera, you don't necessarily need sync sound to get familiar with the format and explore the medium.

Edited February 29 by Kamran Pakseresht

[Johnny Liu]

On 2/27/2024 at 9:45 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

Theoretically yes. The lens and the film really create the image. A properly calibrated CP16 would create a good crisp image. The problem is stability. The CP ain't known for its good stability. A well maintained SR will be rock solid. 

Thanks for the insight into this!

[Johnny Liu]

16 hours ago, Matthew J. Walker said:

I love my Arriflex SR2 as it was my first and only 16mm camera; it has always been reliable. I'm forever committed to the Arri brand.

Yeah, that does sound like a good choice.  I grew up in NJ too

[Johnny Liu]

15 hours ago, Geffen Avraham said:

I will also point out that there is a GSMO on eBay right now. There were two at the time of the original post. I do not own one however, so I do not know much about it, and it seems few people do so it may be difficult getting support for one.

I do have two CP-16s, a functioning CP-16A and a CP-16R I am still repairing. I have not used either of them yet, they are fairly recent.

My suggestion for eclairs is to find them somewhere other than eBay, they are usually more expensive there. Facebook and Craigslist are where I got mine.

There is a relatively inexpensive Aaton LTR for sale in Vancouver if you are willing to fly there. It is standard 16 and is of unknown maintenance condition, but comes with lenses.

https://vancouver.craigslist.org/van/phd/d/vancouver-aaton-ltr-16mm-camera-with/7715168941.html

Hahaha - yeah, I saw the exact same two cameras online these past few days as well.  Have you shot with a CP-16 before - and if so - any comments about image stability?

[Johnny Liu]

14 hours ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

the cp16r has this weird ball-bearings-embedded-in-the-gate-holding-the-film-better thingy which works fine when it is in good condition and is pretty unusable if it is worn out. Additionally the soundproofing materials have often deteriorated and may need replacing if it hasn't been done already. the electronics may work or may not, often the originals can be repaired but there is no guarantee how long the repairs will hold. Mechanics are relatively simple and well working but again, 50 year old camera is not going to run properly without CLA and one can't expect that old electronics to be super reliable and long lasting anymore.

overall great cameras and may be cost effective but CLA is mandatory with all old film gear and you will need to calculate it to the total price of the project, it is not just the camera body but it is mags, cla, batteries, lenses and support too. The same with Eclairs, Arris, Aatons etc

Thanks again for all your knowledge about the CP-16.  I did not know that about the ball bearing thing.  I would want to see that some time as it sounds interesting.  Have you shot footage with your CP-16s - and if so - any thoughts about the image stability of them?

[Johnny Liu]

12 hours ago, Kamran Pakseresht said:

In my opinion, for the price you're looking to spend - buy an Eclair NPR (that's running) on Ebay for ~2k - send it to Tyler or Visual Products for a CLA (VP does a CLA for between 3 and 400 dollars) - and spend whatever is left-over on adapters and lenses. Once you have one that's been looked over by a professional (assuming it was running to begin with) - they should run well for many years to come. They are relatively quiet sync-sound cameras that are a great intro to the format if you're just trying to get up and running. At 4k - this is probably where you could realistically start.

If it was me and I'd never shot on 16mm before and I could give myself advice - I'd tell myself to just buy a Arri 16s or a Beualieu R16 that was gone over by someone and already running - you can do so much with just a solid camera, you don't necessarily need sync sound to get familiar with the format and explore the medium.

Thanks a lot for your thoughts on this.  Yes, am keeping my eyes open for an Eclair as well

[Geffen Avraham]

13 hours ago, Johnny Liu said:

Thanks a lot for your thoughts on this.  Yes, am keeping my eyes open for an Eclair as well

There are a couple of running eclairs being sold soon on Arriflex.co.uk

The one on there right now is not in great cosmetic condition, but it seems to run fine and is inexpensive.

Edited March 1 by Geffen Avraham

[Aapo Lettinen]

8 hours ago, Geffen Avraham said:

There are a couple of running eclairs being sold soon on Arriflex.co.uk

The one on there right now is not in great cosmetic condition, but it seems to run fine and is inexpensive.

bad cosmetic condetion cameras may have moisture and / or mold damage. one wants to be extra careful with those and prepare to send it back if it turns out to be unusable. the price of those cameras is very good so there may be something the seller does not tell...

my non-working parts NPR body was this way, I can only use it for taking dimensions for motor projects because can't be near it without gas mask, would get bad symptoms if trying to use it for filming

[Johnny Liu]

On 2/29/2024 at 8:09 PM, Geffen Avraham said:

There are a couple of running eclairs being sold soon on Arriflex.co.uk

The one on there right now is not in great cosmetic condition, but it seems to run fine and is inexpensive.

Thanks a lot for the info!  I see the camera on that website.  Do you know much about this website - do you know anyone who has bought from them / are they reliable?

Now, have to do some research about the Eclair NPR - looks promising

 

[Johnny Liu]

On 3/1/2024 at 5:09 AM, Aapo Lettinen said:

bad cosmetic condetion cameras may have moisture and / or mold damage. one wants to be extra careful with those and prepare to send it back if it turns out to be unusable. the price of those cameras is very good so there may be something the seller does not tell...

my non-working parts NPR body was this way, I can only use it for taking dimensions for motor projects because can't be near it without gas mask, would get bad symptoms if trying to use it for filming

Once again, thanks for the great advice.  One more thing I need to consider.  I had never thought about mold being an issue, so thanks for letting me know!

[Fabian Schreyer]

2 hours ago, Johnny Liu said:

Thanks a lot for the info!  I see the camera on that website.  Do you know much about this website - do you know anyone who has bought from them / are they reliable?

I second that. This website looks a lot like a fake shop to me! Unless someone knows for sure, who is behind it, I would stay away.