Eclair npr Magazines

[Steven Wyatt]

Hello,

 

Excuse me if this has been asked at some point on the boards. I'm looking to get my Eclair npr modded to super 16 soon and I'm looking to aquire additional magazines as I do this, however my question is does the eclair npr magazine accept super 16 film with out any modification. I.E does a npr magazine need modification to use S16 filmstock, or do the magazines at stock level accept both single and double perforated stock.

 

Thanks,

Steven

[Michael Lehnert]

To put it simple: although Eclair 16 NPR magazines accept single-perf and double-perf film stock, they need to be modified magazine-wise to run a film shot in the Super 16 format through in a "scratch-free" manner. Usually, cine-technicians modifying the NPR-body adapt the magazines at the same time. I fear the extra costs for the magazine adaptation are unavoidable.

Edited October 3, 2007 by Michael Lehnert

[Martin Yernazian]

Actually, that's not true

Les Bosher in the UK and George Zorzoli ( from Optical Electro House) They modified NPR's to Super 16 without touching the magazines, if the mags don't scratch you will be fine.

The NPR's mags are wide enough.... that's the explanation that they have given me

Now if they did scratch I will be really pissed at them and/or whoever sold it to me.

 

But that's not the case

 

 

Best

[Michael Lehnert]

Actually, that's not true

Les Bosher in the UK and George Zorzoli ( from Optical Electro House) They modified NPR's to Super 16 without touching the magazines, if the mags don't scratch you will be fine.

The NPR's mags are wide enough.... that's the explanation that they have given me

Now if they did scratch I will be really pissed at them and/or whoever sold it to me.

 

But that's not the case

Best

 

Hmm, out of experience, I would trust Les blindly on any camera job, I admit. But I just wonder, then, what the difference between the specially-modified S16 mags and the unmodified R16-spec magazines of my film group's NPR sets here are? :huh:

Edited October 3, 2007 by Michael Lehnert

[Martin Yernazian]

Honestly Michael I do not know, I'm not a technician, but Les told me, " don't send the mags, if they don't scratch then is not necessary"

 

That's all I know, And I have friends that have their NPR'S converted with George and that happened the same to them

 

 

Best

[Michael Lehnert]

Honestly Michael I do not know, I'm not a technician, but Les told me, " don't send the mags, if they don't scratch then is not necessary"

 

Hmm, intrigueing, Martín, as Alan Gordon in CA, Visual Products in OH and Paul Dresel in DE do modify the magazines' sprockets alongside optimising the film movement for single-perf image acquisition. This is also what I regarded as common standard practice. That Les would state something like that it wouldn't mind if they don't scratch is interesting news, and that is the only reason why I want to follow up on this as I wouldn't like to have had unnecessary conversion jobs going over the counter... Apart from earlier jobs that have modified mags, we currently have one further NPR in conversion at Dresel's in Germany which will be dual-format, with one turret taking R16 and S16, and the four mags in that conversion jobs will be modified to a pair of R16-ones and a pair of S16-ones, even housed in separate double-mag cases earmarked for R16 and S16 to avoid mishandling. I will chase up on this, but for now, I would not say to Steven in a clear-cut way that my original posting is "...not true...", as you put it, Martín.

 

Hang in there, Steven :) ...

[Martin Yernazian]

You tell me then

You trust Les Bosher as many people in here do, he told me and other techs that the conversions are not necessary for the mags,

Now Following that I feel that the info they have given you is wrong, and since I have done some serious research before going in to the whole conversion dilemma, with other techs ( that you like to) i feel that my response is pretty well backed

 

Sometimes technicians overblown things when it comes to their tables, make sure they are not doing that to you

Also my NPR, is been shooting test and stuff and I had never a problem, NEVER. If not I will pissed to those that gave me wrong information or sold something in a different condition that they have promoted.

 

I guess i'm cool so Hang in there!

[Martin Yernazian]

I see you live in teh Uk why you don't call Les and ask him

his phone number is in his website

 

Best

[John Sprung]

Any NPR mag will pass single perf film through. The rollers and sprockets touch the film in the perf area on both sides on the unmodified mags. The S-16 modification is to reduce the area touched on the unperforated side to be absolutely sure that no damage results.

 

Unmodified mags may work ok. But the risk is higher that at some time they may stop being ok, and start scratching. So, test them, and make your own judgment call on whether the risk is acceptable to you.

 

I've never run double perf film in a Super modified mag, or single perf in a Super mag on a Regular body, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Michael Lehnert]

I have Les' contact details at arms length, thanks, Martín, no need to go online ^_^ .

I intented to ring him for a PL-Mount adapter anyhow. Will discuss this topic.

In the meantime:

 

The rollers and sprockets touch the film in the perf area on both sides on the unmodified mags. The S-16 modification is to reduce the area touched on the unperforated side to be absolutely sure that no damage results.

 

Thanks, John, I was already questioning my sanity.

All this was also my knowledge and undstanding on the NPR before getting sets for S16 conversions. This is also what I originally knew from Rune Ericson's modifications and always got from the technicians' side, which is why, Steven, I stand by my original post that modification of NPR mags for S16 has a reason and a point to it and should be done if you want a secure, risk-avoiding and - dare I say - professional approach to your gear.

 

It would have somewhat astonished me if techs would have managed to change the comparatively high number of rollers and sprockets in NPR mags (when compared to Aaton, Bolex 16 Pro, SR or ACL ones) for decades without rhyme or reason, plus charge for that and get away with it. And after so many years dealing with what I would regard as in-the-end trustworthy cine-technicians as far as my film group is concerend, I doubt they "overblow their tables". Precision-mechanics is not a joke.

 

Unmodified mags may work ok. But the risk is higher that at some time they may stop being ok, and start scratching.

 

...which is why I am so astonished that Les who I know as a perfectionist is putting out to customers that the modification isn't really something worth bothering :mellow: .

 

Conclusion for Steven: Check it out, it might well work unmodified for some time, as it does for Martín, but if you own your gear and want to use it long-term with the necessary trust that one puts into it, then get them modified as most other people do.

 

After all, you can run a brand-new car on 91 octanes even though it requires 98, but the engine won't like it too much in the end.

[Martin Yernazian]

Hey man is your pocket

 

What John said has a lot of common sense, I even called a few techs today and they told me as they told me months ago, yes you won't have a problem

Also I talk to 5 NPR users that had their cameras converted for more than 20 years the same way I have it, Never a problem... and they have cams from underwater kits to all terrain NPR's

Again no problems

It's about preference, in my opinion, feel pretty secure about that

 

 

Best

[Martin Yernazian]

Also, don't compare me as reckless, it is a passive aggressive insult, and I will not tolerate that, when I'm trying to establish my opinion

I had done my research, pretty damn well I might say

If the top NPR engineers had no problems, plus the users that I respect and work with, it is pretty fine by me.

 

Now you are going to tell me that some people don't overblown conversions to Super 16 in terms of prices? now you are been naive.

 

I went to the best guy in the biz to convert my cam, and consulted with him ( and others)for months about any kind of repercussions in my work , it all cleared

Even I talk to Bernie to Laser Brighten my groundglass and make new markings taking that 1.33.1 off that I find so annoying, because my work is intended to go to the screen or HD.

 

So to insinuated that I don't take my work or my gear seriously, and that I don't treated professionally, is a slap in the face that I won't take.

 

Choose your words differently and the sarcasm keep it at home where it belongs, not in a here where people might have a different opinion and knowledge than yours

[Michael Lehnert]

Sorry, Martín, I won't join you down that road you are inviting me to, because i think "...I will pissed to those ", as you would put it.

 

I think the conclusion John and I posted earlier is reflective enough and covers all the factual circumstances, especially including and taking into account your views, research, knowledge and experiences!

 

At the same time, however, your original reply to my post stating in a very robust voice, using stark words and in absolute and unmistaken manners that what I said was "... that's not true ...", which I accomodated very friendly and forthcoming for over two days, cannot stand without being put into some sort of context.

 

Without being disrespectful to your opinion or work or experience or crew, but the way you put forward your statements was just too reminiscient of too many people who posted here that "collimating a lens" is not necessary "because the mount makes them fit alright, yeah, and after 20'000 feet never EVER had a problem, so TAKE THIS", and then find that their images at the 21'500 feet mark that went to arrilasering could have been much better had they been more accommodating to technical aspects from other 'viewpoints' and not just their 'opinion'. The NPR mag uses a higher number of rollers of sprockets than rivaling cams, so the risk that one of those might leave marks on the S16 frame area is proportionally higher. The mag mods are not too much of a cost position (even if you are on a personal micro-budget) when compared to the costs that can incur when you have to reshoot damaged material or revisit it in post. Taking the risk is fine by me, but it might "piss off" your client or producer and damage your reputation if something should go wrong that could have been anticipated. And as it is a matter of probability rather than impossibility, I think it is legitimate to put this point to Steven, all-the-more as you were not entertaining it at all.

 

Bear in mind, your "it's not true" riposte came against my post that - neither absolutely nor insistently - stated that "Usually [!!], cine-technicians modifying the NPR-body adapt the magazines at the same time ... and that the costs are unavoidable" as in "it's included with the mod package". You will find that the word "usually" pretty much defines the sentence, and does not contradict your experiences, despite you saying "it's not true".

After all, you will certainly not claim that S16 magazine modifications are done only by a minority amount of techs who tend to "overblow" stuff and want to take out "naive customers" - if that is your presumption of cine-houses, I am sorry to hear that. But I don't think that this would reflect how NPRs have been treated over the past 40 years, despite or because your and your environments positive experiences (which I respect, but would not put forward as the one and only valid rule, as your tone and style implied).

 

So putting to Steven only one viewpoint, namely yours that was intend to refuting my original post, and which was only centred around what has worked well for you for now, but is equally well underestimating the potential (!!, again, read my lips, no new taxes ;) ) problems that can arise and potentially ruin a serious project (i.e. esp. when it goes to screen or DI, as your work does) and which cannot afford work in post, is not something that should stay here uncommented in a forum like this.

 

If you feel that your reading of my post is derisory towards what you stand for or are, then I am sorry to hear that. It was not my intention. But as a fellow member of this forum, please also consider how your own posting style comes across, can be understood and gives out as advice. I shall leave it at that, Martín. Good luck and good light!

[Martin Yernazian]

When I stated my comment "that's not true" it showed that there was a different reality from the one you showed, from people that YOU and Me respect, that do things differently.

To me this post is informative and if I need to convert my mags also, I will do. But you said " I will trust Les blindly with camera work" well I don't I went to other people and they stated different things.

 

I think the main reason you are fighting in this post is that I just said that your statement was not absolutely true, since there is a different reality out there about NPR MAGS, ( I don't know where you come with that example of the collimated lens, even a fool knows that's an unavoidable procedure) and since you only present that example I can take your statement valid.

 

I thank you for explanation, and It will be taken in consideration, but again I stay where I'm at. careful is necessary in our business, and I'm pretty insane with my gear, but at the same time it kind of pisses me off if Les and all my other contacts tricked me into this, I hope not.

 

 

Best