what arri to by?

[giap vu]

hello everyone,

 

to BUY I mean. well, I'm interested in purchasing an arri S16, and was hoping for some advise. Like for instance, does it matter of the age or year of the camera; and how much should i spend? please help...

Edited October 28, 2007 by giap vu

[Bill DiPietra]

hello everyone,

 

to BUY I mean. well, I'm interested in purchasing an arri S16, and was hoping for some advise. Like for instance, does it matter of the age or year of the camera; and how much should i spend? please help...

 

I purchased my ARRI S/B from Visual Products for about $4000, but that included lenses and accessories. I have had nothing but good experiences with it. You can probably find similar packages for a little less. What are you planning on using it for...?

[giap vu]

I purchased my ARRI S/B from Visual Products for about $4000, but that included lenses and accessories. I have had nothing but good experiences with it. You can probably find similar packages for a little less. What are you planning on using it for...?

 

Hi Bill, thanks for the speedy response!

I'm going to film school now and soon will be graduating, so I'll have a lot more time to experiment, and to hone my craft. I was hoping for something that I could eventually use to film a full length, and hopefully use for many years to come. Basically my intent is to become a working cinematographer, so when I make the initial investment on equipment, I don't want to purchase the wrong stuff.

Edited October 28, 2007 by giap vu

[Tim Carroll]

hello everyone,

 

to BUY I mean. well, I'm interested in purchasing an arri S16, and was hoping for some advise. Like for instance, does it matter of the age or year of the camera; and how much should i spend? please help...

 

I'm a little confused. Do you mean you want to buy an Arriflex 16S, or are you saying you want to buy an ARRI camera that is S16, which most people take to mean Super 16. Because an Arriflex 16S is not a Super 16 camera and it is a very bad choice for a camera to convert to Super 16. The design of the camera makes it a fantastic 16mm motion picture camera, but it also makes it nearly impossible and very expensive to try to convert it to Super 16.

 

Now if you are trying to build your experience and your reel as a cinematographer, then the Arriflex 16S or 16S/B (variations of the same camera) is an excellent choice. It's "relatively" inexpensive to purchase and once serviced and set back to factory specs, it's about as bullet proof and reliable as any camera can be. And if you want to shoot and frame for 16:9, you can see how easy this is to do by reading the instructions on the web site:

 

Arri16S.com

 

I picked up my "baby", a 1957 Arriflex 16S that I used to shoot most of the footage on the web site, for $1200 on eBay.

 

If you are looking for an ARRI camera that is Super 16, you would need to look for a converted Arriflex 16SR or 16SRII (anywhere from $10,000 to $20,000) or an Arriflex 16SR3 (anywhere from $20,000 to $40,000) or the new Arriflex 416 (starting at $50,000+).

 

-Tim

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I recommend the Arri Srs for a good camera that'll last for a bit. I have an SR3 and I'm thrilled with her. SO quiet! But an SR2 or 1 will also serve you well

Also, the Arri BLs, i hear a nice and can be used to shoot a feature.

You might do well to look into an Aaton. They're not my top choice (i guess movie cameras are like still cameras, we all have a brand) but there is nothing wrong with a good LTR54, or 7.

You could even go the Elclair route, but I have no experience with them, myself, but I've heard AFAIK good reports.

 

Best of luck!

[Martin Yernazian]

how much money do you have ??? that makes a great difference, now I will follow with Tim's advice if you want to learn cinematography.

[giap vu]

that's ok, I follow in the confusion also. Super 16, yes. Under 10 thousand, hopeful. what do you think?

[John Brawley]

that's ok, I follow in the confusion also. Super 16, yes. Under 10 thousand, hopeful. what do you think?

 

 

Hi..

 

I'd go for an Aaton. They practically revived super 16. Get an LTR. You can also pretty easily get Nikon lens mount adaptors as well. And the Aatons are way steadier than an SR1 or SR2.

 

jb

[Tim Carroll]

Hi..

 

I'd go for an Aaton. They practically revived super 16. Get an LTR. You can also pretty easily get Nikon lens mount adaptors as well. And the Aatons are way steadier than an SR1 or SR2.

 

jb

 

While I'm a big fan of the Aaton LTR7 and LTR54, they are definitely not steadier than an Arriflex 16SR or 16SRII. Both the 16SR and the 16SRII are registration pin cameras, the Aaton LTR7 and LTR54 are not. I have seen Aaton LTR's that were very steady, but this was usually right after an overhaul. The two advantages of an LTR over an 16SR is that a Super 16 LTR is usually going to be less expensive to purchase than the Super 16 16SR and the LTR is going to be quieter than the 16SR.

 

-Tim

[John Brawley]

While I'm a big fan of the Aaton LTR7 and LTR54, they are definitely not steadier than an Arriflex 16SR or 16SRII. Both the 16SR and the 16SRII are registration pin cameras, the Aaton LTR7 and LTR54 are not. I have seen Aaton LTR's that were very steady, but this was usually right after an overhaul. The two advantages of an LTR over an 16SR is that a Super 16 LTR is usually going to be less expensive to purchase than the Super 16 16SR and the LTR is going to be quieter than the 16SR.

 

-Tim

 

Tim, I'll have to beg to differ here.

 

SR's have a chronic problem with weave. That is side to side or lateral movement of the film in the gate. This can often be made worse depending on the cut of the stock. It's also much worse towards the end of camera rolls when it will really start to move around. The registration pin may seem like a good idea, but as a camera engineer once pointed out to me, on an SR the registration pin is always moving. Especially on Super 16 modd'ed cameras which almost always have 172.8 degree shutters. So now you have pin that is MOVING during the exposure phase. So while you may argue the registration may be better, it's got to be affecting overall image sharpness. I can't tell you the number of times telecine colourists have said to me that my pictures looked really sharp. I just tell them it's because I usually shoot aaton in 16mm.

 

Aaton's have a pull down claw that moves the film (including their current models) but no registration pin. They readily on steadiness by using small spring loaded guides that push the film gently from the sides.

 

I used to work in a rental house. We had both aaton's and sr's of all flavours. Across the board the Aaton's were always steadier when performing DX registration tests. Now you mention that the cameras are steady right after an overhall. But perhaps you've used aatons where they haven't cleaned out the lateral side channels that make these cameras so steady. It's a relatively simple step to take an orange stick and make sure these tiny spring-loaded guides are functioning, and clear of skiving remnants from stock. it takes about 30 seconds.

 

The aaton a-minima is the most steady 16mm camera I've EVER seen.

 

jb

[chuck colburn]

Tim, I'll have to beg to differ here.

 

SR's have a chronic problem with weave. That is side to side or lateral movement of the film in the gate. This can often be made worse depending on the cut of the stock. It's also much worse towards the end of camera rolls when it will really start to move around. The registration pin may seem like a good idea, but as a camera engineer once pointed out to me, on an SR the registration pin is always moving. Especially on Super 16 modd'ed cameras which almost always have 172.8 degree shutters. So now you have pin that is MOVING during the exposure phase. So while you may argue the registration may be better, it's got to be affecting overall image sharpness. I can't tell you the number of times telecine colourists have said to me that my pictures looked really sharp. I just tell them it's because I usually shoot aaton in 16mm.

 

Aaton's have a pull down claw that moves the film (including their current models) but no registration pin. They readily on steadiness by using small spring loaded guides that push the film gently from the sides.

 

I used to work in a rental house. We had both aaton's and sr's of all flavours. Across the board the Aaton's were always steadier when performing DX registration tests. Now you mention that the cameras are steady right after an overhall. But perhaps you've used aatons where they haven't cleaned out the lateral side channels that make these cameras so steady. It's a relatively simple step to take an orange stick and make sure these tiny spring-loaded guides are functioning, and clear of skiving remnants from stock. it takes about 30 seconds.

 

The aaton a-minima is the most steady 16mm camera I've EVER seen.

 

jb

 

Huh... I thought it was the pressure plate that provided the registration on the Aaton. Spring loaded side rails on every other camera I've seen with them are for control of side weave.

 

Chuck

[Tim Carroll]

SR's have a chronic problem with weave. That is side to side or lateral movement of the film in the gate. This can often be made worse depending on the cut of the stock. It's also much worse towards the end of camera rolls when it will really start to move around. The registration pin may seem like a good idea, but as a camera engineer once pointed out to me, on an SR the registration pin is always moving. Especially on Super 16 modd'ed cameras which almost always have 172.8 degree shutters. So now you have pin that is MOVING during the exposure phase. So while you may argue the registration may be better, it's got to be affecting overall image sharpness. I can't tell you the number of times telecine colourists have said to me that my pictures looked really sharp. I just tell them it's because I usually shoot aaton in 16mm.

 

As someone who was trained to service the Arriflex 16SR and 16SRII by Axel Broda, I can tell you for a fact that your above statements are incorrect. Any properly serviced Arriflex 16SR or 16SRII should have no weave as the side rails are set to an incredibly tight tolerance. Now if you are using ancient film stock that has shrunk or you've not cleaned the side rails and they are loaded with emulsion, you may have an issue, but any competent camera operator would know not to do that.

 

The registration pin naturally moves in and out of the perf twenty four times per second (otherwise the film wouldn't advance) but again, on a properly serviced 16SR or 16SRII there is no slop in the registration pin. Once it is in the perf it holds steady. As I've been trained in the Axel Broda Super 16 conversion, I cannot speak for how other cameras are converted, but Mr. Broda uses the stock 180º shutter and converting the camera to Super 16 has absolutely no effect on the registration pin's function.

 

I don't know who you've been talking to, but they are misinformed.

 

-Tim

[John Brawley]

As someone who was trained to service the Arriflex 16SR and 16SRII by Axel Broda, I can tell you for a fact that your above statements are incorrect. Any properly serviced Arriflex 16SR or 16SRII should have no weave as the side rails are set to an incredibly tight tolerance. Now if you are using ancient film stock that has shrunk or you've not cleaned the side rails and they are loaded with emulsion, you may have an issue, but any competent camera operator would know not to do that.

 

The registration pin naturally moves in and out of the perf twenty four times per second (otherwise the film wouldn't advance) but again, on a properly serviced 16SR or 16SRII there is no slop in the registration pin. Once it is in the perf it holds steady. As I've been trained in the Axel Broda Super 16 conversion, I cannot speak for how other cameras are converted, but Mr. Broda uses the stock 180º shutter and converting the camera to Super 16 has absolutely no effect on the registration pin's function.

 

I don't know who you've been talking to, but they are misinformed.

 

-Tim

 

 

I haven't been talking to anyone. You can see for yourself if you inch the movement on the SR and watch the registration pin. It moves during exposure. I wasn't referring to the tolerance of the side rails on the SR, but the film guides on the SR magazine which if you play with, are easily wiggled side to side.

 

Obviously we're going to disagree here, and your experience is not my experience. I have several years of working for a large rental company with double digits kits of aaton and arris, doing steadi-tests for ourselves on a near weekly basis. The clients renting would also do them for insurance etc.. Aaton's are steadier. That's my experience.

 

 

jb

[Tim Carroll]

I haven't been talking to anyone. You can see for yourself if you inch the movement on the SR and watch the registration pin. It moves during exposure.

 

If any of the registration pins on your SR cameras are moving around during exposure, then your SR cameras are way out of ARRI spec and are in need of serious overhauls. If you rent cameras that are that far out of spec to your clients, that says alot about the large rental company you work for. Please let me know the name of the company so if I am ever in Australia I can make sure not to rent a camera from there.

 

I wasn't referring to the tolerance of the side rails on the SR, but the film guides on the SR magazine which if you play with, are easily wiggled side to side.

 

The film guides on the SR magazine have absolutely nothing to do with the weave or lack thereof on an SR camera. They are made to float, as they have nothing to do with aligning the film as it passes in front of the gate, that is controlled by the side rails. I am confused about exactly what you do for this large rental company. How can you have several years experience working there and have such a complete misunderstanding of how one of your "double digit kits" of cameras work?

 

-Tim

[John Brawley]

If any of the registration pins on your SR cameras are moving around during exposure, then your SR cameras are way out of ARRI spec and are in need of serious overhauls. If you rent cameras that are that far out of spec to your clients, that says alot about the large rental company you work for. Please let me know the name of the company so if I am ever in Australia I can make sure not to rent a camera from there.

 

 

 

The film guides on the SR magazine have absolutely nothing to do with the weave or lack thereof on an SR camera. They are made to float, as they have nothing to do with aligning the film as it passes in front of the gate, that is controlled by the side rails. I am confused about exactly what you do for this large rental company. How can you have several years experience working there and have such a complete misunderstanding of how one of your "double digit kits" of cameras work?

 

-Tim

 

 

Tim. I don't want to make this personal and I don't appreciate you trashing my previous employer, when you know nothing of who they are or what my experience is. I said it was my personal experience and it may not be yours. The company I worked for has been around for over 30 years. They are the largest Australian owned rental company and second to Panavision. I worked there for 5 years, 3 or which was in rentals, and 1 as a rental manager in one of their offices. Clearly they wouldn't be in business if they were supplying faulty cameras. Australia is not a large market.

 

They had 12 Aaton's, and 10 Sr's while I was there. They were a mix of SR2's and 3's and XTR's LTR's. We also serviced many owner operators.

 

I just had a look at a friends Denz converted SR2 just to check. If you inch the movement, and look from the back into the gate, you will see that the pin is still travelling IN and the beginning of the exposure cycle, and beginning to retract during the end of the exposure cycle BEFORE the shutter has closed.

 

The film guide on the SR mag is related to image steadiness because it can be affected by variations in the way the film is cut. It's the same mechanism that the pressure plate is connected to.

 

You don't have to agree and clearly you don't. Im happy to leave it as agreeing to disagree. As I said, i'm speaking from my personal experience and clearly lot's of people are happy with their SR's.

 

jb

[Michael Lehnert]

Hmm, I don't want to get crushed in-between the battle of egos that Tim and John develop here, especially as it involves the two philosophically opposite camera designs that usually polarise, namely Arriflex (users referred-to in Germany quite often as "Arrimateurs", and regarded as blindly brand-loyal as Mercedes-drivers) and Aaton (the fuzzy-haired post-/structuralist arty-farty intellectuello camera that apparently breaks down all the time like a French car), but I would nevertheless like to bring in an alternative perspective (read it light-heartedly, folks, no reason to perform a cock-fight)...

 

Two and a half years ago, there was a debate here at cinematography.com about the effects of pin registration on ameliorating frame registration in specific camera transportation constructions, and during the debate which included David, Stephen and co, a post which I double-checked since then for accuracy with camera spec sheets, Samuelson's and some good-old-fashioned telephone calls to the manufacturers stated that "...an Arriflex 16SR II that features pin registration has a registration variance per frame of 0.013mm whereas the Aaton XTR-models achieve better 0.005mm without a registration pin. And even the latter's "predecessor", the Eclair ACL of 1971 achieves 0.010mm without pin registration".

I discussed and quoted this in small-talks, published articles and posts here over the past, never heard an counter-opinion.

 

As regards the alledged breathing and weaving on the Arriflex 16SR-series: this is actually quite an acknowledged problem even amongst staff in German public broadcasting houses which would have never bought anything else than an Arriflex. While most have been phased out now (and fetch high prices because they were pampered as far as CLA is concerned), the SWR still uses Arriflex 16SR III models, and on documentaries shot with these "last mohicans", mostly by editor-in-chief and filmmaker Ebbo Demant (who is repordedly behind the "keep-16-lobby" here), you can clearly see a visible breath-and-weave motion of the film that is not caused by über-bad telecine alignments. Actually, and I know I am leaning myself quite out of the window here, but I used to play the "find-the-Arri" game when watching German TV based on this symptom, and was usually right when double-checking with production data published in BVK articles, ArriNews and the "Film & TV Kameramann" magazine (similar to the ASC or BSC journals in Germany).

 

I must also say that the frame stability on Aaton cameras has always been reported to me as being without rivals, and usually mistook X-series footage for 35-III footage. With regard to functionality and portability as well as support from the company, Aaton has also better reputation than Arri. The modular accessories approach which makes you buy into the whole Arri 16/35 ecosystem is also a financial problem for some buyers, although the 416 has finally made an end to modular obsolesence and the need to start buying accessories from scratch over and over again.

 

I remember coming to a first-ever 16SR III shooting from experiences with an Eclair ACL, and found myself weirdly disappointed with the III model. Design-philosophically, Arri only caught up with 16mm shoulder cameras with the 416 (which, incidentally, borrows several design aspects from the most underrated 16mm camera ever, the Bolex 16 Pro, a camera that Bolex-Paillard had originally designed at Arri in the 1970s...)

 

AS FAR AS THE OP is concerned:

 

if you want a silent, crystal-sync, small, shoulder-based, easy-to-wear S16-ready camera below $10k that is reliable, expandable and serves broadcast-quality, I would suggest to have a look at an Aaton from the L-series onwards, then an Eclair NPR or ACL (the Mini-ACL is a good proposition, though S16 mods are problematic), and consider an Arriflex 16SR. Avoid 16SR high-speed models, as they usually suffer heavier wear-&-tear and were often used in the field (as in "wild nature") rather than on "civilised sets". If you are based in the US, look at rarer alternatives, like a CP16 or GSMO, just to get an eye for the different shoulder design approaches. Unfortunatley, the Bolex 16 Pro can't be mod' into S16, otherwise, I would wholeheartedly recommend one (a great piece of engineering, and only slightly lighter than a donkey).

 

Investing in new gear would mean ? in your price range + self-employed business investment credit ? basically the Aaton A-Minima, which is an excellent camera and a future-proof investment.

[Tim Carroll]

I just had a look at a friends Denz converted SR2 just to check. If you inch the movement, and look from the back into the gate, you will see that the pin is still travelling IN and the beginning of the exposure cycle, and beginning to retract during the end of the exposure cycle BEFORE the shutter has closed.

 

The film guide on the SR mag is related to image steadiness because it can be affected by variations in the way the film is cut. It's the same mechanism that the pressure plate is connected to.

 

You don't have to agree and clearly you don't. Im happy to leave it as agreeing to disagree. As I said, i'm speaking from my personal experience and clearly lot's of people are happy with their SR's.

 

jb

 

John,

 

The registration pin moving into the perf before the beginning of the exposure cycle (perpendicular to the film and the plane of the film travel) and moving out of the perf after the end of the exposure cycle (perpendicular to the film and the plane of the film travel) is not the registration pin moving around during exposure. Your previous posts made it sound like the pin was moving up and down, side to side, etc.

 

If you look carefully at the registration pin, the tip is slightly tapered, and leads back to the meat of the registration pin which fits line to line in the perf. The pins on the SRII worked slightly differently than the pins on the SR. But both pins are slightly tapered at the tip and the meat of the pin, the part that holds the perf, is into the perf before the shutter opens on a properly adjusted (timed) SR or SRII. The registration pin may have a slight bit of travel (into the perf) past the point of the shutter opening, but the meat of the registration pin is already holding the perf stationary and the travel of the registration pin at that time is perpendicular to the film and film travel, so it has no effect on steadiness.

 

The registration pin starts to remove itself from the perf as the shutter closes, but still the meat of the registration pin is in the perf until the shutter is closed. If your friends camera is not doing that, it is out of adjustment. Especially if his camera has a 172.8º shutter, because we adjust the Super 16 SRII's with the 180º shutter to perform as I described above. With a 172.8º shutter you have even less time that the shutter is open so it is easier to make sure the movement is timed right.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about with your statement "The film guide on the SR mag is related to image steadiness because it can be affected by variations in the way the film is cut. It's the same mechanism that the pressure plate is connected to." The film guides on the SR mag are only to keep the film in the approximately correct place when you attach the magazine to the camera, so the film will slip in between the two rails on the camera and the pressure plate slips in behind the film. They have no effect on weave or steadiness.

 

John, my big problem with your posts is that you make statements like:

"And the Aatons are way steadier than an SR1 or SR2."

"SR's have a chronic problem with weave."

"The registration pin may seem like a good idea, but as a camera engineer once pointed out to me, on an SR the registration pin is always moving. Especially on Super 16 modd'ed cameras which almost always have 172.8 degree shutters. So now you have pin that is MOVING during the exposure phase."

 

All those statements are false. It has nothing to do with experience. It has to do with the mechanical design of the camera.

 

giap vu was asking about different cameras, and you were giving him false information.

 

If you had said, "I like Aaton's better because in my experience I have gotten steadier images with and Aaton than I did when I used an Arriflex 16SR", I would have had no problem with that.

 

If you had said, "I had a problem with an Arriflex 16SR that had weave", I would have had no problem with that.

 

If you had said, "I don't really know how a registration pin works on an Arriflex 16SR camera, but it doesn't seem to work to me" I would have had no problem with that.

 

But what you wrote was false, and I have a problem with that. Call me sensitive. ;)

 

-Tim

[Tim Carroll]

"...an Arriflex 16SR II that features pin registration has a registration variance per frame of 0.013mm whereas the Aaton XTR-models achieve better 0.005mm without a registration pin. And even the latter's "predecessor", the Eclair ACL of 1971 achieves 0.010mm without pin registration".

 

Michael,

 

You are comparing the specs from an Arriflex 16SRII to the specs from an Aaton XTR. I thought we were discussing the steadiness of an Arriflex 16SR and 16SRII with that of an Aaton LTR. You will admit that the XTR is an advanced camera compared to the LTR, will you not?

 

I've owned both an Arriflex 16SR and an Aaton LTR. I liked them both very much. I had no problems with the Arriflex in the area of weave or steadiness, but I also had it regularly service by ARRI INC here in the States. I never had any problems with my LTR, but on a shoot with a friends LTR, we had a steadiness issue. I believe his camera was in need of an overhaul as he was not as anal as I was about keeping the camera serviced.

 

-Tim

[John Brawley]

John,

 

The registration pin may have a slight bit of travel (into the perf) past the point of the shutter opening, but the meat of the registration pin is already holding the perf stationary and the travel of the registration pin at that time is perpendicular to the film and film travel, so it has no effect on steadiness.

 

-Tim

 

 

Sure. Well now you agree. The pin is moving during exposure. I apologise for not being clear about what sort of movement I meant. I never said it was up, down, or side...just that it moved.

 

 

I have no idea what you are talking about with your statement "The film guide on the SR mag is related to image steadiness because it can be affected by variations in the way the film is cut. It's the same mechanism that the pressure plate is connected to." The film guides on the SR mag are only to keep the film in the approximately correct place when you attach the magazine to the camera, so the film will slip in between the two rails on the camera and the pressure plate slips in behind the film. They have no effect on weave or steadiness.

 

-Tim

 

Well you said it has nothing to do with steadiness. How can it not, when even if it "approximately" guides the film, then it must have something to do with image steadiness. The same way that magazine tension or loop size affects stability. The loop on the Arri SRs is guided by that mechanism. Any variation in the cut shows up as weave. Arri fixed the problem only with the SR3 Advance. They finally put in lateral film guides at the gate. If it wasn't a problem, why would they put these guides in ?

 

I was disagreeing with your earlier assertion that a registration pin was required for image steadiness. I don't believe it is. Aaton don't believe it is (or else they'd have one) and you do believe it is required, as do Arri. You say Arri's are more stable. I say Aaton's are more stable. I stick by what I said. No one's going to win this argument other than us respecting each other's opinion.

 

If you load some film into it and put the camera onto a lens collimator whilst looking at the film and inching the camera, it is clear that the film moves during exposure. I invite you to try it.

 

Now you've agreed that the pin moves during exposure. The statement wasn't false.

 

The camera suffers from weave. That's why now on the SR3 Advance and the 416 there are lateral film guides. Just like an Aaton.

 

This is an internet based forum. I take it as a given that everyone is reading someone's opinion and the reader can decide how much they agree or not. There's no right or wrong. I gave my opinion based on my own experience and knowledge. You gave yours. I didn't say that you were wrong or false, but you seem to like saying that I am. I didn't question or even ask for your background and experience, but you did so of me.

 

I can tell you lot's of things I think are wrong with an Aaton as well. They are tools and we use them for a given set of circumstances, not every set of circumstances. The original poster was asking about Arri super 16 cameras at a certain price point. I gave my opinion and told him why I thought it was better. You're entitled to list yours, as you did.

 

The first bit of film i ever shot was with an arri s. It took Aaton 40 years to make a camera that sits as nicely in the hand.

 

 

jb

[Michael Lehnert]

You are comparing the specs from an Arriflex 16SRII to the specs from an Aaton XTR.

 

Oops, sorry, that is a actually a typo. Sorry for the confusion, Tim (it's a bit early in the morning here in London, and jet lag keeps me awake).

I am explicitly refering to the Arriflex 16SRIII and the Aaton XTR model as they became available "as-new" on the 16mm-market in 1993 and 1994 respectively ? hence the comparability of the two models in dimensions of time, improvement and direct competition. Otherwise, my point would be... pointless. And I usually don't waste my time on such crap.

 

The circumstance that the ACL design technically and (from my experience: visibly) betters pin-reg'd systems from Munich 20 years its junior nevertheless remains standing.

(I would not be surprised if your beloved 16S betters the faltering quality of the SR-series - great website, BTW)

 

 

I thought we were discussing the steadiness of an Arriflex 16SR and 16SRII with that of an Aaton LTR.

 

Correct, you were. My reading ability has not yet been degraded that much. The contribution I am making ? and marred with the original typo, I admit that ? refers to the same problem that John raised being prevalent and visible in SRIII-models as well, based on broadcasting work I saw and theatrical work I worked on; and is hence discussed and acknowledged in circles here in Arrihomeland plus populus ? something that was under debate and questioning in-between John and you.

I believe my input to be quite clarifying in that respect, would you not agree?

 

 

You will admit that the XTR is an advanced camera compared to the LTR, will you not?

 

Who would I be not to question the post-Copernican world?

(Do you often assume people around you are lesser 'homo faber', Tim?)

 

I believe his camera was in need of an overhaul as he was not as anal as I was about keeping the camera serviced.

 

Anality is everything, especially when being a cine technician as you are. This is actually a character's pre-requisite before I hire a technician to work for me. Nevertheless, it seems to be dying out in our industry as more and more people are happy with "just-so". They can always do it in post, after all...

[Michael Lehnert]

Arri fixed the problem only with the SR3 Advance. They finally put in lateral film guides at the gate. If it wasn't a problem, why would they put these guides in ?

[...]

The camera suffers from weave. That's why now on the SR3 Advance and the 416 there are lateral film guides. Just like an Aaton.

 

Actually, I have to second that opinion, as it is correct, Tim. CF. my post above.

 

It took Aaton 40 years to make a camera that sits as nicely in the hand [as the Arriflex 16S].

 

However, I am not entire sure what you mean with that?

 

The Arriflex 16S was introduced in 1952. As Aaton was founded after the ill-fated Salzman-take-over of Eclair in 1970, and introduced the Aaton 7 a few years later peu-à-peu with heavy involvement from the filmmaking community ? something Arri only adopted cautiously with the 416 R&D ?your statement is potentially misleading, as a company that did not exist cannot be a latecomer by definition.

And as the rather perfect cat-on-shoulder design from the Aaton 7 to the Xtèra did not evolve in any way, I wonder what camera JPB is supposed to have introduced in 1992 according to you which is on a par with the Arriflex 16S :blink: .

 

Actually, it took André Coutant at Eclair only 7 years after the Arriflex 16S introduction (1960) to produce a cinematic quantum leap in not only 16mm camera design with the Eclair 16 NPR, and further 7 years for Coma and Lecoeur to bring out the ACL, with JPB's ACL Panoram sub-model being essentially the first Aaton prototype.

Arri was 15 years too late in reacting in any significant way to 16mm shoulder camera development when they presented the SR-series in 1975, and the philosophical underlyings of the SR-series' quick-change magazines on that annoying base-plate were outdated when new. It took them further 29 years to iron out visible steadiness issues relating to their transportation mechanism, and seriously embrace the Super 16 format as the Panoram did it decades ago, and only carved-out a successful niche-market with the "greylings" (German nick-names derived from the grey case) HS-models after Eclair's bankrupcy ended the production of the Eclair GV16.

 

The Arriflex 416 is the first 16mm camera coming out of Türkenstrasse that is on a par with the design philosophy that is standard in this format for 46 years (!), and that was designed essentially by "honouring" some 1971 Bolex 16 Pro design aspects 25 years its senior (that camera really was light-years ahead of Aaton as the industry design leader) plus de facto buying up outside talent in form of Fritz Gabriel Bauer without whom their 35mm line-up would not be were it is now as well.

 

The Arriflex 16S is a great camera and was the first mass-produced 16mm broadcasting-market model, but it is anything but my first choice among the Municams. An Arriflex 16 BL is a more advanced proposition regarding light-weight sync-sound filmmaking, and if one wants to go for an SR and work hand-held or shoulder-based as well, considering an Eclair 16 NPR with the Aaton motor, an Eclair ACL or any Aaton from the L-series onwards should be a more thought-through decision.

 

I am well aware that a reader new to this might be lead to conclude that Arri trailblazed a bit in respect of camera developement compared to US, French, Swiss and Austrian competition, only jumped on the bandwagon when that bandwagon had it's final destination well in sight already, and established its oligarchic and predominant market position through ruthless lawsuits and aggressive M&A rather than in-house talent and community-involvement. And frankly, upon consideration, if asked by a student or colleague, I would not shy back to precisely confirm that.

[Tim Carroll]

Sure. Well now you agree. The pin is moving during exposure. I apologise for not being clear about what sort of movement I meant. I never said it was up, down, or side...just that it moved.

 

John,

 

Your implication when you said the registration pin moved during exposure was that it's movement effected the steadiness of the image, and what I tried to explain to you in as much detail as one can with words instead of diagrams is that the bit of movement you are seeing in the registration pin at the end and beginning of it's travel has nothing to do with steadiness (on a properly serviced 16SR) because the movement is perpendicular to the film plane and film travel, and movement is after the meat of the registration pin is already holding the perf securely in place.

 

Well you said it has nothing to do with steadiness. How can it not, when even if it "approximately" guides the film, then it must have something to do with image steadiness. The same way that magazine tension or loop size affects stability. The loop on the Arri SRs is guided by that mechanism. Any variation in the cut shows up as weave. Arri fixed the problem only with the SR3 Advance. They finally put in lateral film guides at the gate. If it wasn't a problem, why would they put these guides in ?

 

You missed the point in my last post, the film guide pins on the magazine are to "keep the film in the approximately correct place when you attach the magazine to the camera." They only come in to play when the magazine is not attached to the camera, to keep the film in the approximately right place as the magazine is not attached to the camera body, and they keep the film in the approximate right place as you are bringing the magazine up to the camera body, so that the film goes between the camera rails and then the pressure plate goes in behind the film. Once the film is between the camera rails on a properly serviced SR, the camera rails keep the film from weaving from side to side, not the film guide pins on the magazine.

 

Now you can argue that you think having a spring loaded side rail is a better way to prevent weave than how the SR was designed to handle weave. The Arriflex 16S, 16S/B, 16M and 16BL all had a spring loaded lateral side rail and they all seemed to work fine. I am certainly no expert on the SR3 as I have not shot with one and have not been trained to service them. Why they went back to a spring loaded lateral rail is something you would have to ask ARRI. I do know that a properly set up SR, when the distance between the side rails is held to proper tolerance, does not have an issue with weave unless the two conditions I stated earlier are present, badly shrunk film (old stock) or emulsion build up on the rails.

 

 

I was disagreeing with your earlier assertion that a registration pin was required for image steadiness. I don't believe it is. Aaton don't believe it is (or else they'd have one) and you do believe it is required, as do Arri. You say Arri's are more stable. I say Aaton's are more stable. I stick by what I said. No one's going to win this argument other than us respecting each other's opinion.

 

Please point out where I said a registration pin is required for image steadiness. And please point out where I said an ARRI is more stable than an Aaton. I did not say that. What I said is that you can't say an Aaton is steadier than an ARRI and I pointed out the reasons why you can't say that. I mentioned that a friends Aaton, which I also said I thought was in need of service, was not steady. And I mentioned that the Aaton I had was steady. And I mentioned that Aatons I have used that had a recent overhaul were steady. I have not been bad mouthing the Aaton cameras in this thread at all. You seem to want to pick a fight over which camera is more steady, and ARRI or an Aaton. I am not interested in having that argument with you. But if you are going to be putting out incorrect and misleading information about ARRI cameras, something I service in my business, I am going to correct your misinformation.

 

Oops, sorry, that is a actually a typo. Sorry for the confusion, Tim (it's a bit early in the morning here in London, and jet lag keeps me awake).

I am explicitly refering to the Arriflex 16SRIII and the Aaton XTR model as they became available "as-new" on the 16mm-market in 1993 and 1994 respectively ? hence the comparability of the two models in dimensions of time, improvement and direct competition. Otherwise, my point would be... pointless. And I usually don't waste my time on such crap.

 

Michael,

 

I can't comment on the XTR cameras because I know very little about them. I have never shot with one and my knowledge of them consists of information I have gotten from talking to the good folks at Abel Cine Tech here in the States.

 

-Tim

[giap vu]

wow! this was quite a learning experience - I see the passion and am honored you guys took the time to answer my questions.

 

thanks again,

 

Giap Vu

Edited October 30, 2007 by giap vu

[John Brawley]

However, I am not entire sure what you mean with that?

 

The Arriflex 16S was introduced in 1952. As Aaton was founded after the ill-fated Salzman-take-over of Eclair in 1970, and introduced the Aaton 7 a few years later peu-à-peu with heavy involvement from the filmmaking community ? something Arri only adopted cautiously with the 416 R&D ?your statement is potentially misleading, as a company that did not exist cannot be a latecomer by definition.

And as the rather perfect cat-on-shoulder design from the Aaton 7 to the Xtèra did not evolve in any way, I wonder what camera JPB is supposed to have introduced in 1992 according to you which is on a par with the Arriflex 16S :blink: .

 

 

Woops. my bad. I was referring to the a-minima. I was out by 10 years.

[Michael Lehnert]

No problemo, John, I somewhat considered that you had the Aaton A-Minima in mind, but could not be sure.

 

After all, apart from heatedly discussing construction deficiencies and design philosophies of the actual 16mm camera, plus discussing the corporate context, service aspect and community-involvement, this thread forgot to consider the more basic aspect of camera choosing according to filmmaking style and camera typology: namely between shoulder cameras and hand-held cameras. After all, we have been treating both fundamentally different types likewise ? which would be like debating whether to buy a 1976 Cadillac Eldorado Convertible or an AMC Pacer: an absurd approach to solve the question.

 

Shoulder camera designs such as the Eclair models, the Aaton series, the Bolex 16 Pro, the CP models, and "enfin" Arri's belated attempt with the Arriflex 16SR-series are certainly the better production cameras re. expandability, universal shooting requirements, and apperance of professionality towards business contacts, rent-outs, hirings et cetera.

 

Hand-held camera design compromise ergonomics, comfort, weight and silence in favour of size, but this enhanced portability and unobstrusiveness has its disadvantages. Advantage-wise, the brand-new Aaton A-Minima excels beautifully at this design. In the same category, I would place the Arriflex 16S, S/B and BL, the Beaulieu R16 and 2016, the Bolex H-series, Canon Scoopic and Bell & Howell designs.

 

Hence, comparing a 16S vs an SR or an A-Minima vs an Xtèra seems inappropriate, as they are different siezd tools (like comparing an Arriflex 235 with an Arriflex 535).

 

Giap Vu, having said that, you should consider whether you want a larger shoulder design (and in that case, I personally recommend an Aaton or Eclair) that has its merits in both documentary filmmaking and theatrical productions, or if you want a smaller hand-held camera more astute for involved reportage shooting, videoclips, acute newscasting, the "entfesselte Kamera" as it's called in German. In that case, I would recommend the Arriflex 16 BL if you need a silent sync-sound cam, or the S or that is less of a concern. If you want to found a business and can argue for a business credit to broaden your $10k limit, invest in an Aaton A-Minima.

 

The Arriflex 416 is really good, but out of your financial possibilities, I believe. I cannot wait to get hold of one and compare-shot with a Bolex 16 Pro (this thing becomes my personal obsession... hmm, I should visit my psychoanalyst re. that matter soon ^_^ )