Eclair ACL film path

[marc barbé]

Hi,

A friend of mine had the film path on his Aaton LTR modified after he had some light leaks with Kodak 500 ASA stock. Kodak told him that new stock was made of more fragile material and was liable to get damaged by the older camera's threading. Has anyone experienced this using sensitive film with an Eclair ACL?

Best regards,

Marc.

[Bert Smith]

Hi,

A friend of mine had the film path on his Aaton LTR modified after he had some light leaks with Kodak 500 ASA stock. Kodak told him that new stock was made of more fragile material and was liable to get damaged by the older camera's threading. Has anyone experienced this using sensitive film with an Eclair ACL?

Best regards,

Marc.

 

 

Any news on this? Anyone? Buller?

[marc barbé]

Any news on this? Anyone? Buller?

 

 

? Any feedback on this issue would help, really. It's quite a delicate matter.

Marc.

[Nick Norton]

I've shot 100' of the new Vision3 500T as a test roll on my Eclair ACL (before having it serviced by bernie at super16) and the footage came out pretty decent, no visible light leak problems.

 

Video can be seen here: http://vimeo.com/1975752

[Topher Ryan]

I'm not sure I understand the connection between delicate, scratch-prone stocks and light leaks. Unless it were somehow an issue of thickness as well as fragility with the new stocks. Were these two separate issues that came up in talking to Kodak?

 

I have heard the bit about the new, more sensitive emulsions and scratching, but nothing specific to the Eclairs. I was surprised to learn that Les Bosher doesn't modify the film path even when doing super-16 modifications to an NPR (don't know about the ACL). It says something about the original engineering of the film path and contact points, that he would trust it not to scratch the edge emulsion. Hopefully he is taking into account the latest and greatest stocks in this advice.

 

I know that others, including Bernie O, do modify the NPR rollers and such, but perhaps this is a "better safe than sorry" approach. Which is understandable, considering the production costs that can be riding on a scratch free super 16 negative.

 

I say all that assuming that the ACL film path is comparable (if not improved), to the NPR's earlier design. But that is a big assumption on my part.

 

My guess is that a clean, well maintained/serviced/lubed ACL does just fine with vision 3 500T.

 

Now, here is where I'll step back and let people reply that actually know what they're talking about...

[marc barbé]

I'm not sure I understand the connection between delicate, scratch-prone stocks and light leaks. Unless it were somehow an issue of thickness as well as fragility with the new stocks. Were these two separate issues that came up in talking to Kodak?

 

I have heard the bit about the new, more sensitive emulsions and scratching, but nothing specific to the Eclairs. I was surprised to learn that Les Bosher doesn't modify the film path even when doing super-16 modifications to an NPR (don't know about the ACL). It says something about the original engineering of the film path and contact points, that he would trust it not to scratch the edge emulsion. Hopefully he is taking into account the latest and greatest stocks in this advice.

 

I know that others, including Bernie O, do modify the NPR rollers and such, but perhaps this is a "better safe than sorry" approach. Which is understandable, considering the production costs that can be riding on a scratch free super 16 negative.

 

I say all that assuming that the ACL film path is comparable (if not improved), to the NPR's earlier design. But that is a big assumption on my part.

 

My guess is that a clean, well maintained/serviced/lubed ACL does just fine with vision 3 500T.

 

Now, here is where I'll step back and let people reply that actually know what they're talking about...

 

Hi,

Thank you getting the debate started. I apologize for not presenting the issue clearly. My worries came from feedback about a first generation Aaton (Eclair's heir). What Kodak claimed is that the film path put strain on the perf side of the recent more fragile stock (damaging the emulsion around the perfs, maybe on the sharp turn taken by the film around the feed side roller). The result when projected gave the impression of a light leak in the projector. Any ACL expert's answer would be most welcome, of course.

Regards to all,

Marc.

[K Borowski]

Hi,

What Kodak claimed is that the film path put strain on the perf side of the recent more fragile stock (damaging the emulsion around the perfs, maybe on the sharp turn taken by the film around the feed side roller). The result when projected gave the impression of a light leak in the projector. Any ACL expert's answer would be most welcome, of course.

Regards to all,

Marc.

 

Marc, I hope you will not take offense at this, but I take it your native language isn't English?

 

It's very difficult to translate the very idiomatic terms for film defects from one language to another, as words that would be translated one way in the everyday vernacular are translated here.

 

Are you, perhaps referring to this stock as being more susceptible to *pressure fog*? This is what we refer to, in English, when rollers or loops in either a camera or processing machine press against the film emulsion hard enough to create static electricity, and enough of it to create light or sparks that fog the film.

 

I'm actually surprised though to hear Kodak say something like that. Usually, what you hear is that their more modern stocks have better and better physical handling characteristics and better anti-halation backing. . .

 

Honestly, though, with acetate film, it is always going to be susceptible to the same amount of damage, at least on the base side.

 

The film itself often has the same physical characteristics. What tends to change are the additives that Kodak puts into the ECN-2 process, like hardeners/prehardeners. They'll often be found in the fixer.

 

Only other thing they could really change to prevent scratches would be the rem-jet backing. I guess there is some tweaking possible with the formulation of the emulsion too, but, ultimately, it is still made out of a tough coating of gelatin (jello) that is mixed with silver halide layers and sensitizing dyes. IDK how you could make thin layers of gello more scratch-resistant. . .

[marc barbé]

Marc, I hope you will not take offense at this, but I take it your native language isn't English?

 

It's very difficult to translate the very idiomatic terms for film defects from one language to another, as words that would be translated one way in the everyday vernacular are translated here.

 

Are you, perhaps referring to this stock as being more susceptible to *pressure fog*? This is what we refer to, in English, when rollers or loops in either a camera or processing machine press against the film emulsion hard enough to create static electricity, and enough of it to create light or sparks that fog the film.

 

I'm actually surprised though to hear Kodak say something like that. Usually, what you hear is that their more modern stocks have better and better physical handling characteristics and better anti-halation backing. . .

 

Honestly, though, with acetate film, it is always going to be susceptible to the same amount of damage, at least on the base side.

 

The film itself often has the same physical characteristics. What tends to change are the additives that Kodak puts into the ECN-2 process, like hardeners/prehardeners. They'll often be found in the fixer.

 

Only other thing they could really change to prevent scratches would be the rem-jet backing. I guess there is some tweaking possible with the formulation of the emulsion too, but, ultimately, it is still made out of a tough coating of gelatin (jello) that is mixed with silver halide layers and sensitizing dyes. IDK how you could make thin layers of gello more scratch-resistant. . .

 

Hi Karl,

Thank you for your answer. No offense. I have no knowledge of the proper english technical terms, and I am eager to learn.

What you describe as "pressure fog" sounds close to Kodak's explanation.. In their opinion, the problem was the film path (they did not say what in the film path though). It only happened intermittently with 500 ASA stock. Looking at the Eclair mags, the only spot I see where the loop is tight is on the feed side. Do you reckon going around a small diameter roller at a tight angle could cause "pressure fog" on such stock?

Regards,

Marc.

[Bernie O'Doherty]

Hi Mark, You will see "pressure fog" on the unprocessed film. Roll some through the camera and examine it with a loupe. Looks like a flat pressure line on either or both sides of the "green" rawstock. Maybe a millimeter wide.

I don't think the film path is the problem. Probably those damn rollers need cutting/polishing.

On another issue, sometimes people think you need to process film in order to discover a scratching problem. By simply running fresh rawstock through the camera, you will see any scratching ....sometimes even without a loupe.

[Jason Hinkle RIP]

...the film path put strain on the perf side of the recent more fragile stock (damaging the emulsion around the perfs, maybe on the sharp turn taken by the film around the feed side roller). The result when projected gave the impression of a light leak in the projector...

 

i've shot about 3000 feet of vision 3 500T on my ACL - three different occasions with no problems. I used a 400' french mag, a 200' french mag and one of the funky 200' french mags w/ the different gearing. no problems on any of them. I ran a couple hundred feet through an english 400' mag & the take-up spool would never wind right with too much slack, however I can never get the english mags to work with any stock!

 

i've only got a about a year experience with film so take my advice for what it's worth, but I had no problems. hope that is helpful.

Edited March 28, 2009 by Jason Hinkle

[marc barbé]

Hi Mark, You will see "pressure fog" on the unprocessed film. Roll some through the camera and examine it with a loupe. Looks like a flat pressure line on either or both sides of the "green" rawstock. Maybe a millimeter wide.

I don't think the film path is the problem. Probably those damn rollers need cutting/polishing.

On another issue, sometimes people think you need to process film in order to discover a scratching problem. By simply running fresh rawstock through the camera, you will see any scratching ....sometimes even without a loupe.

 

Thank you much, Bernie. Of course I am aware each mag should be thoroughly tested. It's a relief to know new stock should be compatible with the ACL mags, though.

Best regards,

Marc.