A little help

Mark Edwards · January 4, 2008

Im new to this forum and also film so please be patient. Ok so I've read many posts and think that the eclair acl or acl 2 is best for me. If I got the ACL 1 I would need to upgrade its motor for the 400 foot rolls I think. So basically here are my questions. I want it for S16mm, so I would need to upgrade it. How much does an eclair acl cost. Is there any place to find them besides ebay. What was the year they stopped making them. Does a camera like the acl affect the image at all? Could a less than 10k acl make just as pretty images as a 50,000 arri 416. Does getting the film processed and on to a format I could edit on my mac cost more than the stock.

Charles MacDonald · January 4, 2008

Could a less than 10k acl make just as pretty images as a 50,000 arri 416

YES

Does getting the film processed and on to a format I could edit on my mac cost more than the stock.

YES

Tim Carroll · January 4, 2008

Could a less than 10k acl make just as pretty images as a 50,000 arri 416.

That depends.

Can you get a PL mount put on the ACL, if not, you won't be able to use the same quality lenses as are available on the Arriflex 416? All things being equal on the camera bodies (FFD set properly, Ground Glass set properly, movement timing set properly, etc.) the glass is what makes the difference in image quality. The Arriflex 416 can use the latest glass from Zeiss and Cooke, which usually come in PL mount. If you can get your ACL to have a PL mount, and the camera is set up properly, then yes, you should be able to get the same picture quality from it.

-Tim

Jonathan Bowerbank · January 4, 2008

Ok so I've read many posts and think that the eclair acl or acl 2 is best for me.

You're judging your camera purchase solely on threads from an online forum? As wonderful as cinematography.com is, I'm a firm believer that you should at least test a camera out for yourself first to see how much you like it.

The ACL is a fine camera, but personally I wouldn't consider buying one.

Edited January 4, 2008 by Jonathan Bowerbank

James Baker · January 4, 2008

You're judging your camera purchase solely on threads from an online forum? As wonderful as cinematography.com is, I'm a firm believer that you should at least test a camera out for yourself first to see how much you like it.

The ACL is a fine camera, but personally I wouldn't consider buying one.

Jonathan, it might be helpful if you told him why you wouldn't buy one. That could help in his decision making.

Mark, you might want to give a call to these folks:

Les (in the UK) http://www.lesbosher.co.uk/Eclair%20ACL%20Page.html

George and Bob at Electro-Optical House (in Culver City, CA) http://www.OpticalElectroHouse.com/

Bernie at Super 16, Inc (in upstate New York) http://www.Super16Inc.com/

They are some of the best Eclair techs around. The can answer any questions our concerns about the ACL and about your needs If you are dead set on one, I personally would have one of them find you one and overhaul it (which comes with doing a conversion.) Unless you have the complete, documented history of the camera you are buying (i.e., off of eBay), you will need to have the camera serviced.

ACLs are a decent choice if you are looking for something small and used primarily handheld. I think that is their forte. The 400' mag makes them a little bit bigger, however. If properly set up and serviced they can give you many years of solid use which may be cheaper then renting something, depending on how much filming you are anticipating Having your own camera and being familiar with it --with its quirks and character, can make things comfortable.

Here is a basic resource with some tips: http://members.aol.com/Super16ACL/menu.htm

Jonathan Bowerbank · January 4, 2008

Jonathan, it might be helpful if you told him why you wouldn't buy one. That could help in his decision making.

It's mostly preferencial. I'd much rather invest in an Aaton XTR or an Arri SR. Just when it comes to actually buying a camera, the ACL isn't at the top of my list, which makes it not worth buying.

marc barbé · January 4, 2008

It's mostly preferencial. I'd much rather invest in an Aaton XTR or an Arri SR. Just when it comes to actually buying a camera, the ACL isn't at the top of my list, which makes it not worth buying.

HI,

If you buy an Aaton XTR, consider maintenance cost (best quote I got is a 1500$ yearly maintenance deal in Amstersam for an LTR), and the cost of renting glass you can't afford buying. An ACL will cost you about 300$ every three years or 40000 ft in routine maintenance (by any of the knowledgeable technicians aforementioned) and will take all glass (C-mount, Arri standard, Arri bayonet, , PL mount, Leica , Nikon, and what not). Considering that PL mount glass is the best you can get is a matter of opinion. Some of the older Arri standard Cooke glass or C-mount Switar are beautiful , if you do'nt know and care (I don't) what people usually mean by "sharp".

Regards,

Marc.

Jonathan Bowerbank · January 5, 2008

...if you do'nt know and care (I don't) what people usually mean by "sharp".

Bwahhhhhh!!??

craig forster · January 6, 2008

look into an Aaton LTR that has been converted to Super 16.. could be an option..

Bert Smith · February 25, 2008

Wow.

Pay no mind. An ACL that has been set up well (with proper lenses!!), is a great affordable S16 system. So while the guys who are caught up in buying super-expensive gear (who have almost nothing to show for it) are mocking in that laughable way that a rock groups underpaid roadie or sound tech will take any opportunity to talk-down-to or mock someone new...since they are on the bottom rung of the ladder, have massive egos but little talent (usually plenty of "skills" though...which is quite a poor substitute for...and very different then... talent),

...you can hopefully have a system that works, produces acceptable images, and have put your ego away, and are worrying instead about producing quality projects that stand on their own. (and have more then just rudimentary technical proficiency)