New Eclair NPR Owner

November 24, 2004

I am a videographer who wants to use ultra or super 16mm film to digital video and edited in with 24P DV and HDV. I first bought a Nikon super 8, and next a K-3 and modified the gate to super 16mm. Then I started considering the Canon Scoopic MS and even an Eclair NPR as a poor man's high definition camera after reading about them.

Seeing an Eclair NPR kit with Angenieux 12-120mm lens, Kinoptik Orientable Viewfinder, Perfectone/Eclair motors, and 2-400' mags for sale on eBay, I made what I thought was a very low bid of $1500 and now find myself the owner. I would appreciate any advice on what to look for such as the French vs. British version, parts availability, and how to care for the camera. I did read about the Sony NP-1 batteries and look forward to not worrying about having to wind up the camera just as the action is getting good.

Is it possible to use Nikon 35mm lenses on it with an adapter?

I would also like to widen the gate to ultra 16mm or super 16mm. I may have to start with the ultra 16mm format because $1000 for modification to super 16mm still seems pricey to me, especially with the Sony Pro HDV camcorder about to come out.

Thank you in advance for your ideas and advice.

Hal

dangertree · November 24, 2004

Hello,

I'd consider myself lucky to get a pro 16mm camera at such a low price, then I

d send it off Les Bosher for his S16 and PL mount conversion. You then have a fully modern camera for your use, and as far as the money goes, you will lose nothing if you ever decide to sell it.

The Ultra16 bit costs less up front, but I doubt you'd get as much in resale as with a proper S16 job, plus you limit yourself for post work. The S16 conversion is money 'better' spent, in my opinion.

I'm guessing the Sony camera you mention will cost a lot more than the $2800odd you'd have into the NPR.

My two cents.

Good luck,

Walt

I am a videographer who wants to use ultra or super 16mm film to digital video and edited in with 24P DV and HDV. I first bought a Nikon super 8, and next a K-3 and modified the gate to super 16mm. Then I started considering the Canon Scoopic MS and even an Eclair NPR as a poor man's high definition camera after reading about them.

Seeing an Eclair NPR kit with Angenieux 12-120mm lens, Kinoptik Orientable Viewfinder, Perfectone/Eclair motors, and 2-400' mags for sale on eBay, I made what I thought was a very low bid of $1500 and now find myself the owner. I would appreciate any advice on what to look for such as the French vs. British version, parts availability, and how to care for the camera. I did read about the Sony NP-1 batteries and look forward to not worrying about having to wind up the camera just as the action is getting good.

Is it possible to use Nikon 35mm lenses on it with an adapter?

I would also like to widen the gate to ultra 16mm or super 16mm. I may have to start with the ultra 16mm format because $1000 for modification to super 16mm still seems pricey to me, especially with the Sony Pro HDV camcorder about to come out.

Thank you in advance for your ideas and advice.

Hal

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mister X · November 24, 2004

I've also recently purchased an Eclair NPR and have been thinking over the same questions.

As I see it, Ultra 16 is something like Betamax. It allows you to use both single and double perf films, maintains the same center of frame whether standard 16mm or Ultra 16, and allows you to use almost any 16mm lens without much worry of vignetting. The problem is that Super 16, (like VHS), has become the dominant system; so, you pay more, (and submit to the Super 16 conformity), or suffer the consequences of looking for post-production facilities that will accept a "non-standard" format.

Recently, Guy Bodart at Cameraspro asked me to reconsider my request to convert my Bolex RX-5, suggesting a Super 16 conversion rather than to Ultra 16. I've accepted his advice on this. And, remember that a Super 16 conversion of film magazines can be costly, too.

However, I still think that Ultra 16 does have some advantages. For example, I've also acquired a Bolex RX-1 with an underwater housing, (which uses gears to control a preset Switar 10mm lens, the HAMAR product code). Can this lens be used for Super 16? I'm not sure, but I'll also do a test with my converted Bolex RX-5. And, I want to explore this further by adding a Century 6mm adapter onto this Switar lens. Ultra 16, a 6mm lens adapter, and a CC30R filter behind the lens might offer an extraordinary "fish-eye" view.

Having two MOS cameras with lenses that can be interchanged with a sync-sound camera should also be a real advantage; but, I'm inclined to convert a NPR or an ACL to Super 16, rather than Ultra 16, (for more practical post-production reasons).

November 24, 2004

Walt,

Thank you for your advice, and I hope to go to S16 in the future. Currently, shooting on film is still a luxury for me, and video is primary. I also need to learn more about synching sound with the film camera. Are there any good books in addition to reading the NPR manual that are worth reading?

I think the people who can primarily shoot with film are used to larger budgets than I usually work with, so ultra 16 may be my best choice right now. There is a write up in the back of the 16mm Camera Book, that presents a good reasoning for U16 when the main objective is telecine to DV for editing.

I do consider myself lucky for finding a NPR I could afford, and for the advice from more experienced experts like you.

Hal

Hello,

I'd consider myself lucky to get a pro 16mm camera at such a low price, then I

d send it off Les Bosher for his S16 and PL mount conversion. You then have a fully modern camera for your use, and as far as the money goes, you will lose nothing if you ever decide to sell it.

The Ultra16 bit costs less up front, but I doubt you'd get as much in resale as with a proper S16 job, plus you limit yourself for post work. The S16 conversion is money 'better' spent, in my opinion.

I'm guessing the Sony camera you mention will cost a lot more than the $2800odd you'd have into the NPR.

My two cents.

Good luck,

Walt

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

November 24, 2004

Fortean,

I agree there are some tough choices to make, almost like predicting the future. If money were no object, I would probably rent an Aaton S16 or SDX900 when needed, but I guess value for the money is the object. This may be different based on how close you live to a major film production and processing center.

What I like about the U16 are many of the things you mentioned, ability to use lenses that I already have, after cropping S16 for 35mm it is not much larger than U16, can be used with double perf film, and much less initial cost. It does seem like a more experimental format, but I will have to ship my film for processing and telecine work in either format, and still have R16 to fall back on until deciding to move to S16.

Thanks,

Hal

I've also recently purchased an Eclair NPR and have been thinking over the same questions.

As I see it, Ultra 16 is something like Betamax. It allows you to use both single and double perf films, maintains the same center of frame whether standard 16mm or Ultra 16, and allows you to use almost any 16mm lens without much worry of vignetting. The problem is that Super 16, (like VHS), has become the dominant system; so, you pay more, (and submit to the Super 16 conformity), or suffer the consequences of looking for post-production facilities that will accept a "non-standard" format.

Recently, Guy Bodart at Cameraspro asked me to reconsider my request to convert my Bolex RX-5, suggesting a Super 16 conversion rather than to Ultra 16. I've accepted his advice on this. And, remember that a Super 16 conversion of film magazines can be costly, too.

However, I still think that Ultra 16 does have some advantages. For example, I've also acquired a Bolex RX-1 with an underwater housing, (which uses gears to control a preset Switar 10mm lens, the HAMAR product code). Can this lens be used for Super 16? I'm not sure, but I'll also do a test with my converted Bolex RX-5. And, I want to explore this further by adding a Century 6mm adapter onto this Switar lens. Ultra 16, a 6mm lens adapter, and a CC30R filter behind the lens might offer an extraordinary "fish-eye" view.

Having two MOS cameras with lenses that can be interchanged with a sync-sound camera should also be a real advantage; but, I'm inclined to convert a NPR or an ACL to Super 16, rather than Ultra 16, (for more practical post-production reasons).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

dangertree · November 25, 2004

Hi Guys,

I'm not going to get into a s16 vs u16 debate, I think this has been beaten to death in the archives.

With my ACLs I went S16, no regrets.

Good luck,

Walt

GeorgeSelinsky · November 28, 2004

I'm not advocating either way for Super or Ultra 16, but wouldn't it be interesting to combine BOTH formats in a way? Make the gate even wider so this way you'd end up with an even larger negative area? Would be cool I think.

- G.

Josh Hill · November 29, 2004

Not to beat a dead U16 horse as I have in previous posts, but I don't see what the big deal is about using double perf film. I was under the impression that you almost have to special request factory double perf from Kodak.

dangertree · November 29, 2004

Agreed. Why the ability to use dbl perf is listed as a benefit for anything is beyoned me (unless you have 100000ft of free dbl perf stock in your freezer).

Then again, I'm also lost as to why some 'newcomers' to film production (by that, I mean, newer than me!) seem to always bring up Ultra 16 as a viable and cost saving alternative. Here's the fact. The $500 you save over a proper S16 conversion means nothing when it comes to film stock, processing, and transfer costs. (+ everything else, I'm leaving food and actors out completely). You're transfer choices are then restricted to one (or a few) people, and your footage is in a non-standard format. And, if you then sell your camera, it'll be worth _at least_ $500 less than if you had done the S16 job.

Still not convinced? Call every camera rental shop and post house in your city. Ask them about S16 and how they can help you with it. Now, ask them about U16, compare the responses. Ask yourself if you think your experience allows you to know more about motion picture cameras and processing and transfer than they do. Now wonder how they all missed U16, and wonder why they spend their money on S16? Doesn't U16 have advantages like... being able to use Dbl Perf Film? (Yes, I know you can use your Angenieux 12-120 with it as well).

I understand that some cameras are not convertible to S16, (actually, really only talking about the Scoopic here, or maybe the Beaulieu R16), and if you want to try a wider gate in yours, giv'er, try the U16.

I'd also say that if you spend more than $500 modifying your Beaulieu R16, you need your head checked, but that would be offensive to some, so I won't :-)

To the original poster, good luck with your NPR, I miss mine sometimes, especially that adjustable shutter. Sigh....

Cheers,

Walt

Now way off topic, but a little Scoopic M/MS rant.

I have read people (usually those selling Scoopics on Ebay) say that Bruce at Aranda in Australia can convert the camera to S16, this had me excited, as I'd love to have a S16 Scoopic MS in my kit, but thought it near impossible due to the lens. So, I contacted him about it. He confirmed that though he had done the work to a couple of cameras, it was far from a pleasant job, priced accordingly, and no, the lens doesn't cover the frame. Though he will accept the cash and do the job, he obviously doesn't reccomend it, and suggested getting a bolex if a S16 in that form factor was required. Also joked that anything is possible, given the right amount of money. You could cut the whole face off a Scoopic and make a PL hardfront, if you really wanted one. I'm sure he could probably convert a BL4 to Super 8, if you had enough money to spend.

So to those advocating the Scoopic as being S16 capable, it is less than an honest statement, unless you add, 'at certain longer focal lengths'. Why anyone has actually gone ahead with such work completely beyond me, the price was reasonable for such a job, but was probably about 4X-5X what a nice Scoopic MS actually sells for (then did I mention that the lens doesn't cover?). The price was more than the purchase of an EBM and S16 conversion combined. Oy vey.

But I'm all for tinkering!

(walking away from the horse, and veering off course, and apologizing)

Not to beat a dead U16 horse as I have in previous posts, but I don't see what the big deal is about using double perf film. I was under the impression that you almost have to special request factory double perf from Kodak.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited November 29, 2004 by dangertree

GeorgeSelinsky · November 29, 2004

I think one of the major pains associated with S16 that U16 gets rid of is the optical recentering. That sorta saves a step, you can just file the gate down and so long as the lens covers it you're okay. Telecine shouldn't have a problem (they can go all the way out to the perforations if necessary), but optical printing might be a pain in the butt (although they can also pan out to the perfs, I believe).

Personally I'm much more excited about techniscope 2 perf than Super or Ultra 16, but that hasn't caught on it seems :(

- G.

Edited November 29, 2004 by GeorgeSelinsky

November 30, 2004

The discussion has gone slightly off track, because I am mainly interested in getting the most out of the NPR (regardless of format) starting without experience using one. I am glad to find out the Scoopic MS would not have been a better choice than the NPR. Those were my two choices moving up to a quieter, 400' mag camera from the K-3. Someone else had mentioned being happy with a K-3 and NPR.

I have to weigh the value of the super or ultra 16mm film camera against using HDV or even the DVC100a 24P video because I have seen some very good results even after transfer to 35mm and projected. From a producer's point of view, with software enhancements that are improving and getting cheaper, I have a hard time justifying spending too much on film cameras.

It is pretty clear that ultra 16 is just a straight forward way to get a larger frame without having to recenter the lens and viewfinder or replace lenses if you are shooting for telecine to 16:9 video. I agree that super 16mm is the standard and gives you more options, but then you are getting the total cost closer to a new XL2 or SONY HDV camera. I also have run across more good cheap double perf 16mm film than expected, but that is a minor advantage in most cases.

What I would really like to know are tips for shooting with and maintaining the NPR, such as getting used to the viewfinder or finding a better replacement, improved shoulder mount, needing to blimp and generally ways to avoid common problems. I am looking forward to comparing it with results from the smaller K-3 that I have just become comfortable usingh.

Thanks to everyone,

Hal

I think one of the major pains associated with S16 that U16 gets rid of is the optical recentering. That sorta saves a step, you can just file the gate down and so long as the lens covers it you're okay. Telecine shouldn't have a problem (they can go all the way out to the perforations if necessary), but optical printing might be a pain in the butt (although they can also pan out to the perfs, I believe).

Personally I'm much more excited about techniscope 2 perf than Super or Ultra 16, but that hasn't caught on it seems :(

- G.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Brian Kehrer · December 2, 2004

Go super and get some nikkors.

Prime AIS nikkors are very cheap on ebay. The 28 f/2.8 and the 50 f/1.8 can be had for probably 200 bucks for both. The problem is finding a wide enough lens. The 17-35 f/2.8 is awesome, though will set you back a bit. There is a rectilinear 15mm f/3.5, but its somewhat rare, a little pricey, and slow. The other advantage to owning nikkors, is if you rent a 35mm camera for a day, you have lenses...

December 3, 2004

Go super and get some nikkors.

Prime AIS nikkors are very cheap on ebay. The 28 f/2.8 and the 50 f/1.8 can be had for probably 200 bucks for both. The problem is finding a wide enough lens. The 17-35 f/2.8 is awesome, though will set you back a bit. There is a rectilinear 15mm f/3.5, but its somewhat rare, a little pricey, and slow. The other advantage to owning nikkors, is if you rent a 35mm camera for a day, you have lenses...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>