Giles Porter Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Hi I am gradually getting a Cameflex ( 35 not 16/35 ) package together and I wondered if anyone could let me know what I need to do to the camera to shoot 'scope'. Are there any films that I could watch that have used the Eclair to do this? Any help or advice would be very much appreciated. Many thanks Giles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted February 17, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted February 17, 2009 You just need the lens centered for Academy/1.85 (sound) which most 35mm Cameflexes would mostly likely be (as opposed to Silent/Super/Full), you want to make sure that the gate is not Academy because anamorphic uses 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture height (not sure what is common for Cameflexes) and you need an anamorphic 2.40 groundglass for framing. And ideally you'd want a desqueezing viewfinder though that is not mandatory if you can get used to shooting while looking at a squeezed image. I suspect there isn't one available for a Cameflex. I don't see the point of needing to look at footage shot on a Cameflex with anamorphic lenses -- the camera itself does not impart any look on the footage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giles Porter Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 You just need the lens centered for Academy/1.85 (sound) which most 35mm Cameflexes would mostly likely be (as opposed to Silent/Super/Full), you want to make sure that the gate is not Academy because anamorphic uses 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture height (not sure what is common for Cameflexes) and you need an anamorphic 2.40 groundglass for framing. And ideally you'd want a desqueezing viewfinder though that is not mandatory if you can get used to shooting while looking at a squeezed image. I suspect there isn't one available for a Cameflex. I don't see the point of needing to look at footage shot on a Cameflex with anamorphic lenses -- the camera itself does not impart any look on the footage. Thanks David I am pretty sure that the lens is centred but I will check that the gate is full height and get it modified if not. I realise that there is no particularly useful point in watching something shot with a Cameflex but I waited my whole life to get it so I feel rather attached to it in a sentmental way and it will be a little while before I get to shoot anything with it myself. I will post back with news and hopefully useful info as soon as I have progressed further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Turestedt Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Or you could make a 2 perf conversion, to shoot "scope" in camera, spending half the money on stock and process. Waiting for my 35mm Eclair Cameflex CM3 2perf to be delivered... So I'm soon Cameflex guy too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Satsuki Murashige Posted May 31, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted May 31, 2009 Are there any films that I could watch that have used the Eclair to do this? Wasn't "Jules et Jim" shot on a Camflex? That was anamorphic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Wasn't "Jules et Jim" shot on a Camflex? That was anamorphic. Yes in deed. At home I have aphotocopy of a production still from it showing Cotard using a Cameflex with an Angie 35-140mm and a Franscope attachment. 'Contempt' also used a Cameflex with a Franscope attachment. The Criterion disc has a short with Cotard discussing the Franscope attachment. Behind the scenes footage is included. When the BNC was being used as a prop camera, Cotard was under a blanket with the cameflex. Maurice Fellous infatuated with the franscope lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Georgiou Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) Thanks David I am pretty sure that the lens is centred but I will check that the gate is full height and get it modified if not. I realise that there is no particularly useful point in watching something shot with a Cameflex but I waited my whole life to get it so I feel rather attached to it in a sentmental way and it will be a little while before I get to shoot anything with it myself. I will post back with news and hopefully useful info as soon as I have progressed further. Hi, Try filming on 2-perf camera and let the lab transfer on 4 perf- to Panavision format. No need for anamorphic lenses. Good luck. ALEX GEORGIOU www.supervision2perf.com Edited August 1, 2009 by Alex Georgiou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevie wara Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Thanks David I am pretty sure that the lens is centred but I will check that the gate is full height and get it modified if not. I realise that there is no particularly useful point in watching something shot with a Cameflex but I waited my whole life to get it so I feel rather attached to it in a sentmental way and it will be a little while before I get to shoot anything with it myself. I will post back with news and hopefully useful info as soon as I have progressed further. Hi Giles, I hope you will receive this post before attempting to have your cameflex modified. Simply opening up the vertical height on an academy aperture cameflex (i.e. a cameflex standard) will not necessarily allow you to film in scope. The mirror assembly for a scope-aperture cameflex is more compact than that for academy aperture. The difference lies in the radius of the mirror counterweight. This is the weight that keeps your spinning reflex mirror in balance so that your camera doesn't shake itself to destruction. The counterweight on a scope-capable cameflex is thicker, yet formed on a tighter radius than that of the standard cameflex. This means that if you were to re-machine the gate, yet retain the standard mirror assembly, the counterweight would partially cover the scope aperture with an encroachment of about 0.050 inches, which is significant. * * * The cameflex certainly could impart a certain look to a film (anamorphic or otherwise) in the sense that it is so compact and can be so easily held by hand. I would think that searching out and viewing films that have been shot with this camera would be of great use to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dino wiand Posted December 27, 2009 Share Posted December 27, 2009 (edited) Young Girls of Rochefort is a good example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I_km8IkVsE I think they used a Kinoptik lens (like Jack Cardiff had for William Tell) . They got a great look from Rocheford. But camera not good for sync sound unless you don't mind re-recording the sound. Musicals however no problem. Eclair Camaflex is a great camera however. Hi I am gradually getting a Cameflex ( 35 not 16/35 ) package together and I wondered if anyone could let me know what I need to do to the camera to shoot 'scope'. Are there any films that I could watch that have used the Eclair to do this? Any help or advice would be very much appreciated. Many thanks Giles Edited December 27, 2009 by dino wiand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Simply opening up the vertical height on an academy aperture cameflex (i.e. a cameflex standard) will not necessarily allow you to film in scope. What about widening an academy aperture from 22mm to around 25mm for Super35? The 16mm height would be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 Young Girls of Rochefort is a good example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I_km8IkVsE I think they used a Kinoptik lens (like Jack Cardiff had for William Tell) . A Kinoptik lens is not anamorphic. & 'Wm.Tell' was shot with BNCs from New York. They would have been equiped with Balters or Cookes. You are referrring to Cinepanoramic anamorphic attachments. ---El Pedante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevie wara Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 (edited) What about widening an academy aperture from 22mm to around 25mm for Super35? The 16mm height would be the same. Hi Leo, I asked myself this very same question during the conversion of my cameflex to 3perf. In the end, I decided against widening to a "super35" width. Here's why... 1. The ingoing and outgoing recessing of the aperture plate is only to academy width. So the film base of the widened aperture would be in constant contact with the aperture plate through its entire travel vs being in full contact only at the point of exposure. It seemed that the film base would be at higher risk for scratching in the extended area, and the idea of extending the recessing didn't appeal to me either. 2. I have old glass, kinoptik primes, and the image circle for some of my lenses would cause vignettes in "super35". 3. By widening the aperture, you are also increasing the time needed for the mirror to sweep the frame, thus you would have to close down your shutter to compensate. 200 degrees would be out, and I'm not even sure that a 180 degree opening would be restricted enough to avoid any pulldown blurring. 4. Recentering the lens mount would be an expensive pain. 5. Recentering the viewfinder would be an expensive pain. 6. The mirror itself couldn't be recentered, so its sweep wouldn't be even. This may or may not be a significant issue, and I never did the math on this one since points 1 through 5 had already convinced me to abandon any intentions of "super35". Converting a cameflex to anamorphic or "super35", in this era, doesn't make sense to me. If you're shooting 35mm then, for me, that implies a feature film. If you're shooting a feature with a cameflex, then you probably don't have a budget that can justify the added expense of going anamorphic. However, converting a cameflex to 3perf or 2perf seems a reasonable expense, as you can save a lot on film and developing costs, and quality 2K DIs are now becoming very affordable. Edited January 6, 2010 by stevie wara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rioux Pierre Samuel Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 Hi Leo, I asked myself this very same question during the conversion of my cameflex to 3perf. In the end, I decided against widening to a "super35" width. Here's why... 1. The ingoing and outgoing recessing of the aperture plate is only to academy width. So the film base of the widened aperture would be in constant contact with the aperture plate through its entire travel vs being in full contact only at the point of exposure. It seemed that the film base would be at higher risk for scratching in the extended area, and the idea of extending the recessing didn't appeal to me either. 2. I have old glass, kinoptik primes, and the image circle for some of my lenses would cause vignettes in "super35". 3. By widening the aperture, you are also increasing the time needed for the mirror to sweep the frame, thus you would have to close down your shutter to compensate. 200 degrees would be out, and I'm not even sure that a 180 degree opening would be restricted enough to avoid any pulldown blurring. 4. Recentering the lens mount would be an expensive pain. 5. Recentering the viewfinder would be an expensive pain. 6. The mirror itself couldn't be recentered, so its sweep wouldn't be even. This may or may not be a significant issue, and I never did the math on this one since points 1 through 5 had already convinced me to abandon any intentions of "super35". Converting a cameflex to anamorphic or "super35", in this era, doesn't make sense to me. If you're shooting 35mm then, for me, that implies a feature film. If you're shooting a feature with a cameflex, then you probably don't have a budget that can justify the added expense of going anamorphic. However, converting a cameflex to 3perf or 2perf seems a reasonable expense, as you can save a lot on film and developing costs, and quality 2K DIs are now becoming very affordable. I personaly looking for a long time on Eclair but they are over 60y old now ? at this time many used a full gate all the time on them... And the touret got 3 lens seat and many have one of them centered for Scoop lens. If you look for more on Eclair look at e bay France... The camera is much more heavy compared to a Konvas M2 but very nice mechanic. Your prism is clean ? many with age became less transparent... this is a thing the Russian made better. Bernie in Usa fix them and he cut them with a lazer. You have some shoulder 400 mag available for them rarely for sell for the Eclair Cm3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted January 25, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted January 25, 2010 If you find a Cameflex that hasn't been modified, you might think twice about doing much to it. Not many were made compared with Arri's and Eyemo's. Have a look at "Antiques Roadshow" -- There are always cases where they tell somebody that if a certain item hadn't been sanded and varnished, it would have been worth tens of thousands more. Would you serve crew meals on antique china? -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dermot McDermot Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 Late I know but… I had about 4 Cameflexes and most were silent gate, not academy aperture. All were converted to either Nikon or Leica lens mounts except one which had the turret pivot axle and turret machined down and locked to allow mounting a 5.9(?) Nikkor fisheye lens. The 16-35 version had a tool which allowed conversion from 4 perf to 3 perf pulldown. Regrettably, of the millions of feet I put through these cameras, none was either 16mm or 3 perf. 3 perf in theory at least, is the sweet spot since you can use good quality lenses (most anamorphic are not particularly good lenses) and you save on the film stock. The problem is/was finding a telecine which has the setup to take these non-standard gate and perf formats. Though the mechanism requires almost no servicing and will run for centuries with a light oil. the rotating mirrors are acrylic with a vacuum deposited silver coating. The silver wears off and the plastic shutter body can warp. They can be recoated or skimmed and recoated but I doubt you'd find too many people who know how to do that. The long film path at the gate, the lateral guides and the two pressure plates made for very steady footage. I don't think I lost a foot of film in 25 years or more which is better than I could say for Arris. The claw mechanism, just two sprung cams, is ridiculously simple and reliable. Who needs register pins? CM3s did shoot sound. If you can find a copy of Haskell Wexler's Medium Cool, you can see a couple of blimped Cames - I think at the end where a camera pans around to reveal another camera, also panning, until the two are pointing directly at each other. Blimped silent CM3s. D 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Sekanina Posted February 27 Premium Member Share Posted February 27 maybe late, but very informative. thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marek Budzynski Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 If you need to get your Cameflex mirrors recoated this company does a good job: http://www.vacuumcoatings.ltd.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now