Arriflex BL vs CP 16R etc.

Stuart C · March 3, 2005

Hi All,

I'm planning on shooting a 6min short later this year and it will be the first time I've worked with film (with the exception of quite a bit of Super 8 over the years). I'm hoping to get some advice from you all in coming weeks. I am coproducing / directing the film and will have a separate DOP. I will eventually discuss all of the below with him/her but just seeking a few answers in the interim.

I have access to either an Arriflex 16BL or a CP 16R. I am unfamiliar with the BL but have viewed quite a bit of vision that was shot on a CP, care of the news footage library where I work.

I've looked at other posts on this site, discussing the diffculty of loading these two cameras. And the weight of the BL seems to be an issue.

So my question is- if you had the choice between these two cameras for a shoot which would you pick?????

A bit about the film. I expect we'll shoot 100% on tungsten stock. For one shot i want to film an actor riding a pushbike, and plan on doing an MCU tracking shot looking back as he rides along (I'm hoping to modify another pushbike to allow a camera operator to sit in a seat on the back of the bike and film facing backwards- if this makes sense). There will also be some handheld work ( i suspect the BL may be a problem for this).

Also, any tips regarding unused film stock. Let's say we've finished shooting for the day and there's still 100ft of film left in the mag. Is it ok to leave until the following day and resume shooting? The following week? What if the production is finished? Do I need to use up the roll or is there a method of separating the exposed from the unexposed? Is it better to buy 100ft rolls instead ? Am i right to assume you can put a 100ft roll in a 400ft mag?

One last question- how long does a battery usually last for one of these cameras ? (I appreciate there is variation due to age, wear etc. but roughly how many batteries would be required to shoot one 400ft roll?)

Also keen to hear from any DOPs in Sydney, Australia who may be interested in being a part of this film.

Thanks,

Stuart

Stuart C · March 3, 2005

Sorry, just one more question.

As a means of reducing a film budget- what are your thoughts on using a non sync camera (eg. a Bolex) to shoot scenes not requiring sync sound and a different sync sound camera (eg. an Arri SR II) to shoot scenes that do require sync sound? Is this done very often? Will the footage look incredibly different or can it be adjusted in post to match? In short, is it a bad idea?

Thanks,

Stuart

David Mullen ASC · March 3, 2005

That is OK as long as you are shooting the same format (i.e. Super-16 or 16mm in both, as opposed to regular 16mm in the Bolex and Super-16 in the SR2) and the optics are of similar quality. I'd be more tempted to use an Arri-S instead of a Bolex if it allowed me to use the same lenses on that camera and the SR2.

Rik Andino · March 3, 2005

Hi All,

I have access to either an Arriflex 16BL or a CP 16R. I am unfamiliar with the BL but have viewed quite a bit of vision that was shot on a CP, care of the news footage library where I work.

I've looked at other posts on this site, discussing the diffculty of loading these two cameras. And the weight of the BL seems to be an issue.

So my question is- if you had the choice between these two cameras for a shoot which would you pick?????

Thanks,

Stuart

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd go with the Arri 16BL--it's easier to load & use than the CP16R

And it's usually quieter and easier to fix--and the images are rocksteady.

Both these cameras are pretty heavy--but they were built for handheld work

You'll need a DP with good developed deltoids, who doesn't tired easy

But that's not so hard to find.

To answer your other questions

You can keep the unused portion of film in the mag until you use it--

but don't keep it in there for more than a few days

When you're done with the prod. you can just snip the exposed film

Send it to the lab and recan the unexposed...

This is all something you're AC will handle so don't worry about it.

A good battery should do around 6-8 400ft. loads before it needs recharging

A battery that needs recelling will do around 2-3 400ft loads

If your bat. can't pull more than 1 400ft. load you'll need to get a better battery.

If you're gonna use an MOS camera for 2nd unit work--use and Arri-S

It's very similar to the Arri 16BL

Talk to your DP...she or he can better explain many of these questions

Most of the questions you ask will be their reponsibility to find answers not yours

Dir. should worry about the actors and story, not the minor technical aspects...

Anyways Good Luck

Marty Hamrick · March 3, 2005

I would choose the Arri BL.If you're doing a lot of handheld work,make sure you get the offset viewfinder (I think there was one made by CP that will work for the BL that's a good bit brighter than the one originally made by Arri and it is 100% orientable,it was either made by CP or Angenieux,can't remember which).This will enable you to shoot off the shoulder ENG style.

I would agree with the others that the Arri S is a better choice for an MOS camera,although I have used it for sync,but if you have access to a BL I wouldn't bother.

Marty

Mark A. Rapp · March 3, 2005

Stu,

Hi! I own an Arri 16BL and I'd recommend it for your shoot. I have experience with the CP 16 as well (a disasterous shoot in New Castle, PA for a production I was involved in called 'RABID CITY' - one of those lessons in how not to shoot a film... :angry: ), and found the CP to be a noisy, tempermental brat. I used my Arri to shoot my feature, and it's a solid camera. Do you have an Angenieux lens or the Zeiss? I have the Zeiss zoom and it worked great for us. Nice clear image the whole way. In fact, I'm planning to shoot a new short with it this summer. :)

And I would agree with Marty: if you have the BL (or another camera), why bother getting a second camera to shoot MOS? Not slugging at you here, just curious. ;)

Good luck and keep us updated!

BTW, don't you love these smileys? :D

Edited March 3, 2005 by Mark Rapp

Stuart C · March 4, 2005

Hi,

Thanks for all the swift responses. I was leaning towards the BL anyway.

The company will let you choose either Zeiss or Angenieux zooms.

Details:

ARRIFLEX 16BL CAMERA KIT: Aust. - $180

>With 24 or 25 f.p.s. XTAL Motor, Variable Speed 5-50 f.p.s., 2 x 400'

>Magazines, 2 X 12v 4ah Batteries & Charger, Zeiss 10-100mm T3.0 or

>Angenieux

>10-150mm T2.3 Zoom Lens, Changing Bag.

To answer your question re the MOS camera. I don't own any of these cameras and will be hiring them. As sync cameras are more $$ to rent/day i was looking for ways to cut down the budget. I doubt I will do it this way. I think it's best just to stick with the same camera throughout the shoot. It was also just a general question as I was curious as to whether this was a common procedure.

Couple more questions:

1. Can you suggest a film shot on a BL so i can get an idea ?

2. Would it be possible to sit in the rear seat of a car, with the BL on shoulder and film an actor riding a bike alongside - or is some sort of mount / steadicam essential?

Thanks again for all your help...i know a lot of this is more a concern for the camera crew, but i guess i'm putting a rough budget together and just trying to work out what we need...and also so i have a better grasp of the whole production process.

Cheers

Rik Andino · March 4, 2005

To answer your question re the MOS camera. I don't own any of these cameras and will be hiring them. As sync cameras are more $$ to rent/day i was looking for ways to cut down the budget. I doubt I will do it this way. I think it's best just to stick with the same camera throughout the shoot. It was also just a general question as I was curious as to whether this was a common procedure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is a common procedure are most shoots to have an MOS camera as back-up

Just in case your primary camera craps-out or something lord knows

And it's also common procedure to use another camera for 2nd Unit stuff...

So usually most productions don't stick with the same camera throughout...

I dunno many feature films that were shot with a Arri 16BL

At least films that have had worldwide distribution

But I've shot a couple of shorts on the BL

And I can vouch that it yields good quality images

And this is especially true if you use the Zeiss lens (and get some good Filmstock)

Anyways to anwers your second question

Yeah I'm sure you can sit in the backseat of a car and shoot someone riding along

Though I recommend to put the cameraman in the front seat

There's more space in the front than in the back...

And it'd be better if you had a pickup truck

The camera could go in the back and be freer to move around

And it'd be easier to do it with an Arri S (using 100ft. loads) which is smaller.

Eitherways you should rehearse the movement and talk to your DP.

Anyways Good Luck

Josh Hill · March 4, 2005

Mark,

I'd curious to know what kind of condition the CP16 you shot on was. I have a CP and I think it's wonderful. I've run some film through it, but nothing major. It is silent, and I mean silent. I had it serviced at Visual Products, but even before that it was still extremely quiet.

Mark A. Rapp · March 4, 2005

Mark,

I'd curious to know what kind of condition the CP16 you shot on was. I have a CP and I think it's wonderful. I've run some film through it, but nothing major. It is silent, and I mean silent. I had it serviced at Visual Products, but even before that it was still extremely quiet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi, Josh. I was running sound on this particular shoot, so I don't know the general condition of the camera. I do know that it was loud enough that we had to come up with interesting methods of capturing usable sound, like using bounce boards to deflect camera noise, and wrapping our coats around the camera. It may have been in poor condition, I didn't know too much about cameras then. But it was l-o-u-d! In your experience it's a pretty quiet camera, huh? I guess his was trashed out.

BTW, I had the guys at Visual Products give my Arri BL a clean bill of health before we started the shoot - great guys!

Carl Durrenberger · March 4, 2005

I personally chose the CP16/R over the Arri 16BL. Here are my reasons:

1) Lens availability and compatibility.

The 16BL sequesters the lens in an unweildy blimp, of which only a few sizes were made back in the sixties for use with the standard 16mm zooms of the day (Angenieux 12-120, Zeiss 10-100T3, etc). If you try and fit a sharper, contrastier, more modern zoom into the blimp, it won't line up properly with the focus, iris, and zoom transmissions, basically putting you SOL if you wish to use a snappy Zeiss 10-100 T2, a Cooke 9-50, or one of the excellent Canon offerings.

The CP16/R has no such limitations. The DP has ready access to the lens and its various zoom, focus, and iris control rings. And you can use any lens you can find in Arri Bayonet mount provided you get the appropriate adapter.

2) Crystal Synch.

The CP16/R was designed essentially for cystal synch from the get-go and as such has a very good integrated motor drive and control system. On the 16BL, crystal synch was more of an aftermarket add-on that had varying degrees of success depending on the details of implementation. Driving a motor that was never meant to be crystal-synched with an outboard control box has its problems, notably in the realm of reliability, where the older motors can sometimes freeze up or flat-out die.

3) Noise.

This is what my camera tech has to say about the 16BL: "I don't know how they could call that a sound camera." The 16BL is a hack workaround the extremely noisy Arri movement from the fifties in which the whole drive assembly of the 16S was essentially encased in a big, heavy blimp. But because the damn thing had to remain hand-holdable, Arri could never take it far enough to reach adequate sound attentuation (such as in the BNCR).

The CP16/R motor drive assembly was designed from the beginning to be quiet enough for sound shooting, obviating the need for the 16BL's drastic and cumbersome blimp. And, at least in the examples I've seen, the CP16 is indeed quieter.

4) Super16 Upgradeability.

The 16BL is almost virtually impossible to upgrade to super-16. The CP16/R is actually rather straight-forward to upgrade.

5) Ergonomics.

CP16/R has a nice balance for shoulder-carrying. And because the compact battery slides right in to the onboard camera slot, there are no battery belts or satchels to tote around.

One major complaint, however, is the difficulty in loading the camera. It is truly more involved than probably any other 16mm camera I've used. But it's not THAT hard. Shouldn't take more than a couple minutes if your DP knows what he's doing.

6) Registration.

If a 16BL has had a recent tune-up, with its registration pin system timed perfectly in the rare and incredibly expensive Arri registration adjustment tool (I think there are fewer than 10 in the world), then YES, a 16BL will possibly deliver steadier images than your garden variety CP.

But, chances are, even IF that were the case, you still wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the CP and the Arri by the time your footage was either printed or transferred to video.

I'm an image-quality engineer by training and only an amateur filmmaker with two short films under his belt, but I've never had anyone mention registration as being an issue when I've screened my work (albiet to small audiences in San Diego).

Don't be fooled by the theoretical superiority of the registration pin mechanism. In practice, it causes more problems than it solves. There is a good reason why nobody except Panavision is really using it these days. When they work, they work great. When they don't, it is a PITA to fix them.

7) Video Tap Facilities.

The CP16/R can be easily outfitted with a video tap becuase it was designed with that in mind when Ed DiGiulio's merry pranksters engineered a video tap port into its top plate assembly. Just plug in the optical kit and throw any CCD camera of your choice on top and Voila -- you've got video. The best part is, your DP can still operate through the viewfinder, keeping an eye directly on the ground glass.

The 16BL can be "hacked" -- again -- to accomodate a video tap, in which the eyepiece is basically jiggered with a CCD camera, thereby preventing your DP from looking directly through the ground glass. Not an ideal situation.

--------------

In closing, I've owned 2 CP16/R's and have found them to be versatile, quiet, reliable cameras with outstanding image quality. I put good glass on the front end and use modern film stocks and nobody has ever said "Looks like you didn't shoot with an Aaton or an Arri."

I get pretty tired of folks dismissing the CP16 as a second-rate news camera unfit for indie filmmaking when in many scenarios, they do serve perfectly well and give good images for a very reasonable price.

Part of the curse of the CP16/R is that there are so many examples of the camera out there that were nearly beaten to death in the daily, rough-and-tumble world of news gathering. And then people expect to pick up such a camera and have it exhibit world-class imaging without any servicing. And when it doesn't, they blame the camera, not the way it was abused for decades before.

The biggest reason to NOT use a CP16/R is if you need fast, documentary-style shooting speed in your reloading. In that scenario, a coax-style film feed mechanism is greatly preferred (Eclair, Arri SR, Aaton). But with a 16BL you don't get that. You just get something that is marginally easier to load than a CP. And a lot more limiting in so many other ways.

I would give the CP16/R another look and try to get your hands on some nice glass to put on the front end -- a Cooke 9-50 T2.5, a Zeiss 10-100 T2, or one of the nice Canon lenses. Of course, the Zeiss SuperSpeeds are also great. With one of those more modern lenses on a CP16/R, you will at least match the image quality of an older Angenieux or Zeiss zoom on a 16BL.

Have Fun!

Chris Keth · March 4, 2005

I personally chose the CP16/R over the Arri 16BL. Here are my reasons:

1) Lens availability and compatibility.

The 16BL sequesters the lens in an unweildy blimp, of which only a few sizes were made back in the sixties for use with the standard 16mm zooms of the day (Angenieux 12-120, Zeiss 10-100T3, etc). If you try and fit a sharper, contrastier, more modern zoom into the blimp, it won't line up properly with the focus, iris, and zoom transmissions, basically putting you SOL if you wish to use a snappy Zeiss 10-100 T2, a Cooke 9-50, or one of the excellent Canon offerings.

The CP16/R has no such limitations. The DP has ready access to the lens and its various zoom, focus, and iris control rings. And you can use any lens you can find in Arri Bayonet mount provided you get the appropriate adapter.

2) Crystal Synch.

The CP16/R was designed essentially for cystal synch from the get-go and as such has a very good integrated motor drive and control system. On the 16BL, crystal synch was more of an aftermarket add-on that had varying degrees of success depending on the details of implementation. Driving a motor that was never meant to be crystal-synched with an outboard control box has its problems, notably in the realm of reliability, where the older motors can sometimes freeze up or flat-out die.

3) Noise.

This is what my camera tech has to say about the 16BL: "I don't know how they could call that a sound camera." The 16BL is a hack workaround the extremely noisy Arri movement from the fifties in which the whole drive assembly of the 16S was essentially encased in a big, heavy blimp. But because the damn thing had to remain hand-holdable, Arri could never take it far enough to reach adequate sound attentuation (such as in the BNCR).

The CP16/R motor drive assembly was designed from the beginning to be quiet enough for sound shooting, obviating the need for the 16BL's drastic and cumbersome blimp. And, at least in the examples I've seen, the CP16 is indeed quieter.

4) Super16 Upgradeability.

The 16BL is almost virtually impossible to upgrade to super-16. The CP16/R is actually rather straight-forward to upgrade.

5) Ergonomics.

CP16/R has a nice balance for shoulder-carrying. And because the compact battery slides right in to the onboard camera slot, there are no battery belts or satchels to tote around.

One major complaint, however, is the difficulty in loading the camera. It is truly more involved than probably any other 16mm camera I've used. But it's not THAT hard. Shouldn't take more than a couple minutes if your DP knows what he's doing.

6) Registration.

If a 16BL has had a recent tune-up, with its registration pin system timed perfectly in the rare and incredibly expensive Arri registration adjustment tool (I think there are fewer than 10 in the world), then YES, a 16BL will possibly deliver steadier images than your garden variety CP.

But, chances are, even IF that were the case, you still wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the CP and the Arri by the time your footage was either printed or transferred to video.

I'm an image-quality engineer by training and only an amateur filmmaker with two short films under his belt, but I've never had anyone mention registration as being an issue when I've screened my work (albiet to small audiences in San Diego).

Don't be fooled by the theoretical superiority of the registration pin mechanism. In practice, it causes more problems than it solves. There is a good reason why nobody except Panavision is really using it these days. When they work, they work great. When they don't, it is a PITA to fix them.

7) Video Tap Facilities.

The CP16/R can be easily outfitted with a video tap becuase it was designed with that in mind when Ed DiGiulio's merry pranksters engineered a video tap port into its top plate assembly. Just plug in the optical kit and throw any CCD camera of your choice on top and Voila -- you've got video. The best part is, your DP can still operate through the viewfinder, keeping an eye directly on the ground glass.

The 16BL can be "hacked" -- again -- to accomodate a video tap, in which the eyepiece is basically jiggered with a CCD camera, thereby preventing your DP from looking directly through the ground glass. Not an ideal situation.

--------------

In closing, I've owned 2 CP16/R's and have found them to be versatile, quiet, reliable cameras with outstanding image quality. I put good glass on the front end and use modern film stocks and nobody has ever said "Looks like you didn't shoot with an Aaton or an Arri."

I get pretty tired of folks dismissing the CP16 as a second-rate news camera unfit for indie filmmaking when in many scenarios, they do serve perfectly well and give good images for a very reasonable price.

Part of the curse of the CP16/R is that there are so many examples of the camera out there that were nearly beaten to death in the daily, rough-and-tumble world of news gathering. And then people expect to pick up such a camera and have it exhibit world-class imaging without any servicing. And when it doesn't, they blame the camera, not the way it was abused for decades before.

The biggest reason to NOT use a CP16/R is if you need fast, documentary-style shooting speed in your reloading. In that scenario, a coax-style film feed mechanism is greatly preferred (Eclair, Arri SR, Aaton). But with a 16BL you don't get that. You just get something that is marginally easier to load than a CP. And a lot more limiting in so many other ways.

I would give the CP16/R another look and try to get your hands on some nice glass to put on the front end -- a Cooke 9-50 T2.5, a Zeiss 10-100 T2, or one of the nice Canon lenses. Of course, the Zeiss SuperSpeeds are also great. With one of those more modern lenses on a CP16/R, you will at least match the image quality of an older Angenieux or Zeiss zoom on a 16BL.

Have Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Reading all that, I'm very tempted to keep an eye out and get a good CP16 before I graduate in a couple years. The ones we used in class (old beaten around things, but functioning) were loud and had somewhat poor glass. The way you talk, I could really be a good sell with a good camera package without dropping 20 grand.

Matt Pacini · March 4, 2005

I've never shot with the Arri, but I own a CP-16R/A, and I can tell you, it's just about dead quiet.

If you have a noisy CP, then something was wrong with it.

I love the camera. I have a set of Ultra Primes (& an Optar Illumina 16mm) and I love it.

Just don't get the original CP16 with the dog-ear viewfinder off the lens thingie.

Those are not a good thing.

Get an R or R/A model.

Matt Pacini

Patrick Neary · March 4, 2005

I owned a very nice 16bl, and really liked it, but the few CP-16s I've used were much quieter.

And I loved the 1.85 markings on the groundglass! (of the CP)

Hans Engstrom · March 5, 2005

4) Super16 Upgradeability.

The 16BL is almost virtually impossible to upgrade to super-16. The CP16/R is actually rather straight-forward to upgrade.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

According to Bruce at Arandafilm it isn´t that hard at all. Here is a quote from a mail i got from him.

"We convert Arri BL cameras regularly. It is my favourite "old"

camera and although no one else attempts to convert them, we have

very many happy clients who now have an up-to-date format but with

the comfort and familiarity of their 'old' equipment..."

http://www.design.arandafilm.com.au/NewFiles/Arri16BL.html

The biggest drawback with the BL is the lensblimp. If you want to shoot sync sound you have to use the blimp and that means fitting the lenses inside the lensblimp. If you get the blimp for primes that have the zeiss hs extension and own the lenses yourself it´s possible to live with this drawback.

Josh Hill · March 5, 2005

Bruce at Arandafilm is always talking about converting BLs to Super16.

But I just wonder how good the conversion is, since he's the only place in the world I've yet see offer it (someone prove me wrong here, if you'd like). Not saying that it may not be a world class endeavor, but just that it's odd.

And it's in Australia. Shipping would be a bitch, and if you need it serviced ....

Mark A. Rapp · March 6, 2005

Not setting out to "prove you wrong" Josh, but since I own a BL I've looked into it. There's a guy here in Pittsburgh that will do a super 16 conversion, and also here's another offer for the procedure at this website:

http://www.cameraspro.com/

But, like you, I wonder just how effective these conversions are. I've heard there are lens compatability issues after the 'operation,' and warping of the image around the edges (am I understanding this correctly?) after conversion. Who knows? Doesn't matter, since I haven't got $2000.00 to drop on this anyway. I'd like to talk to someone who's had it done, though, just to see what their opinion is.

Edited March 6, 2005 by Mark Rapp