Super 16 Wanted

[Gregg MacPherson]

Tyler,
You are just blowing smoke. You sound like someone who is permanently over reaching, beyond what they actually know.

 

 

 

I just trust my own judgement having done a lot of mechanical engineering. You can't expect a weighted object to start and stop quickly like that and survive. The joint necessary for that action will fail no matter what you do and you can't get one over at your local home depot. It's a poor design, which is why NOBODY ELSE even bothered using it outside of a few super 8 cameras.

 

So you dislike the mirror design and can't understand how it works. As a start point, consider that the mirror assembly is very light. The link rod originally had adjustable ball cap joints, but later rods were a cheaper replaceable part where the ball cap just snaps on. As an antidote to your emphatic proclamation in caps, try the Beaulieu R16, maybe there are others.

 

 

 

Umm, sticking a rather large plate between the camera body and the viewfinder because the camera body doesn't have a beam splitter for a REAL video tap? Dude, I have no idea what planet your on, but that's unacceptable. It's 2016, not 1982... stop thinking this is the past and think about TODAY. Why would anyone in their right mind even contemplate buying a camera with a video tap that pushes the camera further away from the body and hot little metal box right next to your bloody face when shooting>!?!?! That is pretty much the poorest design ever imaginable and when I saw it, I almost thought it was a joke. Also, why would you need to do anything to a camera motor? If the camera was designed properly, the motor should do everything you need from the factory.

 

The video tap gives about a 15mm offset. Doesn't seem to run hot. I have one of two AZSpectrum versions. maybe the other one runs hot. Who told you it runs hot? Or is this just another guess, another over-reach? The Kinoptik and Angenieux fully orientable VFs give a lot of flexibility in how you position your head eye relative to the camera.

 

The ACL electronics are mostly in the motor body. Are you suggesting that camera electronics from this era never need servicing.

 

Find one for me... send a link. I want to see a complete kit; video tap, rails, on-board batteries, magazines, the whole thing. Ohh and not in NZ or AU... that doesn't help anyone. Find one in Europe or the North America.

 

No thanks. I was watching ACLs for a while a couple of years ago because I wanted parts. I bought two complete S16 ACL II kits...

 

First one (may 2013) from Patrick Tong in Hong Kong (cine marketplace forum here), with PL mount, Kinoptik finder, latest motor, handgrip, AZSpectrum vid assist, 15mm rod support, but no mags..USD 1100. The 400' French S16 mags I bought separately from him for about USD 120 each. Camera in good shape, quiet, an Aranda Group conversion I think, the nicest converted ACL mags I have seen, but had the minimum useful ground glass, not the etched S16 ground glass like Visual Products use. Total cost USD1340

 

Second one, from Mikey someone in the States, on eBay, PL mount, latest motor, custom handgrip similar to factory one, Angenieux fully orientable VF, AZSpectrum vid assist, integral 15mm rod support (custom casting for the electronic base). Conversion by VP, with the VP S16 etched ground glass, two S16 400' French mags. USD 863. Hard to assess this camera. The packaging was not good, the box was dropped in shipping, insurance covered obvious repair/replacement for the motor mount and connectors. Camera ran noisy. I sold parts but kept the body for the ground glass and parts.

 

So I think you can add the price of ACLs to the list of things that you just don't really know anything about.

 

 

As an engineer and having shot with the LTR/XTR's, what I see is Aaton solving one of their biggest problems; electronics draining the battery. They needed space to run two batteries instead of one, which can't be done in the original configuration because there isn't enough space. So they pushed the power system further back on the camera where they COULD run two batteries. Now they'd have enough amperage to run the more advanced electronics. They couldn't fit that big LCD display and video outputs anywhere else, they had no choice but to integrate it into the location they used. So yes, the balance is better. However, it was a necessity of the design, rather then JUST FOR BALANCE.

 

As far as I can see you do not a have a good feel for the engineering design of these various cameras. Being an engineer who really understands design is a bit like being an artist. One knows it for onself. A degree does not do it. Nor does self proclamation.

 

 

You do have to change the hard mount. It takes around 2 minutes to convert the hard mount. Not a big deal and never something you'd do on set anyway. I leave mine on aaton mount because most of my glass is Arri B and the adaptor I have works much better in Aaton mount.

 

 

I don't know the Aatons that well, but I respect the views of the camera technicians and the competent technical people. Here's what Mitch Gross had to say about it....
Quoting Mich Gross, post #5 on the thread below...

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=25257

"....In order to mount Arri PL (positive lock) mount lenses, the Aaton mount has to be removed and a complete PL mount attached to the front housing in its place. If the camera has never had a PL mount on it before, then it means dismantling the camera to drill new threaded holes in the front housing. PL mounts are generally not rental items, instead requiring a purchase in the neighbourhood of US$1200. In addition to the cost of modifying the camera, every time a mount (Aaton or PL) is attached to a camera it must be aligned and shimmed for proper centring and depth. This is a one or two hour minimum labour charge. Once a mount is on there is no way to switch mounts in the field as the centring and depth would not be accurate...."

 

And so the list grows....

 

Ohh I've been looking since we stated this conversation. I'd like to know where you can find new parts for these cameras. It's really the only way to keep these cameras alive for the future.

 

Arts and Media in France had a large inventory of new parts. They recently sold all, and I don't know yet who the one or two parties are that now own them. New motor mount and connectors I needed recently came from VP. I think they have quite a good parts stash. I heard that Alan Gordon had new parts, but you know, word at the water cooler....

 

You act as if film cameras are some crazy complex device that only specialists are aloud to touch!....

 

Well yes, I sort of do, and I like to distance myself from fools who say it is easy, but don't really know what they are doing.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Gregg MacPherson

[Freya Black]

Plus... since they were really used for news gathering, they're lacking a lot of the critical "cinematography" features for cinema. On of which of course is the video tap,

 

 

 

Gotta say I don't consider a video tap to be essential! More nice to have in some limited circumstances.

[Freya Black]

Er, they're from France. It's closer.

There was at one point two companies making the Eclair cameras. One in England and one in France.

One of those weird historical things like Zeiss Jena and Carl Zeiss.

[Gregg MacPherson]

Following Freya's comment, on a video tap not being essential. I agree. Used to be that a director would be crouched behind the lens axis, seeing the action within the imagined frame, rather than sitting in a tent looking at a screen. Taps are really useful when hand holding in unusual ways without looking through the finder, or with the camera on the end of a jib where one can't be at the VF. But, you know, in the olden days, before video taps were so common, one might know reasonably well, with just some acuity of "seeing" and discipline, what was in the frame while hand holding without looking.

[Freya Black]

With all that said, I haven't personally shot with the NPR/ACL (I'm an Arri/Aaton/Bolex guy) but I have been schooled on them so I've held them, I've run them and I've loaded the magazines and such. To me, they seem very old-school in their design, where Aaton and Arri seem much more modern with the LTR/XTR and SR series cameras. That's why I 'discount' what the Eclair's are capable of. Not to say they aren't a good camera (double negative must mean positive eh?), but if you're going to spend the money, why not buy the camera which is more widely used so there is some essence of support? Everyone knows how to use/service Aaton or Arri cameras, they're the Ford and Chevy of the Super 16mm market. Even the Bolex has HUGE support throughout the world with even a small branch of the company still in existence in Switzerland.

 

The NPR might seem old school because it IS an older camera than the Aatons and Arri SR's.

In fact a lot of the people who set up Aaton came from Eclair!

 

An Eclair is also also generally a LOT cheaper than a Aaton or Arri SR camera especially in the UK where the Arri SR and Aaton cameras are much more rarely available on the second hand market. Often an eclair camera is at least 4-5x cheaper.

 

One of the many advantages the eclairs have is that they are easily converted to Super16. This means that you can pick up a cheap standard 16mm eclair and get it converted and given a basic service at the same time which can be a good idea with older cameras.

 

Getting an eclair serviced is easy in both the UK and USA, unlike some older 16mm cameras where support is dwindling.

 

Lately it seems like there have been some incredible bargain deals on Arri SR's and Aaton cameras in the states. Incredible full on packages at equally incredible prices and in that situation why not go for an Arri SR or Aaton, (although the Super16 packages are often still many times more expensive than a Super 16 eclair) but the eclair cameras are not to be dismissed as they are generally reliable and tend to be a lot of camera for the money.

[Freya Black]

. Plus... since they were really used for news gathering...

 

 

Passolini liked it tho:

 

[Freya Black]

 

Cinematographer Michel Brault with his NPR

[Freya Black]

 

Rune Ericson (on the right) with his NPR.

 

The first Super16 cameras were converted Eclair NPR cameras.

[rob spence]

Of course the reason that the ACL has a changeable lens mount is because it has a pendulum mirror. The pendulum mirror design is so compact it acts the same way as an HD camera ( sony F3 for example) and allows for the interchangeability of lens mounts. The normal rotating mirror designs ( arri and aaton for example ) are too bulky to allow lenses close to the film plane.

As far as I know there are no other film cameras that can take any lens type. I'm sure Lers Bosher can make any unusual and exotic lens fit an ACL.

[Freya Black]

 

Behind the scenes on the BBC TV series "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy"

[Freya Black]

 

Tobe Hooper hard at work...

 

 

Shooting with the Eclair NPR on "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre"

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

I don't see how the ACL pendulum back-and-forth mechanism differs from that of a sewing machine by principal?

 

An eccentric gear would achieve smooth motion, no?

Edited February 22, 2016 by Kenny N Suleimanagich

[Brian Drysdale]

 

The NPR might seem old school because it IS an older camera than the Aatons and Arri SR's.

In fact a lot of the people who set up Aaton came from Eclair!

 

An Eclair is also also generally a LOT cheaper than a Aaton or Arri SR camera especially in the UK where the Arri SR and Aaton cameras are much more rarely available on the second hand market. Often an eclair camera is at least 4-5x cheaper.

 

I suspect the cheaper cost is due to the cameras being older, also any of the NPRs I've used have been much nosier than an Aaron.

[Tyler Purcell]

I don't see how the ACL pendulum back-and-forth mechanism differs from that of a sewing machine by principal?

 

An eccentric gear would achieve smooth motion, no?

True, but a sewing machine has a lot more room for those mechanics and doesn't need to be quiet. It also doesn't "swing" a rather large piece of glass around.

 

The problem with a oscillating mirror is that no matter what, it will make noise because it starts and stops. Sure, some lubrication can help that, but the noise will always come back. Plus the ACL has a plastic mirror activator, which over time wears.

 

A spinning mirror by contrast, doesn't need anything to function but a direct drive motor and some timing marks.

 

Also, with a oscillating mirror camera, you still have a shutter. So now you've got more complexity to the design, using two pieces to do the same task as a spinning mirror shutter. Even though ACL in a lot of ways is pretty easy to work on since the movement comes out as one component, it's very simplistic compared to the NPR it's older brother which is more feature-rich.

[Tyler Purcell]

So you dislike the mirror design and can't understand how it works.

I know how it works, I've seen the cameras apart (remember I was trained on them) and it's bogus. Any engineer with a tiny bit of experience would look at that design compared to a spinning/rotating design and understand it's faults.

 

The video tap gives about a 15mm offset. The Kinoptik and Angenieux fully orientable VFs give a lot of flexibility in how you position your head eye relative to the camera.

Yea, 15mm is a lot and yes, electronics tend to get warm. If those special video taps don't, I don't know what to say. Also, aftermarket viewfinders are kinda proving my point.

 

The ACL electronics are mostly in the motor body. Are you suggesting that camera electronics from this era never need servicing.

I didn't know the ACL's electronics were in the motor. When you say motor, I think coil of wires and magnets. I think what you mean is that there are electronics in the motor "housing".

 

So I think you can add the price of ACLs to the list of things that you just don't really know anything about.

I haven't seen them for the same money you were lucky to acquire them by.

 

I don't know the Aatons that well, but I respect the views of the camera technicians and the competent technical people.

Well, I know the Aaton and Arri's pretty good. Plus, I've had some decent hands on training with the Eclair. So that gives me some perspective on these different cameras. Plus, as I said earlier, there is no rocket science involved with film cameras. The single motor cameras are very simple machines and anyone who thinks otherwise, doesn't know COMPLEX.

[Freya Black]

 

I suspect the cheaper cost is due to the cameras being older, also any of the NPRs I've used have been much nosier than an Aaron.

 

 

Well yes of course they were probably similar prices at the time of release but now the NPR is much cheaper.

 

This is kind of my point. It's a very good camera for the price and yes maybe not as good as the newer Aatons but then it costs nowhere near as much money. Comparing it to the more recent cameras like the later Aatons or the Arri SR's or Arri 416 and saying it isn't up to the same standard is a bit strange. It's like comparing a Mini Cooper with a Ferrari or something. The eclair cameras are older but as a result they also a lot cheaper and they get the job done.

 

I think it's strange to suggest that if you can't afford a high end Aaton or Arri SR then you must restrict yourself to a Bolex.

[Freya Black]

I didn't know the ACL's electronics were in the motor. When you say motor, I think coil of wires and magnets. I think what you mean is that there are electronics in the motor "housing".

 

"housing" is maybe also not a good word as it could be a part of the camera body. Maybe Motor module is a better way of saying it. I think what he is trying to get across is that all the electronics are in a different unit that can be swapped out. This is quite handy as you can have a spare motor on hand if need be or perhaps another motor with different features.

[Tyler Purcell]

"housing" is maybe also not a good word as it could be a part of the camera body. Maybe Motor module is a better way of saying it. I think what he is trying to get across is that all the electronics are in a different unit that can be swapped out. This is quite handy as you can have a spare motor on hand if need be or perhaps another motor with different features.

Yep... he mentioned the camera needing motor service and I was thinking "motor" not "electronics" when he said that.

 

I'm totally OK with taking a few screws out and accessing the electronics like in the LTR/XTR and SR's.

[Freya Black]

Yep... he mentioned the camera needing motor service and I was thinking "motor" not "electronics" when he said that.

 

I'm totally OK with taking a few screws out and accessing the electronics like in the LTR/XTR and SR's.

 

 

The motor and the electronics are both in the same unit which is easily detached from the camera body.

It can be handy to have a spare on standby in case of possible emergency and it can be handy to only have to send the motor away to be repaired instead of having downtime on the whole camera body too.

 

Also you can buy upgraded motor units with better features. I get the impression the electronics in the LTR and XTR are quite advanced by default but the Arri SR1 and 2 have more limited motor control features. Depends what you are doing of course.

 

While you might be quite happy to tear down the camera body, I'd much rather work on a replaceable module if I want to make changes. It's one thing to pick up another motor unit from somewhere and another to need to get a whole new body if something goes wrong!

[Gregg MacPherson]

@Tyler.

 

Design can be a very complex and sophisticated process. Another designer looking at a simple finished object may sense that complexity. The ACL designers made a very reasoned decision to use the oscillating mirror. Simply calling it bogus is...simplistic. The mirror itself BTW is a tiny piece of glass a bit bigger than the gate and about 1.5mm thick, not at all "a rather large piece of glass". The mirror works well and I don't find it a significant source of noise. The ACL tick, tick comes from the intermittent movement of the film inside the magazine.

 

Rob is right I think, that the big motivation in designing the oscillating mirror was to allow the lens mount system.

 

Oh goody, so the imagined video tap heat problem is downgraded from "hot" to "warm".

 

Re the viewfinders, maybe I called them aftermarket, but I think they were just made by third party providers Ang and Kinoptik to the new cameras. The ACL I did normally have one made by Ang (fairly sure on that) and the ACL II is listed in the sales lit for Eclair USA with the big Kinoptik fully orientable VF as standard.

 

Confusion about the electronics being in the motor "body"? Simple familiarity with the camera would fix that, or yes, we could find or invent another word.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Gregg MacPherson

[Tyler Purcell]

Design can be a very complex and sophisticated process. Another designer looking at a simple finished object may sense that complexity.

Its true, but they already had a pretty decent design in the NPR, it was just a bit bigger then it needed to be. They COULD have solved it, considering one of the designers is the same guy who started Aaton and DID fix the problem. So to dump that great design that just needed an update for a FIXED shutter angle design with a oscillating mirror, is petty big step backwards. Yes it's less complex, but it's also not as good.

 

The ACL tick, tick comes from the intermittent movement of the film inside the magazine.

Dude, I've run the motor without the mag and it still makes the nose!!!!

 

Rob is right I think, that the big motivation in designing the oscillating mirror was to allow the lens mount system.

For sure, but my point is, it was unnecessary and to be stuck with a camera that uses that shutter/reflex design for the use of ONE MORE type of lens? Umm... it kinda seems not worth it in the long run, especially since there again, is no manufacturer support anymore unlike the competition from Aaton, Arri and Bolex.

 

Confusion about the electronics being in the motor "body"? Simple familiarity with the camera would fix that, or yes, we could find or invent another word.

There are so many motor units made for the ACL it's not even funny. The one I'm familiar with had outboard electronics that sat under the camera. You maybe familiar with the one that has everything enclosed in the same unit. Either way, when someone talks about a motor, never once mentioning electronics, I assume magnets and coils of wire, not leaking capacitors, faulty traces and failing transistors. But hey, that's the "engineer" in me!

 

My point in all of this is that I discount the Eclair's as an option because there is no benefit. The money you save on buying one used is money you'll loose when the camera stops working and you can't get support.

[rob spence]

I was talking to Les Bosher ages ago and he told me that when Red were designing their Red 1 they ordered an Eclair Acl mount from him to asses the design for potential use on the Red. Interesting at least.

[Gregg MacPherson]

@ Tyler,

The NPR I don't think has a great lens mount system. Going to the interchangeable mount system on ACL was quite an achievement. It required the oscillating mirror, which works fine actually, in spite of your dissaproval. The mount system allows almost any lens to be used. What was the "ONE MORE type of lens" comment about....

 

Yes, the humble ACL had a fixed shutter. Then Jean-Pierre Beauviala (love that guy), makes his big step forward and gives the LTR the exact same thing. You do realize that LTR have a fixed shutter, yes.

 

Ah, the noise from the mirror. Well, yes, if you take the mag off you will hear that quite well comming out through the gate. On a maintained camera its a faint intermittent 24Hz whistle. Put the mag back on and you will hear it a lot less. The sound guy is not concerned with that noise. As I said before, the tic, tick comes from the films intermittent movement inside the mag. I have draped a 16BL soft barney over an ACL without properly wrapping up the front of the body and the tick was gone.

 

Factory support for Arri SR1 and Aaton LTR7? That is a question one might legitimately ask, those being roughly contemporaneous with AACL II. Perhaps someone who knows this stuff will tell us.

 

All ACLs have minimal electronics in the base. Stop/start switch, bloop (clap) generator, power but not much more for the light meter, connectors for motor and handgrip. Maybe ACL II had a connector for an intervalometer or something. The motor module (let's test that word) packs all it's electronics in the long box behind the motor itself.

 

How many motors were made for the ACL? I know of three. The original Thomson small single speed motor, the first heavy duty multispeed motor with Xtal at 24/25 and no mirror parking, the later heavy duty motor with all Xtal speeds and mirror parking. The people doing after market mods may confuse the issue. CP did one to the small motor with their brand on it. AZSpectrum did some motor mods that visibly show. All that is not strange if familiar with the camera. There are really two basic motors, with the heavy duty one having a later refined version.

 

There a couple of very, very rare motors. Maybe Tobin made one.

 

The ACL body and mags also had a similar, low number of design changes, at least in terms of the cameras that were produced in large numbers. Compare that to the profuse tangle of design changes that litter the history of the Aaton 16mm cameras. I'm going to put the notes I copied on that in another post.

[Gregg MacPherson]

On second thought, the numerous commonly known Aaton design changes were over a longer period, so its not fair to compare that to the ACL case. One needs to know in greater detail the small changes to LTR7 and LTR54. There have been techs on the forum who knew all that. Maybe we will find them.

 

Anyway, the history of Aaton 16mm design changes is interesting. I saved this post from Jean-Louis. Thanks Jean-Louis.

 

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

Jean-Louis Seguin
Posted 06 May 2012 - 11:40 AM

Nathan Milford posted this a few years ago when he was working for AbelCineTech:

Here it is copied and pasted:

 

1974 to 1982 - Aaton LTR (#250 to #950)
- Most bodes were 16mm only
- 32fps Top Speed
- Mechanical Drive for Mags
- Optional Light Meter
- Optional Relay optics for VR 30 tube tap.

 

1982 to 1985 - Aaton 54LTR (#950 to #1300)
- 54fps Top Speed
- Super 16
- Optional Light Meter
- Optional Relay optics for VR 30 tube tap.

 

1986 to 1992 - Aaton XTR (#1300 to #1785)
- 54fps Top Speed
- Magnetic Drive
- Super 16
- Light Meter
- Relay Optics for VR30 Tub Tap

 

1992 to 1994 - Aaton X0plus (#1785 to #1900)
- 60fps Top Speed
- Magentic Drive
- Super 16
- Screw-in 15mm front rods
- Designed to be upgraded to the XTRplus
- Optional port for integrated CCD video tap

 

1992 to 1994 - Aaton XTRplus (#1785 to #1900)
- 60fps Top Speed
- Magentic Drive
- Super 16
- Screw-in 15mm front rods
- Light Meter
- Integrated CCD video tap
- Aaton Code
- LCD Side Display

 

1994 to present - Aaton X0plus (#1900 and above)
- 75fps Top Speed (Tri-Phase Motor)
- Magenetic Drive
- Super 16
- Screw-in 15mm front rods
- Lower power consumption
- Upgradable to XTRplus
- Optional port for integrated CCD video tap

 

1994 to present - Aaton XTRplus (#1900 and above)
- 75fps Top Speed (Tri-Phase Motor)
- Magenetic Drive
- Super 16
- Screw-in 15mm front rods
- Lower power consumption
- Light Meter
- Integrated CCD video tap
- AatonCode
- Side Display

 

1994 to present - Aaton XTRprod (#1900 and above)
- 75fps Top Speed (Tri-Phase Motor)
- Magenetic Drive
- Super 16
- Screw-in 15mm front rods
- Lower power consumption
- Light Meter
- Integrated CCD video tap
- AatonCode
- Illuminated Side Display
- Built in speed control in .001fps increments
- Variable shutter

 

These are sort of rough as there are grey areas where upgrades have been performed where you have amalgamations such as the XC, LTR-X, XTR-j and what not.

Cheers,
Jean-Louis

[Tyler Purcell]

There a couple of very, very rare motors. Maybe Tobin made one

Cinematography inc made a black box that went under the camera and attached to a motor which had zero controls on it.