Will aaton 200ft film length fit acl 200ft mag

[Mike Welle]

Actually Tim,

I believe you misunderstood what I was asking. All I want to do is use A-Minima loads and nothing else (no 100' rolls, no 400' rolls, etc.). For now I'm going to use 100' rolls because my camera is set up that way. But ultimately, I simply want to use emulsion-out A-Minima film (that's why I bought 3 200' magazines with core adapters). I don't like the idea of re-winding the film because I won't have instant access to it--and it just seems like doing a rain dance (waiting for the core-set to re-establish). HERES MY QUESTION: If the flange-ground glass measurement is adjusted by a technician will this allow me to use A-Minima film and only A-Minima film, without focus problems? Can you recommend anyone? I was thinking Du-All Camera in New York.

 

Thank you,

Mike Welle

Charleston, SC

Mike,

 

I do not think it is possible to set up a camera that can use emulsion-in film and emulsion-out film both. You need to set up the camera to use one or the other because of the situation I described above. Now another way to deal with this situation may be to take the 200 ft Aaton load and wind it emulsion-in and let it sit that way for a while (not sure really how long, maybe a couple of weeks) until it develops a memory and "springiness" like the standard emulsion-in film.

 

-Tim

Edited May 4, 2006 by Mike Welle

[Tim Carroll]

I would talk with Nathan and the folks at Abel Cine, or others who service the A-minima camera. The issue you are going to run in to is that there really is no spec on where to set the FFD on an ACL to use emulsion-out stock, because when the camera was made, I would assume Eclair was not expecting anyone to use it.

 

-Tim

[Mike Welle]

Hi,

First of all thank you for being so very helpful with this thread. You've really shone new light on the issue. Regarding the camera design, I don't believe you are correct when you say "when the camera was made, I would assume Eclair was not expecting anyone to use (A-wind film)" If you look at the Eclair ACL manual it gives these specs:

 

FI LM: 16mm

double perforation.

single perforation A winding emulsion out.

B winding emulsion in.

50mm (2 inch) core 60m (200 ft) only

daylight loading 30 or 60m (100 or 200 ft).

 

Here are the links to the two manuals:

 

http://www.cinematography.com/docs/acl-1-manual.pdf

 

http://www.cinematography.com/docs/ACLII-manual.pdf

 

In fact the magazines were set up to take 200' cores because they sold them with core adapters. The diagrams in the manual lead you to believe that the camera will take up emulsion in or out. In fact there are some diagrams of the camera taking up emulsion out film. What I was told by the technician yesterday reinforces these claims from the manual. However, my real-life experience has shown that when using my camera with an 8mm Optar Illumina lens at T1.3 or 2 you get out of focus images when using emulsion out film as opposed to B-wind (emulsion in) film. I don't see why shifting the ground glass prism back or forward a micron or two to compensate for this would be such a hard feat. If all things remained the same and the ground glass changed position, I think the camera would show true focus with A-minima film. Don't you agree?

 

Thank you,

Mike Welle

Charleston, SC

 

I would talk with Nathan and the folks at Abel Cine, or others who service the A-minima camera. The issue you are going to run in to is that there really is no spec on where to set the FFD on an ACL to use emulsion-out stock, because when the camera was made, I would assume Eclair was not expecting anyone to use it.

 

-Tim

Edited May 4, 2006 by Mike Welle

[Tim Carroll]

Mike,

 

Just showing my ignorance. :o

 

As I mentioned before, I don't know the ACL camera. Just did some research in Underdahl's book, the American Cinematography Manual, and in the Professional Cameraman's Handbook and took a look at the PDF's you referenced. You're right, it does take Emulsion In (EI) and Emulsion Out (EO) film. Can't understand the design concept behind that. One thing you mentioned in an earlier post, when the camera was made, there were no 8mm T1.3 lenses available for it. Remember, your depth of focus shrinks with the wider the lens is and the more the aperture is opened up. So you were shooting those Key West images in worst case scenario. And I would bet the ACL was not designed with that scenario in mind.

 

So what to do now? I think, if you are going to try to only shoot A-minima loads, and you want to keep using your 8mm wide open, then I would suggest talking to Abel Cine Tech, or possibly Visual Products. I trust the folks at both of those places. Reading back over this whole thread, Nathan seems to have a good handle on the problem you are facing. He may be able to look at the factory spec for the FFD on your camera, and then look at how Aaton dealt with the FFD on the A-minima compared to the FFD on other Aatons and see if there is some kind of "compensation" Aaton used to address the A-Wind naturally pushing the film tighter to the gate than the B-Wind.

 

That would be my suggestion, but what the heck do I know.

 

-Tim

[Mike Welle]

A lot of people like to use the 400 foot magazines with the Eclair ACL. If you were using a "highly preferred" 400 foot core load (or a 100 foot spool) it would take up B-wind. Therefore it would follow logically that camera technicians would set the ground glass depth so that the ground glass would focus properly with B-wind film. The technicians might not even know this, but are setting it up according to some sort of "factory specifications" that tell them to set it up this way. Until recently Kodak did not manufacture emulsion out film. Then Aaton designed the A-Minima and Kodak sold emulsion out film for it. When you load this film into an ACL (by breaking open the flexible spool in a black bag--revealing a core), the focus of the ground glass is set up for B-wind film--and therefore your focus is off.

 

If you look at the 16mm camera book by Douglas Underdahl, he mentions that some people even have to tape magazines onto the Eclair ACL he says "incredible, eh?" (What was that all about?). Anyway, I think he didn't mention that only the 400 foot magazines are the only ones to fall off because the camera was not designed from the very beginning to handle them. That's why the ACL designers created an ineffective mag latch cover. It's only a problem with the 400 foot magazines--which I detest because they fall off despite what latch cover you have. The 200 foot magazines do not have this problem because they do not betray the original camera design.

 

What I'm planning to do, is send my camera to Bruce McNaughton and/or Du-All Camera and see if they can set the ground glass to the proper miniscule distance so that it will focus properly with emulsion out film. I will let everyone know what happens when I do this. Unfortunately, this is several months away.

 

 

Mike,

 

Just showing my ignorance. :o

 

As I mentioned before, I don't know the ACL camera. Just did some research in Underdahl's book, the American Cinematography Manual, and in the Professional Cameraman's Handbook and took a look at the PDF's you referenced. You're right, it does take Emulsion In (EI) and Emulsion Out (EO) film. Can't understand the design concept behind that. One thing you mentioned in an earlier post, when the camera was made, there were no 8mm T1.3 lenses available for it. Remember, your depth of focus shrinks with the wider the lens is and the more the aperture is opened up. So you were shooting those Key West images in worst case scenario. And I would bet the ACL was not designed with that scenario in mind.

 

So what to do now? I think, if you are going to try to only shoot A-minima loads, and you want to keep using your 8mm wide open, then I would suggest talking to Abel Cine Tech, or possibly Visual Products. I trust the folks at both of those places. Reading back over this whole thread, Nathan seems to have a good handle on the problem you are facing. He may be able to look at the factory spec for the FFD on your camera, and then look at how Aaton dealt with the FFD on the A-minima compared to the FFD on other Aatons and see if there is some kind of "compensation" Aaton used to address the A-Wind naturally pushing the film tighter to the gate than the B-Wind.

 

That would be my suggestion, but what the heck do I know.

 

-Tim

[Laurent Andrieux]

Hello all,

 

This is defenetly a very interesting discussion.

 

I must confess that I am a bit surprised that a camera that is supposed to take either A or B wind rolls reveals a focus problem, but as Tim mentionned, a wide angle opened up is the worst situation about FFD.

 

I would check the pressure plate spring, that has a tight specification (in Newton/meter) and see if it's sufficient. Camera techs have the tool to meter this.

 

A "wreck" pressure plate would reveal a breath in focus, that you can see shooting a test on a Siemens star, but may be a too low spring pressure would not cause any breathing, just not press the film enough.

 

As for the film stock specifications, I think the problem is different if you want to use A-minima film in another camera or B-wound film that you would reverse and then use ina A-minima.

 

The first case - that was the topic's matter - sounds more "easy" to me than the second, since A-minima cameras certainly need "special" film. A friend of mine asked a Fuji rep (who is defenetly a specialist, not a commercial) if he could wind the A way some Fuji film (as to match the main material of his shooting) as to load a A-minima for some shots, the man said no, you will have problems if you pass Fuji film - after A winding it - in a A-minima camera.

 

Anyway, and I'm especially thinking of Mike's and Tim's posts,

 

Why don't you do correct tests as to check wether it's the A wind vs B-wind, or the lens or the ground glass that have a problem ?

 

Shoot Foucault charts wide open at 50 times your focal length, have them processed and read them with a binocular, you'll find out everything, comparing to what you see by eye etc.

 

It's very much easier to diagnose a problem that way. If you want me to describe the test in details, I can do.

[Mike Welle]

Hi Laurent,

I know exactly what you are talking about with regards to the pressure plate spring. I owned a 400 foot magazine which had this problem and oscillated between focus and out of focus on some shots. I described the problem in the Ebay listing and subsequently sold the magazine. Two of the 200 foot magazines I currently own do not have this problem--I am sure. The third I bought recently has yet to be tested, but I got it from Visual Products and George Zorzoli modified it--so it should work.

 

Personally, I don't like to rewind film because you get involved in the core-set delay (which seems rather ritualistic to me--I mean waiting for it to reset in two weeks--sounds kind of like faith-based intelligence). Maybe this was the problem with rewinding Fuji B-wind and making it A-wind for an A-Minima. I just don't like this idea at all--but that is merely my opinion.

 

But in terms of Fuji Film--maybe this is where the Eclair ACL shines. They sell 200 foot spool loads in B-wind at Fuji and you could, in theory, use this in an Eclair ACL without focus issues. I can't confirm this with real world experience, like I can with the A-Minima film failing to work. One quibble is the fact that 200 foot spools sometimes tend to make a scraping noise--but this may not happen.

 

The mention of Foucault charts is beyond my experience. My way of operating is to send the camera off to a technician and ask if they can do what I need. Next destination on my plan is Aranda camera with Bruce McNaughton--he did an excellent job of making my mirror park perfectly in the past. When I have the funds, I will send him a letter asking if he can A-minimize my camera along with one other thing impertinent to this post.

 

Thank you,

Mike Welle

Charleston, SC

 

 

 

 

Hello all,

 

This is defenetly a very interesting discussion.

 

I must confess that I am a bit surprised that a camera that is supposed to take either A or B wind rolls reveals a focus problem, but as Tim mentionned, a wide angle opened up is the worst situation about FFD.

 

I would check the pressure plate spring, that has a tight specification (in Newton/meter) and see if it's sufficient. Camera techs have the tool to meter this.

 

A "wreck" pressure plate would reveal a breath in focus, that you can see shooting a test on a Siemens star, but may be a too low spring pressure would not cause any breathing, just not press the film enough.

 

As for the film stock specifications, I think the problem is different if you want to use A-minima film in another camera or B-wound film that you would reverse and then use ina A-minima.

 

The first case - that was the topic's matter - sounds more "easy" to me than the second, since A-minima cameras certainly need "special" film. A friend of mine asked a Fuji rep (who is defenetly a specialist, not a commercial) if he could wind the A way some Fuji film (as to match the main material of his shooting) as to load a A-minima for some shots, the man said no, you will have problems if you pass Fuji film - after A winding it - in a A-minima camera.

 

Anyway, and I'm especially thinking of Mike's and Tim's posts,

 

Why don't you do correct tests as to check wether it's the A wind vs B-wind, or the lens or the ground glass that have a problem ?

 

Shoot Foucault charts wide open at 50 times your focal length, have them processed and read them with a binocular, you'll find out everything, comparing to what you see by eye etc.

 

It's very much easier to diagnose a problem that way. If you want me to describe the test in details, I can do.

[Alain LeTourneau]

I know exactly what you are talking about with regards to the pressure plate spring. I owned a 400 foot magazine which had this problem and oscillated between focus and out of focus on some shots.

 

 

I thought I'd jump in here on this one...

 

Regarding pressure plate spec for ACL/NPR (which I believe is the same) it's 80 grams per sq centimeter. Now this is variable though, black and white film being thinner than color. (The pressure plate setting also affects camera noise and battery life, but I think this fact has already been mentioned within this thread.) The other variable is the film speed, the faster the camera speed (say 75 fps, like with the ACL motor) the more pressure is required. At least, this is what I heard from Bernie O'Doherty.

 

The spring pressure is very easy to adjust on the ACL/NPR. It's amazing how simple it is. The tool to check the pressure (as far as I know) is very expense, unless someone knows of a cheap option I have not heard of...some tool for checking grams per sq centimeter?

 

 

Alain LeTourneau

[Laurent Andrieux]

Hi,

 

The tool to check the pressure (as far as I know) is very expense, unless someone knows of a cheap option I have not heard of...some tool for checking grams per sq centimeter?

 

I've always seen camera techs use a dynamometer. It's sort of a spring at one end there is a grip and at the other you have a needle that shows the strength's value.

 

I don't think it should cost more than a comparator, myself.

 

But as Mike is giving his camera and gear to technician, I guess the tech should have that tool. Nathan, don't you have such a tool, yourself ?

 

And, Mike, do you think your camera tech could do print tests ? I mean that, for the ground glass, it's better to do a print test since the image on the film has to be examine, better than just a lab test. As for the FFD it's also better to do print test as to compare the result beetween A-wind and B-wind. I'm afraid it's not possible to tests these otherwise...

[Dan Salzmann]

I've been using a French ACLII with the Kinoptik finder for years and have had no problems with mags falling off.

I've used short ends in the 200ft. mags (never Aaton Minima loads) and the 400ft. mags with no problems.

The latch covers work well and the camera needs to be handled with the same care and respect that any camera requires.

Wish there was an intervalometer that would work with the ACL. That is really a nice feature on the Minima.

I don't believe any anti-Eclair conspiracy either on the part of Kodak or Aaton.

[Mike Welle]

I e-mailed Kodak at one point when they said something about the camera that I don't believe was true. Another person also e-mailed them. At this time they had the Eclair ACL listed on their website. They said they would revise the statement (I can't remember what it was--but it wasn't correct). They never put any mention of the Eclair ACL on their website again. It's one of the most talked about 16mm cameras for its affordability and it just happens to have the ability to use A-Minima loads if set up properly (or with most lenses like the 12-120 which wouldn't go wide enough to make a difference--Nathan I know you'll argue with me on this-- a lens closed down past T3 it probably wouldn't make a difference--I can't confirm this with real world experience). It makes me suspicious. It also makes me suspicious that Kodak makes film specifically for this Aaton camera and that both agents immediately responded to this post--saying in one case you couldn't do it, or casting heavy doubt on the possibility--leaving all of us poor filmmakers to rot with no hope. So you may not believe the conspiracy theory--which is what it is right now, I'll admit--but that doesn't change the fact that an agent told me they would revise the statement and completely removed all mention of the Eclair ACL from their website. Why does Kodak treat the Eclair ACL like a red-headed stepson? Also, why doesn't Eclair or Aaton deny that what I'm saying is "false":

 

See this link (no mention of the Eclair ACL):

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/cam...d=0.1.4.9&lc=en

 

In terms of 400 foot magazines falling off, its happened to me numerous times because I didn't do some kind of mechanical trick which you shouldn't have to do in my opinion (its something like pulling up on the metal latch). The camera was never designed for 400 foot magazines in the first place. The only design which would work would be a latch that attached to the magazine and then the camera body which prevented this--I saw this on ebay once.

 

See this link:

http://members.aol.com/Super16ACL/misc3.htm

 

Also from the site:

 

ABOVE: A cover that flips overtop of the Mag Release on the ACL II replaces the sliding lock on the ACL 1 and 1.5 designed to keep the Mag Release from being depressed. Neither design successfully prevented magazines from prematurely falling off. The best lock of all is to use part of a CLOTHES PIN wedged between the top of the Magazine and the Release Latch; this forces the latch to stay engaged in the Mag.

 

Here is the link:

 

http://members.aol.com/Super16ACL/acl1and2.htm

 

Also,

Like I said, I don't like the idea of shooting short ends or rewinding or doing anything of that sort. It seems disorganized to me. But don't listen to me, if you don't agree. I believe that it will be disorganized and invite chaos into your life. Please disregard if you don't agree.

 

Also,

Laurent, thank you for your suggestions but I don't operate by bringing my camera to camera techs. I send it off to them, ask if they can do what I need, shoot film and if I like it--I'm happy. I'm sorry if I don't do "correct tests." But soon I'm sure you will all be shaking my confidence and doing as I originally predicted--attempting to impeach me from the list.

 

"They that stand high have many blasts to shake them and if they fall they dash themselves to pieces."

 

I invite you all to criticize me to death. I will be like the hippo dancing in the desert as a ballerina--because I don't care what others think, I can only tell you of my own experience and nothing else.

 

Mike Welle

Charleston, SC

 

 

I've been using a French ACLII with the Kinoptik finder for years and have had no problems with mags falling off.

I've used short ends in the 200ft. mags (never Aaton Minima loads) and the 400ft. mags with no problems.

The latch covers work well and the camera needs to be handled with the same care and respect that any camera requires.

Wish there was an intervalometer that would work with the ACL. That is really a nice feature on the Minima.

I don't believe any anti-Eclair conspiracy either on the part of Kodak or Aaton.

Edited May 6, 2006 by Mike Welle

[Gregg MacPherson]

I bumped into this old and very fascinating thread. Reading it I had some compelling thoughts.

 

People were a bit non receptive to a lover of Shakespeare. This feels odd given what film owes to the stage.

 

Regarding whether film stock cupping due to the Aaton A minima wind could produce discrepancies in effective FFD on an ACL. No one seemed interested in the comparison between the Aaton and ACL gate / pressure plate. Most importantly, the way that the ACL gate / pressure plate constrains the film from this cupping. There are contact surfaces on the camera gate that fully constrain the edges of the frame (movement in the forward direction). The pressure plate on older mags constrains the sides and centre in quite a forceful way (movement in the rearward direction). Newer mag pressure plates have a very forcefull approximate overall constraint, then a sepatrate small pressure plate over the gate that has quite soft pressure (on the sides only) to give the actual film positioning..

 

So the problem probably separates into solutions or ideas relative to these two types of pressure plates. But going back to the initial thought. Some consideration of how these systems actualy succeed or fail in constaining the film is where the discussion should start. And obviously the simplest thing to do is to shoot some test film that could show some differences. Like someone said, this may be sensitive to fps.

 

Lastly, the issue of 400' mags falling off ACLs. I jumped off a truck with my camera once and the 400' mag came off and hit the (fine) gravel. I dusted it off and all was OK. But after that I checked the relative dimensions of other mags between the top and bottom where they are gripped by the camera. I ended up shimming the magazine part at the top (1) so that both the mags had equal security. One can feel if the magazine dimension is a bit small by wiggling the magazine from side to side. On a well adjusted mag I don't see any wiggle. Very scientific. There were no cheap verniers back then. Simply measuring a good mag with a vernier would be the modern way to do it. Match the others to that with some shims under the part at the top.

 

Such stuff will get easier when a workshop manual ends up in the public domain. Shimming the mag part is something easy to do if one had a specific dimension to achieve.

 

 

(1) Part 310 in french drawing, "magazine location mount".

Edited February 7, 2013 by Gregg MacPherson