Will aaton 200ft film length fit acl 200ft mag

[rob spence]

Hi,

Anyone know if the aaton 200ft film lengths will actually fit a 200ft eclair acl mag.

I've been told that they wont because of a different spooling core design, but I would like to know for sure. Many thanks

Rob Spence

[Nathan Milford]

This has been covered half a dozen times. I should probably submit a FAQ article on it or something:

 

The short answer is: No.

 

The long answer is: Well... no they won't.

 

The longer answer is: A-Minima loads are spooled on a special Kodak flanged daylight load that also works as part of the magazine's takeup torque system. The loads are unlike normal 2" Kodak cores and will not initially fit into an ACL 200' mags. A-Minima film is wound emulsion out, 'a-winding' which is backwards from the way other cameras take thier film, emulsion in 'b-winding'.

 

So why can't I unspool it, rewind it and put it on a core in a b-winding? Because of the natural curl of the film. Since it is wound differently from normal loads, A-Minima loads curl differently, something the A-Minima takes into account for in it's design. I set the flange focal tolerance to +15 to +25 micron (on most cameras its -7 to -14 or so). The A-Minima expects the film to curl into the gate obviating the need for a pressure plate. That curl, which the A-Minima loves so dearly, is an issue on other cameras as they're expecting it to curl the other way. This is a difference of microns, and maybe with longer lenses you might not notice it because the depth of focus as much greater, but nominally, the image projected out the back element of the lens will project beyond the film plane as the film plane is a few microns infront of where it is supposed to be.

 

- Nathan

[John Pytlak RIP]

Hi,

Anyone know if the aaton 200ft film lengths will actually fit a 200ft eclair acl mag.

I've been told that they wont because of a different spooling core design, but I would like to know for sure. Many thanks

Rob Spence

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Kodak Aaton A-Minima loads are designed specifically for that camera:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...e/aminima.jhtml

 

A-Minima features a quick change magazine which accepts 200' (61m) film loads in a new daylight friendly format on a core with flexible flanges. With a base market price of roughly $15,000 (USD), A-Minima makes high quality filmmaking very affordable.

 

The following Kodak film stocks are presently manufactured for A-Minima.

 

If you really MUST have 200 foot rolls for the ACL, better to wind them down from normal 400-foot B-Wind rolls. Pay attention to winding orientation, and rewind film carefully in total darkness.

[Oliver Gläser]

Just a note. The ACL as is the NPR, are both capable of using A or B wind Film. The cameras take up the same way regardless and depending on your wind you will end up with a take up spool either emulsion in or emulsion out.

Just a question for you john, when did Kodak stop making 200 foot daylight spools. I still have a couple of them in my ACL mags that I keep a tight hold on when the film goes to the lab. Is one still able to find them or only by luck? I suppose that one could concievably get A minima spools and then roll them over to 200 foot daylight spools for use in the mags. just a thought. Ordinarily I simply buy 400 footers and either myself or have the lab spool them down onto the spools and cores. If I do have them put on the large daylight spools then I simply take up to a core and never have a problem.

anyway that's my two cents.... Ok maybe a little more. :D

Oliver Glaser

[Mike Welle]

It's too bad that you should be given misinformation by so many who pretend to know. It's a lot like Shakespeare said: "There are a sort of men whose visages do cream and mantle like a standing pond and do a willful stillness entertain with purpose to be dressed in an opinion of wisdom, gravity, profound conceit." Sure that quote doesn't hit the nail on the head, but please--don't be so prosaic. I'm not going to read any responses.

 

I was just laughed at for saying that Eclair ACL magazines fall off. Oh guess what a guy is selling one now which has a latch harness attached to it--but nevermind Mike, he doesn't know anything. See:

 

http://www.the-temenos.org/Sites.html

 

People say lots of crap that just isn't true. That's history. Look at Richard III, look at President Bush.

 

Oh and, if you want to listen to me--I've actually used the A-Minima loads on the Eclair--and guess what they do work--the Eclair was designed to take it up A or B wind. "Oh my Antonio, I do know of these that therefore only are reputed wise for saying nothing, when I am very sure if they should speak would almost damn those ears which hearing them would call their brothers fools. I'll tell thee more of this another time."

 

You have to turn the flanges counterclockwise to remove them. You'll need spare cores on hand, unless you want to tape your film to the take-up core of the A-Minima which doesn't have a slot (nice job Kodak.) Go to Santa Barbara Film and Audio--do a google search--it works really well.

 

But please don't believe me. I don't know anything.

 

Have a nice day,

Mike Welle

 

Hi,

Anyone know if the aaton 200ft film lengths will actually fit a 200ft eclair acl mag.

I've been told that they wont because of a different spooling core design, but I would like to know for sure. Many thanks

Rob Spence

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Mike Welle]

See, here is the picture from the manual--now, go ahead and give your spiel about microns or whatever--I for one will not put forth obsequious banter. Please ban me from this list.

 

Thank you,

Mike Welle

 

 

Hi,

Anyone know if the aaton 200ft film lengths will actually fit a 200ft eclair acl mag.

I've been told that they wont because of a different spooling core design, but I would like to know for sure. Many thanks

Rob Spence

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited August 15, 2005 by Mike Welle

[Nathan Milford]

What is at issue is not the magazine's capacity to take a particular winding. It is the camera's mount being set to expect the film to curl one way. This is why the A-Minima's flange tolerance is in the plus whereas most every other motion picture camera sets it in the negative. If you don't believe 10 microns can affect focus then you should simply relegate yourself to quoting Shakespeare and avoid dispensing camera advice. >8)

[Mike Welle]

Kodak and Aaton are afraid to death about the Eclair ACL. They don't want anyone to buy one because it steals sales of the A-Minima. Kodak won't list it on their website. Why do you think the Kodak and Aaton people immediately responded to this post. Don't sell me film. I can hear you now calling me a fool. I'll be polite enough not to ask if you have ever serviced an ACL--o my god. Attack me! Shake my confidence! Hurl me into the rocks. "I in such a desperate bay of death, like a poor bark of sails and tackling reft, rush all to pieces on thy rocky bosom."

 

"Blow wind rack, at least we'll die with harness on our back." Don't know if that quote is right--but I know it comes from Macbeth. Attack me. Blow wind. Insult me. Ban me from the list. I am not afraid of the cool breath of death.

 

Oh, by the way, (tell me I'm wrong--shake my confidence) if you set the camera up for A-Minima loads when you get it converted to Super-16 you won't have any problems. Yes you will! No you won't! Yes you will! No you won't!

 

Good bye,

Mike Welle

 

 

What is at issue is not the magazine's capacity to take a particular winding.  It is the camera's mount being set to expect the film to curl one way.  This is why the A-Minima's flange tolerance is in the plus whereas most every other motion picture camera sets it in the negative.  If you don't believe 10 microns can affect focus then you should simply relegate yourself to quoting Shakespeare and avoid dispensing camera advice.  >8)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Luke Prendergast]

Mike, if you simply stated your opinion and experience instead of treating everything as epic drama you might be taken seriously.

[Nathan Milford]

Wow... I'd like to take a drag off of whatever he is smoking.

 

*boggles*

[Mike Welle]

Oh, that's so important to me--to be taken seriously guys! I like being picked on by you Republicans--who think I'm completely insane! I know you want a toke of this Nathan. Go ahead keep hurting me. I support George W. Bush and his war on Tara! Oh Rhett take me to Tara! Where I can live with the other Southern racists! I will never be hungry again! Insult me! Insult me! Ban me from the list!

 

Now here's my scandal:

 

They used to issue Eclair ACLs with lenses that would open up to T1.9 (I think) for the Angenieux 9.5-57. I was just looking at the manual--and through my purple haze--I saw--I saw--that the Eclair took up A or B wind. Now I know, Nathan (I'm ready for your swing) it doesn't matter. Well apparently the Eclair ACL people could care less whether you loaded your film A or B wind even if you were using the camera at T1.9 with a 9.5mm lens. Now, that isn't a T1.3 Zeiss or Illumina (Nathan--I know how fond you are of these). But you could open up a 9.5mm lens back in the seventies to T1.9 and no Eclair guys would be going--whoa dude your flange focal distance sucks--you better shift that bad boy into 57mm.

Farewell gentlemen, I will be gone to Brecknock while my fearful head is on!

 

Mike Welle

Earl of Buckingham

 

 

The Eclair ACLs were issued

 

Mike, if you simply stated your opinion and experience instead of treating everything as epic drama you might be taken seriously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Rik Andino]

The simplest way for you to prove to us that you're not a loony Mike

Is for you to grab some A-minima specified film

And then load into an Eclair ACL and then shoot a test...

 

And please stop quoting the friggin Shakespeare...

This is not an English lit class!

[mark leuchter]

Nathan, I can see how the micron measurement bend of the film would factor into focus calculations for the A-Minma, but if the Eclair ACL is using a pressure plate, wouldn't the film's nature bending be obviated anyway? In other words, while the film's bend works FOR the A-Minima, would not the pressure plate design of the ACL simply neutralize it?

 

Mark

[Mike Welle]

The simplest way for you to prove to us that you're not a loony Mike

Is for you to grab some A-minima specified film

And then load into an Eclair ACL and then shoot a test...

 

And please stop quoting the friggin Shakespeare...

This is not an English lit class!

 

I believe I was incorrect and I was acting like an ass. But let me set the record straight and humiliate myself in the process.

 

Well, it turns out that in June of 2005 (before this forum began) I shot 2 or 3 rolls of A-Minima film. For my Christmas present I had it transferred to video at CinePost in Atlanta, GA. Ninety-five percent of it was in focus, but I think that Nathan is correct--and I didn't understand it. Some of the film had focus issues. These were only the scenes shot in low light with my 8mm Optar Illumina. The lens must of been opened to T1.3 or 2, because these were night scenes on Duvall Street at Key West, Florida. I also shot a 100' spool on Duvall with the same lens and it had much better focus. I think that the A-wind film that the A-Minima uses does indeed develop a memory and change the film plane ever so slightly. I intend to ask my camera tech if he can set my camera up so that the A-Minima loads work correctly. I assume that if he resets the ground glass position and that if I send him a roll of the A-Minima film along with the magazines he will be able to get this set up properly.

Edited January 24, 2006 by Mike Welle

[John Pytlak RIP]

Film wound emulsion-in has a different "core-set" (clockspring) than film wound emulsion-out. Usually, it takes a few weeks for the film to lose its original core set and take on a new one if it is rewound with a different orientation.

 

Depth of focus is very shallow with the lens wide open, so any curl or core-set could affect critical focus more in those situations.

[Clive Tobin]

...If you really MUST have 200 foot rolls for the ACL, better to wind them down from normal 400-foot B-Wind rolls. ...

 

John, this has been bugging me for some time:

 

It appears that Kodak is not following normal terminology when calling the A-Minima loads "A Wind."

 

In the Kodak price list, it is stated that Wind designations apply to film that is wound emulsion in. B Wind has holes on the right, and A Wind has holes on the left. This terminology is standard for intermediate and print films and has been for decades.

 

Should not the A-Minima loads be called "B Wind Emulsion Out" instead? Calling it "A Wind" makes users think that the holes are on the wrong side and won't fit the projector or printer etc.

[John Pytlak RIP]

John, this has been bugging me for some time:

 

It appears that Kodak is not following normal terminology when calling the A-Minima loads "A Wind."

 

In the Kodak price list, it is stated that Wind designations apply to film that is wound emulsion in. B Wind has holes on the right, and A Wind has holes on the left. This terminology is standard for intermediate and print films and has been for decades.

 

Should not the A-Minima loads be called "B Wind Emulsion Out" instead? Calling it "A Wind" makes users think that the holes are on the wrong side and won't fit the projector or printer etc.

 

Interesting. I'll have to run that one by the perforating engineers. Thanks.

[Scott Bullock]

Okay, let's see if I have this figured out correctly: An ACL user with 200' mags. could conceivably use A-Minima specific film for his/her camera if . . .

 

A) They abandoned the A-Minima type spool in favor of cores and/or daylight spools providing that they allow time (a few weeks) for their re-spooled film to adjust to a new core set, or . . .

 

B} They ignored the Aaton specific loads altogether and simply rolled off film from a 400 ft. roll onto 200' spools or cores before loading it into 200' ACL magazines.

 

Am I missing anything?

[Mike Welle]

Okay, let's see if I have this figured out correctly: An ACL user with 200' mags. could conceivably use A-Minima specific film for his/her camera if . . .

 

A) They abandoned the A-Minima type spool in favor of cores and/or daylight spools providing that they allow time (a few weeks) for their re-spooled film to adjust to a new core set, or . . .

 

B} They ignored the Aaton specific loads altogether and simply rolled off film from a 400 ft. roll onto 200' spools or cores before loading it into 200' ACL magazines.

 

Am I missing anything?

 

What I am going to try next is to send my camera to Du-All in New York and ask if they can set up the flange focal/back focus setting (you know what I mean) so that A-wind, A-Minima film will work properly because Nathan said in another post that the film tends to bow toward or away from the gate (can't remember specifically) a few microns--and my camera (must be) set up to take B-wind film--just like everyone elses is as well. That was not very well written, I know. I will let the forum know the results of this experience in several months. When I was shooting in Key West, I think this was confirmed with my 8mm Optar Illumina wide angle at (T1.3-2.2). At all other settings footage was in focus. In my opinion the easiest thing to do would be to a) leave your camera alone or B) try sending it to a technician who can reset the back focus/flange focal setting. You might want to wait until I've been the guinea pig on this. I'm not sure I agree and/or understand the whole "core set" business and am frankly, quite skeptical of it. And since you cannot reason with a man that looks not heavily and full of fear, maybe it's just easier to shoot 100' spools and enjoy your camera. Maybe 200' loads are chasing something not worth the search. Remember what Shakespeare said: "All things that are are with more spirit chased than enjoyed."

Edited March 2, 2006 by Mike Welle

[Scott Bullock]

What I am going to try next is to send my camera to Du-All in New York and ask if they can set up the flange focal/back focus setting (you know what I mean) so that A-wind, A-Minima film will work properly because Nathan said in another post that the film tends to bow toward or away from the gate (can't remember specifically) a few microns--and my camera (must be) set up to take B-wind film--just like everyone elses is as well. That was not very well written, I know. I will let the forum know the results of this experience in several months. When I was shooting in Key West, I think this was confirmed with my 8mm Optar Illumina wide angle at (T1.3-2.2). At all other settings footage was in focus. In my opinion the easiest thing to do would be to a) leave your camera alone or B) try sending it to a technician who can reset the back focus/flange focal setting. You might want to wait until I've been the guinea pig on this. I'm not sure I agree and/or understand the whole "core set" business and am frankly, quite skeptical of it. And since you cannot reason with a man that looks not heavily and full of fear, maybe it's just easier to shoot 100' spools and enjoy your camera. Maybe 200' loads are chasing something not worth the search. Remember what Shakespeare said: "All things that are are with more spirit chased than enjoyed."

 

Well, like I said, if I'm understanding what everyone is saying, you can use a 200' load if a) they are taken from 400' loads, b} you use short/medium ends from 400' loads, or c) you discard the A-minima spool, re-spool the film onto a core or daylight spool with the proper wind, and allow the film to sit for a few weeks until it establishes a new core set.

 

Am I right in assuming that these 3 options are correct? Anyone?

[recans]

If anyone needs recans or sealed 200' A Minima loads cheaply for tests, contact me via pm.

[Mike Welle]

Okay,

I had my camera sent off to a repair house in California (I shall not say which one--but it is well known for servicing ACLs, perhaps the most well-known). The reason I did was to have the XLR jack switched so that it was a smaller two pronged jack--in effect so that the barney I have would fit on there. I also had them make a 200' magazine scratch proof. I have yet to see the results. But I've bought products from them before and their work is first rate in my opinion. This was the first time they serviced my camera directly.

 

The long and the short is, I ended up slipping in the question: could the ground glass/flange-focal thingy be modified so that it would take A-wind film rather than B-wind. The technician said it didn't matter which wind the camera took. I told him that's what I thought before trying it, but it seems some of my work turned out softer (read out of focus--I think) when I viewed it in comparision to film shot in the same dark location with the same lens wide angle lens at an open aperture with B-wind film. He said to hold on a second and started talking with another person (another technician--I presume). Pssst. Psst. Psst. (sound of technicians talking on phone). He comes back and says "you can use either A or B wind film." He gave a lengthy explanation in which I recall the words pressure plates, tolerances, temperature and others being mentioned. But I must confess, my lack of recall of the specific answer escapes me. I even read him what Nathan Milford said about it specifically:

 

"It is quite possible that focus issues might come into play due to the film's memory. If you have film wound emulsion in it will naturally bow in to the gate, emulsion out will bow away from the gate against the normal tolerances we set for the camera." (This came from cinematography.com in 2004)

 

The technician I spoke with said that it must have been a problem with my lens being out of adjustment. I told him that I used the same lens (8mm Optar Illumina) in the same area (Duvall Street in Key West at night) at the same settings T1.3-2.3 with two different winds (B and A-minima wind)--therefore it couldn't be the lens. Then he said, it must have been operator error--that I didn't focus properly. He could be correct. Maybe I didn't do the most scientific test in the world--and I need more experience with shooting A and B wind films to do a true comparison.

 

Tonight I looked at the films shot in the city street at night with the B-wind film and A-wind film. To my eye the B-wind films look like they are in better focus. But who knows? "Trifles light as air are to the jealous confirmations strong as proofs of holy writ." I guess that would read "envious" of an A-Minima, since I don't possess one to be jealous of (sorry for ending the sentence in a preposition).

 

Mike Welle

Charleston, SC

[Tim Carroll]

Mike,

 

I don't know the ACL camera, but with the Arri cameras I service, the pressure plate is spring loaded. I am going to risk assuming the ACL is the same way. And there is a specific tolerance for how much spring force is in the pressure plate assembly, the spring force holding the film up "tight" against the gate.

 

So if we figure your ACL is set to factory specs to be used with B wind film, wound emulsion in, then the spring force in the pressure plate is set up to keep the film a certain distance from the gate, compensating for the spring force of the film wanting to bow the film away from the gate as it travels past. We will imagine the film coming slightly off the gate surface as it moves past when the camera is set to spec and you are using B wind, emulsion in film. The camera designers took that into account when they designed the camera, so everything is fine.

 

Now you want to run (I still don't know if A-minima film is really A wind film) but let's call it emulsion out film through the camera. This film wants to bow in toward the gate, not away from it. Now the spring force in the pressure plate is working with the natural bow of the film to really plaster it up against the gate. A change in microns (about 1/10th the diameter of a human hair) of where the surface of the film is located in relationship to the lens will cause a picture to be soft, especially when using a wide angle lens, which your 8mm would definitely qualify as. So I am not surprised at all that shooting with a very wide angle lens, and changing between emulsion in and emulsion out film, that the sharpness of you image changes. I can't see any way in which it wouldn't.

 

-Tim

[Mike Welle]

Hi Tim,

Well, It appears that Nathan is correct then. But I need to find a technician who believes what you and Nathan believe, understand my "problem" and have the ability to correct it. First off, to address your question, the pressure plate on the 200' magazines must be spring loaded because I can move it back and forth by depressing it--and it feels springy. If a technician changed the distance of the ground glass to flange so that it was equal to the pre-existing distance of the flange to gate with emulsion out film--would this not allow me to use 200' rolls without focus problems? I was eventually planning on sending the camera to Du-All in New York. I hope they understand the problem and can fix it. Meantime, I will enjoy my camera with 100' Kodak spools. I know I can use 200' Fuji film on spools, but I would rather not take chances with something new, since the Kodak film works.

 

Thank you,

Mike Welle

Charleston, SC

 

 

Mike,

 

I don't know the ACL camera, but with the Arri cameras I service, the pressure plate is spring loaded. I am going to risk assuming the ACL is the same way. And there is a specific tolerance for how much spring force is in the pressure plate assembly, the spring force holding the film up "tight" against the gate.

 

So if we figure your ACL is set to factory specs to be used with B wind film, wound emulsion in, then the spring force in the pressure plate is set up to keep the film a certain distance from the gate, compensating for the spring force of the film wanting to bow the film away from the gate as it travels past. We will imagine the film coming slightly off the gate surface as it moves past when the camera is set to spec and you are using B wind, emulsion in film. The camera designers took that into account when they designed the camera, so everything is fine.

 

Now you want to run (I still don't know if A-minima film is really A wind film) but let's call it emulsion out film through the camera. This film wants to bow in toward the gate, not away from it. Now the spring force in the pressure plate is working with the natural bow of the film to really plaster it up against the gate. A change in microns (about 1/10th the diameter of a human hair) of where the surface of the film is located in relationship to the lens will cause a picture to be soft, especially when using a wide angle lens, which your 8mm would definitely qualify as. So I am not surprised at all that shooting with a very wide angle lens, and changing between emulsion in and emulsion out film, that the sharpness of you image changes. I can't see any way in which it wouldn't.

 

-Tim

[Tim Carroll]

Hi Tim,

Well, It appears that Nathan is correct then. But I need to find a technician who believes what you and Nathan believe, understand my "problem" and have the ability to correct it. First off, to address your question, the pressure plate on the 200' magazines must be spring loaded because I can move it back and forth by depressing it--and it feels springy. If a technician changed the distance of the ground glass to flange so that it was equal to the pre-existing distance of the flange to gate with emulsion out film--would this not allow me to use 200' rolls without focus problems? I was eventually planning on sending the camera to Du-All in New York. I hope they understand the problem and can fix it. Meantime, I will enjoy my camera with 100' Kodak spools. I know I can use 200' Fuji film on spools, but I would rather not take chances with something new, since the Kodak film works.

 

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