Y16

[Tyler Purcell]

3 hours ago, Travis Shannon said:

It’s interesting that you mention eBay as a gauge since this site doesn’t seem to be one in your mind.

I can count on one hand how many people from this group, I’ve randomly met outside. Generally, those I have met are lurkers, not active, so no…. the amount of people talking here is irrelevant. Also, I’ve had several people contact me from this group for service, they all love a local So Cal tech is available, instead of waiting months for something to get done. 

3 hours ago, Travis Shannon said:

The number of completed listings is far more reflective of complete ACLs than broken parts cameras you allude to buying.

I’ve been buying and selling cameras for over a decade. I haven’t bought an ACL in ah least 8 years. The pricing went crazy and the “basement” cameras are long sold already. Most cameras just had ceased movements from lack of lube and were sold “as-is”. 

3 hours ago, Travis Shannon said:

even though you’ve personally said you apparently like the ACL although the vf [one of the most important aspects of a 16mm camera] is “unusable” so it seems an odd practice to partake in)

It was my job and being able to pay my bills relied on my skills. 

3 hours ago, Travis Shannon said:

Sourcing parts is also a nightmare

Which is why ya need a few bodies to take parts off of. My cabinet at one point had a bunch of bodies, similar to my other obsession; eyemos. I sold all of my inventory few years ago when the prices went crazy. I gave the left over parts to a few friends with ACLs. If I need parts, I just call them. 

3 hours ago, Travis Shannon said:

as you yourself said so- how you were able to supply over 24 cameras with them is a bit baffling to myself as well.

I haven’t need many parts, they are very well made cameras. Very few things can’t be rebuilt. Things like the pivot pin are the only things that do fail, which can’t be easily replaced. Everything else is just cleaning, lubrication, calibration, seals and re-assembly 9 times out of 10. No different than any other film camera honestly. 

3 hours ago, Travis Shannon said:

You are correct in that I don’t have to believe you, I choose not to. Apparently business is booming so I hope it keeps up for you, can’t imagine it has much to do with customer service though. 

Thanks, I appreciate the kind words. It’s nice to know other “filmmakers” in So Cal care so much about other community members. 

Edit; Ohh and the reason I don’t own an ACL anymore is because I already have too many cameras. I don’t need any more. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Tyler Purcell

[Gregg MacPherson]

1 hour ago, Heikki Repo said:

..... I went for Klüber Isoflex LDS 18 Special and Nye #140B clock oil. ....

The question about the self lubricating parts is interesting. ACL2 manual says that "The four drive shafts run in selflubrificated bearings and the camera mechanism should NEVER be oiled." Obviously, "never" might not mean 50 years later. The very important question is, do service houses such as VP do something about those self lubricated bearings when they rebuild ACLs?.....

....At least I have new old stock spares for the main horizontal drive shaft so I could replace it.

Heikki,

The ACL content is too interesting to leave here where it will get lost. I'll paste it over to the Technicians Who Service ACLs thread...let's talk there...

https://cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/87469-technicians-who-service-eclair-acls/page/2/#comment-558605

Gregg.

 

[Gregg MacPherson]

12 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

You’re a horrible person. 

Alarm and ridicule seem realistic reactions to your repetitive nonsense.

[Gregg MacPherson]

40 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

You don’t even live in my continent, the only connection you have to me is through an internet forum, of which I write rarely and generally only between renders like today.

You’ve never talked to me, you’ve never met me, you’ve never seen the work I do or even talk to a client who had worked with me. I highly doubt you’ve see my social media accounts, doubt you’ve watched any of my youtube videos or even seen any of my professional work as it only broadcasts in the US. 

Yet here you are.. Ridiculing me… One of the few actually keeping “film” alive. 

You are truly the lowest of the low sir. 

Clearly, you can apply most of that criticism to yourself.

I think there may be a stream of cameras that will fail prematurely or become unserviceable because some fool has been pretending to be qualified to work on them. I think that person is positioned at the low end of a dung heap. The lowest? Maybe there's still room for downward migration. This problematic "thing" has needed censure, and been given it, often patiently, by a small handful of members. But it keeps coming up.

Degrading the cameras and the knowledge pool about them is not "keeping film alive", it's doing the opposite. In fact, I find it, quite "horrible".

There is a switch on the forum to make someone almost invisible. Trouble is then you don't know if they are skulking around making mischief.

 

[Gregg MacPherson]

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

.... why don’t you tell me who your mentor was and about your service shop?

I don't think I have a mentor, or a service shop, but then I never pretended to...Tyler.

The name calling in your following post is getting out of hand. As before, perhaps these quasi observations or described qualities are applicable to yourself.

Is it time for the "ban Tyler" petition again...

[Gregg MacPherson]

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Wow censure? 

Wow I was wrong, you’re evil. 

That’s some nazi fascist shit right there 

You're way out of line Tyler. I complained to the headmaster. 

[Jon O'Brien]

Tyler, when I wrote "Artisan" I didn't mean that wobbly, jittery, dusty footage is okay. 35mm digitized footage as you know usually looks completely pristine. 65mm is more so. What I meant is that with those two formats, boy, there's some room for a little bit of imperfection there. They can take a bit of that and the footage will still look great. That's in my opinion. Yes sure, the cameras used for that pristine footage are top-of-the-line equipment fully serviced. But a tiny bit of gateweave and vertical movement, and I mean tiny, is to me something admirable about film. Okay so perhaps I'm outvoted on that. Anyway, I thought someone needed to say it. I really don't mind at all even at the cinema if there's a tiny bit of movement at the frame edges. It gives the picture a bit of life in my opinion. Cinema is after all moving pictures. Absolute stillness at the frame edges is a weird look in my opinion. To me it looks unnatural. That said, I have very steady cameras and I'm happy about that.

 

[Jon O'Brien]

By the way, I'm not referring to the Magellan when I mention steadiness of footage. That camera is probably as consistent as can be and always as steady as the Rock of Gibraltar. I was just making a general comment about celluloid footage in general, and how if a new camera, designed and made by whomever, wasn't for the sake of argument absolutely perfect, well, too bad, there's enough leeway there that it wouldn't matter. As long as it's a good camera, a new camera doesn't have to be 'perfect', like so many keep seeming to want. A 'perfect' camera would probable cost as much as Steve Austin's bionic 'improvements'. Now, that's a 70s reference. And that's in 70s money.

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Absolute stillness at the frame edges is a weird look in my opinion

When I see perfect steadiness in the theater, I know someone has done a good job. It’s easy to have a poorly calibrated and worn out intermittent. But when you see perfection, (which is so rare) man it’s like all the great things about celluloid with none of the detractors. I honestly get more excited to see this “perfection” than even watching the movie sometimes. I know how hard it is, I have many friends in the projection side of things and have been mentored by one of the top projectionists in Hollywood. Understanding the entire film path all so well, when I see perfection on screen, it’s jaw dropping. 

One recent example of this was Tenet on IMAX, jesus that format is so damn good with registration pins built into the projector that lock each frame in place. When the red WB logo comes out of the pitch black screen, no flicker, no registration issues, I had to turn around and make sure the dead silent 15p projector was still running. Hot damn was that a good print, the pinnacle of what film technology can actually do; rival digital in many ways. 

 

[Tyler Purcell]

2 hours ago, Gregg MacPherson said:

You're way out of line Tyler. I complained to the headmaster. 

Yea, I’m sure ya did and ya know what,  that’s why all of the terms I’ve used to describe your behavior are accurate. 

The bully has no problem dishing out, but when it’s time to take it, they always become the victim. 

I’m sure I’ll be the one punished and you’ll be “vindicated”, even though your words and actions towards me on dozens of occasions are unbefitting of any functioning adult. 

The mere idea of censuring people because you assume they are incompetent, is the very definition of authoritarianism’s. 

[David Sekanina]

I value your input Tyler, I do not always agree with you on everything, and I wish you'd be less unkind to Logmar's projects. On certain topics you sometimes contradict yourself. In one thread you once said you'd design a camera with no ground glass, just an EVF, like Panavision did on one of their cameras, and later you state in another thread, that the market would not accept a camera that has no optical viewfinder. This is of interest to me as I'm working on a 4K EVF solution first and hold off the optical one for later, or even leave it out.

 

Edited April 6, 2022 by David Sekanina

[Jon O'Brien]

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

... IMAX ... that format is so ... good with registration pins built into the projector that lock each frame in place. When the red WB logo comes out of the pitch black screen, no flicker, no registration issues, I had to turn around and make sure the dead silent 15p projector was still running ... that a good print, the pinnacle of what film technology can actually do; rival digital in many ways. 

Yes, well, I agree with you Tyler about IMAX. In that context yes a rock-steady image is best. It's supposed to be a feast for the eyes that transports you into the picture somewhat. I see that as a different kind of thing to watching a 'regular' movie. That's how I see it. I was trying to point out that some people actually like a bit of imperfection in ... I'm going to use that word some people don't like .... no I won't use it. It's three letters long and starts with 'A'.

[Tyler Purcell]

8 hours ago, David Sekanina said:

This is of interest to me as I'm working on a 4K EVF solution first and hold off the optical one for later, or even leave it out.

My comments are always context based, so in a discussion about 16mm cameras, I do believe a high-resolution EVF will be satisfactory IF it doesn't have a ground glass. If the image CAN be recorded as a "backup", otherwise it's not worth doing. So if it's just a high res video tap, no... optical viewfinder will be necessary.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Tyler Purcell

[Aapo Lettinen]

16 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

So if it's just a high res video tap, no... optical viewfinder will be necessary.

not talking about Tyler but on general level...

I have seen it being extremely common that if people are offered a perfectly well working film camera system but it has only ONE minor detail they don't like, then they rather don't have any camera at all and continue complaining that "there is NO any cameras available anywhere, I would shoot dozens of feature films in an instant if there just was any kind of camera available for me" .

If they would actually use the camera for real stuff they could live with some minor "flaws" and get A LOT done with the gear, being very happy with it anyway slightly "flawed" or not...

But if the main goal is to theorize about cameras instead of actually shooting with them, then every minor "flaw" is a "dealbreaker" which makes the camera "totally unusable for anything". Why? because they did not intend to purchase it in the first place and they need to justify the decision somehow without saying that they don't actually want to spend all their money to a camera they know they would not actually use much in the real life because they would not shoot much stuff anyway whether having a new camera or not. 

To me it is just like an anecdote of a self proclaimed "writer" who sat in the same bar whining day after day, year after year that "I would write all the books in the world but I don't have a typewriter so it is impossible to write anything and I don't have any other option that to sit here in the bar drinking".  After some years listening to that whining all the other regular customers and the bar owner decided to strike back and they purchased him the darn typewriter ?   he didn't complete any books ever but the whining stopped instantly and everyone was happy ?

[Gregg MacPherson]

5 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

not talking about...........but on general level...

 ....After some years listening to that whining all the other regular customers and the bar owner decided to strike back and they purchased him the darn typewriter ?  ...

?

So we're buying him a typewriter..? Let's make it a vintage one with no internet connection..

[Tyler Purcell]

6 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

If they would actually use the camera for real stuff they could live with some minor "flaws" and get A LOT done with the gear, being very happy with it anyway slightly "flawed" or not...

Oh there is no doubt. Honestly, an LTR would work for my documentary stuff flawlessly. However, it does not work for any professional work. I was unable to ever get work with it. Once I got the XTR, the work poured in. But yes, I agree with your excellent summary, a problem I keep on bringing up time and time again. 

Adding to your point, I do feel there are three distinct markets; Hobbyists, professionals and collectors. Those are three different cameras as well. The hobbyist may not care about integration into modern digital wireless systems but may care about stop motion. The professional can only get business with their camera if they can offer a complete kit, compared to other professionals. The collector may only care about the physical look and “cool” factor. 

The hobbyist isn’t going to pay $25k for a camera, they can barely afford film. The professional will only pay that much if it can match or be better than the other pro cameras. The collector has the money, but for that kind of money, they can fill their shelves with antiques, so why would they buy a new one. 

So why is this such a big deal? There is no logic really. It’s like hiring people based on what college they graduated from, not their skill set. The logic behind what camera is used, comes down to preference only. All of these cameras do a fine job, it’s just down to what people are comfortable with. Can you fault them? 

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

On 4/6/2022 at 3:57 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

Oh there is no doubt. Honestly, an LTR would work for my documentary stuff flawlessly. However, it does not work for any professional work.

Huh??  LTR's work fine for professional work

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

On 4/6/2022 at 8:31 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

My comments are always context based, so in a discussion about 16mm cameras, I do believe a high-resolution EVF will be satisfactory IF it doesn't have a ground glass. If the image CAN be recorded as a "backup", otherwise it's not worth doing. So if it's just a high res video tap, no... optical viewfinder will be necessary.

Nope, it doesn't work. the SR3's were converted to EVF on "The Walking dead" and they simply do not work. The image was unusable 

[David Sekanina]

4 hours ago, Eric Fletcher S.O.C. said:

Nope, it doesn't work. the SR3's were converted to EVF on "The Walking dead" and they simply do not work. The image was unusable 

An EVF recording off a ground glass with a fiberoptic faceplate component (usually 100 fibers per mm, but goes up to over 200/mm nowadays), the 16mm focusing screen is too small to resolve even 2K. A 65mm 5perf ground glass is over 52mm wide, so for Logmar to chose a EVF solution is sound in my eyes. I don't know if the Magellan uses a focusing screen though, or if they relay the image to the sensor with relay optics.

 

correction: it's over 100 line pairs per mm for a fiber optic focusing screen - not individual glass fibers, so it could resolve 2K in 16mm. My bad.

Edited April 11, 2022 by David Sekanina

[Tyler Purcell]

13 hours ago, David Sekanina said:

the 16mm focusing screen is too small to resolve even 2K

The only way to really do an EVF on a film camera properly is to use optics, without any focusing screen. It's possible, but it requires a bit of re-engineering. The SR's are so complicated above the shutter, I can't imagine them having enough room to do a proper EVF solution. With the Aaton's, you got a nice big hole there for some optics. 

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by Tyler Purcell

[David Sekanina]

https://www.yolk.org/camera/y16

I did not want to post this so soon, then again I did not expect Tommy and Lasse to switch their design to a 100ft camera as well. I was relieved to see that Galapagos has a very different design philosophy compared to my camera. I wish them success, I admire their work and find it inspiring.

 

I’ve been working on the Y16, a tiny Super 16 camera for quite some time. The Y8 Super 8 camera project never felt quite right. It was over-engineered, and the PL mount was less than ideal for this film format. I kept telling myself I should put all this effort into a Super 16 camera…so I did.

This is the companion camera I really want to my Aaton XTR Prod. Compact, ergonomic, and stripped down. Does anyone else? Probably only a few.

If you can’t find a feature or function in the description, it means the Y16 will not have it ♥

 

I’ll post updates on my LinkedIn page from time to time, you can follow the project there if you want. I won’t post any updates here - it’s the wrong forum for this.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/yolklab/

 

[Juan Dorado]

10 minutes ago, David Sekanina said:

https://www.yolk.org/camera/y16

I did not want to post this so soon, then again I did not expect Tommy and Lasse to switch their design to a 100ft camera as well. I was relieved to see that Galapagos has a very different design philosophy compared to my camera. I wish them success, I admire their work and find it inspiring.

 

I’ve been working on the Y16, a tiny Super 16 camera for quite some time. The Y8 Super 8 camera project never felt quite right. It was over-engineered, and the PL mount was less than ideal for this film format. I kept telling myself I should put all this effort into a Super 16 camera…so I did.

This is the companion camera I really want to my Aaton XTR Prod. Compact, ergonomic, and stripped down. Does anyone else? Probably only a few.

If you can’t find a feature or function in the description, it means the Y16 will not have it ♥

 

I’ll post updates on my LinkedIn page from time to time, you can follow the project there if you want. I won’t post any updates here - it’s the wrong forum for this.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/yolklab/

 

Hi David,

This seems like an interesting project. What stage of the process are you in at the moment? Is this something we should be expecting relatively soon? 

 

Thanks 

[Uli Meyer]

1 hour ago, Juan Dorado said:

Hi David,

This seems like an interesting project. What stage of the process are you in at the moment? Is this something we should be expecting relatively soon? 

 

Thanks 

If you read the text in the link, it tells you 2024 ?

This looks like a great concept! Congratulations David!

Edited July 3, 2022 by Uli Meyer
Addition

[Sander Ferdinand]

Those renders look awesome. For me personally I would prefer something that could take 400ft but as a hobbyist my opinion is irrelevant.

I will follow this project for sure, wishing you all the best.

[Robin Phillips]

9 hours ago, David Sekanina said:

https://www.yolk.org/camera/y16

I did not want to post this so soon, then again I did not expect Tommy and Lasse to switch their design to a 100ft camera as well. I was relieved to see that Galapagos has a very different design philosophy compared to my camera. I wish them success, I admire their work and find it inspiring.

 

I’ve been working on the Y16, a tiny Super 16 camera for quite some time. The Y8 Super 8 camera project never felt quite right. It was over-engineered, and the PL mount was less than ideal for this film format. I kept telling myself I should put all this effort into a Super 16 camera…so I did.

This is the companion camera I really want to my Aaton XTR Prod. Compact, ergonomic, and stripped down. Does anyone else? Probably only a few.

If you can’t find a feature or function in the description, it means the Y16 will not have it ♥

 

I’ll post updates on my LinkedIn page from time to time, you can follow the project there if you want. I won’t post any updates here - it’s the wrong forum for this.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/yolklab/

 

Im a sucker for an optical viewfinder. extremely interested. does it use a built in battery or something removable?