Eclair NPR versus ACL for PL Mounted Lenses

[Peter Connell]

Hi guys,

I want to buy an Eclair ACL or NPR for 16mm independent film making and have sourced a PL mount 1.5x anamorphic lens (for super35) with a focal length of 27mm made by Lawoa (I accept the loss of field of view and 2:1 aspect ratio). My question is does the NPR or ACL offer a better support for a PL lens which weighs 1.1 lb? 

My understanding is that the Cameflex mount on the NPR would not require me to have support rods for the PL lens. What is confusing me is the PL mount for the ACL. The ACL manual says "The C mount is surrounded by a large threaded shoulder to which a TS adapter for Cammiflex, Arriflex, Nikon and other professional mounts can be attached without affecting the back focal distance and putting undue strain on the C mount". I have not been able to source a mount adaptation for the ACL C mount that would not require support rods. I called Les Bosher, who was very warm and polite, but it was a little ambiguous as to whether I would need support rods if he was to add a PL mount to the ACL and whether the adaptation is utilising the C mount or somehow uses the TS adapter.

Thank you,

Peter

 

[Gregg MacPherson]

The common PL/TS mount that Les B. makes fits to the large outer thread on the camera flange. The C mount is not involved. It's a very robust and well made mount. I'm surprised Les did not give you an answer on whether a 1.5 pound lens of specified length would be safe. Maybe he didn't know the lens and it's centre of mass (CoM) and was just being cautious. But lenses weighing about twice as much were routinely used on all the 16mm cameras, so my guess is that it is fine for normal use.

All mechanical parts are designed for normal use within some notional envelope, and may bend or break when the loads go to a specified point beyond that. Understanding the failure modes and how they come about is a complex and fuzzy area. 

A heavier lens with the CoM further away from the screws connecting the TS flange to the camera body, its inertia could overload that screw connection if the camera got a severe vertical bump. 

Gregg.

[Peter Connell]

Thanks Gregg. Les was very helpful, I think the ambiguity was more from my lack of understanding. Nonetheless your comment does provide clarity on the matter. This aside, I'm starting to shift my attention to an Arri SRII or Aaton LTR as I think they represent a better longer term investment.

[Giray Izcan]

As nice as Aatons are, in terms of a long term investment, I would be weary as apparently finding spare parts is becoming more and more difficult - even SRs.

[Aapo Lettinen]

Eclairs should be much easier to repair and find spare parts for than Arris or Aatons. They are lower quality cameras and often more used / lower condition than the Arris or Aatons but 3 to 4 times cheaper as well.

Eclair motors are not easy to repair if they fail (just like any other crystal sync motor) but at least there is replacements available (some AZ mods, some of them made by me, etc.) whereas on Arri or Aaton it may be very difficult to restore them back to working condition if the electronics fail unless being extremely lucky on finding original spare parts.

There is pros and cons on Eclairs but generally speaking a external motor approach like theirs is tons easier to replace with a completely new out-of-scratch solution, than a built in motor like on Arris and Aatons where one would need to build the new solution inside the camera body which would be extremely work intensive and time consuming and thus very very expensive (, even so that it would be much cheaper to just purchase another camera body instead and leave the non-working one for spare parts.

So for "future proofing" the Eclairs are much better but on other aspects the Arris and Aatons are better AS LONG AS THEY WORK CORRECTLY...

[Peter Connell]

Hi Giray and Aapo,

This has given me a lot to think about as durability and longevity will become increasingly important over the years as parts become rarer. At what level would you think this becomes less of an issue? SR3/Aaton XTR and up? I should imaging there is a reasonable level of support for Arri SR2 still? even if the Aaton LTR is harder.

What is the cost of replacing the motor on an ACL/NPR?

Thanks,
Pete

[Giray Izcan]

I would say an SR 3 over an XTR in terms of parts being available - otherwise, I prefer Aatons in s16 over SRs. Even SR 3s are problematic with parts. This os of course from what I've heard and read and not through a personal experience as I am not looking to source parts for either cameras.

[Aapo Lettinen]

To me it is always necessary to consider what it would cost and how much work it would be to replace the original motor and electronics of a camera with completely newly made different ones because especially on more expensive high quality cameras the original electronic parts are very rare finds and they will run out at some point (or in a way already have been as far as I have understood) .

If the camera uses a built-into-the-camera-body special custom made motor which is of course more compact too than off-the-shelf ones, that is insanely difficult to replace with anything off-the-shelf and it is likely that one would need to get the motor drive itself custom made which is not practical unless there is dozens of cameras to be converted at the same time (which there isn't) and unless those dozens of conversions are all paid up front (which they aren't) and unless there is enough money to make the conversion in the first place (which there probably is not considering that I would estimate it would cost something from 5k to 8k per camera body to convert them) .

So this "we made a really cool super compact and nicely enclosed camera body with the nasty motor parts built in" approach does not work nowadays when cameras need to be updated one by one. In comparison with the Eclairs like the ACL, my 16-speed motor uses a off-the-shelf motor drive and few simple and affordable cnc machined mounting parts to roughly mount the new motor to the ACL body. It was possible to make in small enough batches and affordable enough that people had money to buy it and it only took a year to develop. Mind you that I was only able to sell 5 of the ACL motors total so far so the batch sizes are very small and we just have to live with what can be done with a budget of couple of thousand usd of developing money.

If the ACL would had had a built-into-camera-body super compact motor like the SR for example has, it would not had been possible for me to make a new motor for it as there was not enough orders that I could had even got the motor drives made, let alone rest of the electronics. The only possibility to make these things nowadays it to use off-the-shelf motors and electronic components so that only the circuit boards and software need to be custom made. it is still tons of work and not generating any revenue but at least it is possible to make in the first place without being a millionare investing one's own money to it without getting anything back.

I mean, it is fun to make camera electronics but it is mandatory to at least get my own costs back and that is impossible if there is too expensive outsourced special made parts in the system. A good quality off-the-shelf motor already costs hundreds of usd a piece and a custom made one would likely be thousands a piece with minimum orders in place. No possibility to finance that kind of project if only selling like 5 or 10 of them total

[Aapo Lettinen]

1 hour ago, Peter Connell said:

What is the cost of replacing the motor on an ACL/NPR?

typically making a mechanically simple new motor using off-the-shelf motor and components with minimum amount of custom machining would make a ACL or NPR fitting motor to cost from 1k to 2.5k usd depending on how many are ordered and pre-paid and how compact it needs to be, if shutter parking is needed and how manual inching is arranged, etc.

my 16-speed ACL kits were just a little over 1k a piece and I am planning on making very simple 12-speed crystal motor kits for the ACL for about 850usd a piece. That is about the absolute minimum which is possible if compromising enough on the design to still keep it good to use for actual filming with the biggest annoyance being the slightly difficult manual inching and lack of shutter parking

[Peter Connell]

Hi Aapo this is really useful intel for me. Based on what you describe I'm better off investing in an Eclair. 16mm is a hobby for me and I'll be shooting independent films. If I'm still pursuing it enthusiastically in a couple of years I may consider then investing in a more modern camera that does not face these issues. I have previously not invested in creative hobbies and come to regret it so would be willing to spend a bit to get good kit. Though for now I think the Eclair makes most sense. Buying an early model Arri or Aaton as a middle ground sounds like a false economy ultimately. Now the debate turns to the ACL versus the NPR.

If my Eclair motor ever breaks I'll know who to call. Out of interest are you on instagram? I'll give you a follow. Mine is pwc_film.

bw

Pete