Scott Bullock

I like that aspect of the camera as well. I like having tape as well as the CF cards. It's somewhat funny because even though I like having tape, thus far everything I've shot with the camera has been onto a CF card. I've recorded quite a bit of just experimental, horsing-around footage to test the camera's features and haven't run an inch of tape across the heads yet. The recording unit for the card detaches from the back of the camera, attaches to a base that is powered by the same model of battery that the camera uses, and then connects to a computer via firewire. In that respect, one can shoot, capture to a laptop, and edit using DC power only; truly, a great method for the documentary filmmaker or ENG videographer working out in the field. You can also record in one mode to tape and in another to the CF card simultaneously, SD to the CF card and HDV to tape, for example. There are tons of things I like about this camera and very few that I don't, but I don't like that it shoots slow motion at a lower resolution, even lower than 1280 x 720. So, if slow motion is your thing, some may be disappointed with how this camera handles it. Personally, if I were shooting slow motion with this camera, I would shoot 1080i, which it does, and slow it down in post. There's supposed to be another lens coming out for the camera (or it may have come out already, I haven't checked lately) that is a shorter focal length zoom. The 35mm equivalent on the lens it comes with is only about 32mm, which isn't terrible but isn't great either. The other lens has roughly a 24mm (35mm equivalent) focal length at its short end; not bad but not amazing. I'd like to see something in the (again, 35mm equivalent) 18 - 20mm range. I might look to purchase the new zoom lens one of these days but it's very expensive; somewhere in the $1,500 - $2,500 range, I think. Therefore, the lens situation is a toss-up: on the one hand, I like that Sony developed an interchangeable lens system for this camera and the EX3, but on the other hand, the lenses are expensive and short focal lengths are almost non-existent, and I haven't found a good wide-angle adapter solution either. Then again, the camera's 1/3" bayonet mount can be adapted for use with any of Sony's lenses in their digital SLR line of cameras, so, while it does not solve the short focal length situation, it certainly opens up a lot of possibilities for those videographers looking for decreased depth of field and added punch at the longer focal lengths.

I bought the Sony Z7 and I LOVE it. It's great in low light and has a ton of features. It does shoot native 30p and 24p as well as 1080 60i. I've been shooting 1080i stuff since I'm editing with Final Cut Express, but the latest version of Final Cut Pro has all the tools necessary to edit the progressive stuff. The sensors in the camera are native progressive, so it can and does shoot real 24p and 30p. It can also achieve 24p using a pull-down technique as well. There are two different 24p modes. I'm still experimenting around with the camera but so far I'm really impressed.

No, have it repaired. Contact Dieter Shaffer (sp?) at Procam in Arizona. He's an authorized Bolex service facility. A Bolex can be overhauled for about $350. Send me a PM if you can't find his contact info and I will send it to you.

I have experience with the Z1 and the V1 and I just acquired a Z7. As much as I liked the Z1 and V1, the Z7 seems to up the ante over the other 2 cameras (better in low light, interchangeable lenses, true 24P, etc.). It's a new camera (just hit the market in February, I believe) and there aren't a lot of reviews for it yet, so once I've had a chance to use the camera some more and produce some footage worthy of posting (beyond shots of my dog running around, etc.) I'll post a review here. I'm getting ready to put together a very low-budget independent movie and this camera is perfectly suited for it. No, it's not a RED, but a RED isn't 35mm. All of these cameras have their place, so the flame wars over what is better or worse (blah, blah, blah) is a complete waste of time. I look at it like this: If you can't put together an interesting and compelling project (music video, short/feature film, documentary, etc.) with a Z7, or any camera, for that matter, then you aren't going to be able to do it with RED, Panavision, Arriflex, or any other camera either. Let me state this, for the record (I don't know why I'm going down this road, perhaps because of the antagonistic nature of a lot of posts in this forum of late): A couple of years ago I was the DP on a feature film that was shot on a Sony PD-150. It was shown over a 3 day period in a local theater to 12 sold-out audiences and not one person voiced any complaints about image quality despite my fears of that happening. My theory regarding this is that because the script, direction, acting, lighting, production design, etc., were first rate, nobody gave a damn that the movie wasn't shot on HD or 35mm. Anyway, I love the Z7U and, as I'd originally anticipated, it is actually more suited to my needs than the EX1 is, so I'm looking forward to getting the ball rolling on the independent film I referred to above. If our budget could sustain the use of a RED, Super 16, 35mm would I (we) choose one of those routes instead? Of course! But we aren't going to allow our inability to raise the necessary funds to shoot in one of those formats to prevent us from making our movie. It really is that simple, in my opinion. More to come...

I've been looking at this camera also. It looks very interesting. For my needs I think it would actually be more practical than the EX1. Call me crazy, but that's my opinion. What I don't understand is whether this camera is a 1080P camera or a 1080i camera. I found the following description on the Abel Cine Tech site: "The HVR-Z7U is Sony's latest miniDV camcorder to offer 1080i HD recording. It adds the flexibility of an interchangeable lens system, native progressive recording and solid-state memory recording functionality. This groundbreaking camcorder also features 1080/24p/30p HDV native progressive recording modes, and HDMI output." How does the camera offer native progressive recording if it is a 1080i camera? I was reading a Sony brochure about the camera and it made reference to '1080P capture -- 1080P editing -- 1080P delivery'. The brochure also mentioned that the camera would do 'native 24P' and also '24P scan mode' (2:3 pull down). Finally, if it really does capture 1080P, what software and codecs are being offered that will edit HDV 1080P? Final Cut Studio 2? Any insight into these issues that anyone is willing to provide is greatly appreciated. Also, I'd love to hear from anyone who has used the camera.

I'm fairly certain that all late generation, French made magazines have "floating pressure pad(s)." The seller's description probably should have read "last and good design" by Eclair instead of "latest and greatest design." I could be wrong though, especially considering that I haven't seen the ad.

Anyone? Somebody out there has to have used this lens, right? Again, any and all responses are greatly appreciated.

Hello! I hope everyone who celebrates Thanksgiving had an enjoyable one. I'm wondering if anyone here has any familiarity with the Angenieux 16 - 44 lens. I purchased one recently at a pretty good price and it is in absolutely beautiful condition. It's a blistering fast T 1.3, which I suppose is its main attraction. However, here is my dilemma: I was told that this lens will "cover" Super 16, but when I mounted it on my camera and had a look I seem to be getting some vignetting at the 16mm focal length, especially when the lens is focused to 5 feet or less. If it does cover Super 16 it must be one of those "just barely" scenarios that lens technicians always talk about, and it doesn't (to my eye) look to cover Super 16 nearly as well as the Angenieux 15 - 150 does. (Note: The lens hasn?t been film tested yet.) Does anyone have some practical advice that they can give me with regards to this lens? It looks (again, to my eye) like it will probably be 'safe' when transferred to 16:9 video, but I'm thinking that it will vignette in the 1.66:1 aspect ratio. Any comments or opinions regarding this particular lens are greatly appreciated.

I've sent pictures to everyone who asked for them. Please let me know if you'd like more pictures or pictures of something specific. Also, if for some reason you didn't get any pictures but asked for them, please let me know and I'll send them ASAP. Thanks.

For those of you who have inquired, I've got all of your email addresses and will be sending pictures within the next 24 hours or so. I screwed up and left my digital camera at my brother's house, so as soon as I retrieve it I will take some pictures and get them to you. Thanks for your patience.

I?m selling my beloved Super 16 Éclair NPR because I have 2 - Super 16 cameras and only have a need for one. Here is what?s included: 1 ? NPR Super 16 camera body. It was converted to S16 at Optical Electro House in 2005. The original ?C? mount was replaced with a stainless steel one and has been properly re-centered for the S16 format. The original CA-1 mount, which has also been re-centered, has been replaced with an Arri ?B? mount. Camera body comes complete with both body caps and a gate cover. The ground glass has been remarked for proper S16 composition and also has markings for regular 16mm. 1 ? Angenieux 12 ? 120mm zoom lens in Arri ?B? mount. Optics and barrel are in excellent condition with the barrel only showing signs of normal wear. The lens could use a clean, lube and adjustment/collimation, but it works fine as is. (Note: At buyer?s request I can substitute this lens with a ?C? mount, Angenieux 17 ? 68mm lens. Optics are in great condition but the lens needs to be collimated. It?s been a while since I checked, but if I remember correctly this lens covers S16 at all focal lengths and distance settings.) 2 ? 400? magazines converted to S16 by Optical Electro House. They are complete with throat covers and all core adapters. 2 ? Kinoptic viewfinders. One is in excellent condition. The other is in good condition but the light trap needs to be fixed. Both are bright and clean without any fungus or scratches on the optics. 2 ? Camera motors. 1 - Perfectone Compact. This motor is crystal at 24 FPS and has variable frame rates from 8 ? 40 FPS. 1 - Perfectone motor with cradle. This motor was converted to crystal by Clive Tobin, model TXM-6. It operates at 24 FPS crystal with a 12V source and at 30 FPS with a 15V source. 1 ? 4 pin to 4 pin XLR cable. Works with both motors. 1 ? ?C? mount to Nikon ?F? mount adapter. Use high quality Nikon/Nikkor 35mm format lenses on this camera. I?ve used them and have achieved wonderful results. 1 ? Éclair 3 X 3 matte box, 2 stages, one rotating. Suitable for regular 16mm filming only. The matte box is in good condition but is missing 1 filter holder. 1 ? Original matte box rod with lens support. (Note: I have an original Éclair case that is designed specifically for the NPR and will contain everything that is listed above, but this will make for an incredibly heavy package for shipping. It?s up to the buyer whether or not they want to pay for the shipping for this. I will include it at the buyer?s request.) I will ship it anywhere in the world but the buyer has to pay all shipping costs. All funds must be received in US dollars. I can accept Paypal. Foreign buyers must use Paypal and assume responsibility for anything to do with legally importing these items. Buyers within the US can also pay via check or Postal Money Order but all funds must clear my bank before I will ship this package. Asking price: $6,000 plus shipping, but I will consider all reasonable offers. I will take pictures of it in the next couple of days so if you are interested please send me your email address and I will send the pictures to you. If you have any questions or need to contact me, please send me a private message or an email to Phantasm0401@comcast.net. The camera body, motors, and magazines are all in excellent working condition. The body and magazines have seen minimal use since they were overhauled and converted to Super 16 in 2005. Everything has been professionally maintained since that time.

Can somebody please shed some light on using the HVX200 with a non-linear editing system? What does the workflow consist of and what would one need in terms of "basic system requirements" to edit with material captured with the HVX200? At present, I have an iMac that has a 2.16 GHz Intel Duo processor, 2 GBs of SDRAM, a 256MB graphics card, and 250 GB of storage. For software I only have Final Cut Express, which has been excellent for my needs to date, but doesn't have a codec for DVCPRO HD. Is there a way of getting that specific codec without upgrading to Final Cut Pro? And, if not, and I have to upgrade to Final Cut Pro, does my system meet the minimum requirements for editing with the HVX200? Many thanks in advance.

As good as George Zorzoli is (he really is a great camera technician; he upgraded my NPR to Super 16 and did a wonderful job), Bernie O'Doherty at Super 16 Inc. is every bit as good, especially when it comes to Elair cameras. Let's not forget that Bernie was at one time a lead camera technician at Eclair prior to the company's departure from the world. He might have even worked at Aaton for a while, I can't remember offhand. I've yet to find anything that Bernie can't do to an Eclair. As much as I love my S16 NPR, I love my S16 ACL 2 even more, and Bernie was the one who did the conversion on that puppy, which also included his famous Laserbrightening that makes the viewing system roughly 1.5 to 2 stops brighter than factory original. Anyway, the point is, both George and Bernie can help you with practically any Eclair situation. That being said, I do believe that George may keep more components on hand, such as view finders, motors, magazines, etc., whereas Bernie seems to focus more purely on customizations, repairs, overhauls, upgrades, etc. There are other places out there that carry components for the Eclair and repair and/or modify them, but I'm speaking more from personal experience so I can't really offer an objective opinion about what others out there can do. Actually, wait a minute . . . when I purchased my ACL 2 it had an AZ Spectrum video assist unit on it and some modifications were made to the electronics base of my camera to accommodate it and a portable LCD monitor, so I'd imagine that Andrew at AZ Spectrum might know a thing or two about Eclairs, as well. Okay, enough ranting; I'm sure that the original poster, Hau-Jou, probably has a motor for his NPR by now. If not, Hau-Jou, send me a private message, I've got a spare Perfectone motor that was crystal modified by Clive Tobin that I'd be willing to sell for a good price. ;)

Hi Andres; I sent you a private message; please check it out. Does this come with any lens front adapters? How large is the rear (lens side) opening? How exactly does this attach to the camera and then to a tripod base plate? Finally, I own an ACL 2 but am not sure what you mean by "large electronics base." Are you simply referring to the standard ACL 2 electronics base? If not, could you please explain? Thanks, Scott

Hi Adam; Please check for the PM I sent you. Thanks, Scott

There are not a lot of other choices for $600 but there are a few. I'd give the Peleng a try if you are looking for fisheye, but if you are just looking for a relatively cheap wide-angle cine lens you might want to give the 9mm Kinoptik a try. It's about the same size as the Switar 10mm but will cover Super 16. It's a c-mount lens and is well-made from what I can tell. You might also want to experiment around with something like a Cosmicar 12.5mm lens. These can be found easily on scamBay and are super cheap. It might work for your needs, it might not. You could also look at getting a prime lens from the 35mm SLR still world, something like a Nikon 14 or 15mm, a Tokina or Sigma 14mm, or a Canon 14mm or 17mm. The fact that your camera is equipped with a c-mount opens up quite a few possibilities from the 35mm still world. Not all of these lenses are cheap, and some of them are a bitch to filtrate (use a matte box), but they'll cover Super 16 a lot more pleasingly than any of the aforementioned lenses, which sometimes just barely cover, and they are also nice and sharp. Like most things, however, there are trade-offs. The SLR lenses aren't as fast as true cine lenses, can be just as expensive, and sometimes don't offer an easy method for filtration unless you are using a matte box. Also, 14mm is about as wide as I've seen without it being a fisheye, which is pretty good for a wide-angle lens when shooting Super 16 but not excellent. On the other hand, it is possible. I have a Sigma 14mm lens in Nikon mount that I use from time to time and it's worked really well. Hopefully this will open up some choices for you that don't have the financial bite that comes with buying a Zeiss or Optar Illumina.

That is the absolute key, in my opinion. Even if you know how to do it yourself, and a lot of cinematographers do, I wouldn't, not when using 3-phase power. It's just too damned much to have to think about as a DP when you've got so much else going on. This is just my own personal safety rule, but if I'm going to be using 2K and above lighting on a shoot, I will insist on hiring a qualified gaffer and/or an electrician. The possible risk to not only you, but others as well, just isn't worth it. So my advice is this: If you can afford to hire an electrician then go for the 2.5 if you feel you really need it, otherwise, just stick to the 1.2 and make it work. I know some will look at that and think, 'no, if I need a 2.5 then that's what I need, period' but many times that's just the nature of the low-budget beast; making it work.

I've been using the Kinoptic 9mm lens on my S16 Eclairs. They're not as wide, obviously, as the 5.7, but they are cheaper than the 5.7 and much more compact. I found mine on eBay for about $300.00.

And even if you've done all of this (widened the gate, removed rails, made sure that rollers don't scratch the film, and have removed all of the sound mechanisms, etc.) there's still a possibility that the projector's lamp won't properly illuminate the entire Super 16 frame. And even if you've taken the time to re-center the lamp, the lamp itself may not light the frame correctly if it has an internal reflector that simply wasn't designed for the added image area. Believe me, these are not negative comments against Super 16, especially as an acquisition format, but as a projection format it's an entirely different can of worms. To be honest, it seems that there's very little if any infrastructure in place to support S-16 as a projection format.

I've been toiling with trying to make my own Super 16 projector as none have ever been manufactured that I have found. Part of the problem is the fact that if you widen the aperture to 1.66 at the projector's gate, you still won't know if the projector's lens will cover the entire frame. This is especially troublesome on projectors with a fixed focal length lens. If you are going to widen the aperture make sure that you are doing so on a projector with a variable focal length lens. At least you will then increase your odds of finding a 'range' where Super 16 can be adequately projected. As Clive Tobin has mentioned, there are a number of modifications that may be necessary to get a regular 16mm projector to project Super 16. It can be costly if you aren't careful, and in the end the best you'll probably ever be able to do is project work print. At least, this has been my experience thus far; I've pretty much concluded that Super 16 is best dealt with on video with the potential of being blown-up to 35mm.

That's a very interesting post and right inline with some things I've been researching. Can you tell me where you found that presentation? John, I'm wishing you the best from Denver, CO. We had a pretty rough winter here in Colorado but nothing at all compared to where you are at. I hope you are enjoying your spring and are doing something fun. Best wishes always.

The original TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974) was shot on 16mm (7247?) and garnered some success. ZODIAC (2007) was shot on the "latest and greatest," the Viper Film/Video Stream camera and is bombing abysmally at the box office. In fact, I think it's already been yanked in the US. What more do you need to know? Shoot Super 8, man . . .

I'd been waiting for this movie to open for months and I can honestly say that I wasn't disappointed. It was a three hour movie and to me it just seemed to fly right by. I'm not sure why it is doing so poorly at the box office, however. I have a feeling that the running time had something to do with it as this seems to have been part of the reason that ZODIAC suffered at the box office as well. Perhaps the whole "grind house" concept was just lost on certain audiences, I don't know. What I do know is that I grew up in the heyday of grind house cinemas and enjoyed going to them as often as possible. I really feel like both directors, but particularly Tarantino, were able to capture the feel of those classic exploitation films; even the faux trailers were awesome! It's sad that we seemingly live in an age where a film like BLADES OF GLORY has more box office appeal than a film like GRINDHOUSE does. I like Will Farrell well enough, don't get me wrong, but these two films are night and day when it comes to the sheer creative forces behind them, in my honest opinion. I'm just baffled that a "cookie cutter" film like BLADES OF GLORY, in its second week of release, can beat out a film like GRINDHOUSE, which just opened. I'm sure I'll watch the Farrell movie when it comes out on DVD or cable and get some laughs out of it, but I loved GRINDHOUSE so much that I plan to see it in the theatre at least a couple more times.

It certainly looks like one to me.

"Silver City" was shot on Super 16 in my home state of Colorado.