Samuel Berger

Another tutorial on loading.

Thank you so much, David. Your input is always very valuable. I know it's a desperate plan, but that 2-perf sounds like an aerial attack emergency siren. And do you agree that since I'm finishing in 2.35:1 I'm better off with Ultra 16 than Super 16? Thanks again.

And so far this is just for the NPR. I can only imagine what I'll need for the Arri 2C. Gregg, I need a secondary support kit because I'm going to be doing quick set up in public places and need to be able to pick up and leave as soon as it's obvious that we're going to be told we're not allowed to film there. The camera weighs 21Lbs, the head weighs 8 pounds. The Peter Lisand legs weigh 15 lbs.

Hate to bump this, but it's essential that I find the truth soon...

Well I'd love to get new legs but the fluid head wouldn't fit any of them. I really don't know what would work. Tyler uses a Bogen 3066 but his camera is an Aaton and doesn't weigh as much as mine. The irony is that every time someone posts "what head and tripod should I get" threads, people immediately start suggesting the O'Connor 50, which is what I have. It's like there's no other choices for NPRs.

That's nothing, Richard Spencer likes throwing up on people's carpets after he's done interviewing.

While you're at it you might want to get him to convert it to 3-perf, it's a big money saver.

I have a crappy ground spreader by Manfrotto. The original mid-level spreader didn't come with the tripod and I have no way of getting a replacement. I looked on eBay and a lot of these Peter Lisand units are sold without the spreader.

Thanks! I do feel happiness in owning it. :-) And funny that you should call it a treasure, because the best way to describe how I got it would be a treasure hunt.

That was marketed in 1979 for $6350, during a time when the camera package itself was $14,890.

Yep, it's mine now. The very one.

I saw this hugely unprofessional site that looks like it was put together in 1995 and probably looks best on Netscape Navigator. http://www.provideofilm.com/cat_eng_frame.htm They say that they have a bunch of stuff, but there are no pictures of their store unless you look on Google, then there's a warehouse-like space filled with cameras and some film posters. I looked at the BBB page for the company and there are no complaints. Their prices seem okay, maybe some of the them a bit too good to be true. Has anyone been scammed by them?

Okay, Robin, here is mine. How bad is it? And what modern tripod and head would make me look more professional on the job? I'm interested in your suggestions.

Bradley, congratulations on choosing the best 16mm camera that has ever existed. It's only the feed side that needs to be done in a changing bag. I take it you've seen this: There are at least two different versions of the manual online, plus the section of the Professional Cameraman's book which deals with this right here: https://books.google.com/books?id=qdovCgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT374&ots=tS7ahK1S-L&dq=Professional%20Cameraman's%20eclair%20npr&pg=PT374#v=onepage&q=Professional%20Cameraman's%20eclair%20npr&f=false Eclair 16 Manual http://online.sfsu.edu/weimin/art/NPRmanual.pdf Other version: http://www.visualproducts.com/pdf/EclairManual.pdf Site with some info and downloads: https://eclaircameras.wordpress.com/npr-eclair-16/

It's never professional to put a 21 pound camera on a head that can only hold 16.5 pounds. But, other than that, are you saying that the 504HD isn't considered "professional"?

Found it. http://holapublicartproject.tumblr.com/post/50106461710/swampmeet-public-art-class-filmvideo-day It had been a while since I found that picture, maybe I was wrong. Reading the text it isn't clear who owns it, seems Lawler was using one of those video cameras that look like plastic SLRs.

Howdy all, I think the forum knows I own an Eclair NPR since I never shut up about it, but I also have a 2-Perf 35mm camera. I'm about to start pre-production for a drama to be shot next Spring. It will be finished in 2.35:1. The NPR is getting converted to Ultra 16. The thing is that in indoors, that 2-Perf sounds like a gawshdarned blender x10. I can't do dialogue with it. I can shoot dialogue with it outside because of the zoom lens. But in confined spaces I was thinking of just going Ultra 16. So how would I shoot those interior shots in a way that in the Ultra 16 footage, the grain didn't seem that different from the 2-perf? So far my idea was to use slow 50D 16mm stock and light the living daylights out of the interior set, aiming for about f/5.6. Then do all the 35mm exteriors on 250D. If this sounds insane, it's because I've never shot for matching before. I'm just trying to think of the best way to balance the grain. Thank you for any information leading to the capture of beautiful images. :-) Edited to add: Lens on the Eclair NPR: 12-120 Angenieux Lens on the Techniscope: 25-250 Angenieux

Well, the Eclair NPR does something very important. It puts images on film. ;-) If it's running and doing that, why not? Look at this trailer shot wide open at 1.4 on an old 1950's Pentaflex 16 camera. It's a tiny handheld camera, standard 16. But my issue with her tripod isn't the cheap price, it's just that it's very weird to use a tripod head rated at 16.5Lbs to hold 21Lbs of rig.

http://www.michellelawlerdp.com/#page/home This is her site, that photo is her kit. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2044345/

Okay so that's a 504HD video head. That makes no sense. Why would a professional DP use a head that supports 16.5Lbs....to support a camera that, with lens and film weighs 21Lbs?? Maybe sometimes it's doable but I wouldn't risk it. Would you?

The camera belongs to a DP named Lawler. I know nothing more about this picture, but would like to know if anyone knows what tripod and head they're using. I'm tempted to say it's a Manfrotto 509HD Video Head & 545GB Aluminum Tripod but the quick release doesn't match/

One lesson I learned in the process of getting my kit together is this: buy the right thing the first time. I didn't, and every shortcut I took to save money ended up costing me more money. My tripod legs arrived today and I made the mistake of not buying one with a spreader. Now I need to figure out how to either make my own with some chains or buy a universal spreader. The universal spreader is ground level, though. The original was mid-level. Anyway, the Peter Lisand tripod legs seemed to have the right bowl and that was good. Any suggestions as to how to rig a spreader?

Re-reading David Mullen's posts. Yeah, never mind the anamorphic. So now that I own a Techniscope camera I've had to really think this through and re-read my own old posts as well, since I can easily get caught up in a million different directions and get lost if I don't take notes. My daughter's first grade teacher used to tell her, "start with the end in mind", and I have to say that's not a bad idea. I want to shoot features in 2.35:1. With Ultra 16 I can fill in the gaps whenever needed, in my Techniscope films. This is because there will be places where I need to steal shots and that's harder to do with a mouse-eared camera that sounds like a blender (70 db at 3 feet away). Nothing wrong with S16, in fact I had been thinking of getting a Super 16 camera like the Aaton XTR but I'm going to put that off. I need to concentrate on immediate goals, not on accumulating gear. Also I have about 6 magazines for the Eclair NPR, at $325 each for conversion, that'd be a fortune to convert to S16. I'm better off with Ultra. And of course I don't own a single PL mount lens so it's time to start saving for that 25-250.

I'm kind of leaning that way myself. I just don't have any idea which adapter to get. My research has indicated that this would be the choice: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1195988-REG/slr_magic_slra50_1_33x_anamorphot_50_1_33x.html However, the thread size is 62mm. My Angenieux zoom has a 72mm thread. I imagine this would severely impair the results. I do have an adapter that allows me to use M42 screw mount still lenses on the C-mount. Maybe I could use the 50mm prime on there. But, I'm told that stacking adapters is a bad idea 100% of the time.

That price hike is a side effect of the so-called "democratization" of filmmaking. People buy these for their silly little video cameras and now it's all expensive.