dangertree

The ACL converts very nicely to S16, I have had 3 cameras done by Les Bosher in the UK with very good results. The ACL is a more modern design, able to have fater frame rates and more commonly found with better viewfinders (another advantage of the 1.5 and 2). It is more compact, has a more versitile lens mounting system and is likely quieter. ACLs are more expensive for a reason, get the ACL.

Shows I work on shoot plasma screens as is, with no probs. Most shows switched to plasmas/lcd for set dressing for that very reason, no sync issues. Same with shooting lcd computer screens/laptops. No?

I also like Kubrick's use of zooms, but Kubrick wasn't asking. :-) For bad zooms, by amateurs, see most home movies. Ta.

Is zooming while filming something you want to do? It rarely adds production value, and is generally to be avoided.

Anyone renting the Arri 235 in your area? It's new, it's small, it's MOS, it's designed for handheld. If not available, the 435. Good luck.

The conversion mentioned does not re-center the lens, thus the center of the lens will move during a zoom. This 'weird effect' will only occur if zoom is moved during a take. If the Zoom setting remains constant, there is no effect. (EG, if you zoom during a shot, the center will move as well).

- the absolute minimum spend to shoot any film in London is probably three or four grand - the equivalent of US$6000-8000. Per day. See why we don't? Phil <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yup, I see! That hurts. A thought, take a holiday to Montreal or Toronto. That transfer price isn't a mid-range transfer house, I don't think we have those here either. 3 hour minimums? Ja-zuz. For camera rentals, for indy shoots I can rent a co-op owned S16 XTR, Zeiss 12-120 _and_ an Optar prime set for $200CDN (86pounds), after paying a $120 yearly membership. I didn't mean to come down hard on video. For my situation, film for drama, video for most everything else. And Sam, existing light is king of course. :-) Ta.

Hi Phil, Some things aren't worth spending the money for film, I agree video definitely has it's place. But, some things are worth it, and the time I put in is worth more than the film or video costs anyway. If I'm putting in the time/effort, I want it on film. And when I do, it doesn't always cost $5000-$6000. For me, a 10 minute short, at a 3:1 ratio. Stock: Between $0 and $120 ( .10/foot) Processing: $180 ( .15/foot) One hour of best-light transfer: $275-$325. (worst case) Total: $625. (About 270 pounds sterling). That's do-able. And, that's Canadian $! We are shooting a low-budget feature in the spring, for that video isn't even a consideration. Just drove through a car wash with a camera running inside the car, my friend wanted it for some art collage film he's doing. I used the video camera. Cheers, Walt PS: I know you are in London, I don't know if film/post prices are comparable, but I can't afford a sandwich in London. :-)

It's true he needs lights, but that goes for video as well. I came/come from a similar story. I've always been a keen photographer, but I work as an AD (a good position to know/ask everything), but I love cine cameras and cinematography. I love cinema because I find it is the perfect art form, that balance of performance, and applied technical knowledge. I first shot some video, and still own a little DV camera, very handy for training yourself in composition, (and holidays) etc. I then bought a S8 camera to learn lighting for film (cheap and very satisfying). Probably shot ~100 cartridges on that. Learned _a lot_ from the experience, and still enjoy watching the movies on my projector. Later, I bought a 16mm camera, and never looked back. I currently own an S16 Eclair rig, and my business partner owns an Aaton S16 LTR, which I have at my disposal. I own because the odd thing I do shoot for money, is almost never in town, and besides, I like having my own rig. I buy short ends from shows I work on, so always have stock in the fridge. If me or my friends come up with a fun idea, we can go out and shoot it, the camera is already paid for. I love that possibility, and besides, cameras aren't _that_ expensive. For lighting, I picked up an old 5-piece Colortran light kit. Two 2000w soft lights, Two 1000w fixed spots and One 1000W adjustible spot. All open face, but with barn doors. Wish I had the cash for some fresnels, but didn't. This all cost me less than $400. A perfect kit? No, but does the job. Is it more expensive than video, yes. Plus personally, anything I put $ or effort into, I want to look good, and though video can look good, I'm always amazed with 16mm (and now S16mm). The delayed satifaction of film is so worth it for me. Another plus, film is so much more forgiving than video. I know it is my lack of talent/knowledge with video, but almost everytime I have shot video, it comes out looking flat (to me). I shoot film and it is almost always looks great (IMO). Big smiles everytime. I was never taught to light for video, but have been taught to light for film, plus I'm probably the only AD I know who (quietly) carries a lightmeter and jots down notes on lighting/camera setups and watches the dailies (some say I'm in the wrong department, but I'm not). If I find myself short on funds, I sell bits or all of my kit, and replace it when I can. It is much easier to lose money selling your video camera than it is your film camera. You say you work on commercials, I don't know how similar it is to features and series, which I do, but if you are friendly with the crew, you can sometimes get a lot of equiptment for the price of a sincere thankyou to the gaffer/key grip and some beer. I shoot my shorts on weekends, and often leave work on friday night with car load of lights, flags, scrims, stands, gels, even the odd doorway doorway dolly. Just make sure you take care of it all and have it all back and loaded in the trucks before the crew gets in on Monday morning. The last thing I'll say, if you want to enter those shorts in festivals; whether it is deserved or not you'll get much more interest/respect for your film (at least initially) when you tick the 16mm box, rather than the DV box, same goes for the audience interest (I know what I see when I have an either/or choice to make). Buy a film camera, don't bankrupt yourself, you'll love it. Ta.

What I KNOW: only one lens, no changin' it (but it's a pretty damned nice lens). no such thing as an extended mag (daylight spools only, but they're quick to change). in-camera battery, exchangeable. ---The Scoopic MS can use a 400' magazine. The old grey scoopic and the Scoopic M cannot. what I DON'T KNOW: is it possible to convert to S16? ---No, the lens doesn't cover the S16 frame, if you need S16 in this size, buy a Bolex. Is it possible to go crystal sync? or MOS only? ---The M and MS can definitely be modded for crystal control. I owned one, worked like a charm. Will lens extensions for the Canon GL1 and 2 such as the wide angle adapter and zoom lens screw onto the scoopic lens? (eyeballed they look to be the same size) Will an eyepiece tap work with this camera? ---The Scoopic (M and MS) have a 72mm front thread, I think that is bigger than the GL2, but not sure at all. An eyepiece tap will work on any camera, as long as it fits. Yes, you can do this. Last, search the board for Scoopic, there is lots there. Cheers, Walt

Hi Mike, Thanks for the reply, to be clearer again, we will have a set of Zeiss primes, so the 16mm is taken care of (the primes will split between A and B cameras as required), I'm wanting a second (longer) zoom for B-Cam, for the 50mm+ end of things, or 50-150mm end of the 15-150. I'd like to have the b-cam doing roving singles and cowboys while the A Camera shoots the masters. I also want to do some split screens with two cameras shooting the same coverage (tight and wide). This will be pretty low budget, so time saving will be key. I love the 8-64, but am anticipating needing more telephoto than this, and would like an extra lens on set that goes past the 11-110. I'll know I'll probably end up renting a second zoom, but am curious about picking up a cheap zoom to keepers. The fact that most of the script takes place at night isn't helping at all! Thanks, Walt

OK, I'm bumping myself back to the top, (this is sad!) If I can rephrase the question. Is there anything inherent about said lens, the Canon 15-150, that should make it less useful sharp/contrasty than say, the Angenieux 15-150? I assumed the Angenieux would be typical of most old Angenieux's (especially the wider range zooms, ie not the 9.5-57), but Paul at Visual Products tells me that the Angi is also very sharp and his clients use it with great effect. He told me that when they bench test it, the 15-150s compare with the Zeiss 10-100 in terms of resolution. As I said, I'm wondering if there is a low cost S16 zoom that is at all worthwhile. I will need some longer zooms, so I'm pretty much looking at the Ang 15-150, but wondering if I may have lucked into something with the Canon (which cost me less than a decent dinner). I'm quite skeptical as you can never get something for nothing, but between Les Bosher and Paul at VP telling me these lenses are good, I'm curious to say the least. I know I'm spitting out a bunch of pretty whack stuff here, does anyone have any comments? Anyone shot with either? Thanks, Walt

That was EXCELLENT!!! LMFAO

Hi All, So I'm here to ask a bit of a cheap-o question. We are doing a low budget action film on the east coast in the spring, (I'm directing, not shooting.) We are using our Aaton LTR as the A cam, but I want to bring along the ACL for high(er) speed shots and as a b-camera. I don't have a zoom for the camera, and would love to find a magic solution that would get us out of renting a zoom for the second camera (more or less allowing its use). A couple of months ago I had a good talk with Les Bosher about suitable lenses, especially non-cine lenses that could be put to use. Les spoke very favourably about the Tamron adaptalls, (which he does a PL mount for), as well as the Canon 15-150 (TV) lens. Apparantly he had one and wound up putting a 'proper mount' on it, as it was a very sharp lens. So, I'm not suggesting that TV lenses should rival cine lenses, but I am wondering if anyone has any experience with this lens. I just picked one up for _very_ little money, should have it next week. I will shoot tests, but I'm very curious if anyone has used this lens for S16 or 16mm work, and if so, what did you think? If this works, it would be great news. I trust Les' thoughts on lens' (ever see the periscope lens he manufactures?), but I find it wild to believe that such a cheapo lens might be useable.(!) If it checks out, I'd love to put a PL mount on it. The Aaton will be using Super Speeds and a 11-110 Zeiss. The Eclair would use the Speeds, and... the Canon? FYI: I have a old Canon 12-120 fluorite 16mm zoom that'll cut with the Zeiss for regular 16, but it doesn't cover Super, which Les says the 15-150 will. Any thoughts? Thanks, Walt

Hi Josh, It probably doesn't matter, but with ACL, when you change mounts, you change mounts, rather than adapters like cp-pl (or almost anything to anything). It takes about 30 seconds to change from one mount to another. I'm sure that the CP-PL works fine though, still nicer (IMHO) not to have to use intermediate steps. I don't have an Arri B mount for my ACL so I use a little Eclair - Arri adapter, not as nice as the proper mount, but it works, and cost me $50. When you use another mount on an ACL, it is not adapted, it IS that mount, like a screw off 'hardfront'. If cost is a concern, ACL mounts often sell on Ebay (Arri B, Nikon) for ~$150. And Electro Optical makes a proper ACL PL mount for arounf $200. quote=Josh Hill,Nov 29 2004, 03:52 PM] Oh, if you do get a CP make sure its the 170 degree half-moon shutter. I don't see why everyone is saying its EASIER to get an ACL converted to PL mount. You can buy, for 495 dollars I believe, an adaptor from Visual Products. Solved. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed. Why the ability to use dbl perf is listed as a benefit for anything is beyoned me (unless you have 100000ft of free dbl perf stock in your freezer). Then again, I'm also lost as to why some 'newcomers' to film production (by that, I mean, newer than me!) seem to always bring up Ultra 16 as a viable and cost saving alternative. Here's the fact. The $500 you save over a proper S16 conversion means nothing when it comes to film stock, processing, and transfer costs. (+ everything else, I'm leaving food and actors out completely). You're transfer choices are then restricted to one (or a few) people, and your footage is in a non-standard format. And, if you then sell your camera, it'll be worth _at least_ $500 less than if you had done the S16 job. Still not convinced? Call every camera rental shop and post house in your city. Ask them about S16 and how they can help you with it. Now, ask them about U16, compare the responses. Ask yourself if you think your experience allows you to know more about motion picture cameras and processing and transfer than they do. Now wonder how they all missed U16, and wonder why they spend their money on S16? Doesn't U16 have advantages like... being able to use Dbl Perf Film? (Yes, I know you can use your Angenieux 12-120 with it as well). I understand that some cameras are not convertible to S16, (actually, really only talking about the Scoopic here, or maybe the Beaulieu R16), and if you want to try a wider gate in yours, giv'er, try the U16. I'd also say that if you spend more than $500 modifying your Beaulieu R16, you need your head checked, but that would be offensive to some, so I won't :-) To the original poster, good luck with your NPR, I miss mine sometimes, especially that adjustable shutter. Sigh.... Cheers, Walt Now way off topic, but a little Scoopic M/MS rant. I have read people (usually those selling Scoopics on Ebay) say that Bruce at Aranda in Australia can convert the camera to S16, this had me excited, as I'd love to have a S16 Scoopic MS in my kit, but thought it near impossible due to the lens. So, I contacted him about it. He confirmed that though he had done the work to a couple of cameras, it was far from a pleasant job, priced accordingly, and no, the lens doesn't cover the frame. Though he will accept the cash and do the job, he obviously doesn't reccomend it, and suggested getting a bolex if a S16 in that form factor was required. Also joked that anything is possible, given the right amount of money. You could cut the whole face off a Scoopic and make a PL hardfront, if you really wanted one. I'm sure he could probably convert a BL4 to Super 8, if you had enough money to spend. So to those advocating the Scoopic as being S16 capable, it is less than an honest statement, unless you add, 'at certain longer focal lengths'. Why anyone has actually gone ahead with such work completely beyond me, the price was reasonable for such a job, but was probably about 4X-5X what a nice Scoopic MS actually sells for (then did I mention that the lens doesn't cover?). The price was more than the purchase of an EBM and S16 conversion combined. Oy vey. But I'm all for tinkering! (walking away from the horse, and veering off course, and apologizing)

Sorry, one more thing, about the 400' mags. The only issue with Eclairs and 400' mags is with the oldest motor, the 24fps only. Most decent packages have the heavy duty motor, which certainly has no probs with 400' mags. Get one with this motor and you're set. It's really not a big deal. Also, have you thought about an NPR? Also a fine camera, in many ways better than the ACL, and they seem to be going for dirt cheap on Ebay right now. Very easy S16 conversion, and an adjustible shutter(!). I owned one once, it was very very quiet, and dead reliable. The one I had had the Kinoptik viewfinder, if you buy an NPR, get the Angenieux viewfinder, which is truely orientable, unlike the Kioptik which rotates the image as you rotate the viewfinder (useable, but a bit annoying). Cheers, Walt

Hello, I'm not sure what you base your statement regarding a wider choices of lenses for the CP16 on. The CP16 has a CP mount, which I would think limits your choices without adapters. The Eclair ACL can easily switch between almost any mount, thanks to their ingenious TS mount ring, which allows the use of C-mount lenses, as well as factory available mounts for Eclair, Arri S, Arri B and Nikon. In addidition to this a number of people manufacture PL mounts. These mounts are as easy to change as unscrewing one and screwing on another. It doesn't get much more versitile than that, as far as lens mounts go. Also, the ACL is tiny, especially with the 200' mag, the CP has the large non-coaxial mag mounted on top which really limits where it can go (I'm really thinking in-car shots here). The ACL has much more in common with todays Arris and Aatons, and is cheaper to convert to S16. The ACL also has an available motor that runs from 8fps to 75fps, much slower and faster than a CP16r. I'm sure the CP-16R is a fine camera, but I would not say it is as versitile as an Eclair ACL. The good news is that you can probably pick up a nice CP for less than a nice ACL. I had the same thoughts, and went with the ACL, no regrets. Cheers, Walt

Hi Guys, I'm not going to get into a s16 vs u16 debate, I think this has been beaten to death in the archives. With my ACLs I went S16, no regrets. Good luck, Walt

Hello, I'd consider myself lucky to get a pro 16mm camera at such a low price, then I d send it off Les Bosher for his S16 and PL mount conversion. You then have a fully modern camera for your use, and as far as the money goes, you will lose nothing if you ever decide to sell it. The Ultra16 bit costs less up front, but I doubt you'd get as much in resale as with a proper S16 job, plus you limit yourself for post work. The S16 conversion is money 'better' spent, in my opinion. I'm guessing the Sony camera you mention will cost a lot more than the $2800odd you'd have into the NPR. My two cents. Good luck, Walt

Hello, My 2 cents, ND the heck out of the headlights when shooting a car at night. Otherwise they blow out everything else. What was your exposure anyway? Wide open (at what?). Cheers, Walt

George, Whenever I read your reports I am always seized with the same thought, I'd really hate to work (any capacity) on a George Selinsky film. :-) I'd watch one though. Good luck with it. Ta.

Well covered in the archives. Try a search. Check Ebay for M-42 Screw mount. Go from there. Good Luck.

Very easy with a screw in adapter. Visit any camera ship and tell them what you're trying to do. Shouldn't be more than a few bucks. Good luck.

Very easy with a screw in adapter. Visit any camera ship and tell them what you're trying to do. Shouldn't be more than a few bucks. Good luck.