James Wilkins

This is an old post but I'll do my civic duty and add to the internet knowledge sphere. I just learned how to locate the elusive Aaton LTR 24/25fps switch. Here it goes: 1.) Locate the motor on the body of the camera. This is the large cylindrical lump on the left side of the camera body if holding it as when shooting. 2.) Notice the ring around the motor that is held in place by a few allen socket screws. This is a removable plate of which the removal will not affect the motor housing--unscrew the allen screws and take off the plate. 3.) Beneath the plate is padded foam. Remove this gently with a toothpick or something. 4.) You will now see somewhere along the inner ring two regions labeled 24 and 25. One of these regions will have a set screw. You can remove this set screw and place it in your desired region. I am FAIRLY certain the presence of the screw means it is set to the labeled FPS rather than the absence. I've only performed this operation once to check that my set screw was in 24. 5.) Replace all parts. 6.) Now make sure the frame dial on the back of the camera is set to the dot. I don't know why this feature is so hidden. Perhaps it is to secure a difference between "American" and "European" cameras.

Thanks for the tips.

The viewfinder does show much more than super16mm frame line, but vignetting is definitely inside frame line at 25mm. At such a wide millimeter, I'd hardly call it vignetting...it's like looking through a tube. But again, seems to clear at longer focal lengths. I plan on shooting a test. In the meantime, I just attempted a low-budget physical test described elsewhere online. I placed a piece of thick translucent scotch tape flush against the gate (where the film touches) and focused the lens on a bright subject. This essentially creates a mini-back-projection that apparently gives a more accurate idea of what is being printed on the film than what the viewfinder can provide. It's quite small though. Part of my worry is that I'd like to shoot wide open to achieve a nice blurred depth-of-field. I do know that imperfections on any lens seems to arise at widest f-stops. I once had a regular 16mm Frezzolini with Agenieux lens that got noticeably blurry around the edges when wide open at wide focal length. Something particular to that lens and part of the reason I hope to talk to someone with experience using this one. Thanks again.

Freya: Thanks for the affirmative response. I hope that's the case. I can actually see the vignetting in the viewfinder at all focal lengths but it's way outside of the frame line approaching 57mm. I just don't know whether to trust my eye. And yes, it is a strange project that uses the restrictions of close-up to create a sense of much larger space. - james

Hello: As I prepare for a black-and-white super 16mm shoot long in the making and short in the budget, I'd appreciate any guidance on lens concerns. I will be using an Aaton LTR with free access to an Angenieux 9.5-57 (f.1.6) zoom lens. I realize that when working for blow-up, primes provide more light and more reliable focus than zooms. I also realize that this Angenieux does not provide much coverage of the S-16mm frame. However, the project incorporates only close-ups with crushed backgrounds, meaning I'll be working only on the telephoto end (57mm) in a controlled interior with Kodak Double-X 200 speed and 1500-2000 watts of lighting available. It SEEMS that vignetting is eliminated at this millimeter but I don't know how f-stop affects this. I will be developing a test in the coming weeks, but are there any serious problems I might run into? Has anyone used this lens under similar conditions? It'd be great to save a month's worth of rental fees. Thanks again for the help.

Thanks for all the thoughts.

Thanks for the responses. David Mullen - you could practically shoot in Super-16 and turn the camera sideways and use that negative for creating this windowboxed frame on 35mm using a D.I. or optical printer. So, David, you're saying the super16mm image would be printed direct and not blown-up, retaining its resolution because it retains its size? What is the ceiling of perceived sharpness on a 35mm print? If a vertical anamorphic 16mm image is scaled and masked via DI, would it be perceived as sharper than a super16mm image that is simply flipped on its side and printed straight? I completely agree that the anamorphic approach would be a tremendous waste of film, but if it is sharper, an unusually fine and narrow image--like a sliver of light from a doorway--might be created. Anyways, to Leo Anthony Vale - is that film based on a Jack London story? I just looked it up on Wikipedia and it says, "It is widely considered as a prime example of a Man vs. Nature conflict." That's what we're talking about here!

The purpose would be a film that is watchable as most films are, except with a vertical emphasis. I am interested in achieving the effect prior to projection, so special accommodations are not required. I figured some sort of masking and scaling would be required to fit a vertical image into a horizontally-inclined piece of film. The type of lens is somewhat immaterial, but I mention anamorphic lenses out of curiosity. For instance, they provide the most dramatic emphasis on the horizontal field. Can this be reversed or hijacked? Also, anamorphic lenses might provide more resolution to work with--presuming the camera lens has been swiveled and there's a certain amount of inherent, in-camera cropping occurring. I think about an anamorphic lens when I think about shooting on 16mm and blowing up to 35mm, opening more space for the vertical image once its been un-squeezed. What I am not interested in is shooting an entire picture with a camera on its side and then just flipping it in post. I am not interested in a special effect; rather, I'd like to consider a different way of thinking about movies. So to summarize my question, I am interested in the physical feasibility of a camera that films vertically.

Hello: I am curious about modifying lenses to achieve a vertical image field instead of the normal aspect ratio that emphasizes width over height. For some context, the film artist Rodney Graham presented a piece in the 2006 Whitney Biennial that took advantage of a vertical frame, or "portrait" frame: http://www.whitney.org/www/2006biennial/ar...t=Graham_Rodney He achieved this by turning a 35mm camera on its side, and I believe the looped projector was modified to project on its side. I'd like to know if this effect can be achieved in camera, so the final projection is a 4:3 or whatever ratio, but the image has been cropped within it, perhaps through a DI. I'm particularly interested in the possibility of modifying an anamorphic lens for this purpose. I understand there is a myriad of technical difficulties, including mounting, focal plane, and so forth...I am interested in the theoretical possibility. Thanks.

$850 or make an offer. NYC based. Please visit my posting and contact me via that address: http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/ele/259621863.html I'd rather sell local. If you need it shipped, we'll have to talk. Thanks.

Hello, I'm looking for documentation and/or tips relating to the Fujica macrocinecopy adapter, which is a slide adapter with clips for super8 or 16mm movie film. Here's a photo of the device: http://www.pentax-manuals.com/fujica/acces...macrocine_x.htm Unfortunately, a manual is not available. What I most want to learn are the focusing, exposure and backlighting requirements, and what results I can expect (using fujica SLR st701). Thanks. - james

Hello, I'm seeking an extra mag for an old Frezzolini I just picked up. I'm located in NYC. Any suggestions would be great -- especially if other brands might fit (CP-16?) or where the old, haunted 16mm graveyard is located. Thanks. James Kienitz Wilkins