Alain LeTourneau

Does anyone know what year the ACL I came into existence? And when the transition camera to what was dubbed the ACL 1.5, and eventually the ACL II? Thx, Alain

Can anyone help... I have a technician friend who is attempting to convert a std 16 picture module on a KEM to super 16. Does anyone have any super 16 work print (or even neg), say a 50-100' out take? Something that you consider junk, but that clearly shows the frame lines. I can pay to ship whatever you dig up. Alain LeTourneau Portland, Oregon

$2000 for an SBM w/ x13 finder (body only) is about what you will pay through a dealer. I spent about 4 months looking for an SBM...DuAll, Andrew Alden, Shelton Comm, etc...before I ended up buying a DEMO model direct from Bolex. Brand new, never used, display camera - $2500 plus shipping. As for lenses...Vario-Switars will run you about $400-2000 depending on which model you get. I recommend getting a B > C adapter and shooting with Switar primes. Alain

Anyone have any ideas on where I can find a lens adapter to adapter my Arri-B mount Zeiss and Optar primes to a Bolex SBM (Bolex B mt)? Les Bosher wants $520 for such an adapter and that's over my budget. I'm thinking more like $200 is something I can manage right now. I talked to Optical Electro House, TCS Inc (NYC), DuAll, and ProCam. And all say they don't have such an adapter and cannot/will not make one. I was hoping to find some way to use my B mt primes on both my Eclair NPR and my Bolex SBM. Any help greatly appreciated, Alain LeTourneau

Thanks Kevin and David. I was looking for comments from people who have had experience with a variety of filters, as I have not. One more question. B+W was bought by Schneider back in 1985. Does this mean that Schneider only makes filters under the B+W brand, or does there remain a separate branch (or company) that makes Schneider brand filters? Much appreciated, Alain

I appreciate all the respsones, but perhaps I should rephrase my question... Of course, I know I should and can use filters for effect. I've been shooting with filters for the last 10 years. However, I have alway used Tiffen and Kodak Wratten filters, and when I did commerical AC work using B+W, Schneider, and Harrison filter I almost never saw the results of the work. I was an hired AC, hired to assist the shooter, not a shooter myself. So, my own personal experience has been limited to my own personal shooting (with a Bell & Howell DR70, Bolex RX-5 and SBM, CP-16A, Eclair NPR, SR1). I have always used Kodak Wratten filters (behind the lens) with Bolex cameras and always used Tiffen filters with the cameras listed in addition to the Bolex. I wondered what experience of others has been with the more expensive brands of filter out there and if the quality justified the cost - B+W, Schneider, etc. ??? Thanks, Alain

I'm looking at buying some filters and wondered "does it really matter what I put in front of the lens?" I don't really have experience with filters other than the wratten filters I use with my Bolex and the Tiffens and Hoyas I used in 35mm still photography. Can some filters cut down on image sharpess, or create other aberrations? Tiffen, Hoya, B+W, Minolta, Konica, Harrsion, Leica, etc. Does it matter what I buy? Be curious to hear some opinions about this matter. Or references to books or articles that discuss this in some detail. Alain

In Good Company. Don't know how exactly I ended up seeing this film. It's absolutely terrible. No technical comments here, just warding all off from seeing this nightmare of American mediocrity and middling class hullabaloo. One critic said he had to give credit to the film for even broaching the subject of corporate takeovers and the impact on the employees, particularly middle aged executives with little hope of finding work elsewhere and families to support. We sure, I'll agree in part with the critic and say most H-wood films steer clear of this stuff but in the end everything turns out ok and nobody gets hurt. There is the fact that the husband and wife unit have to take out a second mortage to send the daughter to NYU so she can study creative writing and anthropology, but this doesn't appear to be a real buden esp considering that Quad's character loses his job and then gets it back (rugged individualist standing up to the man). Not a great case study...more like American mythmaking in the raw. As for the shooting, blocking and assemblage. Nothing special. Alain

Yes. Alain

There are several camera engineers who will make adapters, Les Bosher for example. But you can be looking at about $600-800 to adapt Arri-B lenses to Bolex bayo mount. Alain

There is an adapter for C mount lenses. It generally runs $125. Switars 10mm and up will cover super 16. With the 10mm you have to be careful if you hang a filter and lens hood off the front as it may cause some vignetting or portholing. Otherwise, your good. Alain (SBM owner)

SOLD. Thanks for looking. Alain

Thanks Atavist, Dominic, and John. And thanks for the SMPTE link. I could not remember the numbers nor find a reference and was trying to decide on a camera with or w/o TV safe markings on the ground glass. I'm going for straight 1.33 without the TV safe. Just out of curiousity was there ever a ground glass that marked the projector aperature mask for 16mm? Alain

Are the TV safe markings on the ground glass close to approximating a 16mm projector's aperature mask? Thanks, Alain

Bolex RX-5 still available. Make an offer. Alain LeTourneau Portland, Oregon USA 503-231-6548

NIKON still camera lenses: For those who have experience shooting with Nikon still camera lenses (25mm and above)... Which is sharper and produces better images (assuming both are in good condition)... AIS manual focus [OR] the newer auto focus lenses ? Thanks, Alain

Re-list: $1600 USD - OBO Alain

One powerful experience which I might have mentioned before on this forum was a trip I took to the PFA to see Santantango. The 6 hour film played twice over two days. I attended both screenings and hardly noticed the time passing. The experience was like none other that I had at the cinema. When the cinema can provide experiences such as this I do not feel 'locked into a pardigm of 1905'. Works of cinema can re-invent the cinema without needing to reinvent the public or private nature of the experience. Cinema changes every day, whether its a new work or re-visiting an old work. In my experience, films have become so hard to see that what remains an old hat for someone living in New York is so often a space never visited in so many other parts of the world. Some might say there's nothing wrong with this, but I think the filmmakers themselves would like to see the work play for audiences in many different places (cinemas). Alain

Turning the subtitles off is a very nice feature indeed. As for your recent (non)collective experience at the cinema: see what I mean! Its a ghost town out there. It's like a party that nobody wants to attend, kind of a strange feeling...a private experience in a public space. Where you can turn around to wave at the projectionist as they scowl back at you realizing that your the one reason they now have to run the print. Alain

I would agree that DVD is making available work made "for the cinema", but I don't know if I would agree that its providing a "cinematic experience". That experience can only be had at the theater, no? I mean, cinema is a public experience. The domain of the private is left to televsion, or as in your suggestion books that we read alone. The Kineticscope was not cinema. Cinema was those first Lumiere screenings in a cafe before a public audience. I fully understand your comments about not having the time to spend at the cinema. Unfortunately, this is reason for not attending is echoed by so many I wonder were the cinema will be in 10-20 years. Were it is now is that one cannot see really interesting and compelling cinema unless they living in San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Paris, Toronto. Those big cities with a rich history of screening films. I live in a somewhat progressive city but trying to see films can be frustrating. Portland does not have a PFA or Cinematheque or Anthology. So, naturally one turns to DVD since that's the place you can go to actually see something. I don't know about you Sam, but I would think that your preference and the preference of most would be to see films in the cinema if given a choice. I can tell you that I lived in San Francisco for 5 years and upon leaving realized what I took for granted while living there. I went to 100s of films but often missed some really wonderful or rare screenings. Even walked out of a Dorsky screening once because I worked a 12 hour day on a shoot and was dead tired, couldn't keep my eyes opened. The cinema will continue to exist, but likely not as a common, collective endeavor. Not part of our normal routine, but a museum-like experience that is rarely visited, esp in smaller cities. Alain

I shouldn't respond to this but I cannot resist. The TV/VCR/DVD have all taken its toll on the cinema, that is, a cinema of plurality and diversity not the hum drum drone of the h-wood factory. Look back at the number of film societies that existed in the 1920s all the way through the 1960s and then take account of what is left...not many. And then there's all those 1970s rep theaters that died in the 1980s. Around the time of the VCR's rise in popularity. People will take the path of least resistance. And stay home and watch the tube or tape or disc instead of going out to the movies. It's sad and true. What's left of the cinema is small independently-run and non-profit run theaters struggling to get by and attract an audience admidst the lavish press (read: big money publicity junkets) doled out to studio pics. Try to competing with this...its not easy. I've done my best to offer an alternative. http://www.lighthousecinema.org/ Our culture (or government, how ever you wish to look at it) is much more interesting in funneling huge amounts of capital towards bogus war efforts then on culture let alone anything having to do with the public sphere. Alain

And a "practical" romantic at that. ; ) Alain

"Romanticism"? I thought that buying something that was well-made and built to last was called being "practical" or having "common sense". I think I understand the point you are trying to make, but when I hear comments like this I have to wonder what's happening to our ability to discern quality in a sea of garbage. 100+ years for the 35mm format. 82 years for 16mm. I believe there's more to liking something that's old than because a person is a "romantic". I think it has to do with being time-proven to work and work well. That a 1960s Bolex can create such wonderful images is a miracle in light of current economics and product longevity. I don't hear people calling Leica camera collectors romantics, and architects who work to preserve old buildings romantics. Each is thought to understand the importance of continuity, heritage, quality and longevity. That this can be tied to machinery is not such a bad thing. Anyway, good comments all around. And thanks to Mullen for your enthusiasm...."its not dead yet". Indeed its not. Alain

Well put. I find the psychology of this pretty interesting. The way DVX-100a cameras, with their 24P capabilities, are marketed to "filmmakers". I think it starts with the marketing. And then some industry folks come along and say, oh this DVX-100a works from some things and not for others (video looks "edgy", or denotes a sense of the "real" thanks to the influence of ENG). It's said to have a quality or look that's interesting, not film but unique. Those not in the position to jump into filmmaking due to the cost (students, others interested in using media to tell a story but not in the industry per say) read what's being said and have neither the experience nor the historical background to do anything but make a decision based on bottom-line concerns. (When one is paying a fortune to go to school its no wonder that there is little left over for actual projects.) Or an individual makes an educated decision and says I know about the virtues of film but I want the look of of DV. Individuals are making decisions based on their pocket books and of course this makes sense, but to say that DV was chosen over film for any other reason is a falsehood. If a 400' roll of film was $25 for B/W and $45 for color I'm certain the number of productions would increase x10 if not more. The choice to shoot DV is pure economics. And soon enough it will be the ONLY choice, or some HD version of it. Now, one can say its a "choice" but soon enough it will loose its toehold in the market. Alain

What happens to your theory of "objectivity" when film is no longer available because many have been convinced that video is just as good as film (and besides its cheaper)? A market is a market and by no means objective. Sony and Panasonic would love to see Kodak and Fuji stop making film, although what will likely happen (and is well underway) is that Kodak and Fuji with shift to making HD media formats in order to not lose any ground in the market. Perhaps the change from fresco to oil paints, or daugerrotpye to plastic film emulsions were positive steps? The emlimination of acetate/estar base film for origination and exhibition is not a good step. It might be the next step...but that does make it a positive one. Technology changes, but don't assume it gets better. Alain