Alain LeTourneau

NEWS FROM KODAK ! After a long delay in getting the new product catalgue out, Kodak has annouced its decision to "discontinue" Black & White reversal print stock 7361. This will have a serious impact on students and low-budget filmmakers who work with 7266 and 7265 and print on 7361. The new stocks look great and with Kodak's recent investment in these Black & White reversal emulsions and chemistry it's a shock to see this decision being made. For those interested I will have a petition on-line in the next 7 days. Regards, Alain LeTourneau

NEWS FROM KODAK ! After a long delay in getting the new product catalgue out, Kodak has annouced its decision to "discontinue" Black & White reversal print stock 7361. This will have a serious impact on students and low-budget filmmakers who work with 7266 and 7265 and print on 7361. The new stocks look great and with Kodak's recent investment in these Black & White reversal emulsions and chemistry it's a shock to see this decision being made. For those interested I will have a petition on-line in the next 7 days. Regards, Alain LeTourneau

I talked on the phone with Dieter at ProCam and he thinks the 10mm Switar will cover super 16. As long as one is not hanging filters or lens hoods out off the front of the lens it will cover super 16 without vignetting, or creating a tunnel effect. Not exactly what I've been hearing, but he claims that he's now heard it from a good number of his clients. Alain

I only have a RX-5. Not an SB or ESB or EL. I agree...bayo would be a better option. Your mention of 25mm lenses seems conservative though. I thought it would be closer to 16mm? Thanks, Alain

This lens is ok for shooting B/W. It's low contrast which can be nice in Hi Con situations. Of course, is not as sharp as other zooms out there but ok above T4. It's also pretty durable, the most out of any of the Angenieux lenses is what I've always understood. Parts are easy to come by and many people know how to repair these. Paul Duclos and Ken Haile being two in LA. I agree with comments about 9.5-57, but as mentioned above most Angenieux lenses are sharpest above T4 except for a few that were made to perform better wide open. And the HEC glass was sharp and contrast but more expensive too. Cooke 9-50, Zeiss 10-100 T2, and Canon 8-64 are the best. And expensive, usually $2000 and up. Alain LeTourneau

I know there's a conversion process for the Bolex RX-5 that allows one to switch back and forth between standard and super 16. Of course, you lose the turrent in place of a single C mount but I don't use the turrent anyway. What Switars lenses cover super 16? Alain

Reduced - $125 plus shipping Alain

I don't mind being mistaken for a Luddite. A term which these days does not seemed to be linked to its origins. Luddites were not opposed to technological advances per se, but rather against being cut out of making a living. I read a great quote earlier today: "New media don't succeed because they're like the old media, only better: they succeed because they're worse than the old media at the stuff the old media is good at, and better at the stuff the old media are bad at." If this is linked to the Luddites in particular well then one could surmise that the mechanization that replaced the Luddites hand labor was better at cutting hand labor out of the market, and also better at making the textile factory owners rich. Which wasn't great for those who worked in the factory either. Good in some ways, bad in other ways. Alain

That's right. It will be high res and highly toxic HD. : ) Alain

I now fit into the category of "too cooky to respond to". Alain

I work at a video organization. I clearly understand that DV is an afforbable medium compared to film. Unfortunately, I worry that the choice to shoot film will be eliminated due to market competition with HD. The marketeers are clearly making a slash and burn path for DV/SD/HD. Kodak is make steps to insure the future of film but with straddling the fence who knows when their interest will shift dramatically (or more than it already has). The "democratic" comments about film make me laugh a little. The automobile was marketed in a similar fashion, as a democratizing instrument. As if democracy is born out of products being made available to more people. The media will still be owned by the few despite the tools being available to the many. I think my comment about "thinking more" with film was more to point out the deliberateness imposed on the medium by economics. I did not mean to say video people "don't think". I have certainly enjoyed a good number of DV works (Jem Cohen and Leighton Pierce have done incredible things with the medium). Its a strange time to be alive and working in film. As the prices for making standard 16mm RPs rises and if the cost of making 35mm RPs continues to steadily go down, things could change in a big way for making 35mm work. I guess rather than steer off wildly with my comments I should go back to my inital points about costs. My point is that there are upfront and backend costs to consider that exist outside the film world. Such as, environmental, working practices and conditions. I think its fair to assume that most cinematographers would not care to work in a factory where the equipment used by the production industry is manufactured. That says something. I don't know if I agree that the environmental costs are the same in both film and video as I've seen nothing to back that up. Film has obvious environmental links because the pictures of chemical manufacturing are foregrounded. Whereas computers and video gear are often linked with images of cleanrooms and concrete box facilities (no pipes). I appreciate the comment about chemicals used to make CCDs as these things should be acknowledged. How about the chemicals used to refine and form plastics. The world has changed so much that if an individual doesn't have to directly confront nasty environmental issues than why think about it. I know a guy who works at a local photo lab. He is indifferent to the transition in stating that working around chemicals is not such a great thing. He commented that he would rather work with digital tools. That is, he would rather pass the nasty chemical process on to someone else than have to continue to deal with it. Now I don't think he see it this way but that is essentially what is happening. Computer manufacturing and disposal is an incredibly toxic matter. This model of manufacture, use and disposal is highly destructive. Cheap? Yes. (Ore mining does not tread light on the earth but at least the percentage reclaimed through scrap recycling is greater than with plastics.) Alain

I understand the allure of "cheaper" options, and workflow costs. I guess I am also concerned about wasteflow. I know people like to say that film manufacturing and processing are environmentally destructive, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusions that others do that video is somehow not environmentally destructive in it's creation, use and disposal, nor would I claim that its even less wasteful until I'd seen some good research to back this up. I don't know perhaps environmental issues are passe now. My day job is at a community media center. I'm on the ground level of seeing all the people who can afford to work in digital mediums. However, when I get home from work I cannot stand the thought of staring at my computer monitor, yet I'll gladly take a seat in front of the flatbed. I'm in a different world though and I'll admit I don't deal with the commercial pressures of film production (anymore). So working more slowly is not an issue for me, in fact after working quickly all day its kind of nice to come home and work slowly, or differently or whatever (how about work in a way that forces conscious decision making). Anyway, I appreciate your comments David. And understand what you mean about shooting stills. I'm selling my FM2n, but don't know if I'll replace it with a digital camera. Still have my Rollei so maybe the picture taking will become more deliberate. I tend to approach photos differently with a roll of 120 film. There's less images on the roll but a different frame area to take into consideration. I like what documentary filmmaker (though she hates that term) filmmaker Jill Godmilow said: Shoot less and think more. This was in response to someone asking here about the film/video cost comparisions. Neither Jill nor I work for clients though. Or at least Jill has not since leaving the production world to teach and work on her own films. And I don't have clients breathing down my neck to shoot something for no money, or get excited about HD because a New York Times article says its cool. If it just boils down to money (which all things seem to) then indeed video may in the end become the only option. Alain

I've often wondered why the whole film vs. video thing always boils down to the technical numbers game (latitide, contrast, and resolution) without touching on some of the larger issues that exist outside the film world's concerns (environment, working conditions and practices, and planned obsolesence). Maybe I'm just old fashion (at the old age of 31) but video cameras don't seem to last too long before they're considered junk, and the same goes for computers and most all other things electronic. Yet my 1969 Bolex, early 1970s NPR, and Steenbeck from 1978 seem to work just fine without the need for software upgrades. I realize this is a heady question (and for some over-the-top) but I'm curious about other people's response to this shift towards all things that have a short life and end up in the dump. I don't fully understand the talk about film and video "tools" being neutral. One is built to last, one is not. What's neutral about that? Tools are made by people and tied to working practices, what does that have to do with neutrality? Who knows maybe in the end its cheaper (and more environmental) to 24/7/360 power servers rather than climate control film collections. And plastic cameras will be manufactured out of corn oil and melted down into new cameras, along with having upgradable CCDs. I like the old ads that Arriflex ran in Filmmaker's Newsletter in the 1970s. The technician assembling cameras while smoking a pipe. A line of about (10) Arri S/Bs sit in front of the tech in a nicely light room (was this all for effect?). Now there are people in clean suits, or on the assembly line. My how things have changed....oh but for the better so I'm told. Alain LeTourneau

Can the SR1 viewfinder be upgraded? I don't know if you can stick a SR2 or SR3 finder on the SR1 or if there's some internal tinkering that can be done. Thanks, Alain LeTourneau

FOR SALE Bolex 400' mag (top loading) for RX-5 camera This comes with (4) core adapters, mag throat cover, and (2) in-camera rollers. The mag is useless without these in-camera rollers which generally sell for $50-75 a pair through ProCam and Chambless. This mag does not have the MM or WM torque motor. I see these on eBay for $100-300. $165 + shipping Alain LeTourneau 503-231-6548

I know the Arri SR1 was manufactured from 1975 until 1982 when it was replaced by the SRII. Is there any on-line resource or publication that lists the serial numbers of the camera to determine what year a camera was manufactured? Thanks, Alain

I actually ment Aaton54 LTR, not 7. Alain

Yes, I thought Eclair went out of business in 1982, yet the Alan Gordon catalogue I have was printed in 1983. I thought that was rather odd as everything I have found said Eclair was in business from 1928-1982 (first in France, the last 10 years in England). Alain

Well, according to a 1983 Alan Gordon Enterprises catalogue there's more to Eclair than... NPR, ACL, ACLII, GV16.... There's also the... EX-16 and Eclair Panarama. 2 models I did not know existed. The Panarama claims to be "the first camera successfully engineered for both 16mm and super 16mm formats". Must have been a pre-1982 camera as I thought that the Aaton LTR54 was the first. Alain

For an immediate fix I'm getting a Bescor lead-acid brick (as per Mitch's suggestion). It's the cheapest option available short of making my own. Down the road... NP-1 battery $60-90 + NP-1 > 4 pin connector $60 + charger. Does anyone know where I can get a charger for $50 or less? The ones I've seen are all $100 and above. Thanks, Alain

What about the Long Valley place that sells the converted DeWalt batteries. Anyone had much luck with those powering an Eclair NPR? Alain

Looking for either one of the following camera packages: 1 - Arri SR1 (German) w/ 2 mags, batteries and charger. or 2 - Aaton 54LTR (above s/n C1000) w/ 2 mags, batteries and charger. Not necessarily looking for a camera package with lens, but if the price is right I may be interested. Alain LeTourneau Portland, Oregon USA

Jeez, that was suppose to read "paid", not "heard". It was a long day a work. Alain

Q: Who being heard for a HD gig is going to say anything bad about it. It's a shame to hear Fricke say those things about film, esp with his background. Lugging cases of film gear all over the world to shoot Barka most likely soured him. Alain

I've pull processed 7231 (plus x neg) a few times with good results. Usually only by one stop. It increases the latitude of the stock in a high contrast scene. This might be most effective with B/W though as I rarely shoot color stocks and can't comment on the results of pull processing. Pull 1 will give you a 3 stop range. Pull 2 a 4 stop range. I've pulled 1 and had good looking prints. Shooting with a Bolex and 10mm Switar. Full shadow detail with bright highlights close to what the eye sees. Alain