marc barbé

Hello to all, I own a Canon C-16 macro zoom (Arri B mount)  I have not used in years. I somehow lost the user's manual. Does abybody out there have one or know how to operate the macro ring? Best, Marc.  

Hi, there"s more and more of this type of posts on this forum. My question is: why did you get a Bolex in the first place? why did you not look into this question you're asking before you did? Regards, Marc.

Hi, I learned a lot on this site in the past four or five years. But I've been amazed lately byt the laziness of the inquiries— like : "It says to turn the knob clockwise. What if I turn it the other way?". Then a,month later: :"Hello, anybody out there? Please help!" Best regards to the knob keepers hang in there, Marc.

Hi, I don't understand: if your groundglass on the ACL is 1.85, I guess it has been upgraded to Super 16? In case it's a regular 16mm ACL, cropping a 1.33 frame to 1.85 for 35mm blow up will create quite a bit of grain, since you'll be using only about 2/3 of the original 16mm neg... (and don't forget the lenses you'll be using are not that sharp) But if you're planning on theatrical release, I'm not sure 2K will solve the grain problem (after all, it's only a blown up scan of the original footage) Also, HD post production is quite expensive if you want to do things right I suggest you make a few tests before you decide wich way to go. Good luck. Marc.

Hi, You sound angry: "To project movies how they were meant to be". It all depends on who made them, produced them, how, et caetera, et caetera.... As far as small 16mm projectors go, I'd try Eiki, Elmo, Bauer, Bell&Howell. They're all good, you got to run them, spin them and decide which is the one. But first I suggest you shoot. Good luck and cool your jets, Marc.

Hi, I've been around that question myself, finding precious help in posts on this website (you might want to search through them). I finally narrowed it down to two choices: Eclair ACL1,5 (with variable speed motor and kinoptik viewfinder) or Aaton LTR7. They are both sound sync, silent and reliable, the Eclair being Aaton's ancestor. To make a long story short, I chose the Eclair for two main reasons: Maintenance is cheap (several good techs in the states, one in Europe). It takes all mounts from C to PL (some of the older switar, cooke or zeiss primes, angenieux and canon zooms are very good glass at affordable prices). And why buy a camera if you're gonna end up renting glass? I got a fine complete S16 ACL package last year for under 2000$ (no lens). The cheapest i've seen the Aaton LTR7 S16 go is about 4500$. Good luck in your search and happy shooting. Marc.

Hi, I'm in France. I advise you to go to Color by Dejonghe in Belgium. They do a great job and are reliable . I've had two 45 minutes features processed by them, 16mm. It's about 1euro/meter (30% cheaper than reputable french labs) for 16mm negative and print. They have a pickup box in Paris. Arane is a small reliable lab in Paris, but i'm not sure they still do 16mm. The price after you use all your charm and get a deal would probably be the same as Dejonghe's. Most other major labs have given up 16mm, and some of the smaller labs that still do it have been getting kind of sloppy. Make sure you get plenty of feedback before you go with any of them. Good luck, Marc. Marc.

Thank you much, Bernie. Of course I am aware each mag should be thoroughly tested. It's a relief to know new stock should be compatible with the ACL mags, though. Best regards, Marc.

Hi Karl, Thank you for your answer. No offense. I have no knowledge of the proper english technical terms, and I am eager to learn. What you describe as "pressure fog" sounds close to Kodak's explanation.. In their opinion, the problem was the film path (they did not say what in the film path though). It only happened intermittently with 500 ASA stock. Looking at the Eclair mags, the only spot I see where the loop is tight is on the feed side. Do you reckon going around a small diameter roller at a tight angle could cause "pressure fog" on such stock? Regards, Marc.

Hi, Thank you getting the debate started. I apologize for not presenting the issue clearly. My worries came from feedback about a first generation Aaton (Eclair's heir). What Kodak claimed is that the film path put strain on the perf side of the recent more fragile stock (damaging the emulsion around the perfs, maybe on the sharp turn taken by the film around the feed side roller). The result when projected gave the impression of a light leak in the projector. Any ACL expert's answer would be most welcome, of course. Regards to all, Marc.

Hi, 400feet will run about ten minutes of film. Make sure you test the 500 ASA stock with your mags. Recent film stock is more fragile. A friend of mine used it with an S16 Aaton LTR and it showed some kind of a flare on the perf side of the neg. He had to have his mags modified to prevent this. If you want a straight blow up to 35mm (without scan of the 16mm neg), there will be a grain and diffusion issue with 500 stock. I suggest you also try the late Fuji 2OO ASA stock; great dynamics, beautiful blacks (watch out for red tones on skin; use make up on actors), works well for night indoors and low light outdoors. Good luck, Marc.

hi, I'm in France. I work in 16mm and S16 (blow up to 35mm). I must point out that major labs over here have been known recently to scratch S16 negs pretty badly. I found out from inside sources that this is due to poor maintenance of their traditionnal blow up equipment. They invested on the digital chain (scan before going to 35mm print) and, following Kodak's new technology, they push the customer to scan the 16mm neg. Regards to all Marc.

Hi, I' m french. In Europe, a lot of low buget features are still shot in S16 (mostly with Aatons). Even though big labs in France tend to screw up the blow up to 35mm because they don't wish to maintain their machines (Sony and Kodak slaves, going for the all-digital), there's plenty in other european countries (Belgium or Germany, for instance) that still do a great job. I shot two 45minutes fictions in S16 and love the result in 35mm (I also love the incredible ruggedness and ergonomics of the Aatons on a set). A lot of young film makers pushed by their deluded producers to go HD regret it: - HD cameras are heavy computers that DPs and assistants don't master, since they're always shooting with a new one (rebate at rental houses for pioneering). - It's not easier or faster to light a set. - Post prod technicians, not the DP, are the masters or the image. Are they really artistically involved in the film? - You don't control color balance of HD projection, since each projector is also a computer with its own settings and interpretation of given information (there is no "master" copy of your film). HD on a big screen is awfully cold and flat to this day. You need a 35mm print. - There's usually not enough money left for post production (very expensive), so the 35mm print turns out mediocre. - If you don't shoot ten mags a day, S16 is not more expensive than HD. I have nothing against HD, but I hear a lot of nonsense and propaganda about it. I think the choice of medium should always be an artistic one, whether producers like it or not. As far as film making goes, artistic choice is the future. Regards to all Marc.

Hi, Does anyone know the difference between the O'connor 30 and 30B fluid head? Regards, Marc.

Hi, Are you sure that O'connor 50D was in good shape? It's a great head which should handle the weight... Regards, Marc.