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.

I just got a Bolex, and I was very excited to start shooting, until I saw the prices and minimums of HD telecine. One lab told me they'd process a 100' roll for free, but the HD telecine would end up costing around $200!

 

Where can I get a good HD telecine, and not spend too much? I'd like to shoot a 100' roll of negative film.

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.

Just got a slew from Urbanski's 800, 1200, 1600 gray plastic. They don't seem to close tightly. Plastic. Not sure of brand. Reel looks good, it's the cans I'm a little unsure about. What can, brand, and outlet do you use? Do you prefer Metal or Plastic?

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.

Thanks Saul! I actually had no idea that reversal tends to be less grainy. I will need the latitude badly, however, so I doubt that I'd be using reversal stocks.

 

 

 

That's a great question, and undecided as of now. I would like to do a 35mm blowup if I can get the money together, but I'm not sure how good cropped 16mm would look blown up to 35mm.

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.

Is it one of the Eiki projectors or perhaps the Bolex. Or just maybe the Fumeo. If so which model and why? I'm looking to shoot and project movies as they were meant to be!

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 all,

 

I've been a filmmaker my whole life. As a kid I shot on 8mm, then Super 8 and eventually VHS. As an adult I've shot one thing in 16mm, then a lot in mini-DV and for the last few years I've been shooting in HD (well, HDV) often using a 35mm adapter. Anyway, I'm going to be shooting a feature later this year and after considering the Red and many other options, I've decided that I want to shoot on either Super 16 or Ultra 16.

 

Whilst I'll most likely rent a camera for the shoot (if possible - I live in Austin and haven't found any place that rents them) I would like to go ahead and buy a Super 16 or Ultra 16 camera now to replace the Canon XHA1 I've been using. So... I'm going to sell my HDV Camera as well as my lens adapter and lenses and I figure once all that's gone, I should have about $3,000 to spend.

 

I need a camera that shoots on Super or Ultra 16mm, preferably with a zoom lens and crystal sync motor that's quiet enough for sync sound work - is this possible with what I have to spend?

 

I'm familiar with some of the options available, the NPR, H16, etc. I just don't know whether I can reasonably expect to get what I need for around $3000 (or where to look). I just found out about Ultra 16mm - perhaps that would be a more affordable route to take than Super 16?

 

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

 

Cheers,

Luke

http://LukeHill.com

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 everyone,

 

I'm actually looking for a lab, if possible in France, at least in Europe, who processes 16mm with a great quality and for a reasonable price. I know Andec, who makes a very good job but I was wondering if I could get something a bit cheaper, i.e. less than 0,60€/meter??

 

Moreover, do you know a good place for the telecine?? I heard that Uppsala is making a good job and they have low prices. They're making it on a sniper (which I don't know at all). I've done 16mm telecine before on a spirit and had fantastic results, how's the sniper compared to that?

 

Cheers

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.

Hi Mark, You will see "pressure fog" on the unprocessed film. Roll some through the camera and examine it with a loupe. Looks like a flat pressure line on either or both sides of the "green" rawstock. Maybe a millimeter wide.

I don't think the film path is the problem. Probably those damn rollers need cutting/polishing.

On another issue, sometimes people think you need to process film in order to discover a scratching problem. By simply running fresh rawstock through the camera, you will see any scratching ....sometimes even without a loupe.

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.

Marc, I hope you will not take offense at this, but I take it your native language isn't English?

 

It's very difficult to translate the very idiomatic terms for film defects from one language to another, as words that would be translated one way in the everyday vernacular are translated here.

 

Are you, perhaps referring to this stock as being more susceptible to *pressure fog*? This is what we refer to, in English, when rollers or loops in either a camera or processing machine press against the film emulsion hard enough to create static electricity, and enough of it to create light or sparks that fog the film.

 

I'm actually surprised though to hear Kodak say something like that. Usually, what you hear is that their more modern stocks have better and better physical handling characteristics and better anti-halation backing. . .

 

Honestly, though, with acetate film, it is always going to be susceptible to the same amount of damage, at least on the base side.

 

The film itself often has the same physical characteristics. What tends to change are the additives that Kodak puts into the ECN-2 process, like hardeners/prehardeners. They'll often be found in the fixer.

 

Only other thing they could really change to prevent scratches would be the rem-jet backing. I guess there is some tweaking possible with the formulation of the emulsion too, but, ultimately, it is still made out of a tough coating of gelatin (jello) that is mixed with silver halide layers and sensitizing dyes. IDK how you could make thin layers of gello more scratch-resistant. . .

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.

I'm not sure I understand the connection between delicate, scratch-prone stocks and light leaks. Unless it were somehow an issue of thickness as well as fragility with the new stocks. Were these two separate issues that came up in talking to Kodak?

 

I have heard the bit about the new, more sensitive emulsions and scratching, but nothing specific to the Eclairs. I was surprised to learn that Les Bosher doesn't modify the film path even when doing super-16 modifications to an NPR (don't know about the ACL). It says something about the original engineering of the film path and contact points, that he would trust it not to scratch the edge emulsion. Hopefully he is taking into account the latest and greatest stocks in this advice.

 

I know that others, including Bernie O, do modify the NPR rollers and such, but perhaps this is a "better safe than sorry" approach. Which is understandable, considering the production costs that can be riding on a scratch free super 16 negative.

 

I say all that assuming that the ACL film path is comparable (if not improved), to the NPR's earlier design. But that is a big assumption on my part.

 

My guess is that a clean, well maintained/serviced/lubed ACL does just fine with vision 3 500T.

 

Now, here is where I'll step back and let people reply that actually know what they're talking about...

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.

Hello!

 

People on this forum have always been very polite and helpful, i hope you guys don't mind answering these quick questions of mine. I'm shooting a short film on Super 16mm. There is only one rental house in Edmonton Alberta and the only camera i can use is the ARRI SR3. I have available to me a zeiss 11-110mm t2.2 zoom lens, a video tap, and two 400ft mags.

 

Questions:

1. Does anyone have experience with this zoom? How much does it breath? Is it sharp? Or I guess what I'm trying to say is, is it useable? Can it be trusted? The director is shooting S16mm in hopes of getting an older, softer look. A little like terrance malicks badlands.

3. I have been unable to find prices for kodaks S16mm vision3 500T stock, how much per foot does it run on average? The director mandates we use it for the increased dynamic range.

 

Thankyou!

 

Also if there are any tricks of the trade or important notes in regards to the SR3 or the video tap please let me know!

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.

The processing part will be fine pretty much anywhere they can handle S16, which is anywhere they can handle R16 as far as I am concerned. I have never seen a processing lab that would scratch ANY of the negative area. Not one that I would sent my footage too, anyway.

 

And I asked my telecine lab in SF. CA. They said their Spirit DaVinci 2k can handle 2 perf 35 mm and U16 mm, so maybe any other labs with a similar sprocket-less drive scanner and color correction hardware / software would too. The way I understand it is that the gate is more electronic than physical, until you reach the width of the 4 perf 35mm frame and then it stops. But pretty much inside that area they can scan in any shape you can think of -at 24 fps for 16mm or 24 fps for 35mm, but one has to choose the 16mm 24 fps setting for 2 perf 35 mm to get the right results.

 

That is what I understand based on what they said, but I am no expert.

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 trying really hard to remember the last time I shot 16 for any job...

 

Smaller spots, TV stuff, music vids and even some better-budgeted corporate stuff that would have naturally gone 16 several years ago are all some flavor of HD now. 16 doesn't even enter the conversation anymore.

 

I wonder who still shoots S16 (or even regular16) on commercial jobs (not personal projects)? Somebody must.

Although on the flip side I did just see "Wendy and Lucy" which was shot S16 and was a great little movie.

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.

I'm looking for a few recommendations:

 

I'm in need of a tripod/head for my Eclair ACL and I'm having some difficulty finding something decent. I don't have the budget to get into high priced things like Sachtler, Miller, etc., but it seems most of the lower end stuff (Bogen/Manfrotto) is all geared towards 2lb DV/HDV cameras.

 

As such, I can't figure out what will work for me.

 

The camera package I'd like to use it with is a standard Eclair ACL 2, an Angie 25-250 zoom, rod support system, 400" mag -- probably about 20-25 lbs all told.

 

I had an old O'Connor 50D with O'Connor legs but I didn't like that at all. The zoom on the Eclair always seemed to pull the O'Connor downwards in the front no matter how much I tightened the tilt lock or sat the camera backwards. On top of that, when it did tighten, it was never stable -- the weight/length of the lens torqued the springs every so slightly when the camera motor was running, bouncing up and down ever so slightly, and I could never get solid footage.

 

Currently, I'm looking at a Bogen/Manfrotto package at BH Photo -- the 516 head with the 545GB legs -- but I wondered if anyone out there may have other recommendations before I go ahead.

 

Happy Holidays!

Hi,

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

Regards,

Marc.

It's pretty straight forward if you're happy with a soldering iron. The pack contains x6 1.2V rechargeable cells, giving a total nominal voltage of 7.2V

 

To get inside you need to carefully prise out the blank disc which is on the opposite end of the pack from the terminals. I did this by tweaking it slightly in a bench vice. The gentle distortion was enough to pop the corner up so I could get a lever underneath to pull it away from the glue.

 

With that out of the way you'll find a screwed collar with two holes it in. Place a couple of pins in these holes so you can unscrew and remove the ring. Under the ring is a disc of insulating material, then you reach the cells themselves. You'll probably have to cut away some white silicone type glue as you go along, but it peels off fairly easily.

 

To remove the cells you'll need to unscrew the circuit board with the battery connections on, this will allow you to unsolder the wires from the rear of it (making a note of which wire goes where!). The pack of cells can now be removed and replaced with nice fresh ones. The march of technology means you can actually get cells with a larger electrical capacity but smaller physical size.

 

 

Regards,

Ian.

Much obliged to you both,

Marc.

My understanding is that those motors are crystal sync to begin with. At least mine is -with a 200' mag. I have two bodies w/ motors and one is the ACL1 single speed type. It keeps sync no problem unless it used with 400 loads, which it wasn't designed for. I have a friend whose ACL1, single speed motor has kept sync with 400' loads when he has used it, or so he claims. Still he has not had any problems recording audio, so it must be true(?).

 

We may not be talking about the same motor though, do you have pix?

Hi,

The ACL1 came a 24fps or a 25ips crystal on its motor. They are switchable. Mine has a 25ips. I'm looking for a 24ips.

Regards,

Marc.

Hi,

My beaulieu R16 batteries are not holding charge long enough any more. I tried to open the battery handle, figuring I'd just put an 8V batterie in there. In vain. Does anyone know if these batteries can be opened and how?

Regards,

Marc.

Hi y'all,

Does anyone know where I could purchase a 24fps crystal for the 24-25fps ACL1 motor?

Thank you,

Marc.

Does anyone know of a remote switch to run the Eclair ACL?

 

Are there any 16mm cameras that you can easily find a remote switch for?

 

 

(To clarify: Something to operate the shutter while away from the camera)

 

 

Thanks-

Nicholas

Hi Nicholas,

You keep asking the most absurd questions which seem to relate more to a stamp collector's worry than to anything close to film-making.

Regards,

Marc.

I thought it wouldn't be a big deal to use these, and I bid on two to hedge my bets and won both. But man oh man--I'm clueless.

 

Here's the Mansfield 960 (16mm only) that I overpaid for:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...N:IT&ih=012

 

And the Mansfield (8 & 16) Little Gem:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...N:IT&ih=009

 

For now, forget the spicing functions. I just want to get the VIEWING thing down pat first:

 

1) Does anyone know where to find info/user manuals on these? The small film rollers/guides/spindles on both are like pure metal, so I want to make sure that's OKAY, that they're not supposed to have rubber collars or something. I played with them a little with a roll of leader, and it seems like they would both scrap the crap out of ANYTHING you ran through them. (Assuming I'm loading them right, but who knows.)

 

2) One of the reasons I wanted one of these (although now I got two) is that I bought some really vintage films. I wanted to be able to safely run them through the viewer and check for needed splices and make those splices before sticking them on a projector. Can I assume that my footage goes on the left reel, and feeds to the right?

 

3) My image on both is rotated sideways--is that correct?

 

4) The first one listed above, the 960, has a lot more meat to it and seems more practical for me. (Plus, the screen is much bigger, but maybe the other one is sharper.) It needs a lot more cleaning, so I'm going to be dissecting it when the time comes to make it shine inside and out.

 

The screen seems to be just a piece of plastic--which after all these years, couldn't hurt to replace. So any ideas on what to use? Would it be like a magnifying lens, and simply adjust my focus knob (yeah, I found that knob!) to accommodate the new screen/lens?

 

Thanks for your help!

 

And if you're aware of any YouTube videos on old machines lie these, even different models, please post! I looked, but didn't find anything.

hi,

I hope this forum is not bound to become an unhappy e-bayer's mourning chat. Why buy if you don't know what it is? Why not ask the seller these questions before you buy?

Regards,

Marc.

Thanks Keneu. Could you recomend some "cheap old" 16mm stock?

 

-Nicholas

Hi Nicholas,

If you have a project (something to film), I suggest you try and get a DP's attention. Any written advice about film stock, optics and so on is delusion if it doesn't enhance the fact that without technical knowledge and "savoir-faire" you're heading straight into the wall.

The ACL is a great little camera, but your experience with video will be lost on it.

Regards,

Marc.

Marc,

 

Not sure what you mean by "a drunken barrel" and your Kinetals should not be shaky on the Arri ST mount (you are lubricating the barrels with ARRI grease (or the lower cost alternative Vaseline) before you slide them into the camera mount aren't you?).

 

And I need to be clear. Les makes the "Arri PL - Arri Standard with Spring loaded levers (for Cooke type Lenses)", it is one of the standard adapters he makes, but it is not the same as anyone else's standard PL mount adapter. It is very specially designed to work with the Cooke Kinetal and Cooke Speed Panchro lenses. Les makes quite a few unique PL mount adapters to deal with the wide variety of ARRI Standard mount lens designs out there.

 

And I second your "Best regards to all Kinetal spinners". I dearly love the little Cooke's and I think they make fabulous images.

 

Best,

-Tim

Hi Tim,

Yes, I do grease them. A few though, even by eye, are slightly deformed, the groove on the barrel when you turn it looks like some crazy kid's bicycle front wheel (so to speak). By the way, do you know if these aluminium barrels can be straightened, if there's a tool for this that our dear specialists have in store ?

Regards,

Marc.

P.S.: my last film was shot with Cooke Kinetals, straight 35mm blow-up, and it definitely is great glass

Hi everyone,

 

I am looking into getting another 16mm/s16 camera and here is my order of priorities:

 

c-mount

Reflex (not pellicle)

S16/S16 convertable

High frame rate

Magazines (100, 200, 400, whatever..)

Crystal sync

small/low profile

 

From this, I have landed on the Eclair ACL as my preference, but I would love to have any other ideas pointed out to me.

 

Thanks,

Kristian

Hi,

Rob's answer sounds good to me. It looks like you've narrowed it down to a few choices anyway. I directed two films (same DP) shot with Aaton LTR and XTR. They're great cameras. But I chose the ACL as a private owner for several reasons:

It takes all mounts, and adapters are not that expensive (don't forget lenses are way more expensive than the camera, but you can put together a fine series of older Cooke, Zeiss or Switar that will fit the ACL for quite a ridiculous amount, and it's great glass, even for 35mm blow-up.

The ACL is way cheaper to convert and maintain than the Aaton (so much that you could afford two; a second camera on hand is a must if you're on an independent shoot out there; no rental house you can call for fast replacement in case of troubleshooting).

A 200 feet mag and a c-mount prime makes it look like some loony collector's toy ? great to steal shots in public places without authorization.

Things that come to my mind you might want to bear in mind:

The ACL no matter how finely tuned will never be as quiet as an Aaton, though it's a quiet enough camera for most situations. So if you plan to shoot a lot of intimate stuff with let's say a 16 or 25mm lens, the Aaton is probably the tool for you.

The ACL is not great to use with a video tap: too much loss in the viewfinder. With Aaton, I'm not sure the LTR7 is very satisfactory on that level either.

You definitely want the ACL multi-speed heavy duty motor and the ACL 1,5 or 2 mag latch if you intend to pull 400 feet mags (they're compatible with the ACL 1 body, which is somewhat lighter and more compact.

Good luck and fine shooting,

Marc.

Thank you, Tim. A few of my Kinetals have a drunken barrel, shaky on the arri st mount. Since I work with an Eclair ACl and I have a PL adapter laying around, this is good news.

Best regards to all Kinetal spinners out there,

Marc.