chuck colburn

So Chuck, what did you use on the pulldown pivot and registration pin pivot of the Arriflex 16S instead of the molykote/chronosynth combination?

 

-Tim

 

Good morning Tim.

 

On the 16s reg pin and poll down claw we used rhe 33B lube, on the fibre gearing the BBR-1

 

Chuck

Damo,

 

It is really important to use the original ARRI factory lubricants on the Arriflex 16S, S/B and St because they were specially formulated to work with the materials the Germans used in making the camera. The cameras contain gears made from a fibre composite material and the ARRI grease absorbs into this material in a very specific way, giving protection from wear and proper lubrication. White lithium grease or other more common greases will not do this, and the gears will be left unprotected, which makes them wear much faster. There is also Chronosynth which is a very specific viscosity oil that is used throughout the camera, it is heavier than say 3-in-1 oil, but lighter than some of the heavier oils. Again, it is made very specifically for the steels, aluminums and brasses contained in the camera. There is a specific formula of molykote that is used in the movement of the camera. It is made by blending a specific molykote with Chronosynth, and it is used in the pulldown claw pivot and the registration pin pivot. Alot of shops will just use a graphite lubricant here because the molykote/Chronosynth combination looks like a graphite lubricant, but graphite will not cling to the brass and steel like the molykote will.

 

Like I said, the ARRI factory spent decades building and refining the Arriflex 16S cameras, and they chose the lubricants for very specific and sometimes very complex reasons. The reason many shops don't use the original ARRI lubricants, on the other hand, is very simple, it is expensive and hard to come by. But it is the only thing that will protect and lubricate your camera the way the factory intended, and it is the only lubrications we use in rebuilding your camera and setting it back to factory original specs.

 

Hope that helps,

-Tim

Good morning all.

I thought I would toss in my two cents here in redards to camera lubrication. I serviced, overhauled and built motion picture cameras and optics for just over thirty years. I worked with some of the best techs in Hollywood, Chris Condon, Jimmy Beaumonte, Ed DiGuiliou etc. and in that time the only lubes we ever use were the greases and oils made by Losoid (german I believe). So after thousands oof lenses and hundreds of cameras including every thing from a 16mm Filmo to the 65mm Showscan cameras running at 60f.p.s. standard frame rate without a failure due to lubrication I feel confident enough to say that these lubricants are comsiderd the standard in the industry. I'm not saying that the lubes recommended by Arri or any other manufactuer are in any way inferior, just that they are not mandantory. The three main greases we used were 33B for movement gearing, Arri phenolic pull down claws and most prime amd zoom lens rotating and sliding surfaces. BBR-1 for ball bearings an #70 for areas requiring a heavier viscosity lube. The two oils were the standard camera and the hi-speed types. At one point I maintained all the cameras and lenses for the UCLA film school for over five years straight. So I know from experience how these lubes work on particular cameras and lenses on a long term basis.

Anyhow as I said, just the two-cents of an old camera tech.

Cheers, Chuck Colburn

Indeed it is.

There is a special restraining tool for removing the spring.

 

[/quoteBe afraid......very afraid. I converted a few of the 16mm and a lot of the Eyemos (35mm version) to DC electric motor drive. This required removing the spring completly from the mechanisim. And yes there was a factory rig to hold the sprocket drive assembly (the film transport) while it was removed from the camera body. Most techs either had one or built their own. But the main tool was a pair of heavy steel ring sections that could be dropped over the springs. The mechanisim was then run untill the spring unwound tight against these ring(s) thus allowing it's safe removal from the transport plate. If you or whoever does not have such tools no attempt should be made at spring removal. I saw one from a Eyemo explode across a room... Mucho more terrifying than any Flying Dagger, kung fu knife thingy you ever saw in any movie. Then of course there are the industry tales of the camera tech with missing finger(s).

 

Chuck

Good morning Peter,

 

Since you're going to be working with profssional camera equipment you will probally have matte box rods sticking out front of the lens. An old movie camera trick was to use a longer focal length lens on the camera thus ensuring the least amount of curveture of field at the film plane and then mounting a large film format lens in front of that lens. Sort of like a highly corrected diopter. This also has the advangted of giving you much longer working distance than using a macro lens or a close up diopter, thus making your lighting setup easier. We use to use old Kodak Aero Ektars that were used on 10 by 10 inch roll film cameras as they were available at surplus stores for about $20.00. But I would think any longer focal length large format lens would do just fine.

 

Chuck

Just to make this a little clearer the secondary lens is not attached to the camera lens, just mounted on the matte box rods. This allows you to move to and fro to achieve the needed magnification ratio. Expouser stop is still controled by the camera lens.

I'm shooting a doc on watches and I need to be able to shoot macro work of watches. The format will be digibeta or HDV. With stills macro work I would normally use extension tubes at the back of the lens because they are cheap and have no optical elements thus keeping good image quality. Does anyone know if such things exist for video cameras? Help

 

Peter

Good morning Peter,

Since you're going to be working with profssional camera equipment you will probally have matte box rods sticking out front of the lens. An old movie camera trick was to use a longer focal length lens on the camera thus ensuring the least amount of curveture of field at the film plane and then mounting a large film format lens in front of that lens. Sort of like a highly corrected diopter. This also has the advangted of giving you much longer working distance than using a macro lens or a close up diopter, thus making your lighting setup easier. We use to use old Kodak Aero Ektars that were used on 10 by 10 inch roll film cameras as they were available at surplus stores for about $20.00. But I would think any longer focal length large format lens would do just fine.

Chuck

I've heard it's got a Rocky Horror type cult thing going for it. I've heard it's horrible. A few A.C. friends of mine worked on it.....they were not amused.

 

As for my #1 choice....well, I'm too embarrassed to say because I shot it! Yes, it really is that bad.

I've only every walked out of one movie in my life....Clerks 2. What a waste of film. I like Kevin Smith, but come on! I hope the payday was worth it.

Another movie I hated was Kill Bill I. I still want my money back! What a waste of talent and time. It looks great, and there is some incredible steadicam, but geez, I wanted to wring Tarantino's neck! And to have a part II! How much more self-indulgent can you be? I know some people love this film, but none of them have ever been able to explain why. I could go on and on about that one, but I'll spare you.

At the top of my list. and God knows I'll watch anything if just to narrow in on one aspect ( lighting, direction etc. ) is Terms of endearment ( or was that engagment? ). That puke inducing hook of a fatal illness actually got me to get up and walk out of the theater. I still shudder at what a waste of money and talent not to mention what an incredibly rude thing to do to the lens and camera.

Sorry about the old display name, I didn't have time to post anything since the rules changed. Anyway, now it's fixed. Thanks for pointing that out.

Chuck, the wind is tight. I can't flex the rolls, especially at 1,000'. I hope I'm understanding the question correctly.

Good morning Mihai,

I thought that might be the case. You need to take the body and the magazines to a rental house or cine equipment repair technician and have the clutches adjusted. Also it's not good to leave your shot rolls wound so tight like that. Get them to the lab as quick as you can or rewind in a dark room, being carefull to avoid static electrical charges.

Chuck

please use your real full name.

then the answers come...

How tight does the wind feel on the exposed rolls when you down load them? That is to say are you able to flex the rolls between your thumbs and fingers?

I have, for about the past year, slowly been putting together a CP-16R package I hope to be able to use for many different things. I'm not a cinematographer myself, I'm a director, so I'm more looking for help here to make sure I have everything I need when I hire a cinematographer.

 

Here's where I currently stand. I have the camera body, 2 magazines, a basic set of primes (Ultra T super speeds: 9mm, 12.5mm, 16mm, and 25mm), and a case.

 

The next items on the list are: a few batteries, a matte box, and filters. The batteries and mattebox aren't going to be too dificult, but I have a few question on filters. Namely, are there any other filters I need aside from what I have on my list: NDs, Polarizer, UV, FL? Also, I was wondering if there is a specific brand I should get (if one maybe prevents vignetting more than another). I was also wondering if certain filters work better on the matte box (4x4) or as screw ons, or what cinematographers generally prefer to have on hand.

 

Any help is always appreciated.

Timothy,

If you are going to use gelatin filters behind the lenses then you are going to have to always keep one in there even if it's just a 1A or a clear. The reason is that the gel is going to increase flanged focal depth optically by one third the thickness of the gel, (appx. .0025) and this is way to much of an error with speed lenses espically the wider angles talk to a lens service tech. and he/she will advise you on the best course of action.

Chuck Colburn

Hi Lee Young,

The 9.5-57mm Angenieux was a very nice and if I remember right a relatively fast lens (F 1.6...?) Not too many were availble with side finders (V/F), but they were made. The finder on your 12-120 is refered to as a short finder and it is what you would find on the 9.5-57. And as you asked for any info, the v/f framing mask can be adjusted on any of the Angenieux side finders by loosening the three set crews on the grooved barrel on the finder and rotating the part. This allows you to reposition the finder to suit your tastes.

Chuck Colburn

The Angenieux 10mm was an extremly sharp lens available in "C" mt. The Rx lenses were designed optically with the beam splitter block in mind, and were also set to .6875" flange focal depth as opposed to standard "C" mt. depth of .690". Now over the years I reset quite a few Rx lenses to standard depth for different people and never heard any negative feedback. So keep in mind if you see a "C" mounted lens engraved on the front barrel with Rx, (these were almost alwasy Kern-Switars) you have it checked on an auto-collimator or your footage scales could be off. :ph34r: