Topher Ryan

This Aaton XTR scam pops up every few months with different stolen pictures. I'm guessing it's the same ***hole doing it. If anybody has corresponded with this guy, PM me his email address.

According to my notes the eBay seller was "lockstock2006" located in Belarus. Try a search for that seller and contact him. Let me know what you hear.

I love my NPR, but I'm going to have to agree with Saul. Especially considering that you already have an ACL and are probably accustomed to the size, it will feel like a step backwards in terms of weight and ergonomics. The NPR is an older design, so unless you particularly need an variable shutter, you'd probably be better off upgrading your ACL. Which motor, mag size, and viewfinder do you have for your ACL 1.5? Has it proven itself reliable thus far? (Oh... I enjoy threading the NPR mag, so I don't consider that a serious drawback to it. It's no Aaton mag but it's not bad at all.)

That NPR has an ACL viewfinder on it. It's a nice viewfinder, but the ergonomics of it aren't designed for the NPR so you may be stretching your neck to get your eye on it properly when handheld. BUT, it does have that small Alcan motor so it could work. With the larger, more common NPR motors your shoulder butts up behind the motor and under the mag... look at some more NPR pictures to see how the kinoptic and angenieux NPR finders reach back farther. See this page for a picture of the NPR version of that viewfinder (they are both made by Angenieux): http://eclair16.com/eclair-npr/ If you are in the area of the seller I would definitely suggest trying it out handheld to see if it is comfortable for you. Have you considered sending you ACL to Bernie for super 16 conversion? You could get it converted and buy an AZ spectrum tap for a good bit less than that NPR's "Buy-it-now" price.

I don't want to divert any more attention away from the thread, but I should explain why I said that. I had just read through a few threads, all of which had you chiming in to correct some trivial bit of semantics with the signature smug :rolleyes: Elitist attitude and mention of Hollywood do not impress me one bit. 25+ years in the biz of life we say if you can't take it don't dish it out. Goes around, comes around. Karma, etc. etc. It was pretty clear that neither of them meant to say 1.85 was a format. And yes a stock 1.33 gg (corresponding to the reg 16 gate) that has later had 1.85 marked upon it makes sense just as they were discussing it. All that said, I've enjoyed many of your contributions in the past and pumpkinhead was pretty cool.

If reversal stocks are inherently finer grained than negative stocks, and we aren't doing a hell of a lot of printing these days, would it not make sense for Kodak or Fuji to put more R&D into new reversal stocks. What is the real barrier to achieving better latitude with reversal? http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?s=...st&p=295323 I've always known negative stocks to have greater latitude compared to reversal, but I am a little ignorant as to why. Did negative become king simply because, for decades, workflows depended on striking prints and protecting the camera original from projectors and steenbecks (and thus all R&D went that way)? Is there some other law of nature I am overlooking? Now that we often immediately scan the camera original into the digital realm, could we have even finer grain by applying new technology/chemistry to reversal stocks? Is the difference in grain even significant? Negative film makes a little more sense to me in 35mm acquisition, since (for now) most theaters show 35mm prints. And I guess in 16mm we just take whatever hand-me-down stocks our big bro is wearing. If digital projection really takes over and we still shoot on film, would it make more sense to have badass reversal stocks? Is DI any easier from reversal/prints? (In the DIY scanning quest it is!) A Brave New World where reversal 16 latitude and grain performance matches vision3 35... and DI for cheap! Am I dreaming?

...there is no such thing as '1:85' aspect ratio in film. See any basic cinematography textbook ever published.

Yeah but who's paying for your stock and transfer? That's the point here.

Am I correct that Ken Burns' "National Parks: America's Best Idea" was shot completely in super-16? I've found a few stills from the project showing an aaton XTR. This show comes out this September (2009). I'm sure it's been in the works for a few years, but what does that say that Ken Burns is still shooting (documentary!) s16? If they were starting this project today and not a few years ago, would they still choose s16? I will be interested to see if his next few projects stick with film. I can't wait to see this one. There seems to be a 24 minute preview here (though I won't have time to watch until tonight): http://www.pbs.org/nationalparks/

Looks like my links died overnight. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...RS=PN/2,284,757 Try that one and click on "images" for the 3 doc images with full explanation

Patented 1942 Wonder how much ol' Alton Morton made off that one... http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.DImg?Docid=US002...p;ImgFormat=tif http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.DImg?Docid=US002...p;ImgFormat=tif http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.DImg?Docid=US002...p;ImgFormat=tif

The Angenieux for the NPR and ACL do look similar where they attach to the body, but if you notice on the NPR, the reach is a bit further toward the rear of the camera. When going handheld with an NPR the large motor against your shoulder puts your head that much farther back. So, as I recall, the ACL finders would make you strain your neck forward if mounted on the NPR. So I can assume the opposite would be true if you mounted an NPR finder on an ACL. I'm not even 100% sure that the threads and focus are cross-compatible without modification. Someone please chime in if you know. It's been a while since I've used either camera, but I think these pictures verify what I recall: http://eclair16.com/eclair-npr/ (pictured with the ang. orientable finder) http://www.erkanumut.com/?s=acl (scroll down to the viewfinder pictures) Just something to consider if someone offers you an NPR finder rather than an ACL finder

Do you mean for an NPR or ACL? I'm assuming ACL considering the direction you are trying to go.

Is there truth to the idea that some labs will treat black & white 16mm poorly, while doing top notch work on color negative? Someone brought up this point in another thread, here I think. The idea was that B&W was a small portion of their business and general considered amateur/film school dabbling. Let's say I have some exposed BW negative that is very precious, any suggestions on a lab that will treat it just as well as color?

I was under the impression that the built-in shutter on the bolex Rex models would accomplish the same thing. Would an external capping shutter just be added security on long exposures, or is there another benefit to using one? Have you experienced light leaks while using just the built-in shutter? To the original poster: The Tobin TTL is another intervalometer option. Not sure if they are still in production, though I believe Duall has some for sale. Here is a direct link to the PDF with some shutter speed info: http://www.tobincinemasystems.com/TCS_Public_PDF/TTL.pdf