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

Do you really need a capping shutter on a Bolex?

I would like some kind of water housing for my bolex, but I doubt I would be in the water as much as you are, filming surfing. Are there cheaper solutions you considered before settling on that housing? I've seen bag type EWA housings for super-8 cameras. Anything like that out there? That photo supports housing sure looks trustworthy though. How difficult is that thing to manage (focus, wind, etc.) out there in the water? I've always wondered about that watching surf films. A quick aside: Naked SBM steam cleaning (NSFRH)- http://themountainandwave.com/?p=3127 Bruce Brown used an H16 on Endless Summer, no? Still making beautiful images after all these years...

How will Digital Cinema ultimately effect low budget independents trying to get out to the public. It seems that the release prints were one of the biggest expenses for "no budget" films in the past. This is the one part I am optimistic about, but I can see the projector companies, studios and chains using their power to keep the costs inflated and not reflecting actual material savings of the technology... I have yet to see a digital projection, and I know I will miss the organic magic and imperfections up there on the screen. I will really be sad if Dcinema takes a bite out of my ability to originate on film... :(

That looks great! Which housing do you use and who did your S16 conversion?

Welcome!

No problem. Keep it going, I'm learning from all of this...

I love living out of a backpack or a car, so if it doesn't fit in a backpack, it's too big! A bolex with a TTL on it is probably the smallest, lightest step-controlled (400') film transport out there, attach a lightweight base, DSLR and light to it and it's still tiny. What do you guys think about the registration of the Bolex for this? Is a projector any more accurate? How about taking footage shot with a non-bolex and scanning it in the bolex... will it be registered a little off? I put some kras footage through my h16 and, I recall it seemed slightly off vertically. A projector would deal with that better...

I've seen moviestuff and jkcamera outfits and while they look great, I don't have a few thousand dollars to spend. I want this to be way cheaper than those and much more versatile and compact. The rig I am trying to make will make use of things that I (and many hobbyists) already have. Keep in mind, most of these tools will also still be functional for acquisition. Time lapse motor Bolex camera Common laptop with beefy processor and image processing software DSLR - Now I hear you on the shutter life, but I never use my DSLR anyway, and honestly don't care if I have to spend 150-200 bucks IF the mechanism wears out. IF this rig works I will have saved $150 many times over by doing it myself. second, more complex option- machine vision cameras and/or lighting - I've seen some pretty reasonable prices on this equipment. Here is the dream: Go out shooting for a day with your bolex, send out film or self-process at home mount bolex with tobin TTL on the simple rig base, remove pressure-plate by hand, install custom pressure-plate/backlight in minutes with no tools, go snag girlfriend's DSLR from her backpack, mount that with the macro lens on the rig base via tripod thread. connect to laptop and external hard drive, open the Canon/nikon/etc DSLR remote firing software as if you were shooting timelapse dumping files to drive. etc. etc., you get the point. I wouldn't necessarily plan on using this rig for really important shoots. I wouldn't expect this to do everything the big rigs do, but It would be nice to feel free to experiment and use my cameras much more often, only swallowing the raw stock and maybe processing cost. Once you got the basic setup working, you would be free to experiment with your backlighting, digital acquisition device, post workflow. AND it would be flexible to easily accept new lighting, software, DSLR/sensor technology as it rolls out and becomes more affordable. (I think mechanical mirrors and shutters are on the way out, lot's of people are shooting timelapse on their DSLR...) I think there's plenty of small guage film hobbyists out there that can't really afford to use their cameras due to the cost of quality digital acquisition. Long story short: I patent the rig parts :angry: ,market it like the RED, become filthy rich, buy Kodak's facilities, re-release all their retired stocks, retire myself to the sunny beaches of Rochester.

Sure, I'd love to see the prisms if you have time to snap a few pictures. I was looking at some pictures of the cine-special. Are you referring to the 200 ft. mag version, because it looks fairly cramped inside the 100'. What will be the advantages of using the Mitchell for your stand? Will this be a 16mm or 35 Mitchell?

How well does it step through single frames? I've used some Steenbecks, that may have been out of spec, but it was difficult to accurately step frame by frame. For some reason I can never find many pictures of KEM flatbeds. Do you know of any links with information or pictures? Is the KEM significantly lighter in weight than a similar six-plate Steenbeck?