Tom Ballard

Thanks for both replies gents... but i like this DIY option... can you tell me more about "...set of rewinds"  what is this exactly... so i know what to look/ask for.

 

Regards

Morris

Scotland.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just bought these on ebay. Take a look and you'll see what rewinds are.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...AMEWN%3AIT&rd=1

Tom Ballard

Speaking in image strictly quality. Which do you believe to be better? The k-3 or the scoopic?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have a Scoopic MS and couldn't be more pleased with its reliability and the imagery it provides. On the other hand, I've been through a couple of the older gray Scoopics and in my opinion, they're junk- bad glass. I had one K-3. I'll not have another.

I believe those that understand the limitations of the Scoopic and won't try to make it something it isn't, will be very happy with it.

Good luck.

Tom Ballard

Hi,

 

It's not the way it looks, that's just taste and practice, it's the uncertainty that you've got it at all. I have no idea how people insure it - the possibility of a moment's carelessness destroying the whole thing at a stroke is more than I can put up with, certainly.

 

The viewfinding arrangements are ridiculously primitive. Apart from the tiny issue that you've no guarantee that it'll see what you see, even down to little things like focus and framing, it doesn't tell you anything. I think part of the phobia film people have about video camera settings is that they're expecting it to be like a film camera, which is so secretive about the way it's set up. Head's up guys - if I stick my camera into 6dB of gain (that's a one-stop push to you) it says "! +6dB" in the viewfinder, making it very obvious what's going on. You just have to.... remember, and ensure that about six other people remember too. If anyone forgets, your footage is ruined. Marvellous! And I don't have to give myself a screaming migrane shoving my face into the viewfinder, either, because if I leave the eyepiece open on my camera it doesn't insert ghostly flashing lights into the scene! Yes, I tried loosening it, and it... well, it fell off, to put it bluntly. And it still didn't show me the whole frame. And really, need I point out that all that resolution is kind of pointless if it's so impossibly difficult to keep in focus?

 

My camera doesn't go "Skrink.... skrink.... skrink.... " and "trrrr" when it's running, causing consternation to the sound department. Camera noise is clearly audible, on all my audio, and even on the DVD-extra-features of huge productions - Goldeneye springs to mind as an apposite example. Haven't we advanced beyond this?!

 

The handholding arrangements are user-hostile. It's hopelessly unbalanced, and the handle on the one I had wasn't even long enough to wrap your whole hand around. After a three-minute take I was in serious pain. How is it possible to advocate a system where it's uncomfortable just to grasp the thing?

 

Stopping every take and a half to reload. The prosecution rests. I have no idea how you guys shooting 35mm deal with four minute rolls.

 

In short, shooting film is like pulling teeth, and to be avoided at all costs.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's no more uncertainty shooting film than there is shooting video. Film cameras fail. Video cameras fail. It's not taste and practice. It's talent, competence and patience. Those are the prerequisites for quality assurance in any endeavor.

I see the wreckless manner in which some drivers operate their automobiles and wonder how people insure them. Such drivers are likely to kill themselves, someone else, or both, yet they manage to get insurance.

Personally, I love the little 'trrrr-ing' sound my cameras make. I can tell when they're well lubricated and functioning properly because I know my equipment and if the occasion should arise that the cameras aren't 'trrrr-ing' the way they should, then I know something's awry. I don't own one that makes the "Skrink, skrink skrink" sound to which you refer, so I can't comment on that. We manage to deal quite nicely with the sound our cameras make. It's something we have to live with to obtain quality imagery and so we live with it. It's part of the job.

I have a friend who shot several important scenes on video, played them back on a monitor and all was good, so she broke down the set and sent everyone home. Upon attempting to firewire the video to her NLE system, all she got was a blue screen. She replayed the video in the cam and a deck- blue screen. Those who point and shoot can't necessarily state "I shoot video, therefore, I have instant proof of what I've shot." Video cams can be quite fickle when not regularly serviced or improperly operated or they can simply fail. Film travels at a predetermined speed past the film plane and light hits the film at a predetermined shutter speed. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

I still believe filmshooters are of the majority. Rarely, if ever, have I seen a post entitled "How can I video-look my film?". Having stated that, if video is the answer, why are so many trying to give it the 'filmlook' (which by the way is atrocious)?

It wasn't my intent to hijack this post and turn it into a film vs video war and for that I apologize. If video gives you the results you want, by all means, shoot it. As someone has already posted, those who know how to shoot film will know how it's going to look before the magazine is unloaded.

Good luck.

Tom

This is a great topic.

I abhore the look of low-end video, which is what many videographers shoot. The higher end video cams are wonderful and I do believe in using the medium that best fits the mood. All things considered, however, the compression, dynamic range and DOF of video provide too many restrictions when compared to negative filmstock. And I believe film is easier to shoot than video. Yes, you have to learn to loop the film and yes, it's a good idea to have someone pull focus. But in the end, what are we striving for if not good imagery? Plainly spoken, video can only compete with film in a limited number of situations.

One can visit Kodak's website and get the EI for any of their filmstocks by clicking on the technical data link for a given stock. Those EIs are what's considered ideal exposure, but the latitude film provides enables us to create the look we want. Try that with video, even broadcast quality cams and creativity is very limited because of the never-ending DOF and lack of dynamic range. If one is shooting an interview in perfectly controlled conditions, fine, shoot DV.

One point that was made about metering I would respectfully disagree with was to point the light meter at the sky to get your exposure. That would be great if the sky was the subject. It's going to show up in frame, but the subject is what we're shooting, not the sky. I'd get a reading in the areas where the subject will be, based upon the light hitting the subject and expose accordingly. If the proper filmstock is used, the subject will appear as it should and the sky becomes incidental. The gentleman that began this post was going to be shooting skateboarders, so if the sky's a little bright but the subjects properly exposed, so be it. I realize there are so many scenarios, a metering discussion could go on forever, but I want my subjects properly exposed and if I'm in a controlled situation, I can block or add light to create the look I want. If shooting in ambient light and the shots aren't critical, I still want the subject properly exposed, will meter for the subject and ignore the rest. If the shots are critical, either put the subject under a tent or shoot early or late when the sun is low, making it less of a factor.

Tom

I was told that Canada Balsam is an excellent source of nutrition for fungus, which is why it does sometimes grow inside apparently sealed lenses.  I had a less expensive zoom lens dismantled (professionally) and the fungus cleaned off a few years ago: now the fungus is back. So obviously it needs to be killed as part of the cleaning. Maybe a good dose of UV would prevent further growth.

 

I certainly wouldn't attempt to dismantle a good lens like a Zeiss myself. And after my experience I would want to know more about what a technician was going to do for a permanant cure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Removed from the environment they need in which to survive (cool and damp), many fungi will die. This could still leave a blemish on the lens, which may or may not show up on film, depending upon the density and distance from the film plane.

I agree with keeping the lens in a dry area exposed to lots of sunlight, as well as leaving the cleaning to a professional.

Good luck.

Tom

Do you know which shows are shot on HD?

 

I know the Shield and Unscripted are on HD...but which else?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've watched "The Shield" and while it may have been transferred to and edited in HD, it appears to have been shot in Super 16. Just an opinion, I don't know this to be factual.

Tom

Does anyone know what happened to these guys? I've been trying to contact them for nearly two weeks and get an answering machine, no return calls and no response to emails. Are they still in business?

Thanks.

Hi, question of an amateur.

I am preparing a long feature that I plan to shoot on 16mm and am wondering what is the most effective way to obtain a clean, crisp sound on film. Should I be thinking sound stock (with Arri BL cam and crystal synch) or recording sound separately and getting a sound print made in post-prod? I am leaning towards a separate recording and am also wondering what to invest in to do so. I am sceptical about MiniDisc and MiniDV because of the poor quality optical input.

Let me know what you think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

16mm sound stock was discontinued years ago.

Crystal sync is recommended regardless of how you're recording audio, unless your cam runs at a constant speed very, very close to 24fps, in which case you can increase/decrease audio speed in post. Don't stray too far from 24fps or you'll find adjusting the audio speed will effect the pitch.

Good luck.

Tom

Okay bad news I am afraid. The electronic eye only goes up to 50ASA, assuming the speeds are in ASA. See the side of the electronic eye itself and you will see what I mean.

 

This means that you are very limited in film stocks. There isn't a setting for 40 ASA but you might get away with Kodachrome 40 on 50 or 32 ASA. Perhaps not tho because reversal stocks are not very forgiving. You might be able to use Plus-X. However the film is not 50ASA in the new chemistry. If you develop at home, I think you might still be able to shoot 50 ASA on this however.

 

You will not be able to use vision stocks at all, because AFAIK they start at 100ASA.

 

Now heres the one bit of good news. EXR 50D! It's not a vision film stock, but in my opinion it is actually more beautiful, it is very low grain because of the slow speed and the colour and texture is wonderful. It is more like a traditional film stock than the vision stocks, and hence tarantino was using it indoors at one stage (something I don't recommend) in order to get a look more like classic cinema. It's also a negative stock which means that it is more forgiving of exposure mistakes, (such as your EE not being acurate!) EXR-50D is the way to go assuming your EE is acurate I think!

Maybe, see above.

 

You might also be able to use low contast print stocks at 10 ASA. These are cheap but you need lots of sunlight. Definitely worth playing with.

 

50 ASA was probably the fastest film people could imagine when this camera came out! :)

Autofocus? I think not! Are you sure?

 

Look forward to the footage! :)

 

love

 

Freya

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Freya,

HTTK's Tri-X film came out nicely and the speed of that filmstock exceeds the limitations of the cam's electric eye. But, as he posted, he metered and set the aperture manually. I can see no reason one couldn't shoot any filmstock they wanted in that cam, including fast Vision 2, providing it's done in manual mode.

Many cameras have a film speed limitation suited for their 'automatic' modes, be it exposure or something else. I have an old gray Scoopic that only registers 320ASA, but that's for the internal light meter. Although that model Scoopic doesn't have very good glass, I've shot 500T with good results, but I didn't use the internal meter or the film would've been over exposed. I also have a Canon 1014 XL-S Super 8 that only registers 400ASA. Again, this is for factoring in the internal meter. I've shot 500 speed film with that cam as well, using an incident meter.

I have the 240-T with the Super Comat f/1.9 20mm lens. According to the manual, this was one of two lenses that came with the camera new. The 240-T accepts C mount lenses.

If it stops raining, I'm going to shoot some Vision 2 200T today and Vision 2 500T tonight.

Good luck.

Tom

I've been watching the show with the knowledge that it's shot on S16 and I think it looks as good as the other shows in the franchise. I believe that "One Tree Hill" is shot on S16, and I believe that after the first or second season "Dr. Quinn" went to S16. "Larry Sanders" looked like S16, and I would bet that "Arrested Development" is S16 too. Does anyone know for sure?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe "Arrested Development" is video. I've not watched more than a couple of minutes of it, so I could be mistaken.

Tom

I like my Scoopic M too.

Pretty sharp glass above f4 or so.  I really think the bad rap it gets is mostly from the original grey Scoopic, which is said to have an infelior lens, compared to the 12.5-75 that the M and MS has, but I've never actually shot with the original one, so I can't verify that.

Fun to shoot with though, even though my auto-exposure system doesn't work  :(

 

As far making your own sound barney, that dampening material looks nice, but remember that no one material blocks all frequencies.

That would be good for high freq., but there's quite a bit of midrange noise coming off a Scoopic.

The lower the freq. you're trying to block, the denser the material needs to be.

Low frequencies go right though soft materials. That's why you can hear loud bass go right through walls & stuff.

Before I abandoned my Scoopic barney project, I was using several layers of material: foam (similar to the one in your link above), vinyl outside, plush material inside, as well as one layer of thin sheet metal, coated on both sides with liquid latex brushed on (for the low-mid frequencies), and a thin layer of indoor-outdoor carpet (with the rubber backing).

The other super-imprtant thing to remember about sound control is air-tightness:

Any open areas at all will leak a significant amount of sound.

I believe the formula is 14% perforation = 85% sound leak.

 

You can verify this effect with your car in noisy traffic. Roll your window down about 2 inches, and you'll find that it lets in probably about 1/2 the sound as when the window is all the way down.

It's not a linear relationship to how much of your camera is exposed, to how much sound is getting out.  This is magnified even more, by the fact that the front of your lens is "kinda" acting like a speaker, projecting the noise forward.

My barney plan was to have a large UV filter, attached to a sleeve (made out of the same material as the rest of the barney) that I could slide over the lens when shooting, & pull off to adjust the lens.

 

Matt Pacini

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Matt-

You brought up some very good issues. I hadn't given any consideration to the different sound frequencies. I'm sure it'll take some experimenting, but I'm going to try to quieten this camera a little. I'll let you know how it goes.

Thank you. Tom

Not sure if there was one made stock, but I've never seen one.

There are a couple companies that custom make barnys, or you could make your own.

I started making one for my Scoopic M, but then got my CP-16R/A, which is really quiet, so I just shoot MOS stuff with my Scoopic.

It would be nice to have a quiet one, though!

 

Matt Pacini

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One of the fellows at filmshooting.com directed me to the material found here:

http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cf...tnumber=260-535

I'm going to create a pattern and weave together two layers of this material and see how it works. I'll post the results here. I know a lot of people don't like the Scoopics, but I've had very good luck with them.

Tom

"While the 240 is a neat little camera, the thought of converting it to Super 16 is a bit ambitious."

 

I disagree, especially if the modifiation is as straightforward as filing out the gate and fitting an 8mm Peleng via a C-mount adapter (hence, no need to recenter the lensmount).

 

A Super-16 modified 240, as a "B" camera, would be a great complement to a crystal-sync "A" camera. Hand-holdable, unobtrusive, and rugged... perfect for hand-held grab shots, fight scenes, and the let's not forget the occasional 64fps slo-mo shot.

 

I just picked up a 240T, which is a two-lens turret version of the 240 without the "EE" eye. Does anyone know what the effective shutter speed is at 24 fps?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll stick to my guns on my opinon that converting that cam to Super 16 is a bit "ambitious". Each to their own, of course.

The shutter speed of the 240-T at 24fps is 1/65th sec.

Good luck.

Well, I fiigured the bell and howell magazine cameras could not be moded to super 16, but the 240 is not a magazine camera.  It is a 100' spool camera made around 1958. It can accept single and double perf.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While the 240 is a neat little camera, the thought of converting it to Super 16 is a bit ambitious. Shoot with a better camera, something like a CP-16R (not the best, but far from the worst) and you'll understand what I mean. It's sync sound and quiet as a mouse. You could never shoot sync sound with the 240. It's far too noisey and to my knowledge, no crystal motor exists for it. S16 conversion is simply not practical.

Enjoy the camera for what it is and you'll have fun.

Good luck.

Has anyone here successfully blimped a Scoopic MS? I recall someone selling an MS several months ago on ebay with the 400 foot mags. If memory serves me accurately, it was blimped. I'm wondering if the blimp enabled this user (or any other) to shoot MS.

Also, any direction to where a blimp can be found/made and recommended would be appreciated. My MS does not and will not have the 400' mags.

Thank you in advance for your responses.

Sean,

 

Those are awesome screengrabs! Any video? I hope my color film comes back like that!

What stock were you shooting by the way?

 

That's the next thing I would like to get is the Angenieux Zoom Lens. Would you happen to have an extra one you might want to get rid of? :D

Yeah it's great to see more and more people getting interested in this camera.

It's a good one.  ^_^

 

P.S. Welcome to the boards!  B)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

HTTK,

I emailed Sean, he replied and told me that the top and bottom framegrabs were shot with Kodak 250D and the middle strip was shot with Vision 2 500T.

Thought you might like to know.

Tom.

Christopher, yes I've shot with the camera with excellent results! I would compare it to a higer end camera for sure! Crystal sharp picture, ROCK STUDY picture, I mean just everything you could ever ask for. I set the camera manually without the EE. REMEMBER this is only a TEST FILM and was shot only as a TEST FILM.

 

That's all this is. This was just to see if the camera even worked! We desided to shoot a short scene for the test.

The file size is about 15mb, as I tried to make it look as clear as possible. The transfer I did to get it to the computer is "crude" and doesn't do the film justice at all. But atleast you'll be able to see what the camera can do. I tested all speeds with it and they all work great! Here is the film test right here.

 

:) Congrats on getting the cam. I think you should be pleased. If you have any questions just let me know.

 

P.S. I'm shooting some color tests now! :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

HTTK,

Nice job!

What filmstock and lens did you use? I have only the 25mm lens on the B&H 240 (not the electric eye) and have been anxious to try it out. At 24fps without film the motor seems to run about 52 seconds on one wind. How much time did you get before having to rewind? Do you know the max ASA this cam will register?

Once again, nice job with framing and imagery and the little slapstick film was entertaining as well.

Thanks. Tom Ballard

Hi,

Looking for some advice.

I've been working as a low budget slave/gaffer/monkey for the past

five odd years, saving my pennies, eating Ramen noodles and I am

now edging closer to purchasing a 35mm camera.

 

Happened upon this:

Mitchell BNCR Camera Package

PACKAGE INCLUDES:

 

(4) 1000 ft. magazines

Crystal motor

CCD flicker-free video assist

20-120 Angenieux zoom lens

Mattebox

Follow focus

Lens light

Battery

Previously owned and maintained by Paramount studios.

 

Asking price: $9900.00

 

This is just about in my range.  Anybody shot with this guy?  I know its big, but

is it PSR BIG?  The lens probably isn't so swell, is it?  I can upgrade later, but not

for many moons.  It's variable speed (up to 120fps) but how consistant?  Is the

registration rock steady?  Basically, is this a good camera for a first time owner.

Very familiar with Arri BL's, 435, etc.  How similar?  Any loading issues?  What

else should I be concerned with this camera?  Is it worth the asking price?

 

Probably too many questions, but I would like opinions aside from the vendor's.

 

Enlighten me oh wise men ;) ,

Tony

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Based upon your description of the camera, I'm guessing you're referring to the one Visual Products has for sale.

Have you actually seen one of these cameras? They're big. Quite big. If you'll note the films this cam was used for when Paramount owned it, you'll see that it was all work done in studio. If that's all you want it for, it would be a great camera. You're right, regarding the lens though. The Angenieux isn't the greatest. You're not going to get the imagery you'd get with a nice set of primes, which would cost you many times more than the camera. If the lens quality is acceptable, better to take a step up (three times the cost) and go with a more modern camera. I don't think you'd be happy with this one because of its lack of maneuverability.

The people at Visual Products are quite helpful. Talk to Mike Casey and tell him what you want to use the camera for. I believe he'll be honest with you and tell you whether it will suit your needs.

Good luck.

hi tom

 

  thanks for the replay!

 

  just got an e-mail back from Film Emporium "Short ends are on a core" do you put the film on the spool yourself.

 

steve o

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Steve-

No, I didn't put it on the spools myself. Although it's fairly easy to do, I'd rather pay the $10 than transfer several thousand feet of film from cores to spools.

Regardless of what you were told in an email, call Film Emporium and speak to Dennis. I just spoke to him about an order and they'll put it on 100' daylight spools for $10US, as I posted earlier. I don't know that they'd do this for a very small order, but you'll have to call and ask.

Good luck.

Tom

canon scoopic-16

 

can you only use daylight loading spooled film in this camera. because short ends are cheaper!

 

kind regards

steve o

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Short ends are available on daylight spools. I've purchased 16mm stock from Film Emporium and if the available lengths are over 100' there's an associate/afilliate of theirs that will, for $10, make as many cuts as you want to any length you want (I would assume 100'). If you only want 100', your cost would increase by $0.10 per foot, but if you want 1000' (ten rolls), then your cost is only increased by $0.01 per foot. I don't work for Film Emporium, so this isn't a plug for them... but then again, I suppose it is. I'd imagine other filmstock suppliers would have the same capability. Call them and see.

Mr. Ballard,

 

Thanks for the prompt reply.  I'm glad that there are knowledgable people within this community.  Where are you from?  I'll make make sure to relay the message to the director.  Once again, thank you. 

 

I have another question.  How can find out the cost of transferring mini dv to film for just a 1/2 hour film.  The number you gave to me in your reply was 90 minutes.  This conversation has opened my eyes.  I have final cut XP.  Would I be able to use the filters in XP make the dv look like film?  Or could I just rent the DVX-100A (which shoots 24p) to save money?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The cost to transfer video to film is nearly, if not as expensive as originating on film. Costs range from $250-$500US per minute, depending upon whether you're transferring to 16mm or 35mm. There are times when that method makes sense, but more often than not, it makes better sense to shoot film than transfer video to film. If you're certain that your production's destination is film and no circumstances exist that would require it be shot on video, then I'd recommend finding someone to shoot it for you on film.

This is strictly my opinion, but I've never seen video that looked like film. I realize that's the selling point for the prosumer cams like the DVX100A and the XL2, as it was for their predecessors, but it still looks like video to me. You can use the cine-gamma effect, add grain, a gaussian blur and 24p certainly helps, but if you plan to blow it up to 35mm, don't expect it to look like it was shot in 35mm. It won't. I've seen 28 Days and November and a number of other movies shot with the low-end Pannys and Canons then transferred to 35mm for projection and they all looked like video.

If your intent is to go direct to video, shoot film if you can afford it, video if you can't. If you're going theatrical, shoot film. If you want the inexpensive way out, shoot video, but remember- you only get what you pay for.

Go to google and do a search for "film to video transfer" or "telecine". That's the best place to begin learning. Then talk to the people at the transfer houses. The Kodak people are friendly as well, but they're not going to spend the necessary time to educate you in the film arena. Educate yourself. Learn about costs, terminology, theory and most importantly, practical applications of a camera. Buy one. Learn its capabilities and its limitations. Consider what you expect of the camera and test it- see if it's capable of doing what you need it to do. If it is, do it.

Good luck in your adventure.

Hello,

 

Good day to all of you (well whoever reads this).  I am going to be shooting my first movie.  My question is, would it be cheaper to shoot 16mm or shoot mini dv and then have it transferred to film.  The film is in black and white.  I'm just the shooter (cinematograhpy / DP debute).  I need to know as much information as possible.  I would greatly appreciate your help.  Any and all types of resources (books, websites, magazines, or contacts) is what I'm asking for.  Thanks

 

1.  How much stock I would for a 1/2 hour film?  Whether it's 100 or 400 feet.

 

2.  What is the best 16mm camera to rent?

 

3.  Is shooting 16 different than mini dv?  If so, how do I learn about shooting with 16mm?  From cleaning and lubricating, to loading the magazines, to shooting, and reading time codes.

You can tell I'm an amatuer from the dumb questions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's nothing wrong with being a novice. www.kodak.com is a good place to start. This board is a good source of information as is http://8mm.filmshooting.com/

In 16mm, 108 feet = 3 minutes @ 24fps. Considering this is your first film, to be safe, figure a 12:1 shooting ratio. That means you'll have to shoot 36 minutes to get 3. Anything better than that ratio is a bonus.

A seasoned cinematographer will spend $10k-$12k for filmstock, processing and transfer for a 90 minute feature. Generally, around $0.70 per foot is a good number to use as a rule of thumb for budgeting. 30 minutes (10*108) = 1080 x 12:1 shooting ratio = 12,960 feet @ $0.70 per foot = $9,072

16mm- 108 feet = 3 minutes @ 24fps.

Opinions on the best camera to rent will bring various responses. I have a couple of older Scoopics and a CP-16R converted to Super 16, so I haven't rented in some time. Probably an Aaton or an Arri, though, with a crystal sync motor.

Shooting any gauge of film is different than shooting any video format. With film, the latitude is greater, meaning it's more forgiving in that regard. With video, it's considerably less expensive to shoot, so it's more forgiving on your wallet. What you decide to do depends upon what you can afford and just how dedicated you are to learning about film. If I were starting over, I'd do just what I did- start with an old Super 8, learn about film and lightmeters and as much else as I could, then go on to 16mm & 35mm. Or, you could start with 16mm and make short films. I don't think I'd recommend shooting a 30 minute film for starters, considering the cost involved. But, that's just how my wallet sees it.

Good luck.

Thanks Tom,

 

I am going to talk to George at Optical Electro next week about my Eclair.  Maybe he can do it or will know someone.

 

John :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John-

Give these guys a try: http://www.alangordon.com/

Good luck.

Tom

Thanks for the info Tom.

 

I think it just needs a good cleaning and lube.  I'll wait for your reply.

 

It's not an M or MS.  I don't want to buy another one because it will probably have similiar problems.

 

John

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John-

I can't find the name of the company that works on the Scoopics. I had the occasion to speak to Rick at Visual Products last week and he confirmed that there is a place in Burbank and he's going to try to find a number for me. I'm going in to see him on the 4th, so hopefully he'll have the info you need and I'll post it. I apologize for not being able to help you more.

I have two Scoopics, both in good shape, but one had some deterioration of the foam around the inside of the viewfinder threads that was causing some problems, so I bought the repair manual from ebay, took the cam apart and repaired it myself.

Any repair you make to a Scoopic is going to cost more than what they're selling for unless you do it yourself. This, I know to be true.

I'll keep trying to get that number for you.

Good luck.

Tom

There's a place in Burbank that still works on them and I'll post it as soon as I can remember the name, but the Scoopics are selling for so little now you could probably replace it for less than the cost to have it repaired- unless it's an M or MS.