Tim Carroll

Hi Raymond, I've always loved the 9mm Cooke Kinetal. Nice and sharp, beautiful construction. Unfortunately it will not cover Super-16, and as the whole mount turns when focused, it requires a PL adapter like the ones Les Bosher used to make (not sure he is still making them), which are more complex and expensive compared to the readily available PL mount adapters. Best, -Tim

I used those RC car batteries to power the 24fps constant speed Arri motor for years. Checking with a strobe, the speed was spot on. I think the RC car batteries were 7.2 volt or 7.4 volt, can't quite remember. Turned out to be a much cheaper way to shoot with those cameras compared to the battery belts. Best, -Tim

I certainly did Charlie. Been so long since I even picked up a 16S. Still have a pristine one packed away in the basement. Will have to get it out one of these days, probably needs another overhaul. HA!!! Hope you're both doing well, Happy Holidays to you and yours. Best, -Tim

When I had a complete set of Speed Panchro's the 32mm was one of my favorites. It renders so lovely. GLWS. Best, - Tim

Hi Giorgio, The eyepiece without the eyecup was $3550 when new, and the eyecup with internal iris was probably another $450, so about $4000 new. I bought this, which again is in near mint condition in 2010 for $1500 and used it only a handful of times. I could let it go for $1000, and whatever the cost of shipping would be to Torino Italy from Chicago, Illinois USA. Best, -Tim

I used in on a 16SR converted to Super 16, and a buddy of mine had the same eyepiece that he used on a 16SR II, and that 2C pictured above with the Jurgen's door. I am open to offers on the eyepiece. It's in near mint condition. Best, -Tim

The eyepiece I have I think it referred to as the Wide Angle Eyepiece, it is the one that will fit the Arriflex 16SR and 16SR II, as well as the Arriflex 2C, Arriflex 3, and Arriflex 35BL. It is shown below. Is that the one you are looking for? Best, -Tim

Hi Giorgio. Not sure I know the difference between the wide angle version or the BL one, could you clarify? Best, -Tim

Hi Giorgio, Are you talking about the eyepiece that is shown in this picture attached to an Arriflex 16M, that works for both Arriflex 16mm and 35mm cameras? If so I have one in very good condition. Best, -Tim

Hey Francis, I'm a bit fuzzy on this but you are correct, that wire is connected to the negative terminal on the power cord. Can't recall what it was used for, but many of the Arriflex 16S power cords had a socket on the back side of the power cord connector, which lined up with the negative terminal, like the one you have pictured. Best,-Tim

I'm fairly sure that is an animation motor. Disney bought a slew of Arriflex 16S cameras in the 1950's to use in their animation studios. I serviced a number of them over the years. That looks like an animation motor, probably made by Arriflex Corporation of America for Disney studios or one of the other animation studios that were popular in the 1950's, 60's and 70's. Best, -Tim

Most of the lubricants used on the Arri 16S camera are very difficult to find now. You might try a light oil like 3-in-1 oil, that might free up the switch somewhat, but it probably has years of dirt and grime built up in it so it really should be taken apart, ultrasonically cleaned, lubricated and re-assembled. Best, -Tim

It's been years, but I remember we used to take the rechargeable batteries from RC cars (7.2 volt) and use them to run the Arriflex 16S variable speed and constant speed motors. Worked really well. Best, -Tim

You could try lubricating the on-off switch. It could also be missing the spring that makes it pop back out when it turns off. When you press the on switch, is it stiff? If so, I think it needs to be taken apart and cleaned thoroughly, lubricated, then put back together. If the on switch presses in nice and easy, I would suspect the return spring is missing. Hope that helps. Best, -Tim

I agree with Tyler, just shoot in standard 16 and crop in post. Have shot a number of projects this way. I usually tape off the fibre optics screen or lightly mark it with pencil to guide framing. Axel Broda used to do a really nice Super 16 conversion on Arriflex 16SR and 16SRII cameras, but it ran about $8000. He no longer does this work, and the cameras are no longer worth the investment.

Just to throw in a different perspective. Always been a big fan of the Arriflex 16S/B. Have owned the Bolex, and Aaton LTR. The Arriflex is really nice and simple, and I found it easier to hand hold compared to the Bolex, and a lot more compact and maneuverable compared to the Aaton. And with one of the periscope finders attached, you can shoot the Arriflex from many different angles. If I were doing what you're talking about doing, I'd find a good Arriflex 16S/B (which should not cost you $2K) and a Zeiss 8mm T* lens, and just have at it. Had this combination a decade ago and although I still have the 16S/B, I stupidly sold the Zeiss lens. Because it is 8mm (and make sure you get one with the T* coating) camera movement is not an issue. And you can get in really close and make some really wonderful footage with it. Just my 2¢ worth. Good luck with whatever you choose.

Haven't serviced a 16S, S/B, M or BL in over eight years. For a thorough CLA, back in the 2000's, it was near $1000. And as Dom mentioned, we stripped the movement down completely (his image shows some bearings still installed, all of those came out and went into the ultrasonic cleaner). Then we would rebuild them exactly as they had at the factory. The thing with those cameras is that each one was hand made, so each camera was rebuilt "hand made" with multiple adjustment points along the way. Very time consuming. But when the camera was completely rebuilt, it would "sing". For about four years, then you had to redo everything again. That's one of the drawbacks of "wet" cameras. Best, -Tim

Sorry not to get back to you. Definitely 16BL port cover, and you are right, 16BL and 16M mags are different and not interchangeable but the port covers are. Best, -Tim

I believe it is also compatible with the Arriflex 16BL. Definitely not the Arriflex 16S or 16S/B. Best, -Tim

OK, Thanks. There is supposed to be a plastic cover over those, and that means the camera is set up for European 25fps, as opposed to American 24fps. Best, -Tim

What gear set is in the camera? If you open the door on the camera body, there a two gears under a clear plastic cover in the center of the film chamber (behind the door) that should each be numbered. One will probably say 25 or 24 on it. Can you post what those numbers are? Thanks. Best, -Tim

The Arriflex SR2 is a much more refined camera when compared to the Arriflex 16BL. If choosing between the two, I'd go with the SR2. It's very difficult to tell, from your description, what is the issue with the 16BL. Visual Products in Ohio might be able to service it for you. Best, -Tim

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nh9BTMWj9M I'm a bit confused, when I look at the Logmar footage that is posted on YouTube, it looks great. But then when I really study it, and notice the sprocket holes that are projected on the left side of the image, the sprocket hole is moving around all over the place. If that is actually a projection of the sprocket hole in the film (and not some artifact from the telecine or some other process), that image is not registered well at all. The whole point of a registration pin (and the side rail and pressure plate) in a motion picture camera is to place the captured image in the exact same location, frame after frame, relative to the edges of the film and the sprocket hole. The fact that the sprocket holes on that test footage, seem to be moving all over the place, tells me that the registration is off. You can lay one frame on top of the next, frame by frame, in a very tedious, time consuming process, after the film is scanned, and you will get what looks like perfect registration. That is what it looks like was done with that test footage. Having proper registration, proper tension of the side rail, and proper tension on the pressure plate all adds up to having each frame on the film landing in the exact same spot, in relation to the sprocket hole/film edge, thereby negating the need for tedious, time consuming frame alignment. If that truly is a projected image of the sprocket holes on that piece of Super 8 footage, that film is not registered properly at all. Best, -Tim

I must apologize, little screw up on my part. Had an issue with the web site address, it is supposed to be: http://www.analogcams.com/Arri16S.htm The number one after the "S" was not supposed to be in there. Best, -Tim

Sweet package. GLWS