Tom Hepburn

I think that's a bit personal Marc.

Gentlman, After reviewing today the two, I did find the newer ones a bit "soft." Ironic ey?-see original subject? One difference in these example is that the "pres" were scanned at 1920 by 1080. I used 7231 stock I used a $30 computar 12.5mm lens (yep, you read right) on the shot in front of the bricks. I used an Angenieux/Bell and Howell 17-68mm zoom on the shot in front of the picnic tables. the meter was set to asa 80 I took a reading, adjusted 2 stops for my ND filter and 1/3 for my yellow filter, as well as another 1/3 since my shutter is 144 degrees. I over exposed 1/3 on the shot in front of the picnic table. It was processed at transferred via telecine at standard 16:9 to MiniDV tape. I digitized it in Adobe Premier Pro, imported into AfterEffects and exported a still. In an effort to get more accurate readings, I've purchased a Spectra IV A. I was using an older analog Sekonic meter for these shots. David I took your advice and focused on the ground glass and locked the viewfinder, but I think I should have taken more time. I wonder if the lack of crispness was do to my not nailing the viewfinder and my eye. It seemed pretty in focus at the time, but things were pretty chaotic as my kids did the sound because of a no show, and did a heck of a job I might add for an 8 and 10 year old. As always, I'm interested in any further info. I was glad to see the blotchy grain gone, but would like to get things more crisp. Thanks in advance, Tom

Hello All, Here is what was done to the camera and lenses: Reset gg to specifications and brought flange focal depth to zero. Lowered movement friction for greater efficiency and lubed interior motor shaft. Collimated/calibrated the lenses Both "pre" and "post" images were shot with the same film stock. Enclair Stills I'd be interested in any thoughts anyone wants to share. Thanks, Tom

Good news folks, The problem is solved. I believe it was a problem with the camera (with a little user error sprinkled in). Anyway, I'm totally pumped at the tightness of the grain with the 7231(b&w negative) I shot! Finally, a sigh of relief. Now I can work on my camera skills, story telling, and editing with decent footage. I'll post some stills when I get home from work, but I need to tip my hat to Bernie who worked on my Eclair and lenses. Thanks to this board as well. (a happy) Tom

I hope no one minds me posting on this forum as opposed the lighting forum. I have an old analog Sekonic light meter. I?ve already called Sekonic and they said they would call back and didn?t. Anyway, I?ve been using a Kodak exposure disk to do set my fstop. And to do that, I need the reading if foot candles. No problems so far as I can get those on the face of my meter as long as the high slide is NOT in. However when I put in my high slide on a bright day I lose the 1:1 ratio of needle=footcandles. So in other words using the high slide renders the footcandle display useless. Can someone tell me what the footcandle display needs to be converted to if the high slide in? This could all be obvious, but if so I can't figure it out. Here is a scan of the light meter face. Face Thanks, Tom

Just wanted to write a quick update. Since my camera was off being serviced, I decided to send my processed film out to be telecined again. This time I chose a different company and different format (SD as opposed to HD). The results were the same so I can rule out that it has anything to do with film transferring/scanning. I did talk with Bernie and the camera and lenses were in need of adjustments in terms of image capturing. So, when I get the camera back, I will test and post the results. Unfortunately my next shooting project revolves around the Chicago marathon in early October and the preparation involved in running such a race. I'm going to either take a chance that all is well and shoot 1,200 feet or scrap the project. Expensive if there is something wrong, other than user error (right ;) ) but subject and scheduled event, won't be available again. You gotta love it. Tom

Well Nicholas, I can tell you what has worked for me since purchasing my Eclair 2 months ago. I've only used 100 ft loads in my 200 ft mag so far. In the dark, I load the feed side of the mag and put the cover on it, with black photo tape at the seams of the mag. Then in very muted light, I thread to take up side. I'm pretty much giving up 2 feet or so of film to get the loops right. I feel like I'd rather burn a foot, rather than the whole reel. I'll be moving up to threading the 400ft soon. That I'll attempt to do in complete dark (changing bag). I'm getting pretty good at it myself. As I'm sure you know, if the loops are wrong, the filming makes a different and louder sound. If that is the case, it's back in the changing bag for adjustments. I think it's possible to do it without looking, but it'll take some practice and some sensitive finger tips. Hope this helps and I'll be looking for more responses myself. Tom

Tom, does your K-100 have two letters preceding the 4-digit number? No there are just the four numbers. Unless there is another number stamped somewhere. I'm getting these from the back of the strap handle. Tom

You know if you have a good editor or animator work on it and they're experience, they should be able to get the look you want. A lot of "cheese" comes from post production plugins trying to get the film look along with damage. You already have that film look so all you need are various types of damage, color shift, and perhaps a frame jitter or two. Also, you can tweak a little more or a little less. When damaging the film, you have to live with whatever damage that is applied. That would be my choice. Tom

"6= a single lens model" Oooh, I'm sorry, but thanks for playing Patrick :lol: That's really cool research though Patrick. I'll be it was fun to do it. I love a bit of history. I've got to tell you that I love this camera though. What a workhorse. Tom

Here is my serial # Patrick, #7691 Figure that one out? Tom

I would try this link. It might be worth a call: http://www.eastmanhouse.org/inc/the_museum...-technology.php Also, there is a guy (Mike from Omaha) probably knows if it exists: http://messages.cinekodak.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=54 Hope that helps. I have a Cine 100 myself and love the images it takes. Tom

Sorry Nicholas, You're fine with that film. There are two sides of the film, one is shiny, and the other isn't. The side that IS NOT shiny is the emulsion side. That is the side that will be exposed to light and give you your image. Just make sure that the emulsion side is facing out toward your lens when you put the mag on the camera. That's it. You'll get it, but practice first with leader. Tom

Sure. just make sure that when you open it to unload you do it in complete darkness. Good point on the manual Dave. One thing I did find confusing on the ACL II manual though, is that on p.21 it shows the feed side (200 mag) motion as counter clockwise and on p.22 it shows the feed side (400 ft) turning clockwise. The only reason I can think of is that back in the day the 200 ft rolls were wound emulsion out (like a-minina loads). I'm pretty sure unless you order it special you'll get 100 ft and/or 400 loads emulsion in and so the feed side should be turning clockwise. Hope I didn't confuse the issue. Tom

If you buy 100 foot daylight it will be on a metal spool that will keep the most of the light out (hence "daylight spool") in a low light environment. I would still load it in a place where you can see the threading path, but with the minimum amount of light to be able to accomplish that. When you load film on a core, you'll need to do it in complete darkness. I just went through the very same thing a couple of months ago as my Eclair had just arrived. If you're using 100 foot loads, then I would put the same 100 ft metal reel on the take up side, that way when you unload it (in minimal light again) you can pop it right into it's little plastic Kodak case for processing. so to answer your question, yes you would need a take reel. Note: The following graphic is on a core, NOT the 100 ft daylight reel we're talking about. So when threading you want to go for the emulsion side to be facing out when you're magazine is loaded, closed, and ready to snap to the camera. On a 100ft roll, the emulsion side is in. Hopefully the graphic will make sense. I got the picture from Saul, who was a great help as I was learning to thread this camera, and I just added the callouts. Hope this helps, Tom

True, if you flip the metal locking piece up and pull off the flange, it will accept a daylight spool and/or the ebay core your looking at. I have a picture of a Eclair mag being loaded and showing the direction, emulsion, etc. Let me know if you need it. Tom

Being a Yankee form the Midwest, I go with: awn -gen - eew Tom

As Fran noticed, I thought I should also point out (if you didn't recognize on the slate) that most of these are using either a yellow #1, G (also Yellow), or K-2 (yellow) filter. So I thought I should post one more with NO yellow filter, only an ND. still_no_yellow_filter

HD still

Thanks for the responses gentleman. Karl, I sent the camera to be looked at because I bought it off of Ebay and wanted to make sure everything is working as designed. I'm not sure when it was successfully used last. Another reason is the motor has been hesitating @ 50 fps, (I don't want to water down this post here, making a list of the little things that I wanted checked). I can however add a link to an HD still which I'll do tomorrow. It seemed like there wasn't a obvious clear cut reason, and not just here. I have sent two of the film strips to Kodak so they can analyze it. They have been a HUGE help as well. One was from the Cine 100 and the other the Eclair. I didn't notice a ton of "fog," my main concern was the "blotching" grain which I thought really detracted from the focus and sharpness that I was hoping would be there. I did load it in the dark and it did have black tape around the seams. In a week or so, I hope to be able to post definitive results. Yes, Karl I agree with your outlook. I look at it like, at least at this point, the camera is a tool. I need to learn how to use the tool like it's a hammer or saw, before trying to build a house. I have a lot of post experience so at least I won't be starting from scratch there:) I'm happy to own "user error," but I want to be sure. " one more thing. I have a densitometer. If you can get the lab to process it for me (yes I could do it, but really don't want to), I will read and interpret densitometer readings *for you* *for free*." That's really nice of you Karl, you deserve a test named after you. Let me see what I learn in the next week or so. Thanks, Tom

Well Folks, Not that you're waiting for my response, but I've sent my camera to a tech (Bernie) to be looked at. I HAVE to start from the bottom up, to keep the variables at a minimum. I figure two more of these tests (film, processing, and scan or transfer) and I'm close to a repair bill. So what I've learned from this post is: * Make sure film is fresh (and shiny with a hint of lavender) * Overexpose up to ONE full stop when shooting black and white * Make sure the light meter is accurate. * Use a gray card at the beginning of each reel * Overexpose a bit more when zoomed in (at least during a test) * Conduct an eye focus test (as outlined by David) * If I'm still having problems, I move to the Karl test If I've missed anything or misinterpreted anything let me know. Again, all of your advice is priceless. Kind Regards, Tom

Hey Guys, I'm in "acceptance" mode and quickly moving to "fix it" mode. I thought I should clarify a couple of things: I had 14 rolls of 100 ft. (various stocks) film which were all sent to the lab here in Chicagoland on the same day. 11 of those were shot on my Cine 100 and 4 on my Eclair ACL Super16. The results of the (Spirit scanned) Eclair S16 shots were way grainy. So I shot 2 more and sent it to a different company to scan on a different Spirit. Same results as seen here: STILLS The variables here are (unless I'm missing something) : 2 different cameras (Eclair and Cine 100) 2 different formats (regular 16 and super 16) 2 different Telecine processes (regular SD and Spirit) Constants: Same stock Same processing company I'm going to say Saul that I don' t think it's the stock as all the rolls were processed at the same place. In would really be something if the 2 rolls that I randomly picked out of the refridge, both were substandard. BUT, maybe I'm wrong. When I loaded the film, I covered it will black tape, shot it, and removed, then sent to process within 24 hours. "I would suggest using (newer technology, low grain) Kodak B/W " In terms of a more modern stock, I believe there are only these choices in black and white: Negative 7231, 7222 Reversal 7265, 7266 All of the outdoor shots were using 7231 which I thought was supposed to have a reasonably fine grain. I have quite a bit of editing/post experience, so I could shoot color and remove it to appear black and white, but part of the reason for black and white is the cost. All of your input is really appreciated. Tom

Hi John, Thanks for the response. I just uploaded (the same link above) two stills that were taken with my Kodak Cine K-100 with the same film stock as the outdoor shots using the Eclair. To me they look different and much better in terms of smoother grain. Same stock. Thanks for the responses thus far. Tom

Thanks Saul, I'm sorry, I meant to say grainy or "chunky" not soft. In terms of processing, I used a place here in Illinois, but to be honest the results there have varied. It was not pushed or pulled as far as I know, I certainly didn't request that. It was transferred on a spirit in Downtown Chicago here and they were kind enough to comp me (just for prep) as they knew it was only a (200 ft) test. It was stock (factory sealed) ordered within the last few months and has been refrigerated since. And I agree with you on the quality. I have shot super 8 before and this seem comparable. It doesn't seem like it's benefiting from the larger format. I know it's a question of narrowing down the problem. I'll wait for a few more posts, but perhaps some more tests are in order. I'm shooting black and white so Vision 3 is a ways off yet. I've got to get some control on my skills and where it goes after it's shot. Tom

Hello All, I just got my film back from being transferred. I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed in the results. They don't seem as clear or as sharp as I expected, almost out of focus. If you could take a look at them and give me your assessment I'd appreciate it. Eclair ACL II super16 camera (modified by Les Bosher). ANGENIEUX 17-68mm zoom (no fungus, appears in great shape) 200 ft magazine 24 fps I bought this off of Ebay and it has not been looked at by a camera technician. The indoor shots were 9' away and zoomed in and used 7222 Kodak black and white The outdoor shots were 25' away and zoomed in and used 7231 Kodak black and white I'm very confident in my distances as I used a tape measure. I measured from the film plane to the subject. The film was scanned at 1920 x 1080 and then sized down to 50% resulting in the images (960 x 540) here: Eclair Stills I was hoping that this Eclair and Angenieux combination would offer more professional results. Am I expecting too much here? I have a Cine 100 that seems to take crisper images with the same stock. Thanks in advance for any help. The only other variable I would add is that I'm close to a beginner. Tom