Tyler Purcell

Under lighting is going to be a problem because you will loose highlight detail as pointed out above. So you'll have to punch up the actors faces which can lead to them being more grainy then the rest of frame. It's a tricky situation and even on digital, I would never recommend under exposing with higher ASA's, unless it's well lit.

Yep T2 for sure! That was easy "yawn" :) Lemme dig up a new frame after work today.

I was referring to "cinema" use, not broadcast use. The F900 filled a void from 1999 (initial release in the states) through around 2003, right when the Thompson Viper came out. This was mainly due to Lucas and Panavision building a complete package out of it. There were a BUNCH of films shot with it during that period. However, it was quickly dropped in favor the F950 and Panavision Genesis, which was of course developed by Sony. The 950 and Genesis added 12 bit 444 recording onto HDCAM SR tapes, which was a HUGE improvement over the F900. Plus, the Genesis had a Super 35mm sized imager block, bringing it more in line with today's technology. I was heavily involved the broadcast industry during the F900's day and nobody could afford them. Sony wanted $85.000 USD for one and you could buy Panasonic cameras for half that price or less. I did however install many HDC-1500's at facilities, which was the camera head of the 950. That was a very popular studio camera for quite sometime.

Spherical/Anamorphic? 4 perf, 3 perf, 2 perf? Heavily lit, or underlit? BRAND NEW stock or aging stock? Those are some variables. However... since you are going to DI, the "color" of the stock is almost irrelevant. I would shoot 5219 and rate it at 1000ASA and push it one stop. Then adjust the color to your liking in post. I've done that before with 16mm and it always looks great.

Yea, I'm just gonna bring it over to my friends place and test some standard 35mm PL glass. I'll bring BOTH cameras and I should be able to figure out the problem in a jiff. It's just extremely embarrassing to show up with a camera and be like "hey dude, wtf". I'm just glad that what I'm doing SHOULD WORK! Because I honestly I was always told it WOULD, just never had the camera bodies and lenses sitting around to try the theory. Thanks for the assistance, I will report back soon!

No, I don't see any value in the F900. It never really looked that good to begin with. It was used for a short period of time because there was nothing else like it on the market. Once other cameras started coming out, the F900 fell to the wayside very quickly.

Actually, a few of them don't. As you said, the longer focal distance ones do, but the shorter/wider don't. The reason I removed the mount on one, is because I wanted to move the lens in and out to verify it was actually hitting the mirror vs something else. I did try adjusting the focus of the lens, but didn't really help. The ring turns freely, it just doesn't do much to help the problem. What's funny is that my Zeiss 10-110 MKI zoom lens does exactly the same thing. Also, when I mean out of focus, I mean you can't identify anything when the lens is installed. It's not like the focus is "off" that's just spacing. It's like the lens needs to move into the camera body a good 10mm+.

Yep. It focuses perfectly fine close, but can't focus to infinity. The ground glass position is literally impossible to change on the Moviecam. So either the camera is designed for a special type of glass (doubtful, but possible) or my lenses are very unusual for some reason. I'm guessing my lenses are unusual and that's the problem. I don't have access to real 35mm glass to test.

Well, shims would mean you're using the camera mount. I bypassed the camera mount entirely and was able to move the lens all the way into the camera until it hit the mirror, still it was out of focus. So it's absolutely NOT a mount issue. I assume the camera is fine because it worked when I got it. I KNOW the lenses are fine because I've used them on 3 shoots and they work great with my 16mm camera. I just feel stupid because nobody in their right mind would TRY what I accidentally stumbled upon. I don't know what a camera shop would say if I handed them my poop and said "what's the problem". First thing they'd probably do is laugh and then probably charge me an hourly rate to figure out there is nothing wrong and this is totally normal. Anyway, I'm trying to sell my 35mm camera anyway, so the whole thing is moot. I was just interested to see if anyone else had a similar issue and it turns out nobody has! Pretty strange considering I've tried two brands of lenses and two different style of mounts (PL and Arri B. So I'm pretty darn confused!

WOW didn't know that! One thing I did know is that he didn't use a light meter on Indiana Jones. :)

Yea, and the NPR/ACL also had design changes. The Aaton's didn't change MUCH over the years. They still shared the same body, basic mechanics, motor/motor location, type of magazine, type of viewfinder system, type of battery. Really the changes were incremental and minor to the point where an owner of an older camera, could modify their camera. I have an original LTR7 which was modified to LTR54. The XTR was almost the same camera when it came out, only three major differences; magazine driving system, integrated LCD display electronics, video tap location. They also moved around the electronics from one side to the other over the years. However, as the XTR continued development, they added more and more "standard" functionality and the net result was the XTR-PROD which is a more professional camera. It is true that NPR and ACL are older cameras. At the time the ACLII was released, Aaton was on their first generation LTR camera still. However, that just proves my point even more! Why bother with an antique design! I'm the guy suggesting the LTR/XTR cameras here, I'm the guy suggesting "NEWER" is better because guess what, the XTR is a FAR better camera then the ACLII. I'd argue the XTR could be the best S16 camera ever made in fact, but that may go too far and ruffle too many feathers. Suffice to say, why we're having this wonderful conversation, there are people buying LTR/XTR's like they're going out of style and making films with them. Why? Because people like me suggest them and they are the best bang for the buck, if you want a quiet, modern camera.

Cinematography inc made a black box that went under the camera and attached to a motor which had zero controls on it.

Crazy eh? What a life!

Its true, but they already had a pretty decent design in the NPR, it was just a bit bigger then it needed to be. They COULD have solved it, considering one of the designers is the same guy who started Aaton and DID fix the problem. So to dump that great design that just needed an update for a FIXED shutter angle design with a oscillating mirror, is petty big step backwards. Yes it's less complex, but it's also not as good. Dude, I've run the motor without the mag and it still makes the nose!!!! For sure, but my point is, it was unnecessary and to be stuck with a camera that uses that shutter/reflex design for the use of ONE MORE type of lens? Umm... it kinda seems not worth it in the long run, especially since there again, is no manufacturer support anymore unlike the competition from Aaton, Arri and Bolex. There are so many motor units made for the ACL it's not even funny. The one I'm familiar with had outboard electronics that sat under the camera. You maybe familiar with the one that has everything enclosed in the same unit. Either way, when someone talks about a motor, never once mentioning electronics, I assume magnets and coils of wire, not leaking capacitors, faulty traces and failing transistors. But hey, that's the "engineer" in me! My point in all of this is that I discount the Eclair's as an option because there is no benefit. The money you save on buying one used is money you'll loose when the camera stops working and you can't get support.

Yep... he mentioned the camera needing motor service and I was thinking "motor" not "electronics" when he said that. I'm totally OK with taking a few screws out and accessing the electronics like in the LTR/XTR and SR's.

I know how it works, I've seen the cameras apart (remember I was trained on them) and it's bogus. Any engineer with a tiny bit of experience would look at that design compared to a spinning/rotating design and understand it's faults. Yea, 15mm is a lot and yes, electronics tend to get warm. If those special video taps don't, I don't know what to say. Also, aftermarket viewfinders are kinda proving my point. I didn't know the ACL's electronics were in the motor. When you say motor, I think coil of wires and magnets. I think what you mean is that there are electronics in the motor "housing". I haven't seen them for the same money you were lucky to acquire them by. Well, I know the Aaton and Arri's pretty good. Plus, I've had some decent hands on training with the Eclair. So that gives me some perspective on these different cameras. Plus, as I said earlier, there is no rocket science involved with film cameras. The single motor cameras are very simple machines and anyone who thinks otherwise, doesn't know COMPLEX.

True, but a sewing machine has a lot more room for those mechanics and doesn't need to be quiet. It also doesn't "swing" a rather large piece of glass around. The problem with a oscillating mirror is that no matter what, it will make noise because it starts and stops. Sure, some lubrication can help that, but the noise will always come back. Plus the ACL has a plastic mirror activator, which over time wears. A spinning mirror by contrast, doesn't need anything to function but a direct drive motor and some timing marks. Also, with a oscillating mirror camera, you still have a shutter. So now you've got more complexity to the design, using two pieces to do the same task as a spinning mirror shutter. Even though ACL in a lot of ways is pretty easy to work on since the movement comes out as one component, it's very simplistic compared to the NPR it's older brother which is more feature-rich.

For the record, I only touched the movement which is not part of the front of the camera where the mirror shutter is. I simply removed it from the body which is a standard practice, took the cover off the back (which is held in with little pins) and dabbed some lubricant in the appropriate positions. I wanted to see if the movement had any signs of it being able to be converted to 3 perf. The moviecam has alternative offset pin holes for the main part of the movement, which interested me. I thought about how it worked though and realized those holes were only there to offset the balance of that assembly. I did't examine further because there was no reason since I couldn't find a way to change the movement speed differently then the shutter. None of the movement was disassembled (it really doesn't come apart very easily). Like the Arri's, it's one solid lump that's keyed and simply pressed back into the camera. There is NO way to mess it up and it has zero relationship to the mirror/shutter or anything that could effect this discussion. Anyway, my camera had been used for a shoot before I bought it and visual products stamped it's seal all over it, so the likelihood it's damaged is pretty much slim to none. The ground glass only goes in one way and the optics of the viewfinder/mirror shutter are all flawless. I have two viewfinder tubes and tried them both. Also, I took one of the lenses and removed the mount so I could manually adjust it's location. No matter what I did, it wasn't even remotely close to being focused. I of course ignored the ground glass and tried to focus just the viewfinder with zero success. So the camera body flange distance doesn't appear to be the issue. My theory is that the 16mm glass I happen to own, simply won't work due to it's design which is very old school. It's absolutely related to the rear element location (back focus) which needs to get closer to the film plane in order to focus. The larger mirror on the 35mm camera, pushes it too far away from the ground glass. I haven't yet taken my calipers out to measure these things, but I can do that today when I have time just to verify. I was thinking someone would simply say, yea you can't do it and then I'd be home free. Ohh well, I guess I need to figure out myself! Thanks!

Yea, that's what I had always figured that PL mount was PL mount. But I was guessing that maybe there was some format difference, but I guess not. So I have a set of Optar primes in PL mount for 16mm, none of them work on my moviecam which has a standard PL mount. It appears to be a back focus issue, but maybe I'm wrong. I can focus on a very close subject to the camera, but they won't get near to focusing at infinity... same goes for my Zeiss zoom... but that has a B to PL adaptor, so I wouldn't expect it to work properly.

This may seem rudimentary, but I've stumbled upon a question that I haven't been able to answer. So I've got 35mm, 16mm and digital cinema cameras. The flange distance on all the cameras is different, the 35mm camera of course has the longest distance. I can put 16mm glass on my digital camera no problem, it vignettes of course, but it works fine. Yet, when I put the same glass on my 35mm camera, the back focus is way off... so the image is never in focus. What I don't understand is how you can put standard PL mount 35mm glass on a 16mm camera and get it to work if the flange distance is so different between the two formats?

Yes, yes, film specialist rental houses like Abel and Panavision, still have technicians. However, shops like Otto and Alan Gordon, don't anymore. They send all their service out of house.

I just trust my own judgement having done a lot of mechanical engineering. You can't expect a weighted object to start and stop quickly like that and survive. The joint necessary for that action will fail no matter what you do and you can't get one over at your local home depot. It's a poor design, which is why NOBODY ELSE even bothered using it outside of a few super 8 cameras. Umm, sticking a rather large plate between the camera body and the viewfinder because the camera body doesn't have a beam splitter for a REAL video tap? Dude, I have no idea what planet your on, but that's unacceptable. It's 2016, not 1982... stop thinking this is the past and think about TODAY. Why would anyone in their right mind even contemplate buying a camera with a video tap that pushes the camera further away from the body and hot little metal box right next to your bloody face when shooting>!?!?! That is pretty much the poorest design ever imaginable and when I saw it, I almost thought it was a joke. Also, why would you need to do anything to a camera motor? If the camera was designed properly, the motor should do everything you need from the factory. Find one for me... send a link. I want to see a complete kit; video tap, rails, on-board batteries, magazines, the whole thing. Ohh and not in NZ or AU... that doesn't help anyone. Find one in Europe or the North America. As an engineer and having shot with the LTR/XTR's, what I see is Aaton solving one of their biggest problems; electronics draining the battery. They needed space to run two batteries instead of one, which can't be done in the original configuration because there isn't enough space. So they pushed the power system further back on the camera where they COULD run two batteries. Now they'd have enough amperage to run the more advanced electronics. They couldn't fit that big LCD display and video outputs anywhere else, they had no choice but to integrate it into the location they used. So yes, the balance is better. However, it was a necessity of the design, rather then JUST FOR BALANCE. You do have to change the hard mount. It takes around 2 minutes to convert the hard mount. Not a big deal and never something you'd do on set anyway. I leave mine on aaton mount because most of my glass is Arri B and the adaptor I have works much better in Aaton mount. Ohh I've been looking since we stated this conversation. I'd like to know where you can find new parts for these cameras. It's really the only way to keep these cameras alive for the future. You act as if film cameras are some crazy complex device that only specialists are aloud to touch! Just for the record, film cameras are dead! It's a dead business. Nobody cares about service/maintenance records anymore. All people care about is if the camera works and if it doesn't, they'll just sell it on ebay broken and buy another. The days of spending 20k on a camera and $50k on glass are over. Professional 16mm has finally been relegated to a format for "the people" like digital.

If you wanna do ultra 16, stick with a PL mount camera to get the coverage necessary for that format. If you're doing straight 16 then the SRI or SRII are fine decisions.

Umm it's not a good design. Anything that stops and starts like that, requires joints that WILL fail no matter what. It's one thing on a Super 8 camera where the mirror is very small and light weight, but on a 16mm camera with a larger mirror and more travel on the arm, it's just not a good design. Plus, the camera is noisier as a consequence. Spinning mirrors are a lot quieter because all they do is spin, there is no "tick" to a spinning mirror reflex camera. They were a cheaper alternative to Arri and Aaton, that's why they were popular in certain circles. Az Spectrum's video taps for the Eclair's are jokes man. You put the tap between the body and the viewfinder? Give me a break, what a horrible design that is. Ohh and finding other parts? So basically spend 2500 bux on an old camera that doesn't have any of the modern features and spend another 2 grand finding those add on's, where you could have bought an SRIII with all of the bells and whistles for less money? IDK man, I've shot with the LTR and XTR's now for a few months and the camera with prime lenses and a full load of film isn't too bad. The SR's with the battery in the back is more balanced, but it doesn't hand hold quite as well. Yes, the Xtera body does move the batteries further back, but that was because the video tap electronics became bigger and took up the space. I've got adaptors for Nikon, PL, Arri B and C mount lenses. Honestly I don't know what else you would "need" on a daily basis. Here in Hollywood California in 2016, everything is PL mount. 20 years ago things were different, but PL is the defacto industry standard today. So I'm perfectly happy working with PL mount forever, it's a pretty robust mounting system. Alan Gordon doesn't have film camera service anymore. In fact, rumors around the water cooler between rental houses is that nobody supports older film cameras in CA anymore. That's why all the rental houses have dumped most their film cameras, they're too scared to deal with shipping out for service. The great news is Aaton still supports their cameras. At least you can still get BRAND NEW FACTORY parts for them (just like Bolex), which is a HUGE plus. Sure you'd probably have to ship the camera away if you can't install yourself. Plus, there are many aftermarket parts places that sell things like batteries for Aaton/Arri/Bolex cameras. Basic wear items are available to the public, but I never see Eclair parts in the US. Umm, complete tear down and re-build from the ground up. I went through my LTR, pulling everything apart, I even re-timed the pull down mechanism because it was slightly off. I have dial indicators and strobes, so it's really easy work. I've put quite a bit of film through it since, all of it came out great. In fact, I've printed and scanned it, no registration issues or anything wrong, camera is perfect. Now years ago I use to work on Arri's as well, S/B/M etc... I did some work on SR's but only minor stuff like lubrication. I kinda dig the "hand made" feeling of the Aaton cameras. I also like their pull down claw, which has one flat edge and one tapered one. That's what makes the camera so quiet and it really does work well. I can't really think of anything wrong with the design. The cameras are simple, elegant designs (like the SR's) and work great. I even dig the magazines with the toothed belt to keep time with the exposed sprockets. Honestly, I never liked Aaton's when I was growing up, I thought they were junk because I was stupid and just a kid. However, when I got back into filmmaking and started studying/researching, I realized that Aaton had something special going on and I had to buy one to learn about it. So I did just that and since then, I've been literally surrounded by Aaton's. I had three on my workbench a few weeks ago helping someone do a multi-cam shoot. Mind you, I'm one of those guys who takes part everything they buy. Ohh and no, I haven't needed to do any service to the Bolex yet. Someday I may and when that happens, I look forward to learning all about it!

HAHAH! :)