Robert Lewis

With respect to the several contributors above, all seem to be speculative. I guess that is because none, save the labs concerned, are able to answer the central question I posed which was "how much business is being driven away from the UK as a result of unexplained decisions by those who take over long established labs". I suppose it is not surprising that the question cannot be answered since only the labs concerned will know the answer, and they are not willing to justify their decisions in any meaningful way. By the way ... when I say this, I am not criticising the contributors concerned!

I had heard that this lab had closed, and the interesting thing about this, as I see it, is that it was a lab which did not provide a print service. Soho Film Lab used to do my 16mm colour processing and printing, but they were taken over by Deluxe, and having been taken over their 16mm print service was ended. It seems that this decision was not based on any published economic case, but rather reflected a policy decision of the new owner. Those of us who require 16mm prints are now having to send our work to labs in Europe or the USA. Labs such as iLab obviously had no interest in picking up our business because they didn't respond to customer demand. It would be very interesting to know the scale of business which has been lost to British labs as a result of the increasing refusal to provide 16mm print services here. I suspect that it is not merely the printing side of customer requirement, and that I am not alone in sending my colour film processing out of the UK to labs who will also produce the prints I require. What, I wonder, is the scale of processing business which has been lost because customers who also required prints have taken away all of their processing business too? (My black and white processing and printing goes to "no.w.here" in London, and thank goodness they continue to provide their processing and printing service.) I am therefore a customer whom Deluxe Soho failed to retain. I wonder how many other customers have been lost. Could the decision to close iLab reflect not so much a reduction in demand for services, but rather is the result of businesses failing to provide the services customers require?

Need now met.

I am looking to purchase a variable speed motor in full working condition for an Arri 16S camera. Does anybody have one they would be willing to sell? Please contact me if you have one which works well and looks good.

Rob. Assuming that you will be contacting Klueber in Munich, rather than a number of us individually contacting the Company, it would be very helpful if you shared on here any information you obtain. I suspect that any information you get would be most welcome. It would also be useful to have details of the lubricating oil Arri supplied with new cameras, if Klueber were the suppliers of that. Regards. BOB

With reversal film, you take the film out of the camera and then have it processed, or developed. You get the very same roll of film back from the processing laboratory and you then able project the film on your projector. You can get colour reversal film and black and white reversal film. The processing is much the same. The other type of film which you can use in your camera is referred to as negative film. This is also available as colour film or as black and white film. This is sent to a processing laboratory but unlike reversal film, it is processed as a negative (the colours appear to be completely mixed up or if it is black and white film, black appear as white and white appears as black). Whilst you can project this film on your projector, what you see on screen is in negative form and the image is not really viewable. In order to project the film properly, you have to get the laboratory to produce for you a positive print. On projection of this print the picture is as you would expect it to be. The colours are correct. So there is no type of film which can be removed from the camera and immediately projected.

I have been trying to ascertain whether there is a published list which relates the year of manufacture of Arri S16S/B cameras to the camera number, but I haven't been able to find one. I am particularly trying to establish what year(s) cameras in the 15XXX, 16XXX and 17XXX were made. Can anybody advise please?

Thanks all for the information. I have been away for a little time and hence not able to express my appreciation before now.

Good for both Panavision and Kodak! To these can be added Bolex and others, who continue to maintain a presence in the film world. The more I read this and similar topics, I do begin to wonder whether some who post are not so much concerned with fact, but rather some kind of celebratory cry against film. One might be excused for thinking that for a number, the suggestion that camera manufacturers have ceased production of film cameras (which it now appears might be less than accurate) is not so much an issue of fact but rather a cause for a party. By the way, with the more sophisticated film cameras was it actually possible in recent years to buy a camera from a manufacturer "off the shelf" as opposed to having one made to specification? I should emphasis that I am not "anti digital". I have, over the years, had VHS, Hi8, and now HD video cameras. However there are times when I wonder why I have spent so much money buying digital equipment to take and enable me to see what I have taken, when one system has been quite incompatable with what has gone before it. I have also used film, and I still do. I do so simply because I choose to use it in particular circumstances because I consider that it has unique qualities which digital imagery does not have. One contributor to this topic asked what comes after digital. Based on what has gone before in the digital world, I suspect the answer is "digital" - digital which is different from what has gone before and which will again be incompatable. There is relatively little money to be had from incremental improvement or upgrading. That doesn't sell new equipment. Everybody in the digital world will be expected to buy the latest system or be left behind and eventually find that their equipment becomes unserviceable for one reason of another. This criticism cannot so easily be thrown at "film". Cameras running at whatever speed are still able to use the latest film stocks and with limited periodic service produce the most beautiful images which the digital world seeks to emulate. The common standards of film, 35mm, 16mm, Super8, Standard 8, and others, are all still available and as new film stocks have been developed they too have been able to be used. Credit for that must go to both Kodak and Fuji primarily, who have continued to develop and produce filmstocks. Having said that I appreciate the qualities and attributes of both film and digital imagery, different as they are from each other, and I celebrate the gradual improvement of both forms of imagery and the freedom of choice we presently have. I hope both will prosper and continue to be available.

Is any Arri 16 S owner or user able to advise me whether the shutter stops in the closed position when the camera is stopped, or is the stopping position random - sometimes closed and sometimes open or partly open? I have looked at as much material about the camera as I have found, but there is no mention of this.

You don't say which model camera you have, nor which motor you are using. I understand that depending on which motor you are using, it may be necessary to disengage the camera's motor on a spring driven camera and to set the speed setting on the camera to 64fps. The electric motor then manages everything. I think the best way forward is to check out the manual for the electric motor you are using. This should give you all the information you need.

Hi Francis. I think it is also worth mentioning that the EL will normally stop with the shutter closed. The EBM, on the other hand, does not have a mechanical shutter stop, and so the camera will often come to a stop with the shutter open or partly open. This causes "flash frames" and one then has to edit them out. If you are going project your films, it means that changing from one shot to another requires that you edit out the flash frames, otherwise you will not get a neat change from shot to the next. I have also been told that the Mark II and Mark III ELs are better than the Mark I, but as to whether this is particularly so I have no personal knowledge and I have not come across any owner who has provided evidence of this. It may be, therefore, that it is simply a case of progressive improvement of the model. You might also wish to bear in mind that both cameras can still be serviced by the maker, Bolex Internation SA, in Switzerland. The Company is a delight to deal with. Also, should you be thinking of converting to S16 format, I believe that the EBM is easier and may be cheaper to convert than the EL. This is less relevant, of course, if you intend to project your films, however. It might mean, though, that a non-converted camera would be obtainable at a price lower than you would have to pay for a converted one. These points and others having been made, I have to say that I have both an EBM and an EL and I very much enjoy using both and,as an amateur cinematographer, I project my films. The flash frame issue, which I mention above, doesn't cause me to favour the EL over the EBM. They are both lovely cameras to work with and, frankly, I doubt whether you will be disappointed whichever camera you decide on.

I didn't actually say that "quality is totally subjective". I said that it is "highly subjective", which is somewhat different. I do agree, however, that "quality" is a concept that is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to define or explain. This then leads to the question of why it is that those who claim that digital imagery is better than film really do believe, if indeed they do, and if they do, they should seek to impose their choice (whether it be to record or project digitally) on those who happen not to agree with them. Whether they really do believe what they say is raised into question by acknowledging that the search for a digital equivalent to the "quality of film" goes on. Perhaps this is the point at which the whole thing returns to the issue of cost, that is to say that those who claim that digital imagery is better than film do so because at a particular point and depending on what the relevant business interests are, it is more profitable.

I can accept that for "instant" requirement such as news gathering, digital imagery has a place and indeed has marked advantages over film, but I am far from convinced that that it is as "low cost" as some would have us believe. Unlike with film imagery, the constant changes in format and with them the need to use the latest technology, as the latest camera systems are introduced, in order to be with the "in crowd" just never seems to be reflected upon by those who advocate digital as the lower cost approach. As for the long term security of the imagery, it is interesting to note that that also never seems to be costed in by those who advocate digital, and yet the industry standard seems to be based on the long term recording of the digital image in the form of black and white film, which seems, at least to me, to be something of an acceptance that all is not so well in the digital world, and certainly not so low cost from the material, processing or space perspectives. As for digital in the "film world" - that is to say the world of the cinema - it fascinates me that those who advocate the digital form seem constantly to seek the "quality of film"...which, interestingly, is how this thread opened. However I cannot think of one occasion when the cinema going public has been consulted on whether they wanted digital projection as opposed to film projection with the increased costs of admission which seem to be a concomitant of digital projection. The perception of "quality", however, is highly subjective. What pleases one does not necessarily please another, which is why, in an earlier posting, I posed the question why this could not simply be respected. Choice is so important, it seems to me. It tends to lead to "quality" decisions.

Matthew ... you seem to have forgotten ... I ask the questions! I do not provide the answers. That having been said, I would expect any cost benefit analysis to deal with all aspects of cost and not least, labour, equipment, processing and the long term security of imagery. By the way ... the defence is not able to "rest" without first having presented a case. LOL

I am not arguing any point, nor am I making any assertions. Read my posting again. You will see that I am merely pose a number of questions to which, I would have thought, there might reasonably have been expected some convincing answers. What I will assert is that the quality of film as opposed to digital imagery is entirely subjective. There is no definitive answer to the question of which is the "better". That then leaves only non-qualitative issues to be considered, such as cost. That issue, in turn depends on what cost elements are taken into account.

These exchanges are getting boring! Why, oh why, cannot it not be accepted that those who prefer to record images in digital form for whatever reason are free to do so, and those who prefer to record them on film are also free to do so? Instead, we get "discussions" which are more often than not merely an attempt to present what in reality can only be a subjective view as though it is an objective view, or what is nothing more than opinion as though it is fact? Why do those who so strongly hold the view that digital imagery is best themselves undermine their own proposition by acknowledging that they continue their endeavour to emulate their perception of the "qualities of film"? Why do they say things such as "I prefer the look of film but it's too expensive" when it is not supported by even the most simplest "cost benefit analysis" which propery takes into account capital and all other costs of production? I just wonder whether those who start such "discussions" are trying to convince themselves of what they say they believe, rather than others.

I am sorry to say that the detail of the lens you quote in your message is somewhat confusing. From what you say the lens you have could be a Kern Vario Switar EE (f2.5 18 - 86mm) lens or a Kern Vario Switar OE (f2.5 18 - 86mm) lens. It is not, I believe, a POE lens which is f1.9 16 - 100mm lens. The EE lens is quite different from the OE lens in that it has a CdS photo-electric cell which is mounted in a long cylinder which is located below the body of the lens. The front ring on this cylinder is turned so that figures reflecting the filming speed and film sensitivity (ASA 10 to 400) may be brought togother for the particular filming conditions required. The battery for the meter is accessed by unscrewing the photo-electric cell housing. There is another shorter cylinder adjacent to the cylinder I refer to above, and this houses the meter itself. This can be set manually by pulling the milled ring towards the front of the lens then turning it to the appropriate setting and then released. You should be able to see the effect of any changed setting through the view finder - as you point towards a bright light the image should dim as you move to smaller apertures. The metering of the lens is not "through the lens". The OE lens was a development of the EE lens and is a similar looking lens to the EE, but there are significant differences. The filming speed and film sensitivity are controlled using a device mounted on the top of the lens. Also on the EE the range of film sensitivity is from ASA 10 to 400, but the range on the OE is ASA 10 - 200. There is no long cyclinder on the OE. It was replaced by a short cyclinder which houses the meter battery. Perhaps the main difference, however, is that metering of the OE lens is "through the lens". The Kern Vario Switar POE lens is a f1.9 16 - 100mm zoom lens and is similar in appearance to the OE lens referred to above, but it has a power zoom as well as the greater range. I am not sure whether either the EE or OE lenses are still serviceable, but both should, in all probability, be capable of operation if the automatic exposure mechanisms are not working. The POE lens is still serviced by Bolex in Switzerland. It does appear, therefore, that the lens you have is not a POE lens, but is either an EE or OE lens. I say this because you are very specific about the maximum aperture and the range of the zoom, and also you have made no mention about the power zoom found on the POE model. I believe, however, that each type of lens carries a full description of itself. I have user experience of both the OE lens and the POE lens. I had two OE lens and both worked perfectly and produced excellent images. Presently I have two POE lenses and they are both excellent lenses, working fully. I have no personal experience of the EE lens, although I understand that optically it is very much the same as the OE. It is the metering side of things that is very different from the OE. I hope this will be helpful to you, but I close by repeating that when operating the exposure control manually you should be able to see a change in the brightness of the image you see through the viewfinder when turning the manual setting whilst pointing the lens at a bright light.

Having taken the time to read the Academy's publication "The Digital Dilemma", I have to say that I found it a very informative and interesting document. Putting on one side the issue of whether film is better than digital imagery - simply for the reason that those who believe in the superiority of one over the other in terms of quality of image are, in my view, quite unlikely to convince anybody but themselves - it does seem that there is evidence that whilst long term retention is a problem and is costly for both film and digital, it is especially so for digital imagery. Although doubtless it is correct to say that digital imagery has made much progress in terms of the quality of image, one might be excused for thinking that it seems that those who proclaim its superiority over film have very little to say about the issue of long term retention. This may, of course, be because the issue of superiority is a highly subjective question and is one which tends to excite those who are at the sharp end of production. In the UK, and I am sure elsewhere, there is a fascination with film shot many years ago, particularly in the context of documentaries of a historic nature. It is a fact that the film utilised in those productions exists and is therefore tremendously important. I should imagine that those who shot those films thought little about the long term retention of the imagery they were shooting, and it is simply a statement of fact that the images they shot still exist. It seems to be the case that the events of today recorded on film will have the better chance of survival in the longer term and to have the same chance digital imagery should be transferred to and stored on film. It would therefore appear that as things stand at the present time, the original poster has a choice. He can record on film; he can record digitally and have the record transferred to and stored on film; or he can record the material he is commissioned to archive in digital form or on tape, and store it in that form, but he does need to ensure that those commissioning him are aware of the risks associated with these options and of the cost/benefit issues which need to be taken into account, so that any decision they take on the matter is "informed".

Hi Ric. Kodak will supply Ektachrome 100D (16mm) in 100ft rolls directly. You just call them on their UK number (0870 850 1904) and you can order over the 'phone. They will then ship it to you. I think they may require a minimum order for two rolls but I know that they will supply directly because I get my stock from them. I believe they draw supplies from their warehouse in France. However, it is supplied most efficiently within normal delivery periods of two or three days. Their service is good!

If you compare your pictures with those on www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=31691 - 81k, especially the third picture, it looks like the ring on the viewer which has a knurled finish is meant to screw in or out in order to adjust the viewer focus. In your pictures it seems to be the case that the knurled ring is screwed right in and it might indeed be the case that it has been "over-tightened". There is, as you can also see a thread in the knurled ring, but I suspect that this is simply to enable the eyepiece to be screwed into the knurled ring. The eyepiece is, of course, missing from your pictures. Have a look at the pictures on the "cinematography" page referred to above...it might be helpful to you. I am no expert on this camera, but I hope you are able to sort out the problem.

I am quite a fan of Fuji filmstocks, and find I get very pleasing results with Eterna 250D. I find that it produces excellent saturation of colours if there is sun. In cloudy weather, it is less saturated as one might expect, but even so I do not think I have ever been disappointed with it. That having been said, Fuji have recently introduced a 250D Vivid, and I have now obtained some of this stock. Certainly, the clips shown on the Fuji web page are super, and I am looking forward to trying it. In short, then, I would say that Eterna 250D is a stock which produces saturated and contrasty colour if there is some sun about, it less so, obviously, in cloudy conditions.

I know that iLab (now, I believe, owned by Reliance Media Works) process 16mm negative, but do they process Ektachrome 100D which I understand requires E6 processing? I looked at their web page but I did not see any mention of them processing 100D reversal film. Can you confirm whether or not they do process 100D reversal film using E6 after you have been there?

It is not so much that you are "repeating information", but the on-line petition which has attracted thousands of signatures was directed at the decision of Deluxe (the new owners of Soho Film Lab) to cease printing 16mm stock. You are correct when you say that there is no problem in getting 16mm negative processed, or getting it on recorded in digital form. However, not all of us have a use for digital recordings, and require prints which can be projected. To this extent, you were mistaken. None of the three labs you mention produce 16mm prints.

i-lab have also been taken over - by Reliance Mediaworks Ltd (RMW), formerly Adlabs Films Ltd. They are still processing 16mm negative stock, but they do not provide 16mm prints. Deluxe Soho, of course, are continuing to process 16mm negative stock.