Brian Rose

Guys and gals I could use some advice. I got some test footage back on my Eclair S16. I'd just gotten it back from Bernie O'Doherty, who is pretty much tops when it comes to camera servicing. He gave the whole cam a service, including lens collimation and even brightened the viewfinder. Well the test footage has a real problem in that it loses focus when I zoom out. But it looked sharp in my viewfinder, which is really problematic to me, that what I could be seeing is sharp, but what I'm capturing isn't. For my purposes I need my camera to be reliable in this regard, because I won't have every opportunity to stop and measure every scene. What could be causing this? Perhaps did I not have the lens seated properly? I make sure the cam is good and tight, and locked in the turret, but maybe something was loose? Or is this just inherent to a varifocal lens? But even still if I'm set to infinity, shouldn't distant objects have remained in focus when I zoomed out? I even went as far as to use a DIY focusing glass (using some translucent paper) taped to the gate, and adjusted focus, the image looks sharp. I'm stumped! The lens is a Canon Super 16 14-80 1:2.0. The film was 500 ASA shot at 2.0. Here's a sample clip of the issue I'm having: https://vimeo.com/90475142

Will the Cosmicar-Pentax 8-48 lens cover S16mm? It's a c-mount lens, for 1/2 inch chips. The S16mm frame is .48 inches wide, so it would seem this lens would work. I'd sure love to use this lens because it's super fast. If anyone knows for sure, I'd sure appreciate it! BR

Point well made David. That turret is tricky, and too always take care to make sure it is firm and locked. Ideally I'll take the lenses off, rotate the turret, and then mount again just to be safe. I'm pretty sure I've caught the problem now...several things really that I've now sorted out. I just did a bunch of back focus tests, at 4, 5 6, and 7 feet aimed at a focus chart. I set the focus purely by eye, using a semi-transparent screen in the place of the film in the gate, and with the aid of a magnifier, I set the focus, and verify the viewfinder is sharp. And every time, when I've finished, the lens marking reads....4 feet, 5 feet, 6 and 7! It's dead on. :)

Okay, I think I've solved my problem. I'm pretty sure it was a combination of three things: the camera's ground glass was not aligned properly, and my viewfinder was not perfectly focused...I have it set to my prescription so I won't have to wear my eye glasses while looking through the VF, and it was a bit off, exacerbated no doubt thanks to the ground glass. And lastly, I think the c-mount adapter I'm using for some of my primes doesn't have a suitable focal flange depth, which was throwing things off. I could use your help to check me though. So I have realigned everything, and now with my camera pointed at a focus chart precisely 4 feet away, with my zoom lens in place in the CA-1 mount, when I set the focus to 4 feet, it is dead on, sharp focus, both in the view finder, and in the gate when I use a DIY focus screen. And the focus holds when I pull back as wide as the lens will go. And given my tests have shown the pull down movement works wonderfully, the image is rock steady without ghosting, runs smooth and very quiet, does it sound to you all like I've solved the problem? Do you think i've caught everything, and can hazard tests again? BR

Luckily the film itself is steady, and there are plenty of moments when the footage is sharp...owing to stopping down and greater depth of field. I just need to isolate the problem I think by ensuring the image at the gate is in focus, and the prism corresponds to the image itself.

Like any camera, it's a tool, with strengths and weaknesses. It's a great cam for learning, for shooting you first short, for having fun with, for b-roll or crash cam shots. It's great to travel with, it's compact, and you can do a lot with it. But if you want to do sync sound, it's wholly unsuitable. But it all comes down to what the project demands.

Let me ask you all this, if this is a sound plan: Going off of Bernie O'Doherty's advice, using a bit of semi-transparent material over the gate, I first ensure back focus is achieved through the gate. Then I check the prism alignment and fix if need be. I mean, if it's sharp looking through the gate, and then sharp through the viewfinder, and my measurement markings are correct...I should be set as far as focus is concerned, am I right?

I haven't had time yet to organize my footage, but I kept careful notes of what lens and mount or adapter was used in each shot. And it does on initial appraisal seem to be isolated to the 35mm primes I mounted via a c-mount adapter. But if indeed it's the flange depth, then wouldn't that have been plain in the viewfinder? That's what bothers me, how it could be ostensibly sharp in the viewfinder, yet a blurry mess on the actual film, especially when I was looking through the viewfinder during the shot, and I even adjust focus while the camera is running to suit my eye, but to little effect on the film. That freaks me out, that my viewfinder could be unreliable.

Guys and Gals I could use your help: I just got my test footage back from my Eclair NPR S16 I picked up not long ago. And a funny thing happened. All my night shots (of a city skyline, using 400 ASA stock) were uniformly out of focus. I can't figure out why since I checked measurements both by lens markings, and by eye. I mean i'm looking through the viewfinder as I film, and everything was sharp to my eye. How can it be, that the image would be properly focused in my viewfinder, but come out soft on the actual film? A misalignment with the prism beamsplitter inside perhaps? I was using 35mm primes with a c-mount adapter, if that information is helpful. My daylight footage is better, and I've got stuff shot with the same lenses and mounts that came out quite crisp and lovely, but I'm wondering if this because I was stopped down and had greater depth of field to counteract focus issue? When I shot a focus/framing chart it came out quite sharp (albeit slight off center which further suggests a prism misalignment of some sort). The night footage of course was wide open and had less tolerance for misadjustment. Any advice would be deeply appreciated! BR

Hey all, I've got a Bescor starved electrolyte battery belt from my 16mm cam, that is close to ten years old now, and kaput...won't hold a charge, dead as the parrot. What should I do with it? Is there anyone out there who'll take these to recell them? Or failing that, how do I properly dispose of this battery? Thanks! BR

Guys and Gals I could use some sage advice and wisdom from experience. I'm about to go on another research trip for a documentary I'm working on. The film, in case you don't know, is a biopic about the ups and downs of a child prodigy Olympic athlete, over the course of 60 years. I've posted in the past about it, about how at this point I've got no funding so it's pretty much me alone on my own dime with a borrowed camera going out and trying to get the best stuff I can. I've already interviewed the film's subject, and now I'm going to talk to three of his closest non-familiar associates. These people have been so kind to me to open up time in their schedules to speak to me candidly and on the record, and I so want to make it worth their time by doing the best work I can, and making the best film I can. But I fear that, because I don't have a crew or a budget or a big camera like a Red or something, that I'm somehow not a real filmmaker, or that people won't take me seriously. I worry that no matter how creative I am, it still won't be good enough, and that I'm cancelling out any chances of this film finding success or an audience because it was made by one guy on a shoestring. There are plenty of stories to the contrary, yet I still feel insecure, like, because I don't have a battery of kino flos and a grip truck, and a crew of a half dozen, that I'm somehow not a real filmmaker, that future potential funders or distributors will look at me and the limited scale of production and say, "Get outta here kid, come back when you've got a real production." It's all so absurd, I know. I keep trying to tell myself that all that matters is 1) The content is stellar 2) the audio is crisp and clean, 2) The video is solid, with room in the edit suite for color correction. I'm trying to be as creative as I can, and the result I think will be a neat one. I can't afford lights, so i'm doing the interviews outside, filming them as "walk-and-talks," suing my glidecam. I try to tell myself that this is what matters, how to do the best with the resouces one has, and if the result is a good one, it shouldn't matter whether it took one man or twenty to accomplish it. But still, these nagging voices remain in my head. No doubt many of you have been in this situation, working on a shoestring and a borrowed camera, working with limited resources. Maybe you've even had to be a one man band like I am. Have you all dealt with pre-production jitters? Have you felt insecure, like you don't have all the answers, like you don't know what you're doing, and you're just waiting for someone to say, "You're an amateur get outta here?" How do you cope with these performance anxieties, in order to do the best work you can under whatever the given circumstances may be? BR

Wow David, I'm flattered you took the time for such a response. This is tremendously helpful! I'll study those examples you gave, and definitely incorporate them into the tests. Thanks! BR

I'm doing some camera tests in a few days, shooting black and white 16mm neg. I'm testing different lighting setups for some planned interviews. I don't want to light for aesthetics. I don't want the typical three point lighting or anything that is beautiful in a traditional sense. Instead, I want something that brings out the lines and features of the face. This is for a documentary about a sad subject, about the disappearance of a young man, and I want to emphasize the impact on the parents. I want an effect akin to "The Passion of Joan of Arc," in that I bring out the facial flaws, or heighten them rather than obscure. I want to show their pain. Attached below is a pretty extreme example, but I'd love to come up with a lighting scheme along these lines... From a technical point of view, what lighting strategies would achieve this end? Harsh, undiffused light? Employing a higher angle, frontal light to exaggerate the shadows? Any advice would be great!

Dom, with the lenses you tested, what was the extend of the vignetting. Another cameraman on another forum suggested that depending on the extent of the vignetting, I might be able to have the lab push in slightly when they do the transfer...

Dom thanks for the tip. Here's the auction for the lens itself. Would this be one such lens you tested? http://www.ebay.com/itm/ECLAIR-NPR-mount-10mm-lens-for-16mm-camera-ARRIFLEX-CINEGON-/121129917056?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item1c33e7da80

Hey all, I'm watching an ebay auction for an Arri-Cinegon 10mm prime lens with a mount for the Eclair NPR. I'm wondering however if this lens will cover the Super 16m frame area? The auction has 4 days left, so any advice would be very, very appreciated! Best, BR

One of my Eclair NPR motors bit the dust, and would cost more to repair than it's worth. I'd love to get a Tobin, Alcan 54 or a Haflexx, but beggars can't be choosers, so I'll consider any make/model, so long as it is working. PM or email: brrfilm@gmail.com Thanks!

Has anyone seen Frances Ha yet? It's getting some attention because it's black-and-white, but to my eye having watched the trailer, it looks like it was shot digitally and converted to black and white in post. I mean, kudos for opting for monochrome, but is sorta looks blah to me. Flat, weak contrast ratios...a mass of middle gray and lacking real dynamic range, as compared to say something lensed by Wong Howe or Toland.

For what it's worth, I'm shooting one of my new documentaries on 16m B/W, largely for aesthetic reasons, but also because of future resilience. I was driving myself mad trying to choose a camera, and it seems every 3 or 6 months some new "gamechanger" comes out that everyone jumps on board to buy. I got worried that whatever camera I shot on, by the time the film was done it might be on an obsolete or inferior format. So I threw my hands up in the air and said, 'Film!" I had all the gear already, and the filmstock has the native resolution, that no matter what trend comes along, I can just scan it at 2K or 4K and keep up with the Jones. And my film will look more distinctive than all the slick, shallow DoF pieces being churned out these days by everyone with a DSLR, a Macbook and a Vimeo account. Digital has a great many blessings, but what film has over it, is that it is NOT for the dilletante. It takes planning, precision, knowledge and care. It is a stern muse, rewarding those who respect it with a beautiful image, while punishing those who don't with an unwatacheable mess for which they paid absurd amounts of cash. It is the ground where the true skilled artisans prove their mettle, where the craftsmen are separated from the point-and-shooters.

Well gang, in a week's time I'll be on a plane to Oahu, to spend four days interviewing the subject of my new documentary, as well as gathering b-roll material. I've read all I can find about the island to prep myself. I've been there before, though it's been ten years, so I'm trying to prep. I've got a rental car. I realize traffic will be, erm, interesting, but it's gotta be done. I'm bringing my own gear, not renting anything over there. It's a tight little shoot, and I'm pretty much a one man band with a camera and a glidecam. Plan is to just get as much material as I can, so I can cut together a strong trailer to raise more funds to keep the project going. Any advice as far as getting around, and parking, and anything else to be aware of? I've familiarized myself with the rush hours, and plan to just allow lots of time for travel, and carry cash for the parking. But anything you all can suggest that might save me from some headaches, I'd surely appreciate! Thanks! BR

I dream of a world where digital camera makers would adopt the motion picture film paradigm. Red is the closest in this regard, but I'd love a camera where I could swap out image censors as needed. Where, a company could roll out a new image censor line like Kodak rolls out a new line of Vision stock. Buy the new 800 ASA 4K chip! Just swap in and out, do a software upgrade and you're ready to roll. You could carry different chips for different shooting situations. And you could charge a pretty penny for the chip, because as long as the camera was good, you could keep them buying new chips as you roll out better and better ones

I just bought a used Eclair NPR, as a B-cam for one I already own, in preparation for a documentary shoot later this year. the b-cam runs a tad noisier, and vibrates slightly, which tells me it may be due for some servicing. Being that it's a B-cam, and considering I don't have a ton of money on hand just now to ship it off to a pro, I thought it might be a good opportunity for me to gain a greater understanding of how my camera works, and I'm interested in taking a crack at doing some work on it myself. Anyone have experience at this, working on a disassembled NPR? Any recommendations, suggestions or warnings? Are there available servicing manuals that might help educate and guide me in this process? Thanks! BR

Yeah I wish I had better too, but that's the damned infernal thing about all this. No matter what I shoot on, it'll go out of date, unless it's film which I don't have budget for on this production. Wish I could used a second recorder, but it just adds more to rental fees, and batteries I have to contend with. At the end of the day, I hate shooting a picture this way. I want to do it right, and the best way I can. But the money isn't there, and there won't be any coming until I've got something to show. And ultimately, I've got to shoot something, or I'll never shoot anything, and I'll hate myself for that. I just hope and pray I've got what it takes to make it work under the limits I have. I hope I have the ingenuity and the creativity to tell this story well. I pray I'm not a hack that's gonna blow this thing, and ruin a great story that needs to be told.

Yeah, I know it's an awfully hard profession. It's what I love to do, and it's the only thing I think I'm good at. I just want to do a good job telling this story, and I have all these terrible self doubts. I mean, loving what you do doesn't make you good at it, or mean you have talent. I love running, but I'll never be more than fifth rate, because I don't have the talent. What if that is the same for film? What if, no matter how much I love what I do, and how hard I work, i'll never be more than mediocre, because I just don't have what it takes? I fear disappointing people by not making a really great piece of work.

No problem there. Using a marantz 670 with a nice lav mic and a second backup for the audio. In fact, much of his interview will be off camera. I want to keep him unseen, a voice only, seen through archival images and films, until the end when he is revealed. I know, it's nuts, but I'm confident this is the pathway to making this film really distinct, and I don't want to work with a safety net. I'll have to force myself to be creative to give imagery to what we are hearing. As a bonus, I don't have to worry about lighting. For the brief amount of interview footage I'll shoot, it will be outdoors, and I'll rely on bounced cards for fill. Apart from the interviews I will gather lot s of B-roll of his daily life. I think the trailer will be a purposely mundane series of vignettes of his daily life, with the surprise reveal that this humble old man was once an Olympic athlete.