Jump to content

Gregg MacPherson

Basic Member
  • Posts

    2466
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gregg MacPherson

  1. That's really beautiful stuff 0:40 to 0:50. It looks like an undercranked camera, probably 6 or 8 fps with step printing, maybe using every second frame. Maybe shot with an Arri II using maximum shutter angle. The step printing, the replication and the choice of skipping frames or not, is just about the look. I don't think one is obliged to realign with a 24fps timeline, though this might be a common start point. You have enough info to just run some tests. Try to recreate how they did it with the Arri II. If you cant undercrank slow enough, fake it with the shutter speed and try skip frame, "printing" every 2nd or 3rd frame. Much of what you are looking for will come from the shutter speed. And with a hand held camera following a moving subject, that subject can look surprisingly sharpish against the blurred background. I've just noticed that Chunking Express was made in the 90s. I think there was a wave of backyard experimental film making using this step printing effect on DIY optical printers in the 80s. Maybe Kar-Wai Wong and Doyle were following on from that. Enormous fun...
  2. In 2018 when I last checked there were two labs running in NZ, but neither were normal commercial labs. Archives NZ don't advertise their services, but they may be obliged to help if asked nicely. You would need to telephone and find the right person. 64 4 499 5595. I can't easily find my notes. The website is easy to find but I don't think you will find a lab contact there. My emails only got an auto reply. Ian Powell is (was in 2018) a cameraman in Auckland with a passion for film. He had B&W and colour machines running and was importing another machine. He didn't have a regular commercial lab but as long as he still runs the machines he may help. http://reversalcine.com/ phone and email are there. I'd try phone. Good luck.
  3. Stephen, I don't know how I bumped into this old thread.....You are a bit of a philosopher at heart. I like that. The issues of whether our real creative self is hidden and unchangeable, or something else, is very interesting. Looking inward, how deep do we have to go to find the unchanging self? Even a little short of that the "self" is evolving. So the "eye" can be learned, one can become capable of anything. On a lighter note, I totally agree, these deeper facilities, styles of perception that allow the "eye" were not given lightly, but deserved by prior experience and encoded in the DNA. If those that have it can arrive there, become that, then others can too. Gregg.
  4. Well spotted! I hadn't noticed that. I made a thread on this in the Eclair forum with a pic. https://cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/95225-unusual-acl-s16-gate/ Heikki, what facts did you get from the seller. I will send some questions to him, but maybe you have already. Edit: Just read on the eBay listing.."Sorry, I've got no information on the super 16mm conversion from when I purchased this 20 years ago or so..." So I won't pester him. Gregg.
  5. Heikki spotted that this S16 gate on an ACL on eBay was not like the common ones. Does anyone recognise it? Who was doing their conversions like that? Is this a limited run 3rd party factory offering, from back in the day when that was a thing? It looks like some of the contact area on the claw side, above the gate has been machined off. Is that maybe a one off error. Wonder how well this gate works. Maybe the film curvature, with pressure from the pressure plate straightening that, is enough. Maybe it's Eclairs answer to the Aaton hairless gate...! Which may not have been invented yet. Don't want this pic lost so putting it here. I'll quiz Heikki on what he's asked the seller sofar, and may try to gather more info. Edit: Just read on the eBay listing.."Sorry, I've got no information on the super 16mm conversion from when I purchased this 20 years ago or so..." I was going to ask re the conversion but now I don't think so. Let's see what Heikki has already asked. Gregg.
  6. Nice ACL 1.5 S16 kit on eBay ... https://www.ebay.com/itm/255706050166?hash=item3b8944ae76:g:FJUAAOSw-CxjEU6b&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAAoFPADS6J%2BHdqtkGiv8F8XpUBznfcPRZSqQzC%2Fa3bjxmvQFmlLgBlyTpRwecSwJGtSh4j5CClgCt%2Fh9dVzfNEXKuA3wul7HBNQIrZNJNudXjVvlvMFcWgnEnR49NlqQep6DfOyLpBmrF%2F0GVCFelx5BcYyxZGtnjAX3L2THv9AgqWdeL7TqbdqbMH3x%2BI91SIZpVOBfBFSVJGmp7s8O4Buk0%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR4CexPvhYA Australian cameraman selling one of his personal cameras.
  7. I must be just coming into my humbug! phase (cue laughs). My ACL I came with a custom made double handles, cast alloy, fixed pointed to the front. They had a flat base that the camera base mounted to. A very secure connection with the camera. This forced (enabled) a double handed gripping ergonomics that was very steady, One hand could sneak off to do something else easy. That same camera had a really worn 3/8 thread in the base and I blamed the use of the factory bottom mounted handle earlier in its life. So humbug! With humour. Lots of custom made solutions are possible for ACL. I like the idea of a flat base that has fittings at the front for handles and rods. Can be really light, take load off the 3/8 thread and the screws holding the side handle. Those screw fixings are small, sized like an aircraft part and maybe they missed a load case (more laughs). Gregg.
  8. Hey Duncan, Think that was a stock item at one point. Have to say I don't like these handles (with or without filter slots). Better to invent something for oneself. Cheers, Gregg
  9. I think Aapo has it sussed. That lens port is not a C mount. It may be fitted into the C mount. It's designed to receive a dog leg zoom with a special mount. Aapo linked to one on eBay. That lens port does not routinely come off the camera (I think).
  10. I wondered about the dog leg mount and was trying to remember the model codes. Now I remember, CP-16, non reflex, CP-16R was reflex. If I was Owen I would avoid that camera unless he is happy with only using one zoom, which will be noticeably softer. And you still have to find one.
  11. You are so full of s..t Tyler. It took me 2 minutes to find a CP-16 mag on eBay, flap doors, USD70 buy now, San Diego CA, slightly spotty seller (98.4% positive) The same chap is selling a CP-16 camera USD1000 buy now. The links were pasting in full, so just search "Cinema Products". My instincts would be to buy that one and have it CLAd/ overhauled. Adding later...I'm not that familiar with the CP lens port, and I don't know if I recognise the one in the pics on eBay. Maybe Robino or Dom will know. Gregg.
  12. Touting the usefulness of the Aaton mount is a bit bizarre. The mount system on the ACL does all those things Tyler claims, but with a purpose made interchangeable mount system. Not adapters in the common sense. Getting cameras running quiet is a job for experts. I don't think Tyler's results there are indicative at all. The logic fails. It's like saying..Oh the Mona Lisa is nothing special, when I painted my version it didn't look so good.... The noise without film may be useful to the tech, but is otherwise not a measure. On a healthy ACL without film it is extremely quiet. There is no tick, tick. There is the faint whir of the mirror, which is oscillating at 12Hz (half the 24fps). If there is a tick, no film, it needs service or repair. The noise (with film) normally is a muted tick, tick from the pull down claw and/or the loops. Even with a perfect camera, the film stock can up the noise. Older film, changed perf pitch, aged lubricants, worn perfs from using the same scratch test roll too many times...all can up the noise. For the record, most of the noise on a healthy ACL comes out the back, as though it's sneaking around the front of the mag. It doesn't project as much out the front of the camera body. Struggling with camera noise in small spaces, the solution was to drape an SR barney over the back, with no real care at the front, and no optical flat. I think Giray is right, the CPs were very quiet. If they are still relatively cheap and easy to get serviced that may be the way. Gregg.
  13. The first ACL Is came out before the "LTR" (LTR7). The ACL II was roughly contemporaneous with the LTR54 (was produced in roughly the same time frame). See the facts given earlier. I did not state or refer to "design changes generation to generation". I was referring to the lack of design changes in toto, (relative to the LTR/LTR54) that complicated the parts and servicing issues. I'm trying to think of changes in the movement block in the ACL and all I get sofar is that early English ACL I may not like running at 75fps if you swap out to a later model motor. Regarding the age of the design relative to the LTR. I am a bit in awe of Beauviala. He can do no wrong. The "cat on the shoulder" idea is very strong and innovative. The overall styling, in keeping with the era, like shapes after Star Wars, less curves and more polylines with rounded corners...maybe not that meaningful. The movement block and motors I'll let the qualified camera techs debate. The lens mount. I think the Aaton mount was a mistake. It should have been an ACL type interchangeable mount. The mirror and the mount are sort of conjoined design opportunities. He went the other way. Regarding the relative quietnes of 16mm cameras. If perfectly running cameras are compared the results may surprise. The expertise of the tech is important. In the 80s I had a really high mileage ACL I, only ever run at 24/25fps, regularly serviced by an expert, and it was quieter than the 16BL and SR1 I remember. But with only a couple of BLs and SRs for that ad hoc comparison it's very unscientific. Gregg.
  14. Time to blow away some of the nonsense with some simple facts.... Eclair ACL (source Boris Belay) English ACL I production ended in early to mid 70s. French ACL I production, 1972 - 1979. (#1200-1700) ACL II....1979 - 1985. (#2300-3000) (Gregg: can't explain the gap in #) Aaton LTR (source Jean-Louis Seguin) LTR 1974-1982 (#250-950) LTR54 1982-1985 (#950-1300) So, facts or myths? Perhaps just another example of Tyler rewriting history on a capricious whim...? My reading tells me that the ACL had less design changes that complicate the servicing, parts issue. Opinions on this worth reading are easy to find, for example ... Tim Carrol posted Dec 11 2006 (scroll down. Plenty of talk on the relative virtues of these two cameras ACL/LTR on the forum. Unfortunately there is some absolute nonsense among that... For the record, the lens mount system for the ACL is about the most useful mount system there is for a 16/S16 camera. Gregg.
  15. Found that photo, and can't see the pins on the driving pinion, but can see the eccentric driving pin for the claw, and one can see that the drilled hole for the securing pin is at 90deg, just like the parts drawing. Heikki, is it clear what I'm talking about with the pin orientations on that complete assy? Gregg.
  16. Referring to French parts drawings...and, my assy means assembly I do have a spare body with the motor off. The empty holes in the rubber coupler are vertical with the shutter open, so horisontal (parallel to camera base) if mirror was parked. So that sounds like the mr Tobin's description. After reading Heikki, I looked at the drawings and I can't see how the claw control shaft (20) with driving pinion assy (28E) could be assembled 90 deg off without putting the claw 90deg out of phase. The only idea I had is wondering if, prior to mirror parking, did randomly oriented driving pinion assys (the gear with the drive pins in the end) exist. The orientation of this assy is set by the hole that is drilled in it for the pin that secures it to the shaft, and of course the drilled hole in the shaft. If the movement block is out, one can see I think. Assuming the parts drawing is correct, the two pins on the driving pinion assy and the single eccentric drive pin at the other end, for the claw, should all be in plane. But the drawing may be just oriented so to make it easy to read. Calling on Heikki (again), are all the movement blocks you have, looking at that shaft, with pin orientation as described above...all three pins in plane? I remember now that you had one or more complete assys of that claw control shaft with gears, bushes etc, removed from the movement block. maybe the photos show it. I'll look. So, on Duncans skewiff body, the eccentric pin driving the claw will be 90deg out of phase with the pins on the driving pinion. Gregg
  17. Just watched the Penelope delta one. Really sweet. Everything I learn about the work of Beauviala is an inspiration.
  18. I think that is explicit. With the coupling sitting in the camera, we are looking at the face that is driven by the motor shaft. Oui?
  19. Hey Duncan. It's puzzling. Someone who had serviced a lot of ACLs might know if they were all (supposed to be) with the pins in one or other orientation. I wonder how many movement blocks that Heikki has at hand. It would be useful to know if they all have the pins with the same orientation when the mirror is parked (shutter is closed). Assuming that all factory orientation is the same, I wonder if someone has re-assembled the movement and changed it...and the motor mirror parking somehow. I would be curious to pull my motor off and look. The camera has only been worked on by Paul at VP so should be factory. But fitting motors and tweaking the mount screws for noise is unappealing. Anyway, mirror parking's for pussies, what's wrong with an inching knob. Gregg.
  20. @Dom Jaeger Slomo may not have any more so it might be moot. They were about 1/4 the VP or PSTechnik price. The clearance to allow shimming was there and the other dimensions seemed good. The fit into a PL lens port felt a bit snug to me, but I only had one port here to try, and I'm not used to PL. I polished a few microns off in a lathe and it's now about 5 microns bigger than the Zeiss one I have. Unfortunately my micrometer couldn't quite fit. I did a comparative measurement by removing the anvil. That cylinder is supposed to be 54 -(0.025-0.075)mm. Those specs might have come from you Dom.. I think there is a fraction of a mm radius in the corner where the Zeiss one has a pronounced undercut about 1mm wide. So they may not satisfy your criteria. I could probably send you one to look at if you're curious.
  21. Are they MK I, II or III..? If they are eight hole mounts (II or III), Frank at Slomo Digital in LA was selling some stainless PL mounts not that long ago. They were quite cheap but didn't come with the black rear light baffle.
  22. It reminds me of the Ronford F15, designed to allow the Arri II motor to extend below the tilt axis. It may still have quite a high max weight capacity. The Ronford had about 50lbs. Heikki, are you looking for an older, cheaper, higher capacity head for your ACL fully built up? There are some early Ronfords and O'Connors that can be cheap, but you may have to have them serviced.
  23. There is a 6mm extension tube listed on page 5 of those lens specs. Extension tubes having no optical elements, right? The only "adapter" close to that length that I saw was 6.5mm length, just above on that page.
  24. Pondering briefly on the idea that the cultural status of the viewing medium might force constraints on our style of experience....then... exceptions that violate the supposed principle... I started thinking about Too Old to Die Young again. They were attempting a 12 hour film, broken into manageable parts, most being about 1-1/2 hrs long. I think it goes without saying that we can't define a piece of experience populated by moving pictures simply by the particular medium of delivery. En route...this nice, short interview with Dharius Khondji on the collaboration with Refn. https://www.afcinema.com/Anaesthetized-by-colour.html?lang=fr
×
×
  • Create New...