Gregg MacPherson

In the ECU of the girls face above I really like the colour, texture, composition. I couldn't quickly figure out how to see the slide show in large size. Cheers Gregg.

Hey Brian, I probably am getting the Cooke 10.4-52 T2.8. I'm thinking of getting a nice standard 16 Zeiss 10-100 T3 and just using it above the focal lengths that can't cover S16. Mostly as a longer length vari-focal rather than zoom. Cheers Gregg.

I have a chance to buy a set of Zeiss MKI superspeeds 9.5mm, 16mm, 25mm in Arri B mount and separately, a Cooke 10.4-52 /T2.8 zoom in PL mount. All in quite good condition I think and at very good prices. These will probably be used on some short films or if I really bust out, maybe an indie feature. I'm looking for some ideas on intercutting between these lenses. The general opinion I have heard elswhere is that the Zeiss are more clinical and cool looking, the Cooke zoom is warmer and photographs skin tones beatifully (but I never used one yet). If there was a lot of intercutting between the Zeiss primes and Cooke zoom are we adding a lot of time, difficulty or cost to post production? I'm maybe returning to film making after being completely away from it for 15 years or so. I'm upgrading from the Angenieux 12-120 and Arri Schneider primes I used to use. From limited experience back then, the Zeiss (MK I I thnk) primes intercut well with a Zeiss 10-100 zoom, it might have been a T3. Some nice standard 16 Zeiss 10-100 T3 zooms are coming on the market now quite cheap. Maybe this is still very usefull above a focal length of 20mm or whatever. Can you compare these lenses according to the apparent sharpness, contrast and the colour? - Cooke 10.4-52 /T2.8 - Zeiss 10-100 T2 - Zeiss 10-100 T3 Does the S16 conversion alter the properties (sharpness, contrast, colur) of either of these Zeiss zooms? Too many questions I know. Feel free to answer just a part of it. Cheers Gregg

Hey Boris, I remember Arri SRs have a lens locking button on either side of the camera body just behind the lens port. I was wondering if the ACL/Arri B adaptors also had something like that. Sounds like some do, some don't? There is an adaptor that has been sitting on eBay for a very long time and it looks like it has nothing on the outer body other than the threaded ring for fixing to the TS mount. I messaged them but got no answer. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350416940082&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT Gregg.

Sorry, I mean the mount adaptor that screws directly onto the TS mount on the ACL. The people familiar with ACLs probably already assumed I meant that. Thanks.

Do the ACL/Arri B adaptors normally have locks for the bayonet(s) that will also lock a standard mount lens (like the locks on an SR camera) or do you need a separate adaptor for Arri S lenses? If there are no locks (some photos look like that may be the case) how is the lens held in, friction? Does anyone have any lens adaptors they want to sell? ACL/PL ACL/Arri B ACL/Arri S (assuming the Arri B adaptor can't lock a standard mount lens). Cheers Gregg.

Dom, I bought it for NZ660 with a set of Sachtler legs and spreader. Cheap enough but yes some risks with the repair costs. Do you have people there good with servicing Eclair ACL? Do you have any parts? Or is that all history now? Thanks again for the ideas. Gregg

Dom, I removed the bowl fitting and tightened the centre screw until my fingers just couldn't turn the thrust bearing. This did reduce some of the play in the pan axis, but not all. Whether I tightened the bearing enough, don't know, I was wary of going too tight. There was some leaked fluid around the bearing. It had spread to about the diameter of the bowl fitting, was dirty and congealed looking, like it had been there for a while. The leaked fluid from the pan fluid adjust spindle was cleanish looking. Don't know how long that took to leak out. I think the head was in storage, maybe on its side. I wiped it off and haven't seen any since. I'm assuming it will take a while. In terms of how the head movements feel, the pan is quite smooth with a nice transition when reversing direction. The tilt, with the mid to lower drag settings, has a noticeable low drag zone of about 3 degrees wherever the camera is or was last positioned. If you tilt the camera back and forth over that spot it's a very noticable gap in the drag feel. I've worked the head back and forth like warming up the old Miller, and I think that helped a bit. Going to higher drag settings almost removes the problem. One fault I found on this head that I can easily fix myself if I can find the part. There is a geared dial on the pan fluid adjust. There is a tiny idler gear between the spindle and the internal ring gear on the dial. The idler is broken. If I had been able to speak directly to the service tech I would have got the gear and fixed this already. The pan fluid adjust spindle has a slightly grinding feeling as you rotate it, as though the edge of a bearing area is scraping or there is some grit. Thanks again for the ideas. I now at least have a better feel for what the tech might have to do. Are you a camera tech? I see that you are in Melbourne. Do you know ACL's? Cheers Gregg

I just read the earlier posts about flicker. If Saul Rodger has used the Nikon primes without problems, then logically that factor alone is not the cause. It's an irational leap (a hunch) but is it possible that the different ways that the mirror and shutter are treated in the S16 conversions is a factor. I just recently learned that some people don't modify the shutter or modify the mirror movement at all. Another thing I wondered about was the reflective quality of the black finish in the ACL/Nikon adaptor. If it's not fully matt. I have a directors finder with a slightly satin finsh on the internals, which reflects noticeably with certain light, made me wonder. To get rid of the light from the redundant image outside the S16 frame do any of the adaptors have modified shape, grooves cut into the back etc? Still interested in which lenses were used in Tall Tale Tanner. Tried emailing Jason with an address from his wensite but it bounced. Cheers Gregg

Hey Jason, A temporary problem with my system meant I could only enjoy the pictures. It's nice looking. Can you tell us all about the lenses you used? What mount adaptor did you use? Are there inherant problems using these lenses with the redundant image outside the S16 frame? What was giving the flicker problems? Did you already discuss some of these issues somewhere? Cheers Gregg.

Hey Dom, Thanks for those ideas. I'm digesting them carefully. Compared to my old Miller, the 1030 is quite a sophisticated head (smiling). Just briefly, for now, to be clear on what I'm describing as play in the pan axis. The head doesn't have to be locked off to see it. If I apply an up/down force to the pan handle (control arm) I can clearly see a fraction of a mm change in the gap between the head body and the 100mm bowl fitting. There is a viscous feeling when I do that. Setting up a 16mm camera and working the head a bit feels (looks through the finder) fine, but I didn't look carefully yet zoomed in. Maybe this. I really would prefer not to open the head myself, but I may work on some of the external mechanical things. Talk more later. Cheers Gregg.

I just got an O'Connor 1030 head. I'm not sure the exact version it is. I attached a photo, taken when I bought it. I like it a lot, but this version is designed in a way that allows the pan and tilt fluid adjust spindles to get bent easily. Both are slightly bent. Also the head has more play in the pan axis than I think it should. If you lock the head you can make it rock slightly with the control arm. Also I think the head was stored on its side with maybe quite a lot of leakage out of the pan fluid adjust. I'm in Auckland New Zealand and there is an O'Connor agency with access to a local tech with O'Connor training (who they hide quite effectively). This is probably the default option, but may be expensive. I might like to have a go at doing some of the servicing myself. So some questions for anyone familiar with this model, or generic O'Connor facts: - What exactly is the fluid? The agents here said it costs about US$400 for 500mls (a bit less than a pint). Is there a cheaper option? - The drawings downloadable from O'Connor give enough info to work on the fluid adjust spindles, but not for this exact model. Does anyone have drawings or a service manual for this model? I can put some more photos up or send photos if it helps. - The play in the pan axis. Is this maybe due or partly due to low fluid? Are the bearings in these heads adjustable? - Anything to be wary of before opening the fluid chambers? Do the cover plates have damagable gaskets? If so what sort of matereal? - Anything wrong with just trying to straighten the outer part of the fluid adjust spindles? The steel looks quite soft. Thanks for any help. Regards Gregg.

Kevin, I've been inactive for a long time. If I start some small projects I'll check out your rentals. Cheers Gregg.

Do you not have a lens technician you can use? A basic check of the lenses shouldn't cost nuch (untill he starts fixing things). Untill you have a reliable focus reference on the barrel you have no choice but to do all your focus by eye. I don't think I agree with the other reply re the ground glass and frame markings. They are sharp if the eyepiece diopter is set, even if the lense is out of focus. Re the magazine and loading. Normally, load the feed side in the dark, check the lid is closed properly, then in daylight thread the takeup side, then tape the mags. If finishing the take up side is slow or delayed then the feed lid gets taped as soon as you are out of the bag/tent. If a feed side lid was damaged or warped so you were woried about the seal, it would be better to fix it. Or you could put a piece of B&W test film in there, wave the mag around in the sunshine and process it by hand to check the seal. Cheers Gregg

Rob, I quite enjoyed your little film. I liked the skip frame / stretch frame effect. Was this done optically or after transfer? Cheers Gregg

Ok, so with the ideas about physical size for commercial machines I'm too small. The old machine B&W my friends and I played around with years ago wasn't much bigger than a washing machine, but it processed quite slow. Guessing, scratching my memory maybe 1200' overnight, something like 2' per min. What is an optical down-shooter? Cheers Gregg

I just posted this but it didn't show on the board, so sorry if it ends up double posting. I saw some interesting pictures and info on commercial cine film processors (Treise, Calder) on the RTI website. Including a description of some used B&W machines. http://www.rtico.com/product/products.html http://www.rtico.com/Treiseused/index.html Looks like processors were/are custom made to suit. Sometimes small (but tending to be bigger than the microfilm processors) Cheers Gregg.

Marc, does it have to be as small as that? About 20 years ago some friends running a film course refurbished an already old looking commercially made continuous B&W processor. It was about the size of a washing machine. It origionally had about 6 or 8 rectangular section tanks about 4 or 6 litres each. There was a driven shaft across the top. Driving that and setting up rubber traction rollers may have been a mod that we did. I can't remember what was tensioning the film and controlling the speed as it came out of the drying section. The replenishing rates were controlled by little clamps on the plastic tubes. The roller assemblys in each tank were each on a rod which was raised or lowered to change the process time. Results weren't as consistent as the commercial lab, but could have got close to that if more time was invested. Whenever I daydream about making a small processor like that it seems quite feasible. A couple questions for those guys familiar with commercial processors. Do they normally have drive sprockets once the film is dry? Are some of the wet rollers driven? Who sells hardware for processors - 16/35 rollers, squeeges? Cheers Gregg

Has anyone used the Proaim follow focus, the "dual" one with both left and right wheels? How does it compare for actual usability with say an Arri or some other accepted quality brand. Some ideas based on practical usage would be great. Thanks Gregg.

Bravo sofar! I'm really looking forward to seeing pics of the setup. Is it a Nikon 5000 scanner or camera for the imaging? For the tests, do tou have some footage where the camera is locked down, with a sharp lens, showing a wide brightness and colour range? For the dust, most of the prolem dissapears if the envcironment and practices are clean. As a cleaning device, I had an idea that maybe you could fire small jets of filtered air close to the film, with vacuum collection. Cheers Gregg

Thanks Dom, Just to be really clear. The flange on the lense has three wings or tangs that stick out, then it's steped down to a smaller diameter behind this. I thought that flange focal distance would probably be measured from the rear of the flange with wings on it, but wanted to make sure that it wasn't from the rear of the steped down flange. Like I said in my other post, I was curious to clamp this lense (Canon J15x9.5B ) on a bench in front of my Eclair ACL. I don't know if it will properly cover the frame and I don't know how sharp it can be. Cheers Gregg

In case this question got lost or wasn't well identified in my other post, I thought I'd try with a better title. If I have a B4 mount lense but no camera mount or adaptor, where on the lense flange do I measure the flange focal distance from? Cheers Gregg.

To be clear, I need to know where the flange focal distance is measured from on a B4 mount lense.

I found an extremely cheap Canon J15x9.5B 2/3" zoom and was wondering if it may be useful on a standard 16mm camera. Before I gave it to a proffesional tech I was going to bench mount it in front of my Eclair ACL and take a look. To do this I need to know where the reference plane is on the lense mount. Like where is the flange focal distance measured from on the mount. It's a B4. I'm not familiar with the electronic cameras and the B4 mount on the cameras, so not sure where to measure from on the mount on the lense. The main flange is stepped to a smaller one to the rear. Any help on that? Cheers Gregg

Hey Christian, Thanks for the ideas. I didn't have any time to think more about it. The Proscar projection lense I have is marked down to 1.5m. I didn't do any tests yet. I think if I have a go with anamorphics I will try to adapt a dizanamorphic viewfinder. Might talk some more about it when my computer and net access is going better. Cheers Gregg