Gregg MacPherson

Re Heikki's post above...problem with the ACL movement...friction? The best you can get from someone like me on this is guesswork and ideas by inference from other things. Like I said before, what one doesn't know or understand about the engineering of the movement block can trip one up. One thing that will help, lets all agree to try to use the descriptive names (and numbers if it helps) for the parts, refering to the drawings. So for example the pic shows the claw control shaft. Can you make it clear what the symptoms are, what the problem is exactly? Are you noting high friction in a fully assembled movement block and can't see what's causing it? The only ideas that come to mind are..aged or contaminated lubricants, damaged bearing surfaces by scratches etc (I'm calling both contact surfaces, shaft and bush, bearing surfaces), misaligned bearing surfaces (by bent shaft or...). Like I mentioned before, the age of the lubricants may mean that a full tear down is needed. Guys like Paul S. and Dom J. would have some ideas on that. The aging of the lubricants may vary with temperature, humidity, frequency of use... The aging of the lubricant in the sintered bronze bushes concerns me. If that lubricant looses it's mechanical properties so that it doesn't self replenish the bearing surface when warm then the bearing isn't adequately lubricated. Do the pores become clogged? Simply adding oil near the juncture of the shaft and bush may not re-invigorate the original function of the impregnated "oil". If oil is applied externally to the shaft/bush juncture, then we need to know exactly what oil, roughly how much, how often and under what circumstances. Bruce at Arranda said that he only applied a drop of oil if the camera was sounding "rattley". Overfeeding oil to the sintered bronze bearing surfaces, if they are clogged with old lubricant, my instinct screams that this is bad, and you might have to do it frequently once the function of the sintered bush is compromised. The sintered bronze would behave more like a plain bush. Re the age difference between ACL I and II contributing to the age of the lubricants. If some lubricants have never been totally replaced since new, then the I vs II age difference is relatively unimportant. On the list of lubricants for ACL. I think we havent looked hard enough, or are asking the wrong people. We don't need exactly the same lubricants, but we do need ones with the same specified properties. Gregg.

If the ball bearing is free then you could just leave it. The friction feeling could come just from the plain bearing, oui. Cant remember if my ball bearings were shielded one side or both. The side visible when looking down into the hub was shielded. I may still have the bearings and can check. The parts drawing shows no shield, but....

More pics. First one, the blind bearing puller. We gave it a single split on the end, like a clothes peg. The llast one is the puller maker, Rogi...

Some pictures from the drive sprocket bearing replacement... Note that there are plastic spacer washers at either end, shown in the parts drawing as same, but they measured different thickness, so measure yours when they come out. The last picture is just in thanks to Rogi, who made the blind bearing puller on a Sunday...some pics follow in the next post. I improvised a puller to remove this brass hat by drilling 3 holes in a washer, 3 screws and a spacer tube that sat around the brass hat. The knurled knob for the drive sprocket (not shown) is fixed to the shaft with a screw. Before removing shaft from the assembly carefully debur the screw detent on the shaft.

If anyone needs more information about the Eng 400' mags I started a thread on them English ACL 400' mags. Facts and Myths... https://cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/91664-english-acl-400-mags-facts-and-myths/#comment-558877 Still waiting on re activating my eBay account so haven't listed yet...

Anyone reading the English ACL 400' mags. Facts and Myths thread will have noticed Dom Jaeger's post. It looks like he is now servicing ACLs. When I asked him about it a while ago he wasn't keen because he was less familiar with them, but now maybe he's in. I think we can cautiously put a pin on Melbourne for our global map of techs servicing ACLs. We should do anything we can to support the techs. Find all the ex-Arts Media parts and locate other sources. If we have a stash of parts ourselves, like more than we need to service our own camera, or components for parting out (wrecking) consider making those parts available (to buy). Gregg.

Hey Dom, I didn't really think you would mind. I was making a joke. I've seen your Cinetinkerer website with the Arri II teardown. I didn't make adequate notes or pictures when overhauling the mags, I realize that's a mistake now, it could save someone else some time. If you do have an English 400' mag job and are stuck I can try and remember. Maybe I should write it all down. Some important parts are common with or very similar to the French mags. I do have an Eng 400' mag here for parts, may help. And a few spare "rubber tyres". So, can we cautiously pin a flag on Melbourne, for our global map of techs who service ACLs..? Sweet. Last time this came up (some time ago) you were a bit cautious because you were less familiar with them. I always thought that a good tech familiar with SR and Aaton could bone up easily on ACL if he could have Q&A with an expert occasionally. Paul Scaglione recently said that he might help like that, if I read him correctly. There may be someone in Australia. Five years or so ago I was talking on the phone to a youngish sounding tech at one of the rental companies about servicing for Aaton and ACL. He was only familiar with Aaton, but a senior tech (I think in the same Co) was good with ACL. Can't remember their names, or the Co. Hopeless, I know... Anyway, there's a bit of a posse on the Eclair sub-forum trying to find suitable techs, you may have noticed. Still hoping to visit my sister near Melbourne, it which case I could drop off a set of S16 superspeeds, hoping you might check the focus lube on some or all, and swap the mounts out to PL. I'll PM about it later on. Cheers, Gregg.

Forgot to include... Pic shows the take up arm in the retracted position. To engage, there is a round button on it's left end, simultaneously press and rotate that, holding the arm so it releases gently. The door won't close while the arm is retracted.

You do? Who was the tech, do you know? Do I have to go on Faecesbook to find out? I never go there if I can help it.

Took ages but I started a thread... English ACL 400' mags. Facts and Myths... https://cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/91664-english-acl-400-mags-facts-and-myths/ Oh, big letters, must be because it took ages to write...maybe I'm the one who needs to be given the antique typewriter (with no internet connection).....

[Edit: any added notes will be in brackets, just so] In the 80s, there (were) several ACL Is in use in Australasia ex Australian Broadcasting. People using them for documentaries, short films, music videos. They had the small original motor, the supposedly "non orientable" viewfinder (you orient the VF then rotate your head), English 400' mags, Angenieux zooms. I had one then. There is a lot of misinformation out there, some on otherwise quite legitimate websites, so I mean to question and clarify that...Please correct me if I make any factual errors. The Eng 400' mag design... Referring to the pic above..The Eng mag is the same design as the French except for the take up system [and some other small differences]. There is no friction drive belt to the take up spindle. Instead there is a take up arm with two rubber tyres on the brass wheels that ride on the take up roll, emulsion in, so riding on the cell side. The design gives a low current draw, on par with the original 200' mags, so was suitable for the small motor on ACL I. The mechanicals...There are gears that give the offset to the take up arms drive capstan. From there a toothed rubber belt goes to the rubber tyres spindle. I'll talk on longevity and servicing in a later paragraph. There is a large circular protrusion on the feed side that is the tension adjustment for the take up arm. The platter always seems to be 200'. Maybe the 400' ones did not exist yet. No matter, a properly serviced Eng 400' mag take up roll tracks true, even without anything touching the sides of the roll. The pressure plate was a single piece design, so the whole length of the plate is pressing the film onto the gate. Early French mags are the same. [ -The French mag doors seal just by having a double step on the edge. The Eng mag doors have a single step with a grey rubber seal mounted in a shallow chanel. The same grey rubber looks to be used for the Eng pressure plate light seal. Another difference, French/Eng is that the French mags have screw adjustments for the guide shoe clearance adjustment.] Servicing the Eng 400' mag So I crossed the line (sorry Dom) and did a full tear down on two mags. I had done a partial service on one previously, but this was a full disassemble, clean, repair/replace and lube. I didn't know anyone who serviced these. Bruce at Aranda was no longer into it when I talked to him a while ago. Maybe Les Bosher does, maybe Paul Scaglione at Visual Products (VP) could, but shipping is really high relative to the value of the mag. I don't know if Covid lockdown was the excuse, but I used generic synthetc lubricants. We still don't have a list of lubricants for the ACL... For the untrained, inexperienced person there's about as much work in overhauling one of these mags as in reconditioning an old engine. It needs the right skill set and intellect and a lot of patience. The ball bearing in the drive sprocket hubs was replaced. I think most of the mags here except the brand new 200' ones have some stiffness developing in the drive sprocket bearing. Replacing was detailed, but yields to patience, straining my memory now, a puller was improvised to remove the brass hat shape at one end and a blind bearing puller was made so I could pull the ball bearing out. My friend made one for me, but the ones you can buy should work ok. The likely service intervals for different parts (sporadic rather than everyday use)... After 40 years everything needs CLA. Normally, the oblique drive shaft bearings is down to the longevity of the grease. Once or twice in a mags lifetime...Plain bearings that are loaded, a shorter interval, they will be checked whith the camera's CLA. The drive sprocket has a plain bearing and a ball bearing. The shielded ball bearing, replacement once or twice in it's lifetime. The plain bearing will need clean and lube more often. The friction is easy to assess at CLA time. Obviously, plain bearing surfaces that are loaded and rotating need care with checking at CLA time. A good calmera tech who's seen the mag before will save you money. The toothed rubber drive belts for the take up arm seem fine after 40 years in the Auckland climate. Other climates may shorten their life. One can often find fine pitch belts, or have them made, but I think parts from wrecks will cover this need if it ever arises. The little rubber drive wheels may have a life span of a few years. I had some made, cost me $1 each, needing a tiny bit of hand finishing on the edge. The light seal at the pressure plate and mag doors (look like the same sectional shape) seem ok for the life of the mag unless someone damages them. The, English seals, grey, a hollow tube or D section, look better to me than the French pressure plate seal, black, solid maybe. One can buy a 2mm diameter hollow rubber section dirt cheap on eBay and replace if needed. Paul S at VP thought so For the pressure plate seal I'll wait and see if it gets around the corners without a crease. For the mag doors I think the bend radius is fine and a crease in the corner is ok. Current draw, French 400' vs Eng 400' vs 200' mags, test results, facts vs myth... Years ago I tested the current draw on my ACL I with loaded 400' mag, 25fps, and got 1A. It was regularly serviced by a good tech. I did have him switch to sub zero grease around then for a short time, and I can't remember if I did the test with that grease in. Temperature for test, guessing 22degC. The only camera available for the test now was an ACL II with latest motor, basically almost brand new, and with the tuning for noise at VP the amps can go up a bit. Current draw with no mag, 1A. So the amps raw data may be high and misleading, but the comparative will be meaningful. I'll show that, the % change in current draw...Another issue, one that may compromise the test...I chose from three French mags the one with least friction. Mags lightly used, no service history. The fingerometer tells me that friction is slightly higher than the brand new 200' mag. 200' mag...0%...is the baseline. French 400'(Pat 2)... +39% Eng 400' (mag3)...... +6% Eng 400' (mag2)...... -6% (Edit: Took about 5 readings over 400'. There was a small increase in current draw as take up size increased. Summary is taken from max values) So I hope this illuminates the issue about the English 400' mags and the small motor. Of course, we haven't yet measured the current draw on a serviced French mag yet. I could have done that before I sold a couple to Heikki a short while ago. Heikki, if you get the urge, I'm happy to help set up the experiment. Otherwise, I will eventually overhaul the French mags here. Untill we do, test a freshly serviced French 400' mag, it is possible that the French mags are OK on the small motor. It will need to show the same amps as a 200' mag to convince me. I knew some guys that blew their ACL I motor with a French mag. I bought their second camera, with English magazine. Cameras were regularly serviced back then, but I don't know if their French mag was. Other myths about the English 400' mag... I think I read on Ermut's website that the Eng mag was prone to film jams. This is a complete myth and jams will only happen with really gross lack of service. I can illustrate with my own example...Bought an ACL I with Eng mag about 1984. The camera body was regularly serviced, but the mag not. The rubber take up tyres were slipping on the wheels. Tyres didn't look old, but maybe the wrong size ID. Result was poor tracking on the take up and sometimes a "loose wind" going to the lab. Young and not yet clever, I fixed it by improvising guide bars on the mag face and door (platters are 200'). Years later I just replaced the tyres and it tracked perfect and tight. That myth needs to disappear.....!! Final thought, make sure your loader is properly familiar. English 400' mags have a spring loaded column on the feed side. Threading around that grossly scratches the roll. My arri-familiar but new to ACL producer once helped out and did that for me (horrific scratches on the film). Gregg.

I've had two of the English mags that were ex single system sound, the sound module no longer there and the entry hole at the bottom of the casting with a plate over it. Welded I think. I did some testing on relative current draw on French vs Eng 400' mags recently and will start a thread on that. Stephen Jackson recently advertised his ACL with small motor and French 400' on the forum and sold it. After some discussions with him privately on the issue. Apparently he had it serviced, and the tech, who he would not disclose, told him that the strain on the small motor was a myth. See you over there maybe....English ACL 400' mags. Facts and Myths...

So we're buying him a typewriter..? Let's make it a vintage one with no internet connection..

Aapo, not wanting to tax your time with a long explanation, but will the natural run up time of your motor preclude the possibility of single frame at 1/50 sec. I mean, if the motor needs a few frames to hit speed we can't do it. On the ACL I, (small motor) looking at the image density on the film, there is one (often beautiful) flash frame then apparently even density. Density not being scientifically measured, so ok, but it "looks like" that system gets to speed in one frame. So is there a very short explanation about motor choice vs possibly adding single frame function. Cheers. Gregg

I wonder if allowance could be made for a separate, developed later, plug in box that gives time lapse, single frame, whatever else is possible, using the same initial motor. Form and ergonomics being unimportant. I'm hoping that single frame at approx 1/50 sec will be possible with the initial motor (no bulky plug in). One could hand hold, single framing it, like we used to do with bolexes. Complete replacement of the motor rather than gutting existing motor shells gets my upvote. I think the motor shell exchange programme would have been a nightmare for Aapo. I do wonder if Aapo has considered the option of completely gutting the existing motor electronics but retaining the existing motor. (back to the motor exchange program fun sorry) I read on the Cameras Eclair website that on ACL I..." the shutter driveshaft design is not technically designed for running at 75fps, though it may run perfectly fine at high-speed depending on the camera. A technician can also upgrade the driveshaft..." If this is true (there are some erroneous facts about ACL I on that page) then Aapo's motor may not be for ACL I, so my previous thoughts about the motor mount plate, camera base height..may be moot. The errors on that web page should be discussed somewhere. Does anyone know who writes that..? "..the small motor, which is not capable of pulling 400′ magazines without losing sync, blowing a fuse or burning out the motor...." This ignores the English 400' mag, designed with low amps, to run fine with the small motor. "...the non-orientable viewfinder. This does not have any effect on the footage; however, it can be an inconvenience for the cinematographer when holding the camera at unusual angles......" The two Ang type VF on the ACL I both could swivel, at least mine did, and had separate factory thumb screws for diopter and rotation. The VF image rotates as you rotate the VF. On the tripod, with the VF eyepiece commonly pointed up at an angle, one just rotated ones head to see the image upright. Maybe we need a separate thread to correct the misperception proliferating out there about the ACL I. I think I saw errors on Ermut's website also...

You're way out of line Tyler. I complained to the headmaster.

I don't think I have a mentor, or a service shop, but then I never pretended to...Tyler. The name calling in your following post is getting out of hand. As before, perhaps these quasi observations or described qualities are applicable to yourself. Is it time for the "ban Tyler" petition again...

Clearly, you can apply most of that criticism to yourself. I think there may be a stream of cameras that will fail prematurely or become unserviceable because some fool has been pretending to be qualified to work on them. I think that person is positioned at the low end of a dung heap. The lowest? Maybe there's still room for downward migration. This problematic "thing" has needed censure, and been given it, often patiently, by a small handful of members. But it keeps coming up. Degrading the cameras and the knowledge pool about them is not "keeping film alive", it's doing the opposite. In fact, I find it, quite "horrible". There is a switch on the forum to make someone almost invisible. Trouble is then you don't know if they are skulking around making mischief.

Some interesting ideas from the Y16 thread. Pasting here so it does not get lost...Sorry if formatting is off.. Gregg MacPherson (NZ 6/04/22) 4 hours ago, Heikki Repo said: I have no doubt Tyler has worked on ACLs. They are nice and simple, even I have opened several. Mirror/shutter timing seems relatively easy to work with, clean and relube too (though I'm still trying to find the cause for some strange stiffness in one of them. We'll see if I go as far as try to replace the main drive with a spare). Still, there are things like adjusting the pull-down claw or removing the ground glass or checking FFD that I have no idea how to do.... Gregg cont.... The ACL movement block is a very simple, compact design, but as with all good design, the simplicity and sophistication come together. The complexity is hidden. If trying to self service the movement, the things one does not know or understand can easily trip one up. If a full service manual was available it might help, but only if one had serious skill and intellect to begin with. On another thread, Dom jaeger opined that owners beginning to service their own cameras was likely to yield disastrous results. I agree. Opening the body to remove the movement block is not hard. Assessing the wear on moving parts, the condition of the lubricants, checking the function of the claw movement and making the camera quiet...requires expertise. If a rebuild with full disassembly, even more expertise. Are there any special tools or jigs needed..? The ACL is getting old enough that original lubricants in the sintered bronze bushes may need to be cleaned and re impregnated, or replaced. So a full disassembly and rebuild. I believe that all service and especially the identity of the (ad hoc) tech should be on the record, and produced on demand when cameras are sold. We have a list of legit camera techs we are trying to grow, maybe we need a list of dodgy ones, with "he who shall not be named" at the top of the list. Thinking more on the sophistication hidden in the simplicity...Years ago there was a camera technician on the forum who described in minute detail how his Aaton CLA jobs commonly segued into major rebuilds, requiring (for example) measuring the pulldown claw wear and regrinding it, removing oil, gunk from the sintered alloy bearings and re-impregnating under vacuum, and more...(hope I have remembered that correctly). It made me realize how little one knows, looking at this simple little ACL movement block. So, my opinion, if one wants to tinker, one needs the right initial mind and skillset, and needs to be up for a lot of learning. Gregg. PS: Travis, no downvote, but there is a "laughing" icon, which can read as ridicule if deserved. Heikki Repo It's ultimately about finding a balance between the extremely careful, OCD like relationship to one's camera ("I have to buy an expensive service before every shoot just to be sure, even if I haven't used my camera that much and it seems to work well") and a too relaxed approach ("this is how I remove pieces from my camera without any fear of breaking something by taking it apart in a mess and pushing carelessly with my screwdriver"). If it's a 60-90k camera used for award winning TV-series, please don't open it unless you know what you are doing. If it's a camera body that would essentially lie unused due to dried, messy lubricants and you wouldn't send it overseas for servicing in any case, why not learn a bit about how it works, try to service it, learn as much as possible from different sources. As for ACL, what I have learned from those who have collected such information more than I have over decades and who have serviced ACLs themselves is that 1) they don't have names for some specific lubricants. Thus I went for Klüber Isoflex LDS 18 Special and Nye #140B clock oil. Furthermore, never are these ACLs going to run through as much film as they did when they were used by a TV station. 2) I have manual pages for correct way to set the shutter/mirror sync. No way would I have done it otherwise ? The question about the self lubricating parts is interesting. ACL2 manual says that "The four drive shafts run in selflubrificated bearings and the camera mechanism should NEVER be oiled." Obviously, "never" might not mean 50 years later. The very important question is, do service houses such as VP do something about those self lubricated bearings when they rebuild ACLs? As I mentioned, one ACL movement is giving me a bit of an headache, because unlike previous ones, cleaning old grease and regreasing didn't solve everything. The funny thing is though that this is officially ACL2, so youngest of them all. Were it the other way around, I'd first have thought that it must be the self lubrication having run out. I'm still betting on dirt under main drive cover. But I'll probably know more after I remove the vertical shaft and see how much there is friction in the main drive after that. At least I have new old stock spares for the main horizontal drive shaft so I could replace it. (Heikki)

Alarm and ridicule seem realistic reactions to your repetitive nonsense.

Heikki, The ACL content is too interesting to leave here where it will get lost. I'll paste it over to the Technicians Who Service ACLs thread...let's talk there... https://cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/87469-technicians-who-service-eclair-acls/page/2/#comment-558605 Gregg.

The ACL movement block is a very simple, compact design, but as with all good design, the simplicity and sophistication come together. The complexity is hidden. If trying to self service the movement, the things one does not know or understand can easily trip one up. If a full service manual was available it might help, but only if one had serious skill and intellect to begin with. On another thread, Dom jaeger opined that owners beginning to service their own cameras was likely to yield disastrous results. I agree. Opening the body to remove the movement block is not hard. Assessing the wear on moving parts, the condition of the lubricants, checking the function of the claw movement and making the camera quiet...requires expertise. If a rebuild with full disassembly, even more expertise. Are there any special tools or jigs needed..? The ACL is getting old enough that original lubricants in the sintered bronze bushes may need to be cleaned and re impregnated, or replaced. So a full disassembly and rebuild. I believe that all service and especially the identity of the (ad hoc) tech should be on the record, and produced on demand when cameras are sold. We have a list of legit camera techs we are trying to grow, maybe we need a list of dodgy ones, with "he who shall not be named" at the top of the list. Thinking more on the sophistication hidden in the simplicity...Years ago there was a camera technician on the forum who described in minute detail how his Aaton CLA jobs commonly segued into major rebuilds, requiring (for example) measuring the pulldown claw wear and regrinding it, removing oil, gunk from the sintered alloy bearings and re-impregnating under vacuum, and more...(hope I have remembered that correctly). It made me realize how little one knows, looking at this simple little ACL movement block. So, my opinion, if one wants to tinker, one needs the right initial mind and skillset, and needs to be up for a lot of learning. Gregg. PS: Travis, no downvote, but there is a "laughing" icon, which can read as ridicule if deserved.

Which ACL viewfinder are you refering to? I know of 5 different designs. I've looked through 4. The early Ang. ones on the ACL are a smaller image and maybe not as bright as an SR1, but there was nothing about it that one would have called horrible in it's day, relative to it's peers. The big fully orientable Kinoptik is a big bright, sharp image. I don't have other cameras here to compare, so unlike you, I will not pretend to know more than I do... And again, with this pretending to know ACL intimately and having serviced them. Define "serviced". How many movements have you had out of the body, and what did you do to them....? Now define "countless". Rhetorical questions really. And while I'm in the mood to complain, how about editing yourself Tyler. Write less but more meaningful words.

Heroic effort David! Sorry I haven't been able to read all the thread. But I noticed this comment, and having just recently looked at some 1980 prices and 2022/1980 dollar value, I wanted to add something. In 1980 an Eclair ACL II with best Vf, motor, two mags, basic accessories and no lens, was USD21950 (2022 value USD75580). The first LTRs that came to NZ I was told at the time were USD18000, but that might have been strategic pricing. These cameras were, roughly speaking, mass produced. Without scale, the manufacturing costs will rise. Making mechanical parts in China, in even small runs, the costs will lower. Maybe, as speculated already, shifting to electronic rather than mechanical means to achieve some functions, should save cost. Can't miss a chance to upvote for optical VFs. An electronic VF is a really unappealing idea. Was someone on here slagging off about oscillating mirrors when critiquing the new Logmar S16. We've heard this nonsense before. Probably someone pretending to be a mechanical design engineer....It can be easily observed from the ACL, that oscillating mirrors can reduce the bulk of the camera body and can be very quiet. Note that the mirror Hz is half the camera fps. Sigh, whaddaya gonna do. No more down voting allowed. Gregg.

Missed my edit window.... Feel free to do with or develop from, anything you want with the integrated ACL base drawings, except making money from them. Gregg