Jump to content

Heikki Repo

Basic Member
  • Posts

    654
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Heikki Repo

  1. Having been the first customer and having helped him as a friend, I can tell that the reason for closing the lab was not financial. The reason behind building the lab was that A.A. wanted to make movies of his own on 16mm film and being a l'uomo universale, a true master of many things, building a lab & scanners was also a nice challenge for him. Running such an amateur lab can become a burden, however, if your original intention wasn't really to become a lab owner in the first place. His contribution was really nice at the time, but I'm happy that he can now concentrate on things he likes (building things) and not running a laboratory. Shame though that he never got in to making those movies he had planned to do.
  2. How stable is "completely stable" for you? Just asking, as I have never seen "digital stable" footage out of any film footage online, be it SR3 or some other camera. If that's your standard, no film camera is going to give you what you want. Most classic films shot on 35mm film have that small movement too. Then again, usually everyone is watching the movie and not paying attention to the frame line, as long as it is stable enough. Start paying attention to stability only and soon you'll notice all shaky camera moves as well, bumps on the dolly tracks etc. ๐Ÿ˜‰ I have been pasting this short piece of mine here way too often, but do you think the footage here is "completely stable"? That's shot on an Eclair ACL that was serviced just before the production.
  3. If you are a super-8 shooter I can well understand your sentiments. As for 16mm, perhaps it has been previously much cheaper in the US than in Europe, but as I mentioned, I'm paying less than previously. But I agree, in the end it comes down to priorities and choices. And there is absolutely nothing wrong in deciding that film is too expensive to use and using digital. It's only a medium for telling stories. Me, I want to spend as little time as possible with digital cameras. I don't like them, even if my OCD tendencies don't always play well with working with film. And I don't mind having to struggle a bit with film cameras and film prices, I feel it adds something to my art even if only I can feel it. So it's just a personal preference. And combined with the fact that coating film is expensive and things are generally becoming ever more expensive, well, that's a choice I have to pay for. So choose what you find the best solution for you. It's okay to stick with digital.
  4. My experience with Kodak and their QA service during the past year has given me everything but the impression of elitism. Warm, thoughtful, generous - those are the words I'd rather use, as funny it might seem when speaking of a big corporation. On the price of film, while it is true that especially super-8 has become much more expensive than it was when I started shooting on film - back in the 2005 with Kodachrome 40 with processing included! - my impression regarding 16mm is that I'm nowadays able to make a project for less than I was a bit over a decade ago. Back then I produced and directed a short film I wanted to have shot on super16. It was 19 minutes long, I bought 9x400ft of Vision2 200T of which a couple of rolls were recans. Film related costs not including VAT were about 3600 โ‚ฌ. That was film, processing and HD telecine (to DVCAM & HDCAM!). Had I wanted to get files on hard drive from that post house, it would have cost โ‚ฌโ‚ฌโ‚ฌ. So I had to find someone studying in an institution with HDCAM to do online edit there and get those TIFFs on the hard drive for the grading. Now I can get more for less. At least previously this year 9x400ft of Vision3 with processing and technical HD telecine with files delivered online to me would have cost only 2340 โ‚ฌ. Quite a difference! And no need to play with those HDCAM tapes! Sure, the 2008 post house had comfy sofas and "free" Coca-Cola for us customers sitting watching the best light telecine (which ultimately was color tempwise opposite direction than what our DP wanted to take the project in the final grade) but I'm much happier with 2021 than I was with 2008. That was the time of elitism.
  5. Was this fresh film or some short end? I'm asking, because that really does look like it was exposed through the back, compare to these: https://microsites.lomography.com/redscalefilm/ Yours has same color and the under exposed look. With single perf 16mm it shouldn't be possible unless you had different winding. But if it's some short end or Aaton Minima film... Still, I'd think you'd notice if it wasn't the lighter emulsion side you saw when checking the gate. Quite weird.
  6. So Arriflex ST with a 400ft mag it is? ๐Ÿ˜… Phew, even a later model (1.5) Eclair ACL with 400ft mag feels a bit too big for me to carry around on walks! - but then again, I have always neglected doing muscle training! ๐Ÿ˜
  7. Very understandable! I wonder, would he be open to having his contact details on some of the ACL websites? I'm sure that in the future we are going to need people like him. Having someone on the European side of the Atlantic with knowledge on the ACL motor would be a big asset moving forward.
  8. Found the saved pages and the link! https://pouch4.wixsite.com/index/eclair Perhaps you could contact the person and ask for those circuit drawings and if we could put them online somewhere...
  9. You could ask AZ Spectrum - they repair those motors. A while ago I stumbled on a Russian website with reverse engineered circuit drawing of the motor electronics, but unfortunately I can't find the site now. I should have it saved on my computer somewhere...
  10. Perhaps Vision3 is weaker in this respect compared to Portra 400, but at least Portra can handle six stops of overexposure quite well: https://petapixel.com/2015/08/10/how-much-can-you-overexpose-negative-film-have-a-look/ Might Arriscan handle such densities?
  11. After having issues with my vintage O'Connor 30 and Eclair ACL, I went for 150mm bowl and a Sachtler head from the early 1980s. That head is intended for Arri 35, with option for removing the plate so that the bottom mounted motor fits. My first impressions have been that finally I have a sturdy enough support for my ACL. Pans and tilts are smooth. Granted, fully equipped with rods, matte box, follow focus etc. my ACL weighs around 9 kg so it's not the most lightweight 16mm camera anymore... ๐Ÿ˜‰
  12. I can't help but to wonder... with the resurgence of film photography, ever rising demand for film (https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/35mm-c41-film-selling-very-well.186557/page-3#post-2464820) and even FilmoTec preparing to enter color negative market to compete with Kodak in motion picture film stocks --- might we see such a day when Fuji returns to this market? ๐Ÿค”
  13. It could be either one - or both. Perhaps some people who have been previously renting have realized they are going to shoot 16mm so much that it's worth it to own a 16mm camera? Looking at different forums and Ebay it seems people (non-collector) have been buying 16mm cameras left and right.
  14. Film prices were raised last year, before pandemic in order to make an investment to increase capacity to meet the higher demand. https://parallaxphotographic.coop/kodak-film-price-increase-and-stock-availability/
  15. To be honest, I don't remember mine having been quite that dark ever. Definitely there is a spot, but not that strong one. But I might remember incorrectly, as my camera was modified by Bernie in 2016, light meter removed, ground glass cleaned & remarked for S16 and laser brightened.
  16. Could be related to shortages in acetate base? In still photography films Portra 800 and ColorPlus 200 are now on estar base due to it. Growing popularity of film might be having some effect too... As for MP stocks, Silbersalz35 has had shortages and delays, but no idea if they are related to lack of film stock.
  17. There are also these Zeiss lenses, 8mm 16mm and 25mm - you can find several of them on Ebay: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Zeiss-25mm-T2-2-Planar-Lens-Arri-Standard-/284165807125?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49286&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0 https://www.ebay.com/itm/Zeiss-16mm-f2-T2-2-Planar-Arriflex-standard-mount-2695832-/372170239523?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49286&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0 https://www.ebay.com/itm/Carl-Zeiss-8mm-f2-T2-4-Distagon-Arriflex-standard-mount-5546549-/371775805742?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49286&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0 I like them. The 8mm doesn't cover super16 and 16mm is so-so in covering, but with your 16s and standard 16 you won't have to worry about it :)
  18. I tried to dig some info for you, the best I came up is that - http://showreel.pt rents film cameras (including Arri SR3) so they might have some stock? - Cristina Pereira is the Kodak Sales agent for Portugal, she might know if there is some place selling Kodak 16mm film: Cristina Macedo Pereira Sales Agent Motion Picture and Entertainment Eastman Kodak Company Phone: +351 937 988 389 cristina.pereira@kodak.com Other than those, I only found one place selling super-8 cartridges...
  19. Yes, on top of the camera you'll find Arri locating pin holes and the screw hole. Plug and play.
  20. For the top carrying handle I can warmly recommend this one: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1542946-REG/smallrig_2165b_arri_locating_handle.html As for batteries, buy a holder for 10 AA size batteries and get Eneloop batteries for it. It's easy to build one. Then, for mounting it on the mags I recommend this instead of velcro: https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/dual-lock-reclosable-fasteners-us/
  21. Well, for some reason I feel it did look yellowish when I first got this camera but after Bernie did the laser brightening and also redrew the ground glass markings, it doesn't look yellow anymore. Can't say if the yellowness was in the vf or ground glass. Anyway, I find it hard to believe Angenieux would have used radioactive elements in viewfinders in the 1970s. I know only of Angenieux 15-150mm that has such radioactive lensing inside it (a friend, old DP told visiting a nuclear facility with it would set off alarms). But even my Angenieux 9.5-57mm for 16mm or the high end super-8 zoom with f1.2 doesn't contain any - and those rare earth minerals are really useful in the taking lens, because that affects the image on the film. So if even most of the professional lenses of the era made by Angenieux don't contain radioactive elements, why would they have used them in the viewfinders, where it is a) forbidden and b) not really that useful? My guess is that yellowing is due to something else. Could be as simple as cigarette smoke...
  22. But to put my findings in context, take a look at https://camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses That Switar seems very tame compared to some other lenses ๐Ÿฅต
  23. The Swiss secrets! ๐Ÿ˜ But surprisingly the 10mm isn't, so not all Switars are radioactive. f1.4 seem to be, since that has been reported on this forum in the past... ๐Ÿค”โ˜ข๏ธ
  24. Well, for someone who has tendency towards OCD such things do matter, it's not just some excuse. Some of us just tend to get affected by news stories of brain eating amoebas, knowledge of possible radiation and lead from solder (getting eaten by toddlers) ๐Ÿ˜… And then there are those of us, who have no issues with storing photographic chemicals on kitchen table, right next to food...
  25. Okay, I retested that way both the VF and the Switar: VF, nothing. Switar 16mm: 1.03 ยตSv/h. Don't hold that on your eye.....
×
×
  • Create New...