Heikki Repo

An example of this film shot with an Eclair ACL. I like the look of this film. [For the mystery problems concerning the camera this was shot with see discussions in Eclair subforum.]

Back to square one: At the moment I'd be really happy if I just found out where that exposed "window" is coming from. Yesterday I spent about an hour in a dark room with a bright led flashlight + a piece of paper taped to the gate area. I tried my best to find the internal reflection that would paint a light rectangle on the frame while still leaving out that narrow very clean cut area on the S16 area of the frame. I didn't find anything. There is nothing inside the camera that would make a clean cut narrow area of shadow on the frame when light is bouncing around. That is to say, at the moment I'm not really that interested in the cause of flicker. I'm interested in the cause of that weird rectangle of light. Since the cause isn't the blooper light, I have to continue looking for the cause. Next up: - New tests with the whole viewfinder inside a black bag to rule out all viewfinder related light leaks (in my opinion this is at the moment the most probable cause since it fits with the very bright daylight and the viewfinder could reflect a rectangle shaped area of light on the film frame. Also, I'm having problems with all lenses. Even when I'm using that 10mm lens that same rectangle flicker seems to appear... - New tests with black paper taped over the mirror to rule out problems not related to the mirror BTW, this test was shot with AGFA Aviphot 200 / Wittnerchrome 200D. I like the look.

Contax Zeiss lenses are quality glass. For lots of info on them... take a look at this discussion: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92044-Contax-Zeiss-Survival-Guide I have myself bought some Contax Zeiss lenses for my 16mm Eclair ACL. Mine aren't rehoused though, instead I use them with a C/Y to C-mount adaptor. But Adrian is correct. There is no way to know who did the rehousing and was it done correctly. You could, however, buy some Contax Zeiss in original C/Y mount and have it cinemodded/rehoused. You wouldn't be the first. The good thing about Contax Zeiss is that because it was made for SLR, it will cover not only S35 but also sensor sizes larger than that.

Now I'm officially proud of myself. Last week I decided to test the fix involving disconnecting the clapper lamp. Well, if something can go wrong it probably will. Disconnecting the whole connector set going to the leds and the lamp was quite straightforward. I have opened my camera base several times. This time, however, for some reason I wasn't able to connect the motor when putting the camera together. That 9-pin connector didn't want to connect. It was surprising, but considering that someone before me had cut some parts of it because the connector in the motor was also a little broken (the shell around the pins), looking back, it wasn't really that surprising. So there I was, trying desperately to connect the motor. And then it happened: one of the sockets in the camera twisted and broke. It was really a moment every camera owner whose camera tech lives in a different country doesn't want to live through. Especially since I soon found out that those Cannon ITT connectors -- which are still produced and used! -- aren't that common and easily obtained. Almost nobody had them available despite having them on their catalogues. Thank you Eclair for using special military spec. connectors intended for aviation and space operations! Somehow I was able to find an almost 1:1 replacement part and order with two other connectors from the US for $150. Today I received it and after some five hours of first chipping parts of plastic from the connector to make it fit and then carefully soldering all the wires going to the old connector to this new connector's wires I have my camera running again. Lesson to be learned: be really careful with your old milspec connectors... As for the flickering, I decided to cut the clapper lamp wire. While doing that I measured the voltage going to the lamp. Pushing the clapper switch made it jump. However, what's really interesting is that there was a little amount of voltage even when the clapper was disabled from the switch. I wouldn't really be surprised if the amount of voltage is just enough to affect the film. But we'll know for sure quite soon: now that my camera is up and running again, I'll shoot some tests tomorrow and have them processed and transferred by the end of the week.

You could try this: http://library.creativecow.net/articles/stewart_g_allen/1970_tv_effect.php

Wittner Cinetec (Germany) sells 200ft day light spools "Kameraspule 16mm - 60m" http://wittner-kinotechnik.de/katalog/04_filmm/16_filmm.php

Well, there are many options. I myself think 16mm would make your life easier since the camera and film don't weigh as much. There are many options: - ARRI SR, not the lightest but probably a camera that won't give you too much headache. Also with SR2 or SR with VSU you have lots of options for different frame rates - Eclair ACL, with heavy duty motor you have frame rates up to 75 although not stepless. The c-mount allows using many different lenses. Switars are very light weight but really deliver sharp images. I own a S16 modified ACL and I like it, although I have had some problems with mine. It uses both 400ft and 200ft mags, very handy. - Eclair NPR, not as lightweight as ACL but has been used on many documentary projects. Also has c-mount and 400ft mags. Depending on the motor there are different framerates available. 2-lens turret. Some have converted NPRs to S16, others to U16. Some people like Bolex but I wouldn't choose one. In my opinion it is a bit difficult camera to hold in hand.

For the record, here's the earlier clip which I haven't yet posted here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M82igSqcOlI I have shoot footage with my three different magazines: 400ft, another 400ft and one 200ft. Of those three mags I had problems with one and had it serviced during the S16 conversion of the camera. Let's call those mags mag A (serviced 400ft), B (400ft) and C (200ft). The film I posted in October was shot with C. The film I posted yesterday was shot with A (first part) and C (second part). The film in this message was shot with B (first part) and A (second part).

The results are in! First of all, I got to say ORWO UN54 looks absolutely beautiful in S16 processed as negative. :) Now then, for your viewing pleasure (please watch in HD to see all the flickery fun): So what was this shot with? 1. Switar 10mm 2. Yvar 75mm 3. Contax Zeiss 28mm, light baffle from black tape 4. Contax Zeiss 50mm, light baffle from black tape 5. Contax Zeiss 50mm, light baffle from black tape and the internal filter removed Second half of the film was shot with Zeiss 50mm and Switar 16mm (most of it). Now then, flicker. It is in weird places, such as the first clip which is shot with 10mm Switar that only barely covers S16 frame. What's even more difficult to understand is why there is such a clear rectangle there that is flickering and overexposed compared to the right hand side of the frame? Well, it could be just light doing something weird within my camera but exhibit #2 -- 4:55. Switar 16mm. First there is this exposed rectangle of flicker and then it just ... disappears? Same happens in 5:22. Add to this the fact that even though I have some really strong lens flares, the flicker isn't in those flares unlike in the "Magic Summertime". Instead it is that box, like in 00:43. Well, now I feel rather confident that this problem is solved by removing the clapper light. Oh and come to think of it, I did play with the clapper switch during shooting the second part of this film...

Well, if it's only the image circle causing problems with flares it's rather easy to work around. To quote myself from an earlier message in this thread: And since that problem shouldn't be there with my Switars (10mm and 16mm) I guess I can also do some flare-y vimeo hipster clips -- I just can't use SLR lenses or 75mm Yvar for that purpose ;) But soon I'll know more.

Flicker on the left hand side flare, 00:06 Gate flare, 01:23 Flicker on the left hand side upper corner, 02:15 Flicker on the left hand side flare, 02:55 Flicker and gate flare, 03:27-03:36

I have been doing some further research on this issue. First of all, the shiny gate: that problem was there even before the conversion to S16, I just hadn't realized it. I thought they were only some funky lens flares by Switar. As for the adapter, that's probably the chief cause of large internal reflections as many of you have mentioned. As a first remedy I used some black tape as a light baffle -- no reflections anymore. As for the flicker I'll know if it was only caused by internal reflections quite soon. I have shot some B&W test material which should be processed and telecined tomorrow. However, if there is still some flicker my next step will be disconnecting the clapper light and LEDs. As you can see in this photo http://s9.postimg.org/r69v7n8qj/f032702.jpg there is a narrow unaffected area on the right hand side of the screen. One ACL owner contacted me and told he had bad flicker problems as well and supplied me an example screenshot which had that same narrow area on the right hand side. His problem turned out to be related to the clapper light and the fix was just disconnecting it -- as surprising as that sounds. Anyway, it seems these flicker problems (or the shiny gate) aren't that uncommon at all with S16 Eclair ACLs: Even here, 00:25 Are there any S16 ACL users who do not have this issue? :)

Just bought some paint: http://www.gerdneumann.net/english/instrument-building-parts-teile-fuer-den-fernrohrbau/totmatte-schwarze-optikfarbe-deep-black-optical-paint.html

Okay, got around my camera to take a look inside. First of all, the adapter for Contax to C-mount is black, but it could be more matt black. However, the prize of reflectiveness goes to.... shiny gate! Look at that shiny piece of black painted but oh so reflective gate. Considering that the reflection in the photo in my post above comes from the top of the frame (=bottom of the gate) and there is a narrow area not affected, I guess we might have a winner?

Okay, I finally got the film transferred. It doesn't look good at all. 1) There are huge internal reflections in my camera (the lens used is Contax Zeiss 28mm -- both Zeiss 28mm and 50mm were really bad. This time though 75mm Yvar didn't flare at all. Weird.) Removing the filter holder and taping the top shut didn't help -- on the contrary, the reflections might have even gotten worse. 2) Those huge internal reflections make the flicker very easy to see. As for the shock absorber -- I didn't have this kind of flicker problem before S16 modification: Next I'm certainly going to go once more through my camera and try to find the non-matte black which could be reflecting something. After that it'll be tests with a matte in the in-camera filter holder. Is there anyone there who has had this problem with their ACL and fixed it with success?

I'm quite positive that 16mm film is going to stay with us for a very long time. While no one knows how long Kodak is going to stay with us, there are also other, smaller companies providing 16mm film. This includes both black and white and color (FilmFerrania). As long as there is demand there will be supply in some form.

Still waiting for results. The lab I use moved and had a longer pause in processing. The test films have now been processed but now I'm waiting for their new scanner to be finished before having them scanned...

Wittner is good for reversal film but if one is looking for negative film stocks for gauges wider than super-8 -- not really. If you are located in UK you can buy Kodak film here http://take2films.co.uk/stores/filmstock/ and cheap Fuji 16mm stock is available here http://filmstockclearance.com/

We are discussing this article already here: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=62442

The comments below the article are certainly worth reading. The article is seems to concentrate on film as mainstream acquisition and distribution in motion picture industry -- and as such it does paint a bit too grim picture of film's future in general. Film might be going away the same way vinyl went away in the beginning of the 90s when almost everybody wanted to get rid of their collections and replace them with CDs. And now it has made a come back to mainstream, even if it isn't everyone's choice: http://www.nme.com/news/daft-punk/72640 There are still many companies other than Kodak manufacturing film. While Harman Ilford doesn't manufacture motion picture film at the moment, it is an example of a company adjusted to current situation on the market. Their sales of film are now stable. (Harman Ilford: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/home.asp ) Black and white film is going to be with us for a long time. As for color, I sure do hope that Film Ferrania succeeds. At the moment there is a niche for them to fill: there are no companies manufacturing E-6 color reversal on acetat base for motion picture use. While there might not have been enough demand for E-6 motion picture film stock to start Kodak's large coating machines, Film Ferrania is using much smaller machines and thus is better prepared for smaller demand without the same economical preconditions that Kodak has.

Super-8 cartridges and film are still produced by Kodak so not everything is made by third party.

You can travel with film but NEVER put it in the checked luggage (= luggage that goes in to the cargo hold). Those x-ray scanners are powerful and will almost definately ruin your film. Hand luggage -- the luggage you can take with you when boarding the plane -- should be safe as those x-ray scanners are usually much weaker. Kodak suggest their film material should never be x-rayed. Unfortunately that isn't always possible. However, if you follow the guideline mentioned above you should be safe in most cases.

The big question regarding what Alain wrote about is of course what kind of projects he is talking about. Is it a commercial project, aimed at bringing profit? If it is, using someone else's work for free while you get to collect the profit just isn't right. However, not everything is about profit or getting paid. People have hobbies -- they can be amateurs in the good old sense of doing something out of love instead of getting paid to do that. Obviously it can be quite difficult to do something for hobby if you do the same thing for living. I certainly blame no professional for not doing for free what they do for living. But then again, some might like to do it occasionally if some project interests them and gives them something they might not get from paid work. And that might be just the feeling one gets when doing some really artsy but fun stuff that no-one in their right mind would want to fund due to the project being commercially unviable. Also -- at least here in Finland working for someone is defined in such way that the employer has the right to oversee the work and the work is done with employer's tools. There is also a contract made. In a hobby project -- while someone might be a producer in the sense of paying for the equipment and refreshments -- the project isn't really based on anyone overseeing the work done by others. There are no obligations for those involved and no repercussions if one leaves the project. It is a project that everyone should want to do just in order to achieve something artistic or just have some good time. I'd guess Alain was talking about projects like this, no?

In my experience it's CD now that is at least in a sense under threat of disappearing. If one wants digital music one can either stream it or download it directly to one's player, why buy any media. Vinyl on the other hand has made a comeback to many department stores here in Finland. Not a surprise really, it's different media compared to digital...

It'd be interesting to see this in HD and without the old film effect added in post.