Heikki Repo

Hello everyone, for some time now I have been trying to find answer to this question of mine. Unfortunately despite all googling around and searching this forum and other forums with a dedicated base of filmshooters, I haven't been able to find answers that'd help me forward. Now then, to describe the setting: I own an Eclair ACL (R16). In my possession are also following lenses (all C-mount lenses non-reflex): Kern Switar 10mm, Kern Yvar 75mm, Som Berthiot Cinor 20mm, Som Berthiot Cinor 25mm and Angenieux 9.5-57mm (non-HEC) zoom. I own two adapters for mounting Arri S lenses to this camera. The question I have been wondering is what options do I have concerning the lenses. I'd like to have a set of good primes, but ultimately my question is, are there cheap primes that would be sharper than the Angenieux zoom I already own but at the same time still cheap? I have no idea of the quality of the Cinors I own (but I suspect not too good since I got them for free with the Bolex I own..). I also own a good set of Olympus OM Zuikos and an adapter could be bought, but then again -- can 35mm still lenses compete with the Angenieux I own? I also wonder about the look different lenses have. The 10mm Switar seems to be quite good lens and from some examples I have seen I do like the way it draws. Should I want to build a set of lenses around that look, what options do I have? So to sum it up: 1) Are there cheap primes for Eclair ACL? 2) If there are, are they any better than Angenieux 9.5-57mm? 3) Should I want to have (cheap) primes that make image that can be cut with Switar 10mm images, what lenses should I look for? Many thanks in advance and sorry for the frustration this topic might cause -- I know the space between the two (cheap and better than) is quite narrow but that's exactly why I'm turning to you who have more experience than I do! ;)

Greg, I'm aware of Les Bosher. The services he offers (and at what prices!) seem wonderful. If I had the funds I'd certainly convert my ACL to S16 and buy PL adapter. Regarding the lubing -- I wasn't given detailed explanation, but the tech told that lubing could be done to Eclair, but that he doesn't suggest it, because then there would be the risk that the lube would become stiff in cold (this is Finland, so we have had our share of -20 C, even one day -26 C during this winter. Mostly though just -8 to -16 C).

I contacted our local rental house and their tech for details concerning servicing my Eclair ACL. They serviced the camera I now own some decade or one and a half ago for the owner before me. Their answer? Not worth the cost. Estimated that if the camera was serviced some ten years ago (and removed from use in a working state) it'd run just fine the next two decades. Didn't think that lubing was a good idea either even if possible, because that might increase problems when shooting in cold. What I could gather from the answer was that at least Eclair ain't so fragile as a LTR. Sure, I have to run some tests to test the stability of the mags, but that's not bad. And if I ever have some really important footage to capture, I think I'm just better off renting a camera with PL mount and some lenses to fit it (vs. shooting with an old Eclair and C-mount lenses!).

I'd vote for renting as well. The thing is, unless you have lots of commercial projects, there is no point in owning an expensive video equipment. The only cameras I own are either film cameras or really old video cameras for some specific look -- I have gotten them for quite little money and they don't lose value the same way video cameras do. Video cameras are best rented: you get the newest thing and it won't be sitting on your shelf waiting to become obsolete and lose value. If you must buy some video equipment for occasionally taking video around the town, buy Canon 550D. It's cheap, the memory for it is cheap and you get to buy cheaper lenses for it. Here's some work I shot for a client last May with a rented 550D+Zacuto finder+50mm+shoulder set (I also had follow focus, but the 50mm lens didn't work with it so I didn't use it): https://vimeo.com/41726339

According to some sources the decision to cut E-6 film was made by people not in Kodak but by people steering the process of Kodak emerging from chapter 11 -- that is, a control group. Apparently the price changes were also driven by them. Sad for E-6, but if this helps the company to return and keep manufacturing film, it's far better option than Kodak stopping all film business.

For something dead, I surely enjoyed loading my Eclair ACL yesterday. In the other news, a friend of mine has almost finished building his 16mm film processing unit (some video footage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLM9-F370bU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfV_p-mijwM 2K scanner with Kodak CCD under construction by the same guy. So, as long as somebody is manufacturing 16mm film, this process certainly ain't dead for us. ;)

"Fuji says the discontinuation date has not been determined. Products to be eliminated include Color Positive Film, Color Negative Film, B&W Positive/Negative Film, Intermediate Film, Sound Recording Film, and High Contrast Panchromatic Film. But the company says it isn’t closing the entire motion picture department. It will continue to provide archive film stock (ETERNA-RDS, which won the Academy Scientific Engineering Award in 2012), lenses for shooting cameras and screening devices, media for data storage, digital data archive services and its on-set color management system (Image Processing System IS-100)." http://www.deadline.com/2012/09/fuji-discontinue-motion-picture-products/

They'll be continuing the production, but they are looking for a buyer. And to be honest, I think this might be the best thing to happen to Kodak still film -- this way there is at least the possibility that some smaller company dedicated to film business will buy it and take good care of it. Under current Kodak CEO there are no great things promised for film: it's printers and commercial printing he sees as the future of Kodak. So I for one hope for the best -- something that happened to Ilford bw films (was bought by Harman and is now thriving). And yes: commercial film doesn't include any still film. Only such things as medical films, aerial photography, and industrial imaging.

I can assure you there are such people involved in Lumiera process. The reason for the website to look like it was made for engineers instead of artists is to make sure no useless hype is generated. There really isn't point in having large quantities of people rushing in asking "is this ready yet" and have them disappointed when the project is proceeding the pace it can with people doing it on their own time. But I certainly like it that way. There are way too many websites made by artists who have no idea about coding. They give grandiose promises and never deliver them. In comparison to that engineer-oriented developer page is exactly what is needed until it is finished.

A bit off-topic, but since realizing that Cinelerra can't be fixed, there has been going on for some years an effort to write a good professional NLE from scratch. No cheesy filters, no 'export directly to youtube' kind of stuff. Only problem is of course that it is progressing rather slow because the project requires long term commitment and at this point lots of under the hood work which doesn't seem to attract too many developers. Might be related to the mentioned problem of people wanting to do fun stuff... Please see this page for more information about Lumiera: http://lumiera.org/ (as for their plans and how it is progressing, please see their rather promising and realistic roadmap: http://issues.lumiera.org/roadmap) I myself believe that opensource projects can be useful. I run Gentoo Linux myself on most of my personal computers. Unfortunately as it comes to editing there really hasn't been OSS that is stable enough and supports professional workflows yet. I know my way around console and commands, but when I'm editing a movie, I hope the tool does what it should and that I don't have to spend my time trying to find why the software is giving me a segmentation fault... For the Apertus project I wish all the best -- I have been following your progress from time to time and I'm certainly interested in seeing where your project is heading.

Well, it seems that I was somewhat wrong -- there was something along the lines of Complete16 before: Sweet16mm. However, that deal doesn't seem to be available anymore and it looks like it was restricted to music videos and commercials. Sweet16mm in the Internet Archive

I'm surprised Kodak doesn't have anything to compete with Fuji on these grounds -- at least not outside US. Here in Europe there are Fuji's Complete16 and Film Stock Clearance. Kodak on the other hand doesn't even have a web store for us to buy film from...

Okay, I just had to cut a second piece from the material: The cause of the ghost image problem was also found: apparently a guiding pin which kept the cartridge in its place had worn out and broken at some point. Because of this it has been possible for the cartridge to have moved a little during shooting, which has resulted in the ghost image when shooting with slower speeds. Björn replaced the cartridge compartment and now it should be okay. Just have to test it well before the next shoot! :)

Yes, I have to say hadn't before heard about making a distinction between scene-to-scene and best light. However, even then doing an one light transfer and then doing a best light transfer according to EDL is very good idea if there is lots of material. It's quite often possible to fit 50 minutes of transferred material to one hour with one light, but only 20 minutes when doing best light. Going for a scene-to-scene correction gets expensive rather quickly when one hour of HD telecine runtime costs 500-700 €...

I guess there are differences between different parts of world, but around here (Finland) one light means running the film with same settings and best light having a setting for each different light set-up, so that the transfer is good to go for online edit and later tape-to-tape grading, where the final look is achieved and each scene is matched to each other. I think it's best just to get a good neutral transfer. Complete16 allows you to have your transfers as prores422, which should take you far enough. You then cut the film on your workstation and have the final grade for the film done somewhere else. That way you get a good final look and don't have to pay for expensive telecine time. We passed some seven hours doing an attended best light transfer of 100 minutes of material because we got too excited and wanted to give some initial ideas where to take the colors. In the end, the final grade of the movie was something entirely different, and we might have saved two hours by keeping our mouths shut during the telecine. Luckily we got a good discount and were billed only for five hours... So my suggestion is if you shoot S16: get a neutral looking best light, cut the film and then pay for final grade. It will be probably cheaper and at the same time you get a good final look for your film (tracked shadows/lights, etc.).

I just found this short film, which is apparently shot on 16mm Kodachrome and ORWO stock: http://vimeo.com/31523919 It doesn't say whether it is UN54 or N74, but it sure does look good to me :)

Just a project I got finished today. Thanks to Cinelicious for great telecine service! Shot on Vision3 & Vision2 200T & 500T with Beaulieu 4008 ZM. The camera had very bad registration problem despite being serviced just before the shoot. Have to find out the cause and get it fixed. Luckily it fit this project and wasn't too big problem. Anyway, here's the link: http://vimeo.com/31616632 Enjoy! :)

A friend of mine has built a 16mm film scanner, which should be able to transfer ultra16 as well. At the moment only the first version is ready, but he is improving the design and hopes to have the second version running by the end of the year. Not a pro lab, but might be one option. Located in Finland. In this web folder http://www.students.tut.fi/~alhonena/scanner/ there are some photos of the system he has built and also some transfer examples (avi files, the film examples he has transferred are rather low quality so not the best examples unfortunately). Specs for the scanner ver. 1: Film: 16 mm bw & colour, positive & negative film. Scanned area: approx. 15 mm wide area, can zoom in to scan smaller area (2K also for reg16) Type: Filmi transfer 1 pixel (~15 um) at a time. Light: RGB LED, R = 2 x 1 W 660 nm, G = 2 x 3 W, B = 2 x 3 W 450 nm. Gate: Curved to ensure good focus. Film touches only borders. CCD: Sony ILX751 2048 px BW-CCD. Dmax: At least 3.2 Fill rate: X 88 %, Y 100% Resolution: 2048 x 1200 48-bit (16 bit/channel) linear RGB, 1:1:1. ~4000-6000 dpi. Scan speed: 1,5 seconds per frame.

This seems to give some answers: Bloomberg -- Kodak Said to Weigh Bankruptcy Filing; Shares Plunge

By the time super-8 color negative film is gone this KineRAW-S8 has been outdated for years...

Okay, sounds good plan. Last piece on the puzzle: telecine? Are the only places doing U16 transfers Cinelicious, Bonolabs and Cinelab? Anything on this side of the ocean? :) Or would it be just easier to take the super16 route? I own two newer non-reflex Bolex H16s and primes for them, nice stuff for relaxed MOS work...

Does anyone know if there are any labs that support Ultra16 in Europe? I guess converting a non-reflex Bolex to U16 wouldn't require much work, but sending all films for lab work and transfer to other side of the world...? :)

Many thanks for the suggestions. The project is shot on 16mm, not S16. The end product will be at this time DVD, but taking a HD telecine later on might be possible. The project is a semifictious historical drama, set into beginning of 20th century, and I'm trying to achieve kind of warm and clear look, certainly nothing gritty :) Renting more lights isn't really a big problem, since there aren't that many shooting days. I guess I'll just have to do more research on how I'm going to build up my set lightings before deciding on the stock. Many thanks, you all have been most helpful even giving those estimations :)

Hello! I'm starting a low budget 16mm short film production, and now I'm having the problem which stock should I select for my film. The thing is, I need to shoot both interiors and exteriors, the latter being mostly shot during early morning and day in August (quite lot of light here in Finland even at that time of the day) and the former during day and evening in rooms with large windows facing East, but mostly lit with movie (tungsten) lights. I'd prefer shooting on one stock because of my small budget, and then filter for exteriors. I have been thinking about shooting on 7217, but the question remains, do I have enough light? Or, if wish to shoot on 7217, would I need more lights? I have at my disposal Arrilite 2000W and 2x800W. The interiors are quite small, at most 5m x 5m. As it isn't possible for me to go and setup the lights well in advance to test my settings, and I have to buy recans from other country, I'd really need at least some estimates, whether: a)rent more lights b)buy 7218 for my production Many thanks in advance!

Here is an English site with most important things described (not very indepth): http://lavender.fortunecity.com/lavender/5...s800manual.html And here you can find the scanned German manual, zip file: http://www.filmshooting.com/manuals/nizo_braun.php