Ruben Arce

I think what you consider a "Cinematic look" is just good camera work. You may say, yes it looks very good but it looks digital or analog (not shot on film). What I see on those shots is a Betacam camera or DigiBeta camera operated by someone who knows what he/she what he/she's doing. What I see is a 29.76 of 30fps analog video, with not a lot of dynamic range, but still great shots. If you are trying to recreate that you may try using a small sensor camera, shoot at 29.76 or NTSC, and use good camera techniques, that's all it is. Take good shots with good framing, and lighting and it should look like that.

I bought a CP-16r just to try a few modifications on it, It came without a lens, battery and magazine so Instead of looking for a battery I decided to make my own. I'm using some of those rechargeable batteries and I'm getting 19.6v which is pretty close to the 20v that the camera needs. Those batteries are rated at 2200mAh vs the 500mAh on the original battery.That's a lot of footage, I guess thousands of feet. Since I didn't have a battery to begin with I 3D printed my own version, which has more space (still not much space) I got the banana connectors and I'm almost done with the design. I don't know how Gareth is charging those batteries, but seems like the amounts of cells you use and the volts are a limitation with chargers, but I'll figure it out. So yes it is possible, less expensive and you get more mAh than with the original battery. Be careful with the charger, I'm not an expert but I know you need different chargers for different battery chemistry, the wrong charger can damage the batteries or make them explode.

It's very common even in modern digital DSLRs that the viewfinder doesn't show 100% of the image the camera can capture. It was even more common with still and motion picture film cameras. The image looks centered to me so I wouldn't be worried about that. I used to have a Bolex and I didn't notice any play on the viewfinder, I guess that's unusual, but if you are getting usable in focus images I don't think that's a big issue neither.

Vojtech, I think Dom Jaeger already answered your questions and I totally agree with what he mentioned. I have seen those machined adapters that they use to recenter the lens to the S16 area, and I can tell you they are not exactly manufactured at the best standards. The one that I had when I converted my camera was rough and thicker than he original one. I used sand paper to reduce the distance and at some point I was able to focus to infinity, obviously I'm not saying that's the right way to do it, but if you really need the lenses to focus at infinity and you cannot send the camera to a technician that's an option. I don't want to spread misinformation, so maybe someone else can confirm or deny, but I know that when the flange distance is longer than it should be (45.46mm in this case) lenses won't focus at infinity, on the other side if the distance is shorter than it should be the lens will focus at infinity and you lose focusing space on the short distance.

Hi Tristan, I have an Angenieux viewfinder for the Eclair NPR, aesthetically it is in good condition for a piece of that time, but the image is at an angle of about 5 degrees. I have the theory that the camera fell from a tripod since my camera (the one that came with the finder) was a little bent too. I contacted a technician in LA and they told me Visual Products may be able to fix it. The viewfinder works, glass is clean and free of scratches and the image is there, just at an angle. It shouldn't be impossible to fix it. I have an orientable Cinema Products that work on the NPR too. PM me if interested. Thanks

I doubt the lens is damaged. What that person told you is pretty much the same I'm telling you. When the "Focal Flange Distance" changes the collimation is lost and a parafocal lens won't perform as expected. That doesn't mean the lens is damaged is just that the light rays are not converging at the exact distance they should. This issue is known as "Back Focus" on ENG cameras where the focal flange distance can be adjusted by a piece on the lens. In most cinema cameras that is not possible. A technician makes sure Focal Flange Distance is correct and your lenses should perform as expected. As I said before what you see is what you get. You mention you tried a couple of prime lenses and you didn't have any problem with those. What you see on the viewfinder is what film is going to capture. If you use the meteor on the same way, adjusting focus on a given position your images should be in focus, as soon as you zoom in or out that is going to change. Lenses sometimes lose the ability to focus to "Infinity" when the Focal Flange Distance is not correct (Depending on the current distance between the mount of the lens and the film plane) if the FFD is shorter you can focus to infinity, but you lose power on the close end. You can test the lenses viewing trough the viewfinder yes, and you can get usable in sharp images just by focusing at certain position and not using the zoom. If your lenses are not capable of focusing to infinity I would consider that a problem, but still you can survive without it. There is no way you can fix this issue. If you truly need the camera to be precise, get it serviced, which is a good idea any ways.

I would say that is exactly the problem. I'm not against converting cameras, actually I have converted a few including a K3, but you need to know that as soon as you remove the gate to widen it or replace the original mount you are changing the focal flange distance of the camera. Some people assume that this technique of zooming in, focusing and zooming back should always work and that is not the case. Not every lens is a "Parfocal Lens" to begin with, actually most modern still photography lenses are not parfocal and for that reason the image doesn't stay in focus when you zoom out. I understand the Meteor is a parfocal lens, but a lens must be perfectly collimated to the camera in order to perform as expected. I imagine you bought a camera from eBay that was already converted. Converting the camera is not difficult, but not everyone can set "focal distance flange" to the right distance. This doesn't mean you are not going to get images in focus, this just means that the lens is not going to perform well as a parfocal and if you try to set focus using the witness marks on the lens images are not going to be sharp in focus neither. You don't have to touch the spinning mirror shutter or the focusing distance to convert the camera, so if you see images in focus in the viewfinder, they should be in focus on your film. Try to fine tune the diopter to a point where you can see the grain on the focusing screen and you should be fine. If you really need the lens to work that way or to use witness marks on the lens take the camera to a technician and she/he can shim or machine the mount in order to get the focal flange distance right.

There is no such a thing as Super 16 film. There used to be single and double perforated. Most modern cameras (after WW2) take single perforated film and for years Kodak has been selling single perf mostly. If you have double perf film you can use it with most cameras, but if that camera has a S16 frame the image is going to be on that second line of perforations. The SR1 was designed to take single perf, so assuming that that specific SR1 has never been converted yes, you would get a 4:3 image. When using double perf on a R16 camera the extra space on the film remains unused. A SR1 can be converted to S16, so as you can see if you have single perforated film it will capture the aspect ratio that you camera has. Regular 16 if the camera is untouched, Super 16 if the camera was converted.

Thanks Simon, well I was thinking a fine file, then different grips of sand paper with water or oil and polish it at the end. I was curious about the reason for corners to be rounded that's all.

I understand you are a camera technician Simon. Would you say it's safe to carefully file corners to make them sharp? I'm not going to do it with my NPR, but I may do it if I convert a K3 again.

Simon Wyss, Now that you mention this... Was there a reason for manufacturers to make gates with rouded corners? Are sharp corners more prone to scratching? I know there is a reason for sprocket holes to have rouded corners and it totally makes sense talking about film, but I don't see a reason to don't have sharp corners on gates, and because of that roundness I loose a few pixel lines on my scans. I may be greedy, but when shooting with small formats that is important.

I have seen two versions of the gray Scoopic, one is very old and it doesn't have a focusing mark, but the newer version has it on the film compartment door. The trigger of the old version cannot be locked and it has only 3 screws on the tripod plate screw vs four on the other model. Both of them are gray Scoopics, but there are difference between them.

I just checked one old Scoopic (gray) that I have and I didn't see any difference when I changed the aperture. It's an old camera that I haven't tested, so it may be stuck as well, but I wen't from wide open to f22 and I didn't noticed any change.

Wow! incredible work Uli Meyer. Talk about amazing image quality, cameras, lenses, extremely clean scan, good cinematography, acting and beautifully composed images. I thought the prices going up on film cameras was my imagination, but by looking at your short film I can see why.