Ruben Arce

That's kind of what I was expecting. Adding a video tap can still be helpful, since you can put the marks on a monitor with tape or something fancier, it would't be universal, but let's you work and frame properly at least.

Thanks Carl, I definitelly would like to know more about that project you are working in. I'm getting good result with some inexpensive cameras too, not even HD, but they work fine if you only want a monitor and they cost less than $20. I'll send you some pictures later.

Hi Carl, I have a NPR in exactly the same situation, and I want to install a camera on it too. I was thinking about using the camera most of the time and establishing marks on the monitor with actual guidelines after testing with film, but if you can find someone who can do it, I'd be interested in knowing more if you want to share that info.

That'w awesome. I remember my other camera's light meter being very accurate. The rubber part just moves the mechanism of the iris so if the meter is in good condition the needle will reflect it. My current camera is in like new condition too, I bought it on eBay too and I'm very happy about it. I just emailed those guys and I asked if they can fix the meter, but my main concern with these jewels that I'm finding an investing in is getting the CLAd (clean, lubricated and adjusted) so I asked if they can service the camera as well. I have 2 other S16 and U16 cameras now and I have paid much more for getting them serviced than what I paid for the cameras, but I want them to last, and who knows if there is going to be possible to find someone to service them in the future. Good luck with the tests, I'd like to see them if you want to share the results.

Those are good news David, I'm glad you asked Chambless about the repair. I already contacted them to get a quote and I'm glad to hear your camera is working fine now. I still think you have the same problem to an extent, but fresh batteries allow the motor to fight the weight of the part and makes it work. I have seen that motor and it's a small one, nothing compared to the one actually moving the film mechanism. Maybe the amount of effort the motor is putting on moving that (probably sticky) part is a factor on the fast power consumption. Thanks for the info.

Wow that is great! That repair manual has a lot of extremely detailed information. As I mentioned before I had another R10 like 5 years ago with exactly the same problem, I tried to find someone to fix it and I couldn't find anyone so I decided to give it a try myself. I do some work on my cameras and some photo cameras, so I did it. It's not really difficult but you have to remove the cover on top of the knobs and since they are made of aluminum they bend and they don't look the same. You have to remove the leatherette and since it has been there for 40 years it's hard to do it without damaging it, even if you do it really carefully the leatherette is going to stretch and it won't fit the same later. After that you remove a few screws and you can pretty much see the mechanism and it is pretty obvious to figure how it works. The problem is there is a rounded piece made out of rubber and after 40 years they just "liquify" they look like asphalt, very sticky and black. In order to make the camera work I had to replicate the part but that part moves some small pieces made out of copper and those are the ones that open or close the aperture. That same rubber part is connected to a small motor which is the one that controls the auto aperture, so if you can fix one you are fixing the two modes. I made the camera work, but the part that I made kept falling, I kept replacing it and at some point I broke one of those copper parts and that was it. I sold the camera for parts on eBay. Around a month ago I got another one and this one is in like new condition, but with the same problem. Now that I have the repair manual (I have to study it) I'm going to try to replicate the part in a better way, maybe get it 3D printed or something. I'm going to document (video) the process and if I can find a good way to fix it I'll share the results.

Hey David, I have a Nikon R10 with the same problem, but mine doesn't move at all. I was going to fix it myself since I had one before and I was able to make it work, but if somebody already have the process figured out and the parts I wouldn't mind having that person doing it right instead of me experimenting with the camera. Is Kirk going to help you with your camera? Can he fix them? Thanks in advance.

Lens SOLD.

Hi peeps, I just posted this lens on eBay, so if you are looking for a C-mount lens that will cover the S16 frame here is one. I only ship to the lower 48 United States. https://www.ebay.com/itm/153231296621 Thanks for looking

Roko, I'll send you an email. I like sharing info publicly specially when it comes to rare or old cameras so other people can use the information too, but I guess this thread is closed since now we know no active technician in LA works on the NPR which is sad.

It was nice to watch the trailer, I have to say it looks really nice and certainly it doesn't looks a lot like 35mm but grainy. It's hard to judge by viewing the trailer on YouTube. IMDB says it was shot with Arriflex 16mm cameras.

Lars Preisser, I have learned a few things since I started this thread. Personally, I don't like using old stock. Even if it was refrigerated since day one film has an aging process and it's well known that it's going to translate into more noticeable grain. Considering that Vision 3 has been around for more than 10 years you might be talking about film that is 20 or 25 years old, that definitelly it's going to make the grain more noticeable. Perception: If you compare films shot on Kodak Vision 3 with fresh stock it will definitely look different. Vision 3 is known to have a really fine grain structure. You may be thinking that your film has a lot of grain but that may be the nature of Vision film, add the years and condition of storage... Exposing the film: I used to shoot 35mm stills and I used to have good results, but when you have a smaller format like 16mm you are going to start noticing things that were not that obvious before. I learned that it's a good idea to increase (over expose) exposure by half or a full stop and a lot of people do it in order to get more information and less grain in the shadows. Now, when you use new old stock film you are supposed to compensate for that aging process for half or a full stop depending on how old it is and storing conditions. If you didn't compensate for the old stock and you didn't increase your exposure intentionally to get cleaner shadows you may be 2 stops under, and that would definitely make your footage grainy. Shutter Angle: You mention that you got very different results out of the two cameras even when you were using the same light meter. A mistake that a lot of people make is to assume that the shutter angle of their cameras is 180° I did a quick research and I found that the Eclair ACLII has a 175° wich is equivalent to 1/49th of a second in still photography. The shutter angle on the Bolex is very different. The bolex H16 has a shutter angle of 133° which is equivalent to 1/65th of a second in still photography. If you assumed that the shutter angle of your cameras was 180° you were wrong, it was pretty close in the case of the Eclair, but that's 1/3 of a stop compared to the Bolex. Is not a huge difference in any case, but you are adding factors that set you apart from ideal exposure. Lab & Scanner: The lab can affect the grain structure of a film. When you process film at home you can make it more or less grainy just by shaking the developing tank more or less. If you sent your film to a professional lab I don't think that's a factor, but it definitely can be in some cases. Inexpensive scanners and inexperienced technicians can definitely make your film more grainy. I have some films scanned that have a lot of RGB pixels and it looks horrible. When labs try to give you a 1080p file out a native 720p scanner for example you will see more of that digital noise that combined with film grain can look ugly. When I get my film scanned I ask for best light or medium gray and if I made a mistake and under or over-exposed a shot it will show up in the video file. I used a package one when a couple of years ago that included film, processing and scan from a lab, it was not the most professional lab and in order to make me happy they "corrected" a shot that I underexposed by 2 or 3 stops. When my friend saw the footage told me "Hey remember that shot you thought it was under... I was not" I knew it was underexposed and when I saw the footage I noticed that the lab increased exposure to make it look good, but it had a horrible green tint and ugly grain in the shadows. It talks about how great Kodak Vision 3 is and how it can handle over and underexposure, but that doesn't mean it's ideal. I hope that helps, it would be better to see the footage in order to make comments, but those are general points that you can take into consideration when shooting film. I don't know how experienced you are, so just my grain of salt.

I was waiting to see your reply because I have an Eclair NPR that needs to be serviced too and I'm going to drive to LA soon. I knew that technicians in LA don't work on the NRP but I was hopeful. I had to bite the bullet and pay $100 just to send the camera package to Bernie in NY. I mean I'm glad about Bernie who is known as the best Eclair camera technician working on my camera, what I say is $200 just for shipping can be a lot on a camera that doesn't generate money for me at this time. Good Luck with your camera, good to know that Visual Products serviced them too.

Thanks Bengt Fredén, That's quite a machine. I always fantasized with the idea of converting my K3 to Nikon. Sounds like you have a great set up, you should give it a try. The Sekonic L-758 Cine is a great tool, you definitely should use that one instead of using the one on the K3. I have a 558 Cine and it works great for me, and man I'm excited about Ektachrome too. There is nothing like getting film proceseed and scanned in the mail, but projecting the film would be awesome.

I know this is going to sound dumb, but I have an Eclair NPR camera and I cannot find the serial number on it. I removed the motor, I looked all over the place and I couldn't find it. This specific unit was modified by Les Bosher, so they may have removed the plate or something. They changed the tourret and maybe the serial number was there. I want to send the camera to service and it would be nice to know what the serial number is so I can have more info about the camera. Thanks

Working on the K3 is very easy. I used a file to convert my regular 16mm into a S16. I purchased the re-centering ring and it was super easy to replace that one too. Removing the loop formers was super easy too. Making the camera scratch free and light leaks free wasn't that easy, but it wasn't impossible. It really helps if you can process film at home, so you can test the camera. I polished the gate, the pressure plate and guides using a hand tool that I purchased at Harbor Freight for $10. It takes lot's of patience and for sure you are going to loose collimation of the lens mount, so your lenses (m42) are going to work but forget about using measure tape to set focus. What you see is what you get. I tested, processed, tested, processed and studied the position of the S16 extra room till it became second nature and when I shot a roll it wasn't really difficult to preview what I was capturing. I messed so much with the camera that it became shaky, but I learned so many things and it gave me great footage. I really appreciate the extra real state that S16 gives me compared to regular 16. I can get 2k scans and I'm not loosing 40% of the image/ quality. Always use gaffe tape to tape around the joints, practice and learn how to load the camera in total darkness so you can take advantage of your film. I don't have the K3 anymore, but it was a great camera that thought me a lot. Super takumar and other M42 lenses are great. I shot this using a k3, a tripod and a few M42 lenses. Warp stablization in Premiere Pro is your friend... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk--YGrMJIQ&t=6s

You will have to learn some technical details if you don't know them already in order to understand what's going on with your film. I'm going to start saying that Black and White film is a great film but latitude or the dynamic range of this film is not as much as you can expect out of Kodak Vision 3 (color) stocks. ASA 400 can be grainy specially if you are underexposing film. It is a good practice to over expose film by half stop, but you won't be able to do it unless you use the camera in manual mode. I really appreciate what Pro 8mm is doing to keep film alive, but I have to say that's not the best lab around and the films that I have seen including one they processed and scanned for me have a lot of dirt on them. Other labs are way cleaner so you don't see all those dust spots on your film. It looks like your camera is scratching the film. You have to be really careful if you want to get professional results. You have to clean the gate, make sure there are no dust or hair in there before loading the S8 cassette. Now the biggest problem I see with your film is it is out of focus. If what you see trough the lens looks sharp in focus, but the film doesn't, that means the focal flange of your camera is not accurate. Unfortunately we don't know were these cameras have been before or if the camera was dropped. Maybe the camera was dropped on a soft surface like carpet so it has "impact damage" that changed the focal flange distance of the lens, but you don't see anything wrong with the camera. The out of focus situation it's going to be worst when you use the macro option, or when you shoot something at wide open apertures like f1.4 or f2.0 on your lens. I have a similar experience with a really cool, top of the line Nikon R-10 camera. It looked like is was in great condition, but I noticed something on the top part of the camera that looked like "Impact Damage" and it was the case. When I shot this film I remember everything was sharp in focus, but when the film came back from the lab it wasn't in focus. I tested 3 cameras with one cartridge. The first camera was the Nikon R-10 (0:00- 01:21) the second one was a Sankyo and the 3rd one was a Canon like the one you have (01:43 - 02:05). I shot this a few years ago and I remember I sent the film to Yale in Santa Clarita, CA to be scanned and another guy in Oregon scanned it for me using his Universal Scanner. It looks pretty clean to me, to be a home scan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLmVWWSY8VQ&t=2s I have seen several films of the guy you are using as example. He has some of the best films you can see online using Super 8 cameras and if you pay attention to this particular film it is a sunny day, which means he was shooting at small apertures like f8 or f11. That increases the depth of field and makes images look sharper. That's another reason to learn how to use cameras in manual mode. I think the focal flange distance of your camera is not accurate and unfortunately it is very difficult to find a technician who can or want to work on S8 cameras.

Looks great, beautiful color and texture. The Scoopic is very stable for a non professional camera. I got my Scoopic MS serviced and converted to U16 by Bernie too, I haven't tested it because I want to shoot something elaborated.

The focal flange of M42 is 45.46 mm, the focal flange of Nikon F mount is 46.50 mm, so it is technically possible, but not as easy as using an adapter. I used to have a K3 I had a Nikon adapter and nikon lenses and it was like a telescope, lenses don't behave as normal but as magnifiers, now If you know how to do machining or if you want to spend the money to pay a machinist it's a fairly easy job to create a hard mount for nikon and even EF mount lenses. You can even buy an adaptor for nikon, remove the mount and you don't need to machine that part from scratch, just adapt it to the camera, make sure the focal flange is correct (Collimated) and the lens should work. I was thinking about buying a k3 to do that, but I got an Eclair NPR which is pretty cool and I abandoned the idea. I invested in a set of Rockinon DS lenses and I like shooting film, as I mentioned before I have a NPR and the camera has a PL mount and a C mount turret, I bought a Canon EF (Rokinon) to C-Mount adapter and boom, now I can use my Rokinons on the NPR, it doesn't focus to infinity perfectly, but as soon as I get the camera serviced I'm going to use a caliper to collimate the adapter to it's proper focal flange and it will work even better (infinity).

Hello everyone, I recently got a Canon Scoopic Ms and it's ready to roll. The camera is very easy to use and I found some helpfull info here and on other websites, but I couldn't find the user manual. Do you guys have a pdf version that you can share? I have the Scoopic M user manual and the camera is very easy to use, but maybe someone can tell me what the "Remote" options printed in orange and only available on the MS version do. Was there a remote for the camera? Can the camera be triggered electronically? Thanks in Advance.

Peter, Congratulations on your ambitious project. This forums are very important because we can get information and hear about other people experiences, I've been refining my methods and I do it at a very low price. I buy the scanners for $5 at thrift stores and most of my processing equipment I got it years ago for $20. I'm going to make a series of videos about this things later. One of the most important things about scanning 16mm or even Super 8 on a flatbed scanner is you have to position the film in a vertical way. Why? I don't know, I got that info from someone else, I tested and it is totally true. Those are the kind of things that can be frustrating. Personally I'm not fan of the 1.33:1 format, and I hate seeing all that space wasted on my film. Super 16 and U16 are great, you get actual resolution, take advantage of the film and if you decide to go whit even something more extreme like 2:39.1 you don't have to waste that much of your digital file. I hate wasting 30% of the pixels when I crop R16 to widescreen, and obviously as you mentioned it before the grain is more apparent, and if your original scan was at 1080p you end up with a decent 720p or you have to digitally enlarge the image to fit the 1080p frame which is a lie too, is not 1080p anymore. I think you should test a bit more, and go with ultra. Have you seen footage from the Logmar camera? Super 8 that looks almost like 35mm. At this time 16, S16 or U16 should be able to deliver good quality image for indy projects and more serious stuff for sure. It would be nice to have a SR3 or an Aaton XTR prod, but I think is possible to shoot something that is going to look good with any camera, and the CP-16R is not a bad camera, I wish I had one, but I'm going to shoot something nice with the Scoopic.

Peter, I watched your film when I was looking for U16 samples a few weeks ago, but I just found this topic here. I recently got my Canon Scoopic MS converted to U16 and I replaced the light seals myself of course I wanted to make sure that the camera was working fine, not scratching the film, I wanted to know how big the image was, if the lens was sharp, light leaks and stuff like that. I'll share my methods for testing cameras with film quick at home, analyze the data and redo. I have done this with a K3, a Bolex and now with the Scoopic. I have trained myself to load and unload the cameras in total darkness, so using B&W film (Eastman 7222 or Kodak 7266) I load the camera in total darkness so I can take advantage of the short 5 foot film strip that I'm going to use. I shoot a few tests using charts or whatever I want to test but taking in consideration that I only have 7 seconds. I can shoot 7 different shots if I want but the limit is 7 seconds. I advance the film a little, and in total darkness I open the cover of the camera, cut the film with scissors, put it on a Yankee developing tank (it can take 16mm film) close the camera, close the developing tank and back to daylight. I use inexpensive D76 developer and Kodak fixer to process the film and after a couple of hours you can analyze it with a magnifier, but there is a better way to do it. Using my Epson flatbed scanner (I have a method to fine tune it) I scan some frames and that allow me to see if there is something wrong with the camera like light leaks or scratches, but it allows me to see what I cannot see trough the viewfinder. Is the converted camera going to cover 2k DCI aspect ratio or just 16:9? I can open the scanned file on Photoshop and crop the image or just make masks using the mentioned aspect ratios. I put marks on the wall and using a tripod I align the camera with those lines and the guides inside the camera or the frame on the viewfinder, process the film, scan, compare the marks with the actual image being captured, use the rulers on Photoshop to define the frame and that helps me to know where the limits of the frame are or should be (top and bottom) and how much more is being captured that I can't see, or that I see but is not going to be visible in the final product. The method works of course to test if a lens is going to vignette too. I have tested 4 different cameras with a spool of film and I haven't used half of it yet. This method is practical and inexpensive, but even better it's fast, I don't waste valuable film and money getting the film processed and scanned just to learn that the camera has light leaks. When I'm sure that the camera is in good condition I shoot a project and then I send the film to the lab to be professionally processed and scanned. Samples: https://www.flickr.com/photos/76622647@N06/25349747627/in/dateposted-public/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/76622647@N06/40220619871/in/dateposted-public/ You can use my painfully slow method to test "registration"of a camera too, but it takes a lot of time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okEuNUfwtZU&ab_channel=RubenArce Just sharing some ideas, I hope you find the helpful in some way.

Well after a really nice time shooting the project where I used the Red Scarlet W, here are my thoughts... The camera was really easy to use. It is not much more different than Sony, Canon or even DSLRs, the basic controls are there and they are easy to access and control. It's just another camera. Now in terms of exposure the camera was as I expected "underexposing". For some time companies have been placing 18% gray or medium gray at 38 or 42 IRE instead of 50. Why are they doing that? To protect the highlights and make their cameras look better I guess. Why do RED do that? I don't know, because most of their cameras are going to be used by professionals but Sony, Blackmagic Design and now I know that Red are placing medium gray below 50 IRE, which makes putting exposure with a light meter kind of tricky if you haven't tested the camera. As I mentioned in a previous comment I own the Ursa Mini 4.6k and a Sony FS700, the two cameras are design to place medium gray at around 38-42 IRE when shooting log, but in the two cases I found it annoying that the images were underexposed, and when I was bringing the footage to proper exposure in post I was bringing noise up too. If you watch the video of Shane Hurlrburt testing the Ursa Mini 4.6 he gets to the same conclusion I got with the UM4.6... The camera needs light, so you have to overexpose it. I rate my Ursa Mini at 320 ISO instead of the 800 ISO that the manufacturer gives me. I mean the camera is set to shoot ISO800 but my meter is set to 320 ISO. Ok, back to the Red Scarlet W. I tested the camera with an 18% grat card, my light meter and the histogram on the camera and it was pretty clear that the camera places medium gray at a number below 50 IRE, something that looks like 38 IRE. I asked my friend who owns the camera if he felt like the monitor was not that accurate and he told me that the images that he shot with the camera felt always underexposed. That confirmed that my fears, so I overexposed the camera by one stop and when we saw the footage it was beautiful. It was really easy to grade because the exposure was right on the money and trying different LUTs was fun because they looked great immediately. We only had the 5"monitor on top of the camera and I didn't rely on it to illuminate the scenes. I was using my light meter and my eye to set the light and I was looking at the monitor at the end just to frame the shot and roll, and because I was putting light by meter the shots came out very close to each other on terms of exposure that we just put them in premiere and started cutting. I know my Sekonic 558 Cine doesn't know that the RED Scarlet W, or my Nikon or my Sony cameras exist, but it's a great instrument that allows me to have good continuity and repeat-ability from one shot to the next one without relying on the monitor. I hope this help people like me who have been looking for that kind of answers to get a better understanding of measuring light and exposing scenes.

I don't know how you post a graph Robin, but please try again. I have seen that chart that tells you what you are loosing mainly in the highlights when you change the ISO to anything else than 800. Thanks for your input. And thanks guys for all your responses, specially Tyler I appreciate the point of view of a person who has experience and who reacts to a situation in certain way based in all the information and experience that they have accumulated through years. It helps me to put my ideas in order and to see things from a different perspective.