charles pappas

My problem is that I'm a bit older than you and don't live quite as interesting a life, so I'm very sensitive to the passage of time, and was then pleased to think that "man, Samsara was only 9 years ago," as opposed to "it seems like I saw it yesterday."

Thanks for reminding me of this great film. Saw it on a quite large screen, looked and sounded as you say. I would have swore I saw it at least 15, or close to 20 years ago, apparently time doesn't always fly as fast as I think.

Thank you, seriously, for educating me. As I hear you, the concept is constrained by the physics of the proposed mechanism rather than engineering hurdles, and I'll put it aside.

I appreciate the replies and know my post sounded like I thought it would be easier than it is, and I realize that perhaps my ideas are not even possible or feasible. Appo Lettinen: I envisioned removing as many mechanical components in the film drive system as possible, for cost and size reasons. Also for cost and size reasons the LCD shutter. Phil Rhodes: I don't know anything about LCD shutters except that they exist and seemed to be at least feasible for what I envision. Let me say a bit more. I envision a drive mechanism incorporating a motor inside the cores of coaxial film reels which uses the indents of the cores to advance the film the distance between the film perforations. Whether this would be a stepper motor or some other I don't know - perhaps it could a constantly running motor with an circular on-off electromagnet turning the cores or some kind of pop-out ratchet turning the cores. The way I see it, there would be no film loops; instead the opposite. The mechanism would rely on the film tautness to help with registration. In theory at least, if the factory tolerances of the plastic film cores and the distance between the film perforations are good enough, then no electronic feed back loop, based on perforation sensors, would be required to control the motor. If that could be done, I would call that a "dumb," motor. (I know shrinkage of the film over time or expansion-contraction of the film due to temperature would have some effect, just don't know how much.) I think the biggest issue is ensuring no "play," in the film as there are no loops, so very constricting guides in the film path would be needed, perhaps even a kind of four-sided tunnel to run the film through. In the worst case of my "vision," if film "play," cannot be mitigated enough, a retractable pressure-plate, synced with the motor, would needed. Adding to the cost and complexity for sure, but not less feasible than anything else here (I think). The shutter would be directly in front of the feed-side of the two film reels, to help in mitigating film play, all the twisting of the film to get it onto the take-up core would be after the shutter. Anyway, these are my ideas for a camera, ideas that seem to me to be doable and relatively cost-effective, but I would love for them to be debunked so I can forget about it. Conversely, if someone develops and sells this camera and makes any money, throw a bit into my hat please.

I don't understand why existing technologies like LCD shutters, small stepper motors, film perforation sensors and video viewfinders emulating the taking lens's focal length and f-stop have not been used to produce quiet, lightweight and relatively cheap 16mm and even 35mm cameras whose size would approach (not equal but get close to) the size of co-axial film cores. Not an engineer, but doesn't seem that hard.

With some exceptions as noted above, if one absolutely insists on being able to see actor's expressions and reactions and on being able to get a sense of their surroundings, it is best to view films set in deep caves or tunnels, miles below the sea, or in rooms lit only by one or two candles :).

Tom, couldn't PM this image. Please fill out address per the boxes. Thanks.

Like cable shown below? Let me know if you can't find one in Europe; I have extra.

If you care for the opinion of a potential consumer (me) as opposed to only that of a professional cinematographer, and imagining the still you provided as being a representation of the moving image, then I would say that I would consider the image, in all honesty, perfectly lit, if I were sitting close to the image relative to the image size, if the venue I was in was quite dark, and if the scene ran on long enough for my eyes to get used to it. If any of those conditions changed, my suspicion is I would want a little more light. I don't think think that I, as a consumer, would be disabused by or even concerned with the wall lighting or other peripheral lighting as long as the central action was viewable, the location the action took place in was rather small relative to the action, and the scene did not run on long enough for me to start concerning myself with peripheral lightning. If any of those conditions changed, my suspicion is I would spend more time on the lighting, if I had the time and money.

mini masterpiece

Looks like ACL II is the same (un-educated guess).PR-3 at upper left hand corner below. http://www.my16mm.com/assets/pdfs/manuals/eclairacl2man.pdf

Looks like (on ACL !) pin 1 is neutral, pin 4 positive, and 2 and 3 can be ignored unless you use pilot-tone or bloop (light?). Just an educated guess. http://my16mm.com/assets/pdfs/manuals/eclairacl1man.pdf

I understand and I have little knowledge of electricity myself. However it seems to me that the main issue people are having is a cable connector issue, not a battery per se issue. The old camera motors, for example on older Arris and (I believe) older Eclairs, only needed two two wires connected to two pins on each end, positive and a neutral to power the motor (I suspect this is also true on the most modern of film cameras although they may have found a use for extra pins, maybe for variable speed control or something). Getting back to the older battery operated camera motors, which need two pins (or prongs) into the motor and two pins (prongs) into the battery, it seems that simple"banana plug" connectors were used first. Keeping in mind that the pins, prongs, banana plugs, etc., are a convenience - chewing gum or paper clips could in theory be used to connect the two wires to the motor and battery leads. My research suggests that sometime in the late sixties battery and battery belt makers switched from simple prongs to 4 and 5 pin XLR connectors. Now as to why they did this, I have been unable to find out, on the internet. The only reasons that make any sense too me are that the XLR connectors may be a little more structurally sound than prongs (banana plugs) or they turned out to be a little cheaper. However, the 2 or 3 extra pins on the XLR connectors are just dummy pins - they serve no purpose (except to confuse the audience). On this website, and on many other internet sites, there are many posts which should diagram, for a particular XLR manufacturer, which two pins are meant to be used, or active, and which of the other three or four are dummy. There is no question that those multi-pinned XLR's and other such connectors are extremely intimidating to non-techies like myself. I don't think they need to be used however. I think that basically anyone is capable of soldering up two useable wire connectors from the battery leads to the motor leads, or crimping some connectors if soldering is an problem, and making it look decent. I personally did not do that as I had an empty Arri battery box with a female banana plug outlet built-in, and I did not want to take a chance on messing it up. So I took it to Batteries-Plus and the guy sold me batteries and soldered it up. Maybe it was on the other recent post, but others have advised OP's to have a battery shop do this. I think that this could be done contactless, with a phone conversation and leaving the cable or whatever the techie asks for outside, in this age of COVID. (Two asides for readers with more knowledge then me - I don't think there is any issue with motor polarity, is there? - and please correct any misstatements I may have made a I am also trying to learn.)

Please tell me what I'm missing on this battery issue.

Plus add its 6 volt cousin for >24 fps.

Yes I had seen that, but my main purpose was to correct my prior post saying 16.8 volts. For the OP, just in case, the IIC manual is readily available on-line (for example, from Visual Products), an Arri Parts and Repair Manual is available from I can't remember where but I downloaded it, and our Mr. Dom Jaeger's Cinetinker website has CLA instructions for the II-C.

from the manual section on motors, says 16 volts.

I hope these photos of my IIB battery set-up help somewhat (I know very little about electricity). It came with an empty shoulder-strap battery case. I bought the batteries at Battery-Plus and I think they may have made up the wiring. Rechargeable and quite cheap. Volts add to 18; I think Arri called for 16.8, but amps were on target. Two-prong battery case outlet to two-prong variable speed handgrip motor. Battery-Plus or a similar outfit should be able to make something up for you.

I would like to later view the links, but this viewing distance/screen size business is very suspect to me. I get that the farther away one is the smaller the screen seems to be, and that on a 60 foot diagonal screen at a viewing distance of a couple of miles the artist might as well project a single pixel because it would be equivalent to one-trillion pixels, but still this is suspect to me. I will view the links later.

I am not a scientist nor a highly experienced artist, but does sentence one above actually relate to sentence two? And regarding sentence two, I've always been lead to believe that the worst the "resolving power," of the originating medium is (say Regular 8 film or cassette tape, cheap lens, etc.) then the more benefit derives from better "up-chain resolution," (hi-res film transfers, 15 ips tape tranfers, film blow-ups, sharp projector lenses). And vice-versa. I guess digital technologies are supposed to lessen or mitigate that "resolving power," factor.

Hello Matthew, I could not find any reference to to the $1,249 2C on E-Bay. Maybe something is wrong with E-Bay because they don't show any 2c in the completed sales filter and surely one must have been sold fairly recently. (They just have a couple of active 2C listings and I'm not in the market as I have a nice 2B.) I would be very surprised if your camera doesn't run like a (loud) clock and you may want to spring for a battery and hook it up, maybe grease and lube the camera a bit, etc., to increase its appeal. The main reason I'm replying, however, is to say that will while searching E-Bay I came across a posting for the book below; the seller was asking $42.00. I went to the publisher's website (U. of Mississippi Press) and they are selling both the paperback and hardcover for $19.70 inc. shipping. The blurb looked fascinating and I ordered immediately. So I want to bring this to everyone's attention, as I didn't see the book on the forum's search and it may have appeal for others FILM STUDIES PHOTOGRAPHY POPULAR CULTUREChronicle of a Camera Chronicle of a Camera The Arriflex 35 in North America, 1945–1972 By Norris Pope Paperback : 9781496814685, 202 pages, 43 b&w illustrations, December 2017 Hardcover : 9781617037412, 202 pages, 43 b&w illustrations, February 2013

There aren't many visual experiences that can rival viewing a well-projected excellent print of a well-shot B & W film (IMO). I viewed a fresh print of The Sleeping Car Murders (dp Jean Tournuer) perhaps 10 or 15 years ago and will never forget shots of black sedans that looked like a combination of that zero light reflecting paint and bowls of mercury. Which doesn't make sense, but that is the impression those black sedans left.

...the lighting would be calling attention to itself... This circumstance of the light calling attention to itself has probably been a focus of film scholarship and theory for decades, I imagine. What began as a necessity (film lighting) due to ultra-low film speeds has evolved over the decades as faster and faster film speeds have required less and less foot-candles but still some foot-candles and still the need to place them somewhere. I suspect that in the future, due to improvement in film/digital speeds and post manipulation, wonderful images will be possible at, say, a 1/8 foot-candle base level. But at the ⅛ fc base level, some lighting will need to be added to the set, either physically or digitally, to approximate reality. So the conundrum arises that the industry that added lighting due to the demands of the medium requiring a great deal of light becomes the industry that adds light due to the medium requiring almost no light.

Perfect answer, thank you.

Sorry for the delay and I just viewed your film for the second or third time. A few notes: the audio in the conversation between the Junkie and the Femme near the beginning struck me as too clean, perhaps some or more room tone or fuzziness might have been used; I would have used a different sound effect in the head-smash scene; and lastly when the Junkie tries to awaken the Femme near the end, a shot or two of his face would have cut-in well. On a more "global," view, it strikes me that reducing some of the static shots and using that running time to give the characters some backstory (one possible example, a quick photo montage near the start of the film) or some more personality, would have put the viewer in more deeply. I thought the tunnel location was extraordinary and admired the way you manipulated the space. The location is so good tht I tink a film could be constructed to revolve around that location. I think all your of teams technical abilities are pro indie film quality or better and your team just needs an involving story with strong characters, and some luck, to "make it."