Raymond Zrike

Yeah, I bought a set of gels and I don’t think they’re high enough quality to use behind the glass. Now I’m starting the tedious investment process in 4x4 NDs and the like.

My Eclair ACL has a little cartridge that slides in in front of the film and behind the lens. The cartridge has a circle cutout that is about the image size of 16mm, and the intention of it is that you can load it with a circle gel to act as a filter. If I could use this feature of the camera instead of using square glass filters on the front element, I’d save about 10x the money and I’d be able to have more filtration options. I’ve got a couple questions for those who have used filter gels like this before, though: 1. Are gel filter sheets of lower quality than glass filters? Will the image be different between using an ND filter on the front element versus using a gel behind the lens? 2. Will the possibility that of the gel not being perfectly flat (since it is flexible) affect the image quality? This is what I’m most worried about; that it would cause flares. 3. More practically, the camera I have was converted to super-16. Does anyone know if this filter holder covers the full super-16 image? I just discovered this feature of the camera the other night since the previous owner had it taped up (which I assume indicates I should tape it over if I end up using it or not, to prevent light leaks).

Hmm attaching it directly to the viewfinder is not a bad idea. Probably would make it easier to remove and put back on when need be.

After seeing some old forum posts talking about creating a DIY video tap for older 16mm cameras, I thought I’d give it a shot. There’s an old thread about exactly the camera I’m using, an Eclair ACL, but the photo of the rig that they posted is no longer on the internet. So I put a super rough $20 thing together (plus an iPhone 8+). You can see it here: https://imgur.com/gallery/aNxfqXV Any suggestions? There are definitely some things that could be improved. It takes a while to set up since it doesn’t want to stay in place unless I use tape. It’d be nice to have a more rigid arm, but I’m not sure I could find one that’s the exact length and angle needed (that’s why I ended up with the “gooseneck”). And for actual shooting I’ll need to make sure that I’ve covered up all possible points where light can come in the viewfinder so it doesn’t cause light leaks.

Alright, that’s what I figured. I guess my budget matte box search will commence. Thanks for the confirmation of my suspicions.

Even though I’ve rented cine lenses (mostly CP.2) in the past and have used others on set, I’ve always owned only still/photos lenses. I’ve always put UV filters (specifically B+W brand) on every lens I have—makes me less nervous about cleaning the glass in the case of a smudge or dust, and if it gets scratched up, it’s easily replaced. Also, I’ve read that UV filters help when shooting film, even though I’ve never noticed a difference with digital (convo for another day). But I’ve just brought two super 16 Zeiss super speed Mk. II which I don’t think have front threads. The fronts have 80mm diameters. Are cine lenses always left bare? Is there any way to protect them besides the lens cap? I like to shoot out in the world (i.e. encountering elements occasionally), so is a matte box the only solution?

Just got an ACL today. Seems to be working fine. I think this ACL is equipped with the heavy-duty motor (but not the fancy crystal sync at all speeds motor). The speeds increase when I turn the fps dial. But there’s this blank option. When I turn to it, it makes the motor go really slow, like slower than 8fps. What is that? I’ve included a photo.

Awesome! That’ll make it easy for when I need a different stock for just a couple shots.

Simple question, I think: is it possible to use a 100’ roll of film in a 200’ mag? Specifically with an Eclair ACL.

“Some early but excellent 16mm primes had to focus by the lens mount turning in the lubricated camera port.” Whoa that’s weird, never heard of that before. I’m assuming those lenses wouldn’t work with any cameras other than they ones they were intended for? The Lomos look appealing, but I don’t think any of them cover super 16 unfortunately. Looks like I should go toward the superspeeds, although the Angenieux zooms are certainly interesting and plentiful—there’s so many different ones, I can’t keep track of them. Maybe there’s a catalog of them online somewhere. Thanks everyone!

Eclair ACL. With ACL adapters for PL, Arri B/Arri S, then obviously c-mount. Typically I’ve opted for less “clinical” lenses (very fond of my Leica R 50 Summilux and screw-mount 5cm Summitar), but that was when I was shooting more digital. Now with super 16, I was thinking of getting lenses that are a bit more technically proficient since a lot of the “character” can come from the film stock instead. But I don’t know; I just wish I could see some sample images of these lenses to make up my mind. Or at least descriptions of how they resolve images. My journeys through Google haven’t turned up many results in that department. Although vintagelensesforvideo.com has some good reviews, but not many. In the past, I’ve always gotten lenses based on descriptions from other enthusiasts online. I’ll keep searching, but I’d thought I’d ask here if anybody knew any resources. The Schneiders are definitely attractively priced, but they look really small. Might make it difficult to use with an ACL. Were they meant to be used with Bolexs? What do Kinetals look like? Yeah, the superspeeds are definitely up there in price now, but there are one or two on eBay right now that I could afford. As for pulling focus, this isn’t for a production that needs absolute repeatable accuracy, but I’d like to be able to shoot at least occasionally with some shallow depth of field (whatever 16mm will allow me). Like I mentioned, the Schneiders look like they have a tiny focus throw. Is that true? Is that the same for all these small, older 16mm lenses?

I’m looking for super-16 lens options in the $800-1500 range. This is to buy, of course looking at buying used/vintage. A PL lens would be awesome, but c-mount and Arri S/Arri B would work too (I’ve got adapters). I could also get a Nikon adapter, but I’d have to fit it into my budget. Originally I thought I would go for a full 35 cine lens—now I’m thinking I’ll go with vintage super 16 because 35mm lenses out there at that price point are pretty slow at focal lengths appropriate for super 16. I’m just looking for one, “normal-ish” (like 18mm) lens that’s decently fast. Any suggestions? I’ve always relied on various wikis when buying older lenses (like for my still photography exploits), but there doesn’t seem to be a list of super 16 lenses anywhere... there are a couple Zeiss super speeds (MKII) on eBay right now, what is the opinion on those? Any examples of work show with super 16 super speeds? Any good zooms?

You can email me at raymondzrike@gmail.com, or you can post photos here; not sure how things are normally done on this forum.

Thanks for all the replies! Little late to respond since I can’t seem to get email notifications from this forum... I’ll figure it out eventually. Since it appears NPRs are more plentiful than ACLs, I was hoping the mount of the former would be alright, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Luckily, as Gregg mentioned, somebody just posted about selling an ACL, hours after my original post; not sure if it’s fate or a conspiracy. Either way, hope it pans out.

Hello, I’m interested in buying. Do you have photos of the camera and accessories?

I’m soon going to buy an Eclair NPR, but I want to confirm first: can modern lens mounts be adapted to c-mount? There are a lot of adapters available (like this one: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/577757-REG/bower_va304_c_mount_for_nikon.html), but most forum threads I’ve seen insist on getting the cameflex mount changed to PL instead of adapting lenses to the c-mount. Is the c-mount too weak to hold non-16mm lenses? Does it not accommodate enough space for other mounts?

Thanks for the help, definitely seems smart to go more modern and then pick up a few vintage for the wide end. Luckily there seems to be a lot of adapters to c-mount (the flange distance of a c-mount camera is quite small, especially compared to Arri std/Aaton mounts). I was thinking when looking at some of the vintage lenses, how in the world are those scant focus markings supposed to be helpful, so that’s definitely an advantage of modern glass it seems.

I’m collecting a couple lenses for shooting 16 (regular 16 for right now, might end up with super 16 though), most likely with an Eclair NPR. I know there are plenty of lens that have been designed specifically for 16, and those are really the only option for anything really wide and fast, but how about using full frame lenses? For a normal or somewhat telephoto-equivalent FF lens like a modern Zeiss 28mm, will it be sharp having its image circle limited to 16? Or will a lens designed for 16 in particular always be the sharper option? Any tests online? I don’t have the budget for nice modern super 16 lenses, so I can either get modern FF lenses (except for one or two old 16 lenses to over the wide end), or I can get exclusively older 16 lenses. Essentially it boils down to, which is sharper on 16mm: a Zeiss CP.2 or a c-mount Angenieux? New to these forums and 16mm, so thanks for the advice in advance.