Boris Belay

Hi Ian, I'm pretty sure they are exactly the same materials. In fact I even have 2x2" metal adapters for gel filters that I can use in my Kino TGA. I think Kinoptik went for internal filters on their TGAs to avoid vignetting problems and having to have a huge filter in front of the lens (given the very wide FOV on those). You can fing glass 2x2' filters pretty regularly on eBay. I'm not sure whether anybody still makes them new, although t would be simple enough to have them cut from larger filters. B.

Hi John, Your Schneider 6-66 Super-8 format zoom lens will not work : it will vignette at at least some, if not all, of the zooming range, and particularly at the wider angles. A Switar 10mm (non-RX) lens would be a very good (and rather cheap) choice, but there are many other options, so long as you keep to lenses designed for the 16mm. (or larger) format. The Schneider 10mm in C mount is nice too, but if you have an adapter for CAmeflex or Arri mount on your ACL, you'll have a lot more choices. B.

Hi Evan, First of all, check with the manual (easy to find online) and you will get the official Eclair answer (that's just a general piece of advice...). Now, your puzzlement is quite justified, as your 400ft mag (SA544) was modified by somebody -- probably a tech, as I have some magazines with the same modifications. Frankly, I'm not sure what it's supposed to do... Maybe prevent S-16 scratches? (Bernie, do you know?) Either way, I'm not convinced it's any better than the original design. (The two holes you see under the separation wall were originally meant for the screws to that wall.) Your two 200ft mags show you how the mags were designed by Eclair. The simpler one top roller design (Mag B436) is the earlier one, found only on 200 footers. The later design (mag B835) has two top rollers, and was meant to improve high-speed performance of the mags after the multi-speed motors were introduced. Eclair then suggested earlier models should all be ugraded to the later version. If you only shoot at 24/25 fps, there shouldn't be a problem with these earlier mags, though. Eclair only ever used these two designs (except for the altogether different British layout on their 400 ft mags, designed before the French 400 footer). The modification in your mag is the only one I've ever seen (and yes, obviously, it should be threaded by going over that roller, as in your second photo). Boris

Hi Kristian, I would NOT run a small ACL motor on that high a voltage ! I'm pretty sure I burnt out one of those while fixing it, running it on 13.7 Volt. The Multi-Speed motor can handle higher voltages, but those old single-speed ones seem much more fragile in that respect (perhaps also because of age). Definitlely try yours with a 12V. battery pack before looking for other possible problems. Boris

Hi Tom, The NPR viewfinders do not fit the ACL. You need to modify them, and then the shooting position is different and makes shoulder-handling uncomfortable. So your only decent options (in my opinion) is to stick with ACL V-F. The non-orientable early ones are ok if you shoot mostly shoulder-held. The early Angenieux is higher than the non-orientable Kinoptik (rare beast), which was designed after the introduction of the 120m. mag (with those, the camera sits higher on your shoulder, so the V-F needs to be shorter). They also give a smaller image than the later orientable V-Fs. The orientable Angé should not move so much. Perhaps yours is loose somewhere (I'd offer to look at it, but I am in Europe...). Once set in the right position (which is a bit finicky), it should stay as set fairly consistently. The Kinoptik orientable model is definitely the best of all: brighter, simpler, but also heavier (certainly compared to the non-orientable ones). It is very hard to find on its own nowadays (and don't forget that you need the camera-side mount that goes with it : it is not the same as the Angénieux model). Your best bet is in fact to buy a camera with one and trade with yours. P.M. me is you need more info or want me to look at yours. Boris

My thoughts are the same for the 25-250 AND the 17,5-70 as for the 12-120 : look at the particular lens' details (and first its serial number). These are both ciné lenses, and both types were 1) successful and 2) therefore made over several decades. In general more care should have gone into the 35mm. format 25-250 (Angé's flagship for quite a while) than into the affordable 16mm. format 17,5-70, but if the latter was made in the late 70's and the former in the mid-60's, and if an amateur bought the first one and harly used it, taking great care in his hard-earned treasure, while the big 10x25 was owned by a rental house that wore it into the ground before putting it in the bin (from which it should not have been salvaged), then... you see my point. And again, the 10x25 is a BIG lens, so that may be a consideration : can your camera even handle it without a support system ? As for the 4x17.5, I'm a little weary of their fairly recent 'rediscovery' on eBay. Because one reseller had a very good batch of late series NOS, and because they happen to cover S-16 (not such a feat, given the not-so-wide angle it goes down to), there seems to be a flurry about any and all of these lenses. People (sellers included) don't seem to even distinguish between the 50's (yes, 1950's!) silver version of that series (4x17,5/18/20/25) and the later black version, let alone bother with the serials that could tell you whether those are from the 60's or the 70's... So, a word for the wise when it comes to those classic Angénieux : don't dismiss them all out of hand because many are indeed soft and beaten down, but do proceed with caution, as they were victims of their own success and only a few of them are still gems in the pile. And if I'd have to risk an abstract advice, I'd say : stick with the 12-120 if it's decent (which is as likely as for the other lenses you mention), and consider going with primes for the complementary wide shots. There are lots of good cheap wide-angle primes in the range you mention (10/12-18), particularly if you can use 'legacy' mounts such as C (AR Switars) or Arri St (Taylor Hobson Kinetals, for instance). Basically, zoom lenses designed before the late 70's suffered substantially in optical quality compared to prime lenses. (It's still true afterwards, but to a lesser extent.) So zoom lenses from that period have to be in very good shape to be good shooters, while you can be a little less picky about primes (so long as they weew well designed and crafted to begin with).

Craig, I didn't mean to say the ACL was noisy ! I shouldn't be if it's maintained halway properly. It should be quiet enough to have a decent synch-sound session in an enclosed space, especially so with a barney. What I meant is that it's not quite up to today's standards in silent cameras (an Aaton XTR is nominally half as loud, I believe), but those cameras are in an altogether different price bracket. So the ACL is not the quietest camera around, but perhaps the most affordable of the quiet ones (or perhaps the NPR is).

Hi Mike, Not sure which adapter you are refering to : still camera lens adapters (which mount)? 35mm Cine lenses (which mount)? There are lots of different adapters for the very common C-mount of the Bolex, and the picture quality should be good if the lens is decently made. As for intercutting with the Arri, so long as the Bolex is in decent shape, registration should not be a problem. Your main concern will be that the lenses on the Bolex produce a similar image to those on the Arri. Since I don't know which you would use on either camera, it's hard to say more. Then again, if you plan on transfering your footage to a digital format for cutting, color correction should be relatively easy and your shots should intercut ok... probably. B.

Hi, Don't know much about the Kinors, so I can't help with the comparison. If you're going to shoot synch-sound with an EBM (or any H16 for that matter) in an enclosed space, you'd better work with a sound engineer with skill and above all, understanding and patience. It's not impossible, but... Hell, movies are made with half of that ! All the rest is comfort, no? I know Bolex inside and out, but when I decide to shoot synch-sound and/or 120m. rolls, I move on to an Eclair ACL. I'd recommend you give them a good look, as they are quiet (not the quietest, but synch-prone), simple, dependable, and very flexible, for quite cheap too. At least, that's my advice. B.

Hi Dan, Hard question to answer because both lenses are older types that 1) may have had a rougher 'personal' history and 2) were made over a long period of time with improving visual qualities. This latter point is particularly true of the 12-120, which was produced from the mid 50's to the mid 80's (!). A late 12-120/2.2 (look for serials beg. with 13xxxxx or better 14xxxxx) can be quite a decent lens to shoot with, and if it's a 12-120/2-2.2 version, it's even better. As for the 15-300 model, it is quite rare indeed. It does cover the S-16 frame, but of course is doesn't go as wide as the 12-120. Also, I don't believe it's a 35mm. lens, but rather one that was designed for the 1-inch pick up tubes of 70's video cameras (thus the S-16 coverage). As the 12-120 (type 10 x 12) had a 20x version (12-240), so did the 15-150, and that is your 20x15 lens. I'm not sure picture quality was that great to begin with, since those early video cameras were quite dismal in resolution. Also, Angénieux went for the wow effect of a 20x. lens, which was an engineering feat at the time. So range probably comes at the expense of some quality, in that case -- not to mention, of course, the slowish aperture. Personally, I'd lean towards the 12-120, if it's a late s/n, especially if weight/bulk is an issue. But again, these are general considerations. The most important factors would be the actual age of the lens and how it has been treated, serviced, etc. since leaving the assembly line. Cheers, B.

The manual is quite useful in this respect : do you have one ? Otherwise, there is also this website : http://www.city-net.com/~fodder/bolex/shutter.html

Hi Jason, The short answer to your question is yes, replacing a ground glass on an ACL is a very finicky technical operation. It's easy to take it out, and if you were to replace the same gg, you may get away with very carefully marking the setting of the gg before taking it off, but I wouldn't swap another one in and expect it to be in focus. And of course, if your gg is not in the right position (and we are talking microns here), then you will see a different image in your viewfinder than what is imprinted on the film... Big Problem !

The light yellow/tan gate was introduced by Bolex in their late series, maybe when they moved to the 13x. viewfinder. So it can be found on Rex-5, SB, SBM, EBM and EL models of the later production runs. It does seem like an improvement over the previous steel gates in terms of film movement on the gate.

Hi Evan, So it does look like a decent deal in the end. I found that this kind of nice gesture is not rare on eBay from people who don't really know what they are selling, so it's worth a try ! Basically, they don't want to go through the hassle of the return, re-list, and poor sale (given the fault you find with the gear), so they are often willing to find an arrangement that works for both. Not too bad, if not the great deal you expected in the first place... Regarding the mount : it looks like you got one of the special order NPR's with two C-mounts (regular was CA and C, a factory option for Arri and C was also offered). Then you have a rare Eclair-built C to CA adapter screwed onto one of the mounts. It is a CA mount like the one you probably got with your ACL (typically provided with any ACL), but it differs in two points : it has a tab that prevents the lens being mounted upside down (not very useful, since Angé lenses, for instance, have the T-stop scale underneath the usual mounting position, and you may want to mount the lens upside down to see it), and more importantly, the mounting depth of the C to CA adapter is deeper than the CA adapter for the ACL. This is a little-known but important fact about the ACL : the standard CA adapter does not accept some CA lenses : they jut out too far back to fit, or if they fit, to focus to infinity. So far, I have encountered this problem with only a few lenses : the Cooke Kinetal 25mm, the Cooke Speed Panchro 18mm Series II (35 mm. lens), and some exotic remounting of Angénieux primes by a French company called SERIP (doing high precision mounts for the France broadcasting corporation in the 60's/70's). This is a bit of a problem, even though you can still mount these lenses on an ACL with a C to CA adpater like yours. If anybody else has encountered that problem with other lenses, perhaps we can make a list of those lenses in a new thread.

Here is the only link to Rüdi Muster's format that I can find -- it's in German, but the illustrations make the point clear enough. By the way, this is not a widescreen 8mm. format, but an alternative to S-16 and Ultra-16. Muster calls it DS-16/9, which is not exactly a sexy name, but technically quite descriptive : DS for Double Super-8 stock and 16/9 for the widescreen image ratio. I don't have any more information about this, or whether Muster went on with the project (or servicing Bolex at all). By the way, are there any DS-8 stocks around anymore ? Fomapan ? Processing stocks? Anything ele ? http://www.super8site.com/fanzine/aktuell/r_muster.shtml

Hi Jason, This one is for the Eclair NPR. In France, it was known mainly as the 'Eclair 16' (although it wasn't even their first 16mm. model), as well as the 'Eclair Coutant', named after its engineer. In the US, it's mostly known as the 'NPR', apparently for Noiseless Portable Reflex, but sometimes also as 'Eclair Douane', although that's a misunderstanding : the little plaque that states 'Douane' on some models is only the proof that the camera's duties were paid when it was exported out of France (Douane means Customs in French). Combined with the Eclair Caméflex that was originally sold as the 'Camérette' in the US (because of rights issues with the Cameraflex), and the lack of identification of ACL models through the evolution of the camera, this all makes identifying Eclair cameras a little bit more complicated than it should be ! As for the manual, it's a long list of parts with their Eclair codes, then a series of diagrams from the original blueprints of the camera. Not very useful, even for maintenance purposes. B.

Yes, Emulsion Out on an roll shot on an ACL. In fact, I make a point of mentioning that (now) odd fact on my rolls when I send them to the lab: E.O. As for your mishap, the good thing is it probably won't happen to you twice ! I for one once had strange and marvelous double exposures from running the same roll of double perf film through a Bolex -- unexpected, to say the least, and double the waste... or is it? B.

That does look way out of focus... I would check that before wasting another roll with this simple test : focus the camera (on a tripod) with the viewfinder on a very clear, brightly lit object. When you have a very clear image in the viewfinder, rotate the mirror out of the way of the film path (viewfinder becomes dark), remove the magazine and put a 16mm. wide piece of translucent drafting paper infron of the film window. The grain of the paper should be fine enough to act like a ground glass and give you something like the image that would actually be on the film. This rough test does not test precisely for collimation, but if there is a big difference in focus between the image you had in the viewfinder and the image projected on the paper pressed right up against the window, you can be sure that your flange focal distance is off and there is no need to waste film before sending your camera for service. If the image on the paper is roughly as sharp, then the blurring may have been due only to the short loops while loading, and you can try a test roll to confirm that. B.

Never heard of such a beast in a little while spent tracking down odd ACLs ant their history... but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a prototype DS-8 floating somewhere out there. DS-8 did seem like a promising format for a while, and Super-8 did begin to creep up in the minds of people working for tv in the late 70's. Another possibility -- more current in a way -- would be that this camera has DS-8 sprockets but a widescreen S-16-like gate. This is a format I once saw by a guy working on Bolex cameras in Switzerland (Rudy Muester, or something like that), who applied the idea of S-8 (smaller sprocket holes for larger picture area) to 16mm. film : easy enough, since that's DS-8 stock. The result was a very wide format that's actually centered on the film, unlike S-16 (but larger than U-16). I think the project has been dropped because of the availability of DS-8 stock, but it's brilliantly simple : all you need are DS-8 sprockets and a widened gate. Anyways, yes, definitely keep us posted -- even if it's just a plain old and sweet ACL ! B.

As far as I know, the Switar 10 covers the S-16 frame. This is information I have gotten from this site (and others like it), it's quite a common question, which is probably why you haven't gotten any answer yet... B.

Yes, you can, but you need to make sure you get the adapter plate that goes with it. The small motor has a small motor-to-body adapter plate, while the larger motors use either a larger plate or an adapter that makes the small plate larger. Besides that, it's a drop-in replacement. But if your early model ACL has the small base, it will not be able to use the advanced feature of the motor (available depending on the model of HD motor), such as mirror parking in viewing position of external synchronisation. These features are dependant on the electronics in the base. B.

Are you talking about the French new wave ? the Nouvelle Vague of Godard, Rivette, Truffaut, and so on, beginning in 1959 or so ? All of those films -- the ones that put them on the map, were shot in 35mm. So it's more like the Caméflex that 'enabled' them... Sorry for jumping on you like this, John, but I can't believe how many times I have seen that same phrase repeated, while it's such an obvious fallacy (temporal and technical). The French New Wave is all about making cinema more freely, outside of studios, in the street, without lighting, and so on, but still professional (ie, 35mm.). Perhaps if it had happened in the mid-70's with Super-16 and good film stock, that might have been possible. The Eclair NPR is the camera that allowed for the new wave of documentary filming, like that of the Canadian school of Brault and co., as well as the films of Jean Rouch in France (who tested early versions of the ACL, by the way, and switched to Aaton early on).

IS the lens for many, many films made throughout the 70's ! Come on, guys, this is a classic lens -- definitely not as sharp as something made recently and costing many, many thousand $, but I don't think that was the question, was it ? A better approach, in my opinion, is how old is the lens (but for that, you have to have done a bit of research in these old and dusty door-stoppers they called Professional Motion Cinematography Equipment back in the last glacial age of cinema, you know, 30 years ago). Since that lens was such a classic, it was made over a couple of decades, and Angénieux glass and mechanics did improve over the period, so a later one is probably better. Here is a rough idea of dates by serial # that I've come up with so far : serials in the 120's go back to the very early 70's, the 130's are mid-70's, and 140's are late 70's or early 80's. This applies to all Angenieux lenses, no matter the type, format, etc. So if it's in good shape and within the later range of these serials, it's probably decent and worth the price (!), and if you're after a film-look on your HD set-up, you'll probably be happy that this lens does not resolve as well as Angé's new HD lenses. Give it try, and if you're not happy with it, send me a personal message and I'll get it off of your hands ! Enjoy your shoots and stay away from the scarecrows ;-)

As far as I know, each aspheron is specifically made for a particular type of lens (except of course the aspheron for Zeiss 9 and 12), optically speaking. On top of that, the thread mount is very different on a Switar 10 and on Zeiss 9 or 12, as well as on the Vario-Switar 100 and the Vario-Sonnar 100. So despite the fact that they're all made by Kern, I don't think you can adapt one to another type of lens. I'd like to be wrong about this too, though, as I've thought about getting whichever is cheaper and adapting it too, but...

The last operation you describe is indeed the correct way to proceed with these lenses (and all Berthiots with such notches in the C-mount thread). The lens originally came with a little tool to do it (it looks a bit like a large bottle cap), but you can do it with anything else that acts as a spanner of that size. I can't quite remember what happens with the viewfinder window once you have rotated the lens to the right position, but it will need to be adjusted too. I think it's just a matter of rotating the mask in front of the prism in the dog leg -- the 'box' you mention -- which you can access by unscrewing the rear part of the viewfinder tube. I can't be sure about that either, but I think there may be a problem with doing what you're trying to do with a Bolex. It seems I've tried that before and found out I couldn't -- perhaps that viewfinder mask, or the physical space of the lens with respect to the Bolex body... I'm not sure... Maybe it was only with the first version of the lens, the one with the v-f sticking out a a 90 deg. angle from the camera body (when viewed from the front). It's definitely possible with the last version (right-angled v-f), but I think that one was designed with Bolex in mind. I hope I'm not too confusing! But it's definitely the thread that rotates, nothing else on the lens -- leave those screws alone ! B.