Jump to content

Boris Belay

Basic Member
  • Posts

    248
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Boris Belay

  1. Whilst not forgetting it seems generally accepted that the Arri 16BL can't be converted to S16.

     

    Indeed, that was my impression too...

     

    I'm a big fan of the Eclair ACL camera, so I suggest you take a look at the Eclair discussion sub-forum on this site for a lot of info on these wonderful (for the price, certainly) cameras. The idea of buying a Reg.16 camera first and having it converted to Super-16 down the road when you have money is a good suggestion too. Even though you may be able to find a cheaper camera kit that is already converted (at least on eBay) than the price of a 16mm. kit plus conversion may be, if you just don't have the money, that makes sense. Also, with the quality of current film stocks, going wide-format from a Reg-16 image is a decent option nowadays (if obviously not ideal).

     

    Also worth mentioning are the old workhorses Eclair NPR, going very cheap these days -- see the new discussion on this topic on the Eclair section here too. Again, Super-16 converted cameras may even be within your price range... on Ebay.

     

    Regarding lenses, you will find out that you should either stick to a set of prime lenses or put up with annoying limitations of zoom lenses when/if you shoot Super-16 on that budget. The zoom lenses that cover S-16 with a good optical quality and go a bit wide are just very sought after and often fetch a price that is above your whole budget for a single zoom lense. So if you want a zoom lense, you will probably have to make do with a lens that doesn't go under 15/16mm in focal length (ie, medium wide) or, if it does, that vignettes below that range and thus is as limited.

     

    As for buying from a shop, I don't think it's really a likely possibility within that budget. But two things about eBay to reassure you : a lot of sellers are really quite dedicated and honest, and will reveal their true colors (if that is necessary at all) with a bit of questioning. Also it is quite common for prospective buyers to turn to this forum with their questions or worries about eBay auctions, so you shouldn't hesitate to do so yourself.

     

    Finally, this is where the "buying reg-16 and upgrading later" scenario comes back : if you buy on eBay a kit that is in decent condition and then send it to a shop like Les Boscher's (in the UK) for a conversion, you end up with a completely revised S-16 camera that's as good as if it came from a shop, but affordable.

     

    Good luck, don't hesitate to ask more questions, and welcome to the wonderful world of 16mm!

    Boris

  2. Looking to get a 2x2 85B filter for my Kinoptik 5.7mm lens.

     

    The lens has a 2x2 filter tray built in, but does this mean i can only use 2x2 glass filters in that slot?

     

    How about Resin filters?

     

    Thanks-

    Nicholas

     

    I don't see why you would have a problem using filters of any material, so long as they are 2"x2" and rigid (and optically sound, of course) in Kinoptik TeGeA... But of course, if you mean soft gels (the kind you use in a filter holder inside a camera), you'd have to put them in a 2x2 holder first -- I'm pretty sure Kodak made those at one point.

     

    B.

  3. Yes, the Bolex SBM takes the same release cable system as all other mechanical Bolex H16 models (since the 1930's!). There are two basic kinds of adapters : one is attached to the side release, the other (rare) attaches to the front release. You then attach a wire release cable with the proper diameter thread to these adapters.

    Look in a manual for any H16, there should be an illustration.

    These adapters are cmmonly available on eBay for cheap. If in a pich, I can provide you with one, but I'm in Europe.

    Best, B.

  4. yea, i'm with you guys on that too, i intended it to be mainly informational. i think the software i used is a little confusing & i will probably re-do it when i have a chance. but i did set it up so that anybody interested can manage a section of the site, which will help because there's too much info for one person to manage. I also like that anyone can leave a comment on a page, not for discussion purposes, but rather to add some supplemental information or something.

     

    If you do not already have hosting Boris, I would be happy to set you up with your own area on that server or give you permission even to update the content that is already there. I know you mentioned before that history wasn't totally accurate - but I am just parroting the info that I was given! it would be nice to get it right. I would love to see the lens info too - i am always looking for that.

     

    Hi Jason,

     

    That may be the way to go, actually : you've already started with the site, and I haven't yet. If your site can handle a decent amount of illustrations, it should be doable.

     

    I would keep the S-16 section pretty much as it is, but I would go over the history and the identification of models sections thoroughly. Pictures, serials, timeline...

     

    The modifications section should be open to anybody who has something interesting to suggest.

     

    Could your site also host a download section -- for manuals (no, not the same old two...), brochures, etc ?

     

    I don't know much about the NPR first-hand, but I do have some info and docs on it.

     

    I could work on a history of the company itself, and have a bit about the Caméflex and the GV-16.

     

    The lens info may be a bit much and out of place, but I could do something quick about it too. I get the sense that any info helps!

     

    What else would people like to see on this site?

     

    Boris

  5. Hi Tom,

     

    If you can't find what you are looking for in the UK, I can recommend a good solution not far on the Continent : Color by Dejonghe (see on the net) is a good Belgian professional lab that is cheap and friendly to small projects -- a rather rare beast these days !

     

    Cheers,

    B.

  6. The Angie 17-68 T2.5 mm is a fantastic zoom that is incredibly well suited for HD transfer cinematography. You state that it only should be used for SD. Any number of people who own this lens would tell you that if properly maintained, it can look just as sharp as anything else out there of that vintage. I own one of these lenses and I have inter cut material I shot with it with material shot with a Cooke Vario Kinetal 10-100 mm S16 conversion lens - another wonderful vintage lens - at 2k resolutions. The Angie 15-150 T2.1 is also a great piece of glass for S16 cinematography, albeit huge and heavy. For a low quality example of the 17-68 lens at work -originally scanned at 2k resolution on a Spirit / DaVinci telecine rig, output to HDCAM- go here http://www.flickr.com/photos/10352165@N07/...57604091065100/

     

    http://eclair16.com/eclair-acl/super-16-co...patible-lenses/

     

    Hi Saul, As a follow-up to my last post about dating lenses : the Angé 17-68, just like the 12-120 was made for over 30 years, so this is why people have very widely different appreciations of these lenses. Not only are some 30 years older that others in terms of wear and such, but also you can imagine how much the glass and mechanics has evolved over that period -- even with the same design and specifications on paper.

     

    So a mid-50's (silver finish) 17-68/2,2 is probably not a good idea for shooting sharp S-16, while the left-over stock of the "same" lens (now in black, and called 4x17B) from Cinema Products, bought in the early 80's and available as N.O.S. on eBay regularly, may very well be the good choice you mention. This is where dating becomes important!

     

    So here's a rough idea culled from my database of Angé info : serials beginning with 120xxxx or so date back to the early 70's (I personally wouldn't bother shooting with anything earlier), serials in the 130's are from the mid 70's, and serials in the 140's are from the early 80's. I'd consider anything from the 80's in good condition to be a decent bet (there is always a risk, of course) for sharp glass -- even the maligned 12-120/2,2.

     

    These serials apply to all Angénieux lenses -- thankfully, they had only one numbering scheme (unlike Eclair and their serials for ACL vs NPR, etc.).

     

    Best,

    B.

  7. Hi everyone, you may have noticed when AOL Homestead closed shop that the Eclair ACL "super site" went offline with it. This was a bummer because it was probably the biggest ACL site & had a lot of technical info, S-16 conversion kits, etc. I managed to get in touch with Mark (the webmaster of that site) and he sent me over all of his original content. I'm in the process of putting it all back up on a new site. I have a lot of it already online & continue to add content as I get the chance.

     

    The site is at - http://eclair16.com/

    (click on the ACL link to get to the original "super site" content)

     

    I set up the site so that anyone can post and share their videos, tech tips, etc. I hope that a few people might join up and help showcase the work of Eclair cameras, show that we do have a community, keep value of our gear up, etc.

     

    I'm also hoping that somebody who knows a lot about the NPR would be interested in taking over that part of the site. No major web skills are required - it's set up with WordPress which is easy for anybody to use.

     

    (Oh, a note to Boris, I know you are working on a site concerned with Eclair history. I've been trying to reach you on email and PM. Please get in touch if you would be interested in hosting your site here or if I can link over to you.)

     

    Thanks - any suggestions or comments would be appreciated.

     

    Hi Jason,

    Great initiative to revive the Super-16 ACL site, which was a good source of basic info on the ACL. I have a few gripes with some of the details on it (particularly in the section about identifying the ACL II and generally with the evolution of the camera), but it is full of good tips on modifications, upgrade to S-16 (even without the kits available anymore), etc.

     

    I have a small suggestion regarding the first page : I think your inverted image of an ACL is a bit confusing for somebody who doesn't know the camera.

    Also, I understand the idea behind having members and the blog/discussions form, but there is already an Eclair list that barely lives despite a good membership, and of course, there is a lot of activity on cinematography.com. So I think it's best to complement that with an informational site, rather than compete with them with more discussion threads, memberships, etc.

     

    I hope I don't come out as too critical, that's not my intention! It's just that I have been thinking about this on my side for a while. As for my site, I think I will go ahead with it because it's very specific : I want to concentrate on the history and details of the ACL so there is no more questions identifying models, accessories, etc. -- something quite in depth, with good pictures, lots of explanations, etc.

     

    I may extend it with similar info the the Bolex H16, which I know inside and out too, and perhaps something about French lenses (types, dating,etc.) -- Angénieux and Kinoptik in particular.

     

    Whaddayathink?

     

    Cheers,

    Boris

  8. Hi, I've posted this in another thread, but it's probably worth repeating here : don't worry about the red light -- it SHOULD be blinking when the camera is running.

     

    The logic of Eclair engineers may not be evident but the diodes on the side of the ergo handgrip adapter (originally on late models ACLs) works like this : the green diode is on when there is power to the camera (lightmeter on and motor ready) and the the red diode blinks when the camera is running. There is no fault indicator on any ACLs besides the out-of-synch light on the top of the motor.

     

    And while Aaton eventually bought out the remains of Eclair after its bankruptcy, there is no engineering designs shared between cameras of the two companies. If anything, Aaton made sure there were no red lights meant to indicate that all was right with the camera...

     

    B.

     

    I would also call George at Optical-Electro House in Burbank, he may know. Tom may be right though . . . But you want a tech to tell you what the red light is for.

     

    See, on my Aaton LTR (sort of the next generation Eclair) the red light means trouble -either the film is jammed or jumping at the gate. And in other cameras and equipment, flashing red lights are warning signs. It would suck to have the electronics fry or something.

     

    If it wasn't doing it before I would send it in. Just in case . . .

  9. Hi Nicolas,

     

    It sounds like you may have a motor problem indeed. But don't worry about the red light -- it SHOULD be blinking when the camera is running.

     

    The logic may not be evident but the diodes on the side of the ergo handgrip adapter (originally on late models ACLs) worl like this : the green diode is on when there is power to the camera (lightmeter on and motor ready) and the the red diode blinks when the camera is running. There is no fault indicator on any ACLs besides the out-of-synch light on the top of the motor.

     

    Did you try running the camera without a magazine ? If the motor runs up to speed, you may just have a weak battery.

    Did you try the other speeds on the motor? (Try the slow speeds first!)

    What more can you tell us about the clicking sound ? Where does it come from : the motor, the camera, or the mag?

     

    B.

     

    So, while shooting the other day my Eclair ACL motor suddenly stopped running. The green light would still turn on when the camera was turned on, but nothing would happen when i tried to run the motor.

     

     

    I figured my battery had run out (hadn't needed to recharge it yet since i got it) and waited the long 16 hours for the battery to charge.

     

     

    However, after charging the battery the camera will turn on, but when i try to run the motor it runs but it is not up to speed and you can hear a strange clicking sound. This is when the dreaded red light begins to blink on the side of the camera. Tried another magazine, so it isn't a film jam. Perhaps i recharged the battery incorrectly and need a new one?

     

     

    Any help would be appreciated!

     

    Thanks-

    nicholas

  10. Hi, I've been servicing Bolex cameras for a while, never having owned a single official Bolex tool. What you need -- if you feel like diving into a world of minute mechanical parts (and some of us do, and the others just don't understand, do they?) -- are GOOD basic tools, a whole range of flat screwdrivers being essential (those screws have been in there for 40 or 50 years!), and if you want to do it right, you'll also begin to accumulate micrometers, precise dial gauges and so on... at least for repairing. If your camera runs well, chances are good that it'll run about as well if you manage to put it back together.

    The manual is actually helpful to save your sanity, and also for tricks such as how to re-synch the sprocket wheels, or a shutter on a reflex model. If you can't find a scanned manual on eBay, write me a personal message.

    Oh, yeah, I forget... your best tools besides those GOOD screwdrivers is a whole lot of patience!

     

    Best,

    B.

  11. Hi,

    I would start with Gérard Gallé of www.eclair-cameras.net, who has the stock of leftover parts from Eclair in France. He is active on this forum, but you can contact him directly on his site.

    Best,

    Boris

     

    Does anyone know where i can get a rubber eyecup for the kinoptik viewfinder for the npr?

    Thanks

  12. I did not mean to correct your answer, Bernie ! You're up there with the demi-gods of camera science in my book !

     

    I was just answering Anthony's indirect question : why would one want to take those screws out unless to mount something else on them. But if the question is just whether they hold anything inside or can be taken out safely to plug something else in their place, than the simple answer was yours : yes indeed.

     

    Best,

    Boris

     

    I'm in full agreement with you Boris. He simply asked if they were attached to anything, and I replied that they were not. I did not imply that they should not be in place.

    Cheers, Bernie

  13. Hi Tom,

     

    Yes, the big limiting fqctor with photo lenses is tha they are meant to cover a 24x36mm frame and will thus appear to have twice their focal lengths when used to shoot 16mm. Combined with the fact that it's difficult to build a wide angle for a wide format like 35mm photo, this leaves you with hardly any affordable choice for wide angles, or even standard lenses.

    Help could come from the lenses designed for the smaller sensors of digital SLRs, but a lot of them don't have an aperture ring and the cheap ones are... cheaply made to say the least.

     

    As for searching eBay for cine lenses, don't do your search by the mount, but by the brand name (or series name, like Kinetal instead of Cooke, since you probably wouldn't want to pay the price for their 35mm format Speed Panchros anyways). Make the search as broad as possible so you also get the results from those seller who don't know the technical details of what they sell (quite common in the 16mm format, and not necessarily a bad sign for the shape of the lens).

    Also, since you have an ACL, don't overlook the C-mount lenses - some of them are quite good, and you won't compete with the owners of Arris, Aaton, CPs, etc. for those. Most Angénieux C-mounts are so-so to ok as they can be quite old (50's even), but brands like Cooke and Kinoptik offered their excellent lenses in C-mount too. And Kern also made excellent lenses in their Switar range, including a good 10mm that covers S-16, but you have to make sure you get the Kerns that do not bear the inscription H16RX or RX on them, since those are specified to correct for the Bolex H16 RefleX's fixed prism (non-RX Kerns should be engraved with AR).

    As a rough rule of thumb, you can expect most fixed focal 16mm lenses of 15mm focal length and more to cover the S-16 frame. Some 12mm do, a few 10mm too, and below that is very rare (the Kinoptik 9 and even 5,7mm do, and both were made in C-mount).

     

    And yes, the Arri B mount is the Arri Bayonet mount. Arri designed three mounts : Arri Standard, Arri Bayonet (same dimensions but with locking lugs) and Arri PL (large Positive Lock).

     

    Best,

    Boris

     

    Thanks Saul,

     

    I've borrowed the lenses for my new C mount to Nikon. I had to go with what I could afford. One limitation is that in 35mm there doesn't seem to be many lenses under 28mm, or very few.

     

     

    Boris, thanks as well.

    I do have to say that I find very little to none in the way of lenses for CA (Cameflex) mounts. Perhaps I'm searching on Ebay with the wrong words, but I've tried, under cameras and photo, and find nothing but a manual.

     

    Could you also confirm if you know: is an Arri B mount the same thing as an Arri bayonet mount?

    I also have searched Ebay with those terms with very little returns. None with Arri Bayonet and only a few for Arri B

     

    Thanks as always. Have a warm day. It's -25 here. But then again that's with the wind chill :lol:

     

    Tom

  14. Hi Tom,

     

    There are in fact a lot of lenses available in CA/Eclair and Arri Bayonet (or Arri Standard) lens mounts. Look for them on eBay, they're all over, in varying conditions, but some of them are real gems for the price. One of the great adavantage of the ACL is its lens mount system, and the flexibility it gives you.

    Readily available are the ACL mounts Eclair made : the CA, of course, the Arri Bayo, the Arri Standard. They also made a Nikon mount for the ACL that is quite rare (but far more solid and precise than a Nikon-to-C would be). Custom-made ACL mounts have also been made by different shops : PL, Aaton,... also quite rare and expensive.

    Photography lens are fine for filming, but the ergonomics might not be the best, nor their construction (unless you go for high-price lenses).

    Look for traditional cine lenses of good quality and you may find them surprisingly affordable as more and more people rush for the PL mounts. Since you shoot Super-16, you may have trouble finding an affordable zoom lens (besides the Angénieux 15-150, which is sometimes -- but not always -- poor), but the Cooke Kinetal series of fixed focal lenses can give you very good picture quality at a cheap price in Arri St mount. Kinoptiks are very good too, but a bit cultish and quite expensive. Zeiss tend to be more expensive because of their reputation as the sharpest.

    My advice with an ACL is : find the good and cheap lens that you want, than locate the adapter, if you don't already have it.

    Best, B.

  15. They are just plugs indeed, but they open right onto the inside of the camera. While the Bolex body is not airtight, you are exposing the mechanism to possible damage (water, etc.). Why would you want to leave them out ?

     

    Boris

     

    Do the small screws that fill the 4 motor mount thread holes hold anything together? Or do they just serve as plugs? I'd like to leave them out if i could-
  16. Hi Nicolas,

     

    They do exist, as Eclair made them for the NPR (some NPRs were made with two C-mounts, custom ordered, or in case you wanted two CA mounts.)

     

    I may have one somewhere. Otherwise, yes, a custom-made one would cost a lot. Les Boscher would be one person to ask.

     

    Best, B.

     

    Hey guys, i was just wondering if i'd be able to use my Eclair (cameflex) mount lenses on a 16mm bolex.

     

    I'm guessing i'd need some sort of C-mount to Eclair-mount adapter?

     

     

    thanks-

    nicholas

  17. Hi Sean,

    This may be old at this point, but I wanted to post this info for anyone still trying to understand Angénieux's system for older lenses (and forget about getting info, and above all parts from Angénieux at this point, they just don't care, and mostly don't remember they made the 12-120 for 30 years or so -- or should I say, the 12-120 made them...).

     

    So, for all the classic Angénieux lenses, from the early 60's up to about 1980/85, each zoom lens has a description giving the focal variation multiplied by the widest focal setting (10x12 in the case of the 12-120 lens) followed by a type, for example your 10x12B. the types are as follow :

     

    Type A is the model with a built in viewfinder (and generally a C-mount).

    Type B is the regular model with various standard cine mounts (C, Arri, Eclair, Aaton, CP...).

    Type C is the model collimated for Bolex Reflex (whether in C mount or Bolex Bayonet mount).

    Other "types" were added in the 70's to match video camera mounts, but I don't know much about these.

     

    So, a 4x18 A lens is a 18-64 Reflex zoom. A 20x12B is a 12-240 zoom in any of the common cine mount, and so on. This is helpful to know to identify lenses that were adapted later on (some reflex lenses lost their viewfinders, for example), or generally messed with (non matching type indication), since it's very easy to switch the fron element on one of these lenses with another from the same family (even though changing the front element should not matter optically, since they were the same across the 3 types).

     

    Fixed focal Angénieux lenses also have Type indication, which describes the type of lense design they have (for instance, all Type R fixed focals are retrofocus design, and so, mostly wide-angle). Lens mount is not indicated in this type-system either.

     

    Some fixed focal Angé cine lenses in C-mount have an engraving across the barrel that states 'Special P.' which stands for Special Paillard and indicates the lens is collimated for Bolex Reflex. These are very rare, and all other Angénieux fixed focals (including the very common 10mm.) should not be used on a Bolex Reflex without first checking its optical performance at wide apertures.

     

    Hope this is helpful and clears out some of the confusion out there on these very common lenses.

     

    Best, B.

  18. Hey Boris,

     

    Sounds like a great site. I've got an ACL II s/n #2947.

    Not sure what date that would make it.

     

    I'll send some pictures along in the next few days.

     

    Tom

     

    Hi Tom,

     

    That makes yours just a few cameras younger than mine, and the latest one I've traced so far, so definitely send those photos, if only for the record. I imagine yours was produced in '84 or '85. Send me the serial on the motor, and on the Kinoptik viewfinder, to see if the serials match mine.

     

    Not sure production ever went past the 3000 unit line, so the first person with a 3000+ serial number gets a bonus present !

     

    Best,

    Boris

  19. To get the ball rolling (see my last post), I thought I would send on my *preliminary* history of the ACL. If you have any comments, don't hesitate ! -- Boris

     

    The evolution of the ACL is a bit of vexing one to figure out as it has not been well documented, even in Eclair literature. First complication is the French/English double history and different timelines. At leat one thing is simple about the British ACL : it did not evolve beyond the original model except for the addition of the Brit 120m. mag (developped before the French mag), but production extended into the mid-70's, overlapping all the while with the French production. The French camera evolved progressively, and even as improved features were available, the older ones remained as an option (viewfinder, lightmeter, etc.). As far as I can figure it out so far, the history of the French ACL is something like this :

     

    69-70 : Filmaker Jean Rouch is given a pre-production prototype to test during the filming of a 10 part television series and continuously gives feedback to Eclair engineers Coma and Lec?ur. The camera is officially introduced in October 1970 at Photokina 70.

    Very early models (prototypes) have a traditional toggle switch to start the camera. No "Eclair" or "Eclair ACL" on front of camera or side of magazine.

     

    Spring 1971 - original model : small base, small motor (MIALA), small Angé viewfinder (with visible split lines), 60m. mag only. The handgrip has no provision for filter holders.

    Camera illustrating the 1971 sales brochure has body # 446

     

    1972 - production stops in France for about a year, then starts again under the SOREMEC parent company.

    Camera illustrating the 1973 Soremec manual has body # 418, but pictures are probably reprints from 1971 manual.

     

    73/74 - progressive introduction of : a) the French 120m. mag (after the British made their own), b) the optional built-in lightmeter (both announced in sales brochure 7301 and '73 manual), c) the heavy-duty multi-speed motor (first model MIMUL does not have mirror parking feature, silver speed rotary switch) and matching mid-size base (announced in '73 manual as forthcoming, depicted in brochure 7405 and introduced in October 74 according to Parts Manual), d) high-speed modified 60m. magazine roller design, e) the new magazine release protection system (which is not a feature introduced with the ACL II, despite what is said on the Super-16 ACL site), and finaly f) the improved Angénieux VF. The model incorporating all of these improvements is officially known as the Type 1974, but it's what people often call the 1.5 ACL. Sometimes later, the heavy-duty motor is upgraded to the MIVAR model, which includes the mirror-parking function (mirror sign engraved on motor side, black speed switch then black and silver locking switch).

    French serials of cameras range in the 1200-1700 or so ; the camera illustrating the 1976 manual has body # 1615 and motor # 1133.

     

    76-78 - Eclair releases the rare "Single System" MOS sound ACL with a larger base needed for the sound electronics (French serials begin at 1700). The (optional) small Angénieux viewfinder changes to a tubular form. The motor is upgraded to be externally synched (model MIPIL with a bevelled plate that protects the inching knob, serial # begin at 2001). Meanwhile, the 'silent' camera gains the large base "for future electronics" to match the base of the MOS model (base is empty and does not have Lemo synch connector in).

    The camera illustrating the MOS ACL manual has body # 1700 and motor # 2001.

     

    79-85 - Eclair comes up with the name ACL II for the camera including all of these improvements and a new set of Kinoptik viewfinders (two kinds : the well-known large, orientable kind and also a small, non-orientable one). The large base now houses the Lemo connector for external synching (unfortunately, the Eclair Botex synching box is a very, very rare accessory today) The camera also comes with an on-board battery holder and the magazines have 2-part pressure plates. Strangely, Eclair never printed an ACL II manual, only a 4 page insert that is meant to replace the central pages in the 1976 manual. The insert describes the Kinoptik viewfinder, the large base and its connections, and the new ergonomic grip.

    ACL II serial numbers run from about 2300 to 3000 or so. The camera illustrating the US ACLII brochure has body # 2516.

    I own an ACL II wth body # 2939, which is the highest that I have encountered so far.

     

    July 1985, production has stopped after bankruptcy of the Soremec/Eclair company, and in April 1986 Aaton buys out the remaining stock, parts and patents. In the mean time, further models based on the ACL had been developped but hardly produced : the famous S-16/reg-16 Panoram (3 or 4 working prototypes built), but also an EX-16 model, which is basically a modernized version of the original ACL concept of a light, minimalist camera (60 m. mags, small Kinoptik VF, unobtrusive motor designed by Aaton). The last ACL IIs produced are basically the same as the 1979 version, with the MOS option still offered, as well as an undocumented time-coding system. The lightmeter remained optional throughout production, so an ACL II does not necessarily have a lightmeter. A factory Super-16 option was also offered at some point in the late 70's, but I have yet to identify any such model. Incredibly enough, internally the camera was changed only in very minimal ways throughout its 15 years history, and despite the ACL's growth from a light, minimal sister-model to the NPR to a full-blown (and much heavier) very versatile production camera -- a testimony to the excellent original design of Coma and Lec?ur !

     

    After the Aaton buy-out, service of existing cameras is left in the hands of the main French service center renamed Epifac/Eclair SCOP (the remains of which are owned by Gérard Gallé of ART & MEDIAS in Argenteuil), while Aaton retained the control over all electronic parts. A new motor (that of the EX-16 ?) and a set of new options (lightmeter, etc) were announced by Aaton, but I don't believe many were delivered, if any at all. Understandably, Aaton chose to concentrate on the production of its own cameras, after the demise of the company that first hired Beauviala to adapt his quartz-controled motors to the Eclair NPR.

  20. Hi everybody, and happy new year!

     

    OK, this is a big one : I want to build a website dedicated to the ACL, info, specs, details, and history. It's not easy as Eclair has disappeared without leaving much in the way of archives. Plus the publications it put out in the period were quite sketchy... no real manual for the ACLII, for instance.

     

    But I already have a lot of info accumulated : I have been collecting manuals, adverts, tech docs, pictures of cameras and their serial numbers, etc. Still, I want a bit more info so that whatever I put on the site is solid and definitive.

     

    So I would be interested in hearing from anybody who owns an ACL (I would like pix and serial numbers of camera, motor, and viewfinder to date cameras by their serials), or who

    has documentation of any kind about the ACL (except for the two pdfs of manuals that everybody already has), especially tech. docs, or sales fliers, or from anybody who has first-hand experience with the Eclair company when it was still active.

     

    You can write back on here, or directly to my personal mail (with pix, for instance) :

    eclair.cameras@coditel.net

     

    Thanks!

    Boris

  21. Hi again Evan,

     

    How is the camera doing ?

     

    Could you send me some pictures of the viewfinder, as well as the serial number on it, if any ? I'm trying to compile all the info I can find on ACLs to make a website with real info and docs, and your viewfinder is a rare model. I believe it's the last kind Angénieux designed for the ACL, in '76/77 or so, based on the original 'small' viewfinder. It basically looks like a trimmed down version of the earlier angular model, but I've never seen detailed pix of one.

    A bit later, Angénieux stopped making V-Fs for ACLs and Kinoptik came out with the well-known improved orientable V-F as well as their little known non-orientable one.

     

    Thanks for any info you can provide on it!

  22. Hi,

    The ACL1 came a 24fps or a 25ips crystal on its motor. They are switchable. Mine has a 25ips. I'm looking for a 24ips.

    Regards,

    Marc.

    Hi Marc,

     

    I have those : write me directly.

     

    Happy new year!

     

    Boris

  23. Yes, on top of the variable speed motor is a switch that can be moved forward (24 ips) or back (25 ips), and corresponds to the N (Normal) position of the speed dial. Perhaps your motor was repainted and those engravings are not visible anymore.

     

    Best, B

     

    on my acl motor, towards the lens is 24, towards the back of the camera is 25fps. Did the marking rub off?
  24. Hi, Congrats on your new ACL -- a really great 16mm. camera indeed !

     

    To answer your dating/model questions : no, your camera is not an ACL II. It's an early-mid 70's French-build model with a later model added (the synchro function on the motor and the bevelled plate around the inching knob are late 70's additions). That motor should have no problems with 400ft mags.

    If you want to know more about the history of that actual camera, it was sold on ebay by a Canadian shop (pseudo abcnet.com) a few months ago to the guy who sold it to you in turn. Perhaps the original seller knows more -- he may even have changed the motor on it. The power connector was also changed to the standard XLR-4, which is a nice practical improvement.

     

    And yes, you need to remove the film spool on the take-up side of the mags if you want to use a daylight spool on the take-up side. You could also wind those 100ft rolls on cores, but you need to unload the camera in a changing bag. One of the great qualities of the ACL is the ability to use 400ft/200ft/100ft rolls on either cores or daylight loads, with emulsion either wound in or out, and of sourse with either single or double perf. You can't get much more flexible than that ! You may want to let your lab know that the exposed film comes out with Emulsion Out, though.

     

    Good luck with your tests and don't hesitate to ask more questions!

    B.

     

    So I just got my acl in the mail. I am very excited, it feels much heavier and studier than my K-3 or my russian sp-16. I wanted to post some pictures to make sure everything looked alright. It was advertised as an ACL II however, I am not sure.

     

    The serial number on the camera body is 1719, the serial number on the motor is 2181. I did not know if this indicated that the motor wasn't the original. If anyone knows more I would appreciate it, not that it really matters, I care more about the camera functioning than what exact model it is. I would like to get some 400 foot magazines in the future, I want to make sure my camera can handle those.

     

    I have read the manual and understand all the buttons, I wanted to know if there were any other secrets of the acl I should be aware of.

     

    I am going to shoot some tests with it this week, hopefully I will have results back soon to share.

     

    I am a little confused about the magazine. I have about 10 rolls of 100 foot daylight spools I want to use with it. Should both reels have a 100 foot daylight core on them? The reason I ask is because the take up side had a special core on it, if i removed it, the 100 foot daylight fits, but I wanted to verify this was the right thing to do. I am assuming the special core it had inside was for 200 foot reels.

×
×
  • Create New...