Jump to content

Boris Belay

Basic Member
  • Posts

    248
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Boris Belay

  1. Hi Ray,

     

    Sorry if I'm responding too late... Did you buy the camera in the end ? I don't think CA$1300 is a bad price for an entry level ACL kit in good running order. If the camera was indeed serviced recently and you get to look at it hands on, you're probably getting a better deal than you would on eBay, where these kits may be cheaper (sometimes), but without the convenience of meeting the seller and so on.

    As for the camera itself, it is an early model with the original motor. The 400 ft mags have proven troubelsome for these motors sometimes, but in my opinion, if they are properly maintained and loaded (which was not necessarily the case with the news crews of the 70's), they should function well. The seller should be able to tell you anyways how much he's shot with that combination of camera and mags, and all may be fine as it is.

    As for 200 ft mags, they're great because they make the camera so small, so they're definitely worth you're looking into them. I wouldn't expect to pay more than US$200 for one on eBay -- sometimes quite a bit less.

     

    Best, B.

     

    Hello all,

     

    I've written a few times on the Eclair forums here trying to gather enough information on ACLs and NPRs in my quest to find an affordable sync camera to move to from my Bolex. Well, the search is almost over and I've narrowed it down on an Eclair ACL that I saw today. The following is included:

    - Eclair ACL body (made in England)

    - A 24fps crystal sync motor

    - Orientable viewfinder

    - 2 400' magazines (made in England)

    - A 15-150mm Angenuix Zoom lens (made in France)

    - One rechargable Sony battery and wall-charger.

     

    The package is being sold for $1300 Canadian. I have one more chance to look at it tomorrow and then have to give my final answer as to whether I want it or not.

     

    I looked at the lens in the light, it seemed clear. I ran the motor and it seemed to run fine and quietly. I looked through the viewfinder, it was clear and bright. Now my questions:

     

    - Is there anything specific I should look for when checking out the package tomorrow? Anything that I've missed?

    - Is $1300 a good price for the package?

    - The body is made in England, which I think means this is ACL 1, not 1.5. Do ACL 1s have trouble pulling 400' magazines? I wish I knew more specifics about the motor.

     

    Any other advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

     

    th_36263_Pic1_122_362lo.jpg

     

    th_36273_Pic2_122_1200lo.jpg

  2. To reply to your two answers :

     

    There is no low battery indicator on the camera itself as it's a modular design with self-contained sub-parts. The low battery light is in fact the out-of-synch warning light on the motor, which basically tells you you don't have enough power left to run the motor up to speed. And the motor will stop pulling film way before the battery is so drained that it gets damaged, so no risk to go too low by simply running the camera.

     

    As for the light meter, Eclair opted for a deviation principle light-meter : it tells you that the light is changing by up to 3 stops up or below a given measured level, rather than telling you how much light actually comes in. So in practice it works like this : you point your camera at the subject and frame it as you want to shoot it (in the correct focal position in case of a zoom) and with the electrical circuit on (leds lit up in the viewfinder), you set the leds to the middle position with the dial on the base of the camera. This is your 'light measurement' and the lightmeter will then move if the light changes in your viewfinder, indicating a possible over- or under-exposure and allowing you to correct it with the diaphragm on the lens.

    This metering system was made with the idea that the camera would be used in uncontroled light situations (like news gathering and such) and that the operator needed a simple system to make sure the light variations would remain within an acceptable range (or else, be corrected manually).

    Of course, you still need an external light meter ('proper' kind) to tells you what your beginning f-stop should be. The camera's lightmeter is thus just a monitoring device while filming.

    So keep that Spectra by your side !

     

    Best, B

     

     

    I have a couple more questions about my eclair acl.

     

    Where is the low battery indicator? I'm worried this might be broken, and i don't want to completely drain my battery which would damage it.

     

    How does the exposure indicator function? I was told my camera had some sort of internal light meter but i have no idea where it is displayed or how it works.

     

     

     

    Thank you for your patience-

     

    nicholas

     

    ps. shot my first roll last night, hope to have something to show you soon.

  3. Hello,

    I thank for advice. :rolleyes:

    I try to inquire it promptly. ;)

    Thank's again!!!

     

    kazu

     

    Hello Kazu,

    Besides the techies mentioned in the previous response (good choices), I know that Eclair used to make these adapters. They are quite rare but you should look for them on eBay regularly. And yes, if you plan on using a heavy zoom lens on a C-mount camera, think about supporting the lens with some kind of support. Also, make sure the apapter you get clears the back of your specific lens. For example, if you have one made, tell the technician what lens you want to use with it so that they make sure the back of the lens will fit in the adapter.

    Best,

    Boris

  4. Hi Brian,

     

    thanks for the info. It's about what I expected/feared. Yes, the Rex-5 is C-mount. Yep, it's one huge junk of glass, which kinda beats the purpose I bought the Bolex for. I wanted to have a small 16mm package as my NPR isn't exactly that. Not light either. So I might not buy this huge bugger and get three primes instead. But I'll run my tests on it anyways. You never know...

     

    Cheers, Dave

     

    Hi Dave, Get the primes, and save the time and money on the 9,5-95. It's an older design (late 50's), based on the 12-120, which wasn't great to begin with (at least not those up to the 70's). But most importantly, if you want portability and you have an Eclair for the 'big' shots, definitely go with the primes. A Rex-5 with three primes fits in a shoulder-slung bag and is just the best carry-everywhere pro-16mm. kit around. I have ACL's galore, but I'll never give up my wind-up H16 + Kern primes. It's not just picture quality and portability, it's also about how conspicuous you are when shooting. As soon as you get those big lenses out there, you're back on the production line. But as Brian points out, this doesn't mean you have to give up on zoom lenses. The Berthiot/RTH 17-85/3.8 mini-zoom is great, especially since you can mount it on the turret with two primes : it's designed to fit where the tele usually goes and clears even the 10mm. It's a great combination. Look for the improved but rare Kern version (17-85/3.5) if you can.

    Good Bolex shooting !

    Boris

  5. ...but what about the "deadly poisonous gasses and radiation leaking out and killing the actors and crew"?

     

     

     

     

     

    And gosh no, I certainly did not take Bernie's opinion lightly, he has oodles of Eclair experience. That is exactly why I am so afraid to use those mags. He obviously has a good reason for warning me away from the English mags. Hope I didn't give the wrong impression.

     

    I was hoping to hear from others who might (or might not) have had experience with the English mags. Mine, are in really great shape. I couldnt call them "Mint", but very good condition. And I know full well that I will probably be in a situation at some point where I will be forced to use them. So I was hoping to learn what the common problems might be.

     

    But as far as camera Techs, I doubt there is anyone alive who is more familiar with the Eclairs then Bernie. Jesus maybe. But he now only works on the RED.

     

    Test your magazines over and over with spent film, then shoot a roll or two with fresh film, until you're more confident about them. I for one have had no problem so far with my Brit mags, that's what I was trying to convey. As for what will make you feel secure when that important shoot comes, I can't tell...

    But why don't you get back to Bernie and ask him to elaborate, then post his detailed answer here so we have an opinion based on his long experience ? That would take one step further in that old vexing debate, no ? Then we could ask Les Bosher, and get a British opinion too !

     

    By the way, here is a picture of the prototype French mags as announced in the 1973 French ACL manual. You can clearly see that it's the principle of the British design, but modified probably to incorporate the French style footage counter. I don't believe these ever went into production, as the brochure announcing the "Type 1974" ACL with its new 120m. mag shows the final design of the French mag (and does not tout the benefits of the Brit design anymore...).

    post-8093-1213436555.jpg

    post-8093-1213436690.jpg

  6. I aquired an Eclair ACL two months ago. It came with a french made 200ft Mag and one 400ft Mag -english version with capstan drive. The Mags are very clean inside. Also the camera seems to run smoothly. Although I sent the camera away for servicing. But I kept the Mags here because sending uge parcels to the US from Europe is VERY expensive.

    Would you send mags for servicing when they seem to be in good shape?

    Another question:

    Did anybody of you ACL users ever use the 200ft loads for the AAton A-Minima with the 200ft Mags of the ACL? I know that they are fitting when you take away the two disks protecting the film for daylight loading. But the loads are emulsion out. Is this any problem?

    -Lots of questions...Your advice is very helpful!

    THank you!

    Best regards,

    Ole

    Test your mags with film when you get the camera back : that's the best way to know whether there is a problem with them. But beforehand, look them over carefully : is the film path clean ? Do all the rollers turn smoothly ? Does the film run through the mags smoothly ? You can run the camera with film with the mag doors removed to observe the film motion. Also, it ony takes 3 or 4 screws to remove the film channel leadind from the feed side to the receiving side : this should be inspected as it could have hidden dirt or film bits, or stuck rollers inside. The srews are the ones with the rounded heads, not the ones with the flat heads (which are for roller axles and such). Also, if you remove that film channel, the spring-loaded rounded piece of plastic that pushes the mag door open will come off with the film channel, so expect it to jump out (it's easy to put back, though).

    But of course, try it out with film to be sure it doesn't get scratched, or bunched, or whatever else. ACL mags are well designed, so yours may well be in useable shape as you got them.

    And yes, you can use Aaton Minima loads in your mags. Both the 200 and 400 ft mags take either Emulion In or Emulsion Out winds, since the feed side is not driven but just pulled (and the rollers are placed in such a way that both are acceptable).

  7. Really????

    Bernie....without actually coming out and saying it.....pretty much implied that I should throw my English mags into the garbage. I just cant do it. They are running perfectly, and he is relentless in his statements that the English mags are risky. Since those idiots on Ebay took the last of my "magazine fund", I now only have the two English mags on one of my two ACL systems (thankfully, there are two good French mags on my other system).

     

    Nothing is more of a pain and headache then fears about your gear. It has now been so drilled into my head that my English mags are DEFINITELY going to fail, that I'll never be able to shoot anything of importance with them, since I'll be terrified of failure, scratches, or deadly poisonous gasses and radiation leaking out and killing the actors and crew.

     

    Say it isnt so!

     

    Trying to stay away from broad generalization -- even those about broad generalization ;) --, I would take Bernie at his word, as I trust he has a lot more experience with these cameras than most of us here. If you say that he says they are 'risky', but not that they should be put in the bin, perhaps they are indeed of a less reliable design than the French mags in the long run... I don't mind British magazines myself, but I service all of my mags, and of course, they work when they are serviced (Eclair-Debrie UK would not have released mags that simply don't function).

    This reminds me of people who keep harping on the 'falling magazines issue' of ACLs. Anyone who has spent two seconds thinking about the physics of how ACL mags are attached to ACL bodies will understand that 30 years down the line you can't mix and match any mag to any body without some kind of adjustment. This is not even related to the question of where they were built, but simply of considering that the ACL was produced over a 15 year period and any one camera and magazine will have had a very different life since 1971 (or any year until 1986) than the next.

    So, get those mags matched to your camera, or sell those that are a few microns too used for your body back on eBay, where somebody with a differently adjusted camera will pick it up ans use it happily. And get your mags (Brit or French) serviced first, try them out on your camera with spent films 10 times over, and either calm your fears down or get the best and latest.

    But don't question a recognized tech with several decades of experience on a statement he did not make. Brit mags have a very different design to the French ones. In fact, Brit mags were designed first, and when the French decided it was a good idea to expand the ACL to 1o min. of shooting, they began by copying the Brit design : the prototypes shown in early announcements of the French 120m. mag show a very similar design to the Brit mags (and tout their low torque winding arm). Yet, by the time they went into production, the French mags were completely redesigned to what we know them to be. So perhaps there is a worthwhile reason to the French redesign, and still no reason to throw away Brit mags altogether... I'd take Bernie at his word here, and perhaps even ask for more details on his position straight from him.

    And to add a bit to the original question, yes, there was a complete redesign of the pressure plate late in the production of French mags. The plates have four small guiding posts on the sides, but more importantly, the pressure plate is in two parts : the bit just behind the film gate is independant and has a spring with a lower pressure than the rest of the plate (on which it is mounted). Here is a picture :

    post-8093-1213349549.jpg

  8. Hi Dave,

    No, sorry : not much info on the NPR/Coutant. That would take even more research, as that camera had such a long lifespan and just as little clear info from Eclair on its evolution.

    My info is culled from all the Eclair manuals, brochures, and price lists that I could get my hands on, as well as scanning both the French and US specialized press (American Cinematographer) for news, pictures, ads, etc. Web-sites and eBay is a very good source of info too, but these have to be cross-checked with period info.

    Anyways, I should post all of this on a site, and all my info on Bolex too. Then perhaps the Cameflex, and the NPR...

    Cheers, B

  9. Ooops, first edit... The ACL sound model is obviously not MOS. It's a Commag single-system camera with the possibility of using either the built-in recording features or an outside recorder. Older ACL cameras could even be adapted for the latter option.

  10. Hi Allen, Your camera is indeed an ACL II model. Somehow, it's lost its Kinoptik VF somewhere along it's 30-or-so year life (all ACL VF are switchable, provided you have the matching base, which mounts with two screws).

    Since you ask that question, here is my long answer regarding the dating and the history of the ACL. 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 (I'm trying to find out all the information I can before posting it on a website). 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, but production extended into the mid-70's, overlapping with the French production). The French camera evolved progressively, and even as improved features were available, the older ones remained as an option. Basically, the order is something like this :

    Spring 1971 - original model : small base, small motor, small Angé viewfinder, 60m. mag only.

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

    73/74 - progressive introduction of : a) the French 120m. mag (after the British made their own), b) the heavy-duty multi-speed motor (first models did not have mirror parking feature) and matching mid-size base, c) the optional built-in lightmeter, d) 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 e) 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 (French serials range in the 1200-2000 or so).

    76-78, Eclair releases the rare MOS sound ACL with a larger base needed for the sound electronics (French serials around 1700). Later, the motor is upgraded to be externally synched, the large base ("for future electronics") is adopted on all ACLs, and Angénieux stops making viewfinders for Eclair, replaced by Kinoptik (two kinds : the well-known large, orientable kind and also a small, non-orientable one, more rounded than the original small Angénieux model).

    By 1978, Eclair comes up with the name ACL II for the camera including all of these improvements. By then the ACL II motors have been further improved with a bevelled plate that protects the inching knob, and the large base of the camera houses a Lemo connector for external synching (unfortunately, the Eclair Botex synching box is a very, very rare accessory today). 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, large base, and the new ergonomic grip. ACL II serial numbers run from about 2000 (or perhaps 2200) to 3000 or so.

    By 1986, production had stopped after bankruptcy of the Soremec/Eclair company, an attempt at reviving the company by its main engineers and employees, and the final Aaton buy-out of remaing 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 souped-up return to 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 1978 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 deespite 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 was left in the hands of the main French service center renamed Eclair SCOP (the remains of which were bought 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.

     

    If anybody has any information or corrections to add, or any questions related to the history and dating of ACLs, don't hesistate to ask !

  11. Hi, Could someone recommend a lab for overnight processing of a couple of 100ft rolls in NYC ? I'm passing through town and setting up a couple of Bolex for time-lapse and would like to run a test first. Fast processing (neg dev. only) is what I really need, but friendly and cheap service would be a nice plus.

    Boris

  12. Yes, that info is definitely WRONG, as is a number of other things on that site (nice idea, but...).

    The reference on the RX lens issue (correcting optical aberrations introduced by the prism, NOT its light-loss) as well as actual shutter speeds (real and corrected) is this site :

    http://www.city-net.com/~fodder/bolex/

     

    Note that the EBM (and EL) does not have the same shutter angle as the traditional H16RX, and so, a different shutter speed.

    -B.

    Here's a web site that adds to the confusion concerning Rx lenses. It contains a very good history of Bolex cameras and lenses, but I've come to believe that it must be wrong on the Rx lens issue.

     

    http://www.bolexequipment.com/16mmLensesMenu.htm

  13. Or you could contact Tim Tyler on this forum and ask to post your scans on the "Manuals and Docs" section so they are available esaily to anyone interested. That would be great !

    -B.

  14. I've just bought an Aaton motor for my NPR and I'm wondering if anybody succeeded to wire a Tobin Milliframe Controller to the Aaton Alcan motor with it's Hirose 4-pin connector???

    Can I plug a on/off remote directly on the Hirose 4-pin or other accessories?

    Pin 4 is (+) and pins 1,2and 3 are (-)...?

    Is there a fuse in this motor and where is it?

    How to swith from 25 to 24fps?

    Thanks

    Hi Tibo, I would think you could get the specifications of the electronics directly from Aaton (Beauviala should remember !) and take your answer to Tobin. With the details, Clive will be able to tell you if it can be done -- he is a very helpful and nice guy.

    Good luck,

    B

  15. For the record, I have a Haflexx motor for the Eclair ACL (not very well designed, but it works...) and it does have the same connector, so I'm happy to hear a Tobin Milliframe would probably work with it too -- that was a question I had. I wonder about its top speed (reg. speeds are 24/25/30fps).

    -B

  16. I have an RX-2; it's got a strong motor, everything's clean, and it runs like a charm...BUT it runs VERY LOUD!!! Even with a recent lube job there is still a lot of squeaking and mechanical noise. Barneys and blimp I've got; what I would like are ways to tune the motor so vibe is at a minimum. Has anyone done this? Any suggestions?

    Hi Eric, H16's are loud, but it sounds like yours is particulaly so. There shouldn't really be "squeaking" for instance. Can you try to identify the source (or sources) of the noise ? If so, i may be able to help you quiet it down. Check the shutter (rubbing ?) also.

    In the past, i have posted a few tips on H16 lubing on this forum. That may be a start.

    I'm not saying your Bolex will be quiet in the end, just a little less loud...

    -B

  17. Hi. I'm just wondering, what's the difference between a Eclair ACL and NPR? I've tried to search for it on the internet, but can't find any good pages dedicated to this camera.

    The Eclair NPR was the first to come out in the mid-60's. Silent camera with variable shutter, somewhat bulky and uncomfortable for shoulder work :

    see : http://members.aol.com/npr16mm/

     

    The Eclair ACL came out in the early 70's as a simpler (no variable shutter, for instance), smaller, lighter camera. Very nice too, and much better for shoulder work.

    see : http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/Super16ACL/menu.htm

     

    And of course, do search in this forum, there are LOTS of posts on these popular cameras.

     

    -B

  18. No response so far... Is anybody familiar with the Haflexx motor for the NPR, then ? Or some other Haflexx motor that could be similar ? Perhaps the design features are the same ?

    What about the Arri outboard synch system (probably for the SR generation) ? The synch connector is a small 11-pin female plug.

    -B.

  19. Thank you very much :)

     

    If that is a bit expensive, do you know of a place/website which would have it for cheaper?

    eBay, from an other seller... but you have to be patient !

    Good luck with the hunt !

    -B.

  20. Yes, it is -- it's a bit expensive, but it's the right one.

    The V-S 18-86 is the only Kern lens in that size range that got an alu cap, so you can't go wrong.

    -B.

  21. I know this is an old thread, but where did you find your M42 to c-mount adapter?

     

    James

    I would start with eBay. These are/were quite common and should be much cheaper than new.

  22. Angelina,

    My sense is that for your purposes, the quality of the cameras (technically speaking) will be equivalent, and your real criteria for choice is the kind of film you want to make.

    Bolex H16's and Arri SR's are very different beast in the way you handle them -- if you want to be very mobile with a light, hand-held camera (which does not mean shaky shots, just moving fast), i would say go with a Bolex (electric, or possibly mechanical, if you don't want to be messing with batteries and cords and can live with 25 second shots) and 100ft spools : you'll be everywhere and fast, able to be very close to people, mor intimate. If you want more composed shots, and more importantly a 10 minute shooting time with a more quiet camera, then the Arri (on a tripod) would be more like it. But you'll also be more bulky, more professional looking, and more distant to the guests -- which may or may not be what you want.

    It's a bit more complicated than that (the Bolex can be mounted on a tripod with a large mag, the Arri can be shoulder-held,...), but that's more or less the difference betweent the cameras and above all, it's more about the film you want to make : more or less formal, intimate,...

    As for the film stock, the answer is the same : any film stock sold today is excellent and the choice is only determined by what you want to have as a result.

    If you tell us more about the kind of film you want to shoot, we can help you more too.

    -B.

  23. Is anybody familiar with the Haflexx motor for the ACL ? (Not the NPR, different one.)

    It's on an ACL that I bought, and I can't find any info on it. Since it's an ACL 1, I suspect the original motor burned out pulling 120m. loads.

    The motor has crystal speeds of 24, 25, and 30 fps, and no non-crystal speeds.

    It also has an EXT female connector, which I take to be to synchronize the motor to an outboard controler. I read somewhere that the NPR Haflexx motor can be synchronized to Arri gear of the period (mid-70's). Does that sound plausible ?

    The motor also has a second connector, a Cannon 4 pin male. I'm thinking it could be for power, but typically the ACL motor gets its power through the camera, not the other way around.

     

    Any help or info would be appreciated !

    -B.

  24. Hi, An easy way to check your camera speed (any camera, so long as it has a frame counter) is to load a dummy roll and check the number of frames against a stopwatch -- on a Bolex spring model, I check over 20 seconds to have a fairly reliable reading.

    By the way, this is a good thing to do on H16's anyway since the 24 ips setting is not clearly indicated. And also, of course, the camera may have gotten a little slow over time.

    I begin by setting the 18ips speed, because the dial does indicate 18ips precisely. It takes a good number of trials to get it precisely set : load the spool, wind the spring, reset the frame counter to 000, fire the camera and stop-watch at exactly the same time (mine, a common sports-style 3 button stopwatch, is conveniently laid out so that I can fire the camera's front release with the stopwatch's start button, so they're synchronized quite simply. I then hold the side release in running position and release it at exactly 20 (or 10) secs.)... then check the result, move the speed selector accordingly, and go on like that until it's good (enough).

    When I have the camera running reliably at 18ips, I set the dial to the correct position (it is held by two tiny screws that can be loosened with a common jeweller's screwdriver). You have to be careful not to move the speed setting while matching the dial, obviously. Once it's set and re-tightened in the correct position (if need be), I then find the 24 ips (same time-consuming procedure) and mark it with a precise little mark engraved with the tip of a knife.

    This is useful if you need a 25 ips setting on your H16 too.

    For other models of camera without frame counters, you could use a length of film that has been cut to an exact number of frames (with an external film counter), allowing for the loop and loading length, obviously.

    Remember that the longer you run your trial sample, the more accurate your reading : less variation due to a sloppy start/stop synchronization, errors in timing more obvious because multiplied by the time running and more precise time setting (1 frame off over a second is much worse than 1 frame off over 20 !), and a more accurate estimate of your motor's real-world accuracy over the time of actual scene shots.

    B.

×
×
  • Create New...