Geffen Avraham

Anyone know what's going on with the Adelie? A few weeks ago, Logmar's site had a countdown to a major announcement.

Now, it's gone, and the Adelie blogpost is deleted.

CP-16 batteries are hard to find these days, with Du-All being the only place to get them, and many resorting to DIY solutions. Re-celling an existing pack has previously been tedious and difficult.

I'm happy to say that this is no longer the case. BatterySpace currently sells the custom Powerizer battery pack that Du-All uses for their new batteries. It is a 19.2V 1000 mAh NiCd battery pack, compatible with CP-16 chargers, but providing twice the energy capacity as the original NC-4.

https://www.batteryspace.com/custom-nicd-battery-pack-19-2v-1000-mah-offset-2x8-with-open-end-wire.aspx

Best of all, it is a single, pre-assembled pack, you need only to put it in and solder the positive and negative terminals. I'm extremely clumsy at soldering and making a battery pack by hand is beyond me, but for me this was a quick fix.

I'm hoping to make some 3D printable files of the battery case too, so you can print your own.

2 hours ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

To clarify, the square hole on bulk film cores is same size than the square hole on 16mm daylight spools.

To avoid scratches you need to control friction so that film layers don't slip and grind against each other on the takeup spool. Other than that it is just about avoiding static flashes and dust and getting the film spool straight on the core. If starting to spool conical you just correct it manually whenever needed

Thank you.

And yes, I did do it with only my fingers!

What are split reel flanges?

After seeing Dune the other day, I'm inspired to try and replicate the infrared cinematography on film. Rollei sells 100ft bulk loads of infrared film, but from the shape of the box I suspect they are on a 135 core. I've run into this issue before. Arista 100ft rolls come on a film core, but Kentmere rolls come on a 135 core.

I've hand-rolled film from one to the other before, but it's tedious and the film came out scratched in development.

Does anyone have experience spooling 100ft of film from one core type to another? Should I try to make a 3D printed machine to do it? What's the best way to prevent scratches?

Hi, could you share some pictures of the large format lomos? I am interested in them potentially.

On 3/2/2024 at 4:10 PM, Johnny Liu said:

Thanks a lot for the links and the background information on this seller!   Seeing that he has sold several items on eBay before, I feel like it is more legit

https://www.ebay.com/itm/226038623169?itmmeta=01HRP70HK9FB7V20AKZRPQEGKG&hash=item34a0f3abc1:g:yR8AAOSwbfpl7QzZ&itmprp=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4EJkNRjCB9smXzo2GtTI79%2FDij1%2Bas%2BzXPNMXGwCDf%2F7tVO8Ke0s384o%2F3oTzocL7ahQoJ0JenJ2feW7HDHBZX7YwxumGGYqdPDzoNb408Up78a%2BVPCGrUvM5rhoep9hY%2BeMs9PimVKARHR1sWg1XvNXvj4K2TUMqDoI2V64jq%2BQ2gLDYojZ6toc%2F%2Bj2eSDETnFEUULX%2FZRhNeRp5UE5iYZVAtb%2BOoi4EFnbACQfyFq7xXpeuSTN8NCU3at4l5Fn3%2BD9FoH2L%2BRAN2kEOmmnPcjImms3KzpvJRNbZVh82YPe|tkp%3ABk9SR9iZgsfFYw

Check this out.

I'm aware of the Wilcam W-4, the Fries Ultra 70, and Bruce McNaughton's 15/70 camera. Logmar is also building one now.

Some of IMAX's own cameras are branded MSM, which means they were built by Marty S. Mueller. I don't know about their other cameras though.

There's also a Photosonics handheld camera that shoots 14-perf 70mm at 22 fps.

On 11/30/2023 at 3:22 AM, Olex Kalynychenko said:

Can be re-housing to PL mount.

 

Dear Olex,

What is the cost to rehouse an OCT-18 lens to PL?

Thank you

This is quite a fascinating camera. I believe NASA used these to film rocket launches. They used giant military tracking rigs, though maybe a gear head from the Mitchell era will do the trick too.

You will absolutely need a machine shop, because it likely uses Type 1 aerial film, you will need to modify the pulldown claw and registration pins to 65mm perfs.

CinemaGear can almost certainly do it for you, but it will likely be pricey.

I have a PhotoSonics 10B, another NASA 70mm camera I'm currently trying to convert to 65mm. I specifically got the rotating prism model, because I feel more confident in my ability to design replacement transport wheels with new perfs than to re-engineer a Mitchell mechanism.

These cameras' motors also run on 208V 3-phase power. You will need a special generator to get them working in the field.

This camera is not practical for narrative work - but for documentary recording of events like rocket launches, volcanic eruptions, etc, with a proper crew, it could provide beautiful images.

That's a good find! The fellow who was looking to buy a 16mm camera the other week should consider this.

Does anyone know what the mechanical details of the threads on this mount are?

CP-16 to TS would be great for me - as would OCT-18. Although maybe I should just send my old Lomos to be rehoused already.

Not directly related to film recorders, but the talk of those big high-maintenance machines reminded me of the Spirit DataCines being sold for $9,000 these days, and how this forum was dissuading people from getting them. Hence my mind drifting to more convenient machines like Cintels.

What's the workflow like with a ScanStation? I've never used one.

5 hours ago, Fabian Schreyer said:

I second that. This website looks a lot like a fake shop to me! Unless someone knows for sure, who is behind it, I would stay away.

It's not fake to my knowledge, it's a fellow on Facebook named Jamie Welton,

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2248960670/user/650315100/

This camera is also listed by him on eBay:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/364755545778?itmmeta=01HR0NS4Z0VZ3XV17HNVVFVQZ3&hash=item54ed1feeb2:g:B~IAAOSwXPpl3OoS

On 2/27/2024 at 10:42 PM, Robert Houllahan said:

I would not say the Arrilaser is a bad design it is just the best tech and the parts available in the late 1990's

They do work and make excellent recordings even with Windows NT and odd parts.

The scanners end up having bearing issues and then if they don't start they are hard to (or impossible to??) fix.

I have two.

Man I wish Blackmagic would make a Cintel with a new imager, and perhaps an RGB illuminator and monochrome sensor. No other professional scanner is plug-and-play like that, getting an imager capable of 4k S16 scans would make it perfect for my use.

13 hours ago, Johnny Liu said:

Thanks a lot for your thoughts on this.  Yes, am keeping my eyes open for an Eclair as well

There are a couple of running eclairs being sold soon on Arriflex.co.uk

The one on there right now is not in great cosmetic condition, but it seems to run fine and is inexpensive.

21 hours ago, Johnny Liu said:

If I have a CP-16 that was  converted well to Super 16 - and well serviced - and had a lens mount that could accept Arri PL or Arri standard mount lenses - and if I used one of the better lenses of this type of mount - would I be able to take footage that is about the same as what an Arri SR2 or SR3 could take?

I will also point out that there is a GSMO on eBay right now. There were two at the time of the original post. I do not own one however, so I do not know much about it, and it seems few people do so it may be difficult getting support for one.

I do have two CP-16s, a functioning CP-16A and a CP-16R I am still repairing. I have not used either of them yet, they are fairly recent.

My suggestion for eclairs is to find them somewhere other than eBay, they are usually more expensive there. Facebook and Craigslist are where I got mine.

There is a relatively inexpensive Aaton LTR for sale in Vancouver if you are willing to fly there. It is standard 16 and is of unknown maintenance condition, but comes with lenses.

https://vancouver.craigslist.org/van/phd/d/vancouver-aaton-ltr-16mm-camera-with/7715168941.html

22 hours ago, Moritz Moessinger said:

BUMP

 

35mm stock is gone but 16mm is still available!

Could use some Eterna Vivid.

I'll throw into the ring something no one has suggested, which is why not get a Standard 16 GSMO? They use the same batteries and lenses as CP-16s, but are lighter and have Eclair/Aaton-like mags, and are solidly built.

You can get some on Ebay for $2-3k, pair them with a Zeiss 10-100 and you're good to go. You can get new batteries from Du-All Camera. 

They will not have a PL mount and only someone like Visual Products will be able to install one, for a price. But with a good zoom lens in sharp condition, you won't need it.

I also put the US Bluray Dracula screenshot above through the 2383 LUT, and while far from scientific, it indeed seems even closer to the Technicolor print image.

I took a further look at Dracula, and while I think they definitely graded it better in the US version, I do not think they applied any print film emulation. I took a shot from the British version, and was able to grade it with simple tools to look almost exactly like the US version. A version with 2383 emulation looks substantially different. This admittedly imperfect and not rigorously scientific analysis leads me to conclude that no complex print emulation was used on the US version - at least that was not already taken from the UK version.

also - when digitally-captured films were printed to film for distribution, were they printed in some kind of special gamut like cineon log so they would work well with the 2383?

how did they make sure the printed film shown to theatergoers would match the DI they were editing? or was there an entire new layer of contrast and color shifts added in print that they just let happen?

33 minutes ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

Here the blu rays were normally made from hdcam/hdcamsr or proreshq tv masters because they were already in correct colour space, sound mix and framerate converted to 25fps. This applied to all films including the imported foreign ones. The quality difference compared to separate workflow is close to 0 but one saves thousands on costs so everyone did it this way

how were those masters made?

13 hours ago, Don Cunningham said:

The original negative is the preferred source for best presentation. However there have been instances where a print or notes have not been referenced while grading and things such as day for night have not been done on the new grade. That can really stick out when you have vampires out in daylight! 

Then in that case, is any work taken to replicate the look of contact-printed print film for the digital presentation?

Scanned negatives look quite different without print film emulation - or actually being contact-printed. Kodak 2383 LUTs are a dime a dozen today, but how old are they? Are older Blu-Rays giving us a substantially different image color-wise than theatrical moviegoers would have experienced?

I have little way of judging for myself, since I don't have any 35mm prints lying around, and apart from Oppenheimer I haven't seen any movies projected from celluloid in years.

Could this be one reason why early digitally captured films, like the Star Wars prequels or Apocalypto, look better than your average Alexa-captured Netflix movie? We laud the digital-film-digital process for Dune and the Batman, but did all digitally shot films once do this? Are the Blu-Rays made from scanned 2383, or from the digital intermediate?