Super 16 Wanted

[Ashton Lloydi]

Hey guys,

I'm looking to purchase a Super 16 camera. I'm a film student in Leeds (UK) and don't have a huge budget so any recommendations would be appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

Ash.

[Phil Rhodes]

If you don't have a huge budget, you can't afford to shoot film!

[Pavan Deep]

It's not as simple as that, it's quite common to keep saying that film is expensive, working with film doesn't have to be expensive, you can shoot Super 16 and get very good results, have a great experience for very little money these days, like this; http://htl.li/Ywy9p

 

Pav

Edited February 20, 2016 by Pavan Deep

[Phil Rhodes]

Yes, it is as simple as that. Sorry, but I really have to put this straight.

 

The only circumstances under which these "film isn't expensive" arguments make any sense is on extremely upscale productions. If you're shooting with an expensive digital camera, using expensive DITs and digtal loaders, lots of expensive monitoring and recording gear, the constant involvement of an expensive postproduction house, providing a facility for people to watch rushes on production-provided tablets with LUTs and burn-ins...

 

...in other words, if you include absolutely every conceivable expense of the most elaborate digital workflow, if you work as hard as you can to make the digital option cost as much as possible, then yes, maybe, you can begin to approach the expense of the lowest-possible-cost film option.

 

In a practical sense, however, if you're shooting for very low budget productions, you won't be doing any of that. You'll be shooting on an FS7 or even an FS5 to maybe an Atomos recorder, dumping it onto a laptop, and the whole rental cost of the camera and recording system is going to be less than one roll of raw stock, let alone processing, let alone transfer, or any of the other expenses that exist. You can buy a fairly decent digital camera for the cost of shooting film for one day.

 

There are many arguments for shooting film. Cost is not one of them, has not been for years, and anyone who doesn't see how obvious this is needs a very severe reality check. I hate to be harsh, but honestly: the only circumstances under which this is not blindingly obvious are on productions so high end that the cost of stock, processing and transfer is meaninglessly trivial in any case.

 

P

[Ashton Lloydi]

Luckily I get 50% discount on stock and a student discount on processing\telesync so that's a decent slice of the cost. I'm aware shooting film is not as cost effective as digital, I'm experimeting with film for personal projects and to learn.

 

Thanks for the replys guys

[Phil Rhodes]

Pick up an Arri S, then. Looks like the real thing!

 

P

[Pavan Deep]

In a practical sense, look at Frame 24, processing facilities in England and cameras such as Eclair, Arri or Aaton, even some Bolexes are Super 16, to look for cameras you can ask rental companies, go online, you'll soon work out the costs for yourself.

 

Pav

Edited February 20, 2016 by Pavan Deep

[Phil Rhodes]

In short, once you own the camera and lenses, about £10-£15 per minute of raw stock consumed, with a twenty-minute minimum.

 

P

[Tyler Purcell]

I'm looking to purchase a Super 16 camera. I'm a film student in Leeds (UK) and don't have a huge budget so any recommendations would be appreciated.

The big problem isn't a camera body, that's actually easy today. It's the lenses which will kill you because most of the good ones fit on digital cameras as well. So the pricing is still very high, unless you buy a camera that uses more unusual film-oriented mount like C or Arri B. A REALLY GOOD zoom lens can solve some problems, but they can be pretty expensive as well. So the first step in my opinion, is to solve the glass issue.

 

Bolex C mount and Arri B mount, solve a lot of problems. However, finding glass that covers S16 is more expensive and finding camera bodies which take those types of lenses that are S16 can be also hard. Also, a lot of those older Bolex and Arri cameras are pretty loud, so recording sound can be a problem as well.

 

If you're OK with ADR or a film without sync sound and are ok with straight 16... the BOLEX EBM is a great choice. Glass is pretty cheap and the lens mount will enable you to use pretty much anything in the future. I've seen Nikon to EBM mounts before, they're rare, but out there. You can get Bolex EBM's for around $600 USD.

 

If you want sync sound (quiet) camera, but are OK with straight 16, perhaps an original Arri SRI. Arri B mount glass is all over the place for coverage of a straight 16 frame. You can get Arri SRI's for around $1200 - $1500 USD.

 

If you want to go Super 16, Aaton LTR/XTR is the way to go for sure. The Aaton mount has a smaller flange distance then the Arri's, which allow you to run Nikon still glass if you want. That's a HUGE bonus because you can get cheap still camera glass which covers 35mm and it's sharp in the center. You can get Aaton LTR's for around $1500 USD. Aaton XTR's are a lot more money because they have a proper video tap, which is nice.

 

I don't have any other recommendation outside of those three cameras. The Arri SR series, Aaton LTR/XTR and Bolex EBM are pretty much the "heavyweights" of used 16mm cameras. Yes, there are other ones out there, but each one of them has it's own issues. The Eclair isn't elegant, doesn't have a nice battery system and isn't as portable. The CP16R's are tanks, hand-treading and don't have the reversible viewfinder or battery system. The older Arri's (S/B/M) again, don't have the modern viewfinder system or battery system. Sure they're cheap, but that's for a very good reason!

 

Ohh and to the point of Digital vs film? I mean do what you wanna do. I shoot film with no money, you can do it. Just need to be very careful on what you shoot. I get old film locally or through ebay. I do a fog test and determine if it's any good and then shoot it! Sometimes that's what it takes to get your vision on the format of choice. Honestly, I've done a lot of budgeting for shooting a feature on 16 and it's pretty good, around $38k for EVERYTHING using RETAIL pricing... assuming you buy a decent camera. So IDK, seems totally doable to me!

[Bill DiPietra]

Pick up an Arri S, then. Looks like the real thing!

 

P

 

Agreed. I've had mine for 10 years and its served me very well. It you're only looking to experiment with film, a Bolex may be even more along your price range. Keep an eye on ebay.

[Freya Black]

Eclair NPR or ACL. can take c-mount lenses or Nikon or M42 via an adaptor. Crystal sync too.

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

In short, once you own the camera and lenses, about £10-£15 per minute of raw stock consumed, with a twenty-minute minimum.

 

P

 

 

Hmmm, I can easily do £7 per minute with an 11 minute minimum but depends where you go and what you do.

Point taken either way, although there are media and power costs with video cameras too but they are less easy to quantify.

[Freya Black]

The Eclair isn't elegant, doesn't have a nice battery system and isn't as portable.

 

 

The Eclair cameras are about as portable as you can get for a 400ft load sync camera!

Especially the acl.

 

Can't comment too much on it's elegance. I guess it's black and gets the job done.

There are probably nicer looking cameras.

 

Batteries, yeah you have to rig your own, but at least that opens up some lower budget options there.

 

Freya

[Gregg MacPherson]

 

....The Eclair isn't elegant, doesn't have a nice battery system and isn't as portable......

Tyler. Never heard such tosh! The Eclair ACL is quite an elegant camera, has onboard battery if you want it, and has an interchangeable lens mount system that that lets you put almost any lens on. They are quite nice hand held, not as nice as Aaton LTR/XTR but nicer than SRI/II (I think). Also, there are plenty of 200' mags around for ACL, that make it a very compact hand held camera. ACL is quite a simple mechanical design and I think a properly serviced one is a good candidate to own.

 

You must talking about a Cameflex or perhaps an NPR...?

[Freya Black]

 

or perhaps an NPR...?

 

Actually even the NPR is quite compact too but not quite like the ACL but it's not a huge jump down in size really.

 

The Aaton and Arri SR cameras are really, really nice. As would be an Arri 416 but then they are a lot more money too!

 

The eclair cameras are a lot of camera for a good price and are cheaper than many cameras to have converted to Super16 if you start with a standard 16 model (although nice Super 16 models come up on a regular basis if you can wait around)

 

There have been Aaton and Arri SR cameras around for bargain prices lately but even so they are still not as cheap as a nice Eclair so it depends on how much money you have to spend.

 

Lens options are also more diverse for the Eclairs.

 

Freya

Edited February 20, 2016 by Freya Black

[Tyler Purcell]

Sorry for lacking clarity... was referring to the Eclair NPR. I always forget about the ACL, it's such an unusual camera to see here in the states. I'm also not a big fan of either camera, I'm not a fan of the ACL's oscillating mirror reflex design. Plus... since they were really used for news gathering, they're lacking a lot of the critical "cinematography" features for cinema. On of which of course is the video tap, another one is a integrated rail system. The integrated battery is also pretty nice, I can't stand battery belts. Yes, the ACLII does solve a few of those problems, but I have never seen one in person, they're so rare. The ACL's short flange distance is a pro of that camera. I also don't think they ever came as Super 16, only had available modifications to make it work, where the later generation Aaton and Arri cameras were made S16 from the factory.

 

With all that said, I haven't personally shot with the NPR/ACL (I'm an Arri/Aaton/Bolex guy) but I have been schooled on them so I've held them, I've run them and I've loaded the magazines and such. To me, they seem very old-school in their design, where Aaton and Arri seem much more modern with the LTR/XTR and SR series cameras. That's why I 'discount' what the Eclair's are capable of. Not to say they aren't a good camera (double negative must mean positive eh?), but if you're going to spend the money, why not buy the camera which is more widely used so there is some essence of support? Everyone knows how to use/service Aaton or Arri cameras, they're the Ford and Chevy of the Super 16mm market. Even the Bolex has HUGE support throughout the world with even a small branch of the company still in existence in Switzerland.

[Gregg MacPherson]

....I'm not a fan of the ACL's oscillating mirror reflex design. Plus... since they were really used for news gathering, they're lacking a lot of the critical "cinematography" features for cinema. On of which of course is the video tap, another one is a integrated rail system. The integrated battery is also pretty nice...

....Everyone knows how to use/service Aaton or Arri cameras....

What is the problem with the mirror? Quite a good way to save space actually. later ACLs with no adjustment on the ball joint of the mirror link shaft can (I suspect) be noisy if that joint is loose.

 

The ACL may have been intended for news, documentary, but was hoovered up by indies, artists etc as useful for almost anything. Video taps have been available for ages. See AZSpectrum, they make third party taps for all sorts of film cameras, incl ACL. The perhaps best third party rod base and rods are from Les Bosher. There are others. The onboard battery mount, the vid tap and the rod system can be used on any ACL I think. Different rod bases for ACL I and II.

 

The LTR that you use does not put the battery in a very usefull place. It's not untill the Xtera that the batteries are well back, ipmroving stability and balance.

 

The LTR that you use has an inferior lens mount system to the ACL. ACL has the ability to screw on in a few seconds, a different mount. It's quite a robust stysem, and the camera mount adapters are now relatively cheap. PL, Arri-B, S, CA-1, Nikon, I see cheap on ebay now. Yes, some fools who try to sell at a high price, but they can be ignored.

 

The servicing. Yes, it seems like the most common skill set within the tech community would be SR I, II...Aaton is less common, and ACL is perhaps further less common. What is important, if starting a long term relationship with a camera, is to know who can give it routine maintenance, and who can do a major overhaul, or part therof like the factory might do.

 

Paul Scaglione at Visual Products knows these cameras well, has converted them, has parts...Bernie O is a small business that may be cheaper but is possibly less well resourced. Alan Gorden (on the other coast) has parts and some maintenance expertise. There are sime very compentent people in Europe and Australia...

 

Tyler, when you say that you have serviced Aaton, Sr, Bolex, what exactly do you mean, with the word serviced?

 

EDIT: spelling

Edited February 21, 2016 by Gregg MacPherson

[Tyler Purcell]

What is the problem with the mirror? Quite a good way to save space actually. later ACLs with no adjustment on the ball joint of the mirror link shaft can (I suspect) be noisy if that joint is loose.

Umm it's not a good design. Anything that stops and starts like that, requires joints that WILL fail no matter what. It's one thing on a Super 8 camera where the mirror is very small and light weight, but on a 16mm camera with a larger mirror and more travel on the arm, it's just not a good design. Plus, the camera is noisier as a consequence. Spinning mirrors are a lot quieter because all they do is spin, there is no "tick" to a spinning mirror reflex camera.

 

The ACL may have been intended for news, documentary, but was hoovered up by indies, artists etc as useful for almost anything. Video taps have been available for ages. See AZSpectrum, they make third party taps for all sorts of film cameras, incl ACL. The perhaps best third party rod base and rods are from Les Bosher. There are others. The onboard battery mount, the vid tap and the rod system can be used on any ACL I think. Different rod bases for ACL I and II.

They were a cheaper alternative to Arri and Aaton, that's why they were popular in certain circles. Az Spectrum's video taps for the Eclair's are jokes man. You put the tap between the body and the viewfinder? Give me a break, what a horrible design that is. Ohh and finding other parts? So basically spend 2500 bux on an old camera that doesn't have any of the modern features and spend another 2 grand finding those add on's, where you could have bought an SRIII with all of the bells and whistles for less money?

 

The LTR that you use does not put the battery in a very usefull place. It's not untill the Xtera that the batteries are well back, ipmroving stability and balance.

IDK man, I've shot with the LTR and XTR's now for a few months and the camera with prime lenses and a full load of film isn't too bad. The SR's with the battery in the back is more balanced, but it doesn't hand hold quite as well. Yes, the Xtera body does move the batteries further back, but that was because the video tap electronics became bigger and took up the space.

 

The LTR that you use has an inferior lens mount system to the ACL.

I've got adaptors for Nikon, PL, Arri B and C mount lenses. Honestly I don't know what else you would "need" on a daily basis. Here in Hollywood California in 2016, everything is PL mount. 20 years ago things were different, but PL is the defacto industry standard today. So I'm perfectly happy working with PL mount forever, it's a pretty robust mounting system.

 

Paul Scaglione at Visual Products knows these cameras well, has converted them, has parts...Bernie O is a small business that may be cheaper but is possibly less well resourced. Alan Gorden (on the other coast) has parts and some maintenance expertise. There are sime very compentent people in Europe and Australia...

Alan Gordon doesn't have film camera service anymore. In fact, rumors around the water cooler between rental houses is that nobody supports older film cameras in CA anymore. That's why all the rental houses have dumped most their film cameras, they're too scared to deal with shipping out for service. The great news is Aaton still supports their cameras. At least you can still get BRAND NEW FACTORY parts for them (just like Bolex), which is a HUGE plus. Sure you'd probably have to ship the camera away if you can't install yourself. Plus, there are many aftermarket parts places that sell things like batteries for Aaton/Arri/Bolex cameras. Basic wear items are available to the public, but I never see Eclair parts in the US.

 

Tyler, when you say that you have serviced Aaton, Sr, Bolex, what exactly do you mean, with the word serviced?

Umm, complete tear down and re-build from the ground up. I went through my LTR, pulling everything apart, I even re-timed the pull down mechanism because it was slightly off. I have dial indicators and strobes, so it's really easy work. I've put quite a bit of film through it since, all of it came out great. In fact, I've printed and scanned it, no registration issues or anything wrong, camera is perfect. Now years ago I use to work on Arri's as well, S/B/M etc... I did some work on SR's but only minor stuff like lubrication. I kinda dig the "hand made" feeling of the Aaton cameras. I also like their pull down claw, which has one flat edge and one tapered one. That's what makes the camera so quiet and it really does work well. I can't really think of anything wrong with the design. The cameras are simple, elegant designs (like the SR's) and work great. I even dig the magazines with the toothed belt to keep time with the exposed sprockets. Honestly, I never liked Aaton's when I was growing up, I thought they were junk because I was stupid and just a kid. However, when I got back into filmmaking and started studying/researching, I realized that Aaton had something special going on and I had to buy one to learn about it. So I did just that and since then, I've been literally surrounded by Aaton's. I had three on my workbench a few weeks ago helping someone do a multi-cam shoot.

 

Mind you, I'm one of those guys who takes part everything they buy.

 

Ohh and no, I haven't needed to do any service to the Bolex yet. Someday I may and when that happens, I look forward to learning all about it!

[Gregg MacPherson]

 

Umm it's (oscillating mirror) not a good design. ...

 

They (ACL) were a cheaper alternative to Arri and Aaton,...

Az Spectrum's video taps for the Eclair's are jokes man. You put the tap between the body and the viewfinder? Give me a break, what a horrible design that is. Ohh and finding other parts? So basically spend 2500 bux on an old camera that doesn't have any of the modern features and spend another 2 grand finding those add on's, where you could have bought an SRIII with all of the bells and whistles for less money?....

 

Yes, the Xtera body does move the batteries further back, but that was because the video tap electronics became bigger and took up the space....

 

I've got adaptors for Nikon, PL, Arri B and C mount lenses. Honestly I don't know what else you would "need" on a daily basis. Here in Hollywood California in 2016, everything is PL mount. 20 years ago things were different, but PL is the defacto industry standard today. So I'm perfectly happy working with PL mount forever, it's a pretty robust mounting system.

 

I never see Eclair parts in the US.....

 

Umm, complete tear down and re-build from the ground up....

Rather than pretending to understand design one could ask a camera tech who's able to make the comparisons, what he thinks of the oscillating mirror. My first ACL had huge mileage on it, but was well maintained, super quiet. Mirror never gave any problem. I don't think the ACL tick comes from the mirror or the link arm, though I conjectured that it might be noisy on a poorly maintained one.

 

Don't know why you are slagging off at the AZ Spectrum designs. Very clever guy actually, he can do anything with the ACL motors.

 

The prices you suggest for the cost of an ACL and add ons are a silly fiction. Sensible buyers look for a kit that has all they want.

 

If you ask the Aaton designer about the position of the batts on the Xtera he will talk about ballance and stability.

 

I did not realize that you could put a PL mount adapter onto an Aaton hard mount. I always thought that you had to re-mount the camera. Change the hard mount. Did the camera techs have that wrong? I thought your LTR was Aaton mount, yes?

 

Re ACL parts, there are places one can look for new parts. I guess you don't see them untill you actually need them. Also, ACL is quite a modular design, one will sometimes see a motor or viewfinder on eBay.

 

I don't have a great problem with people maintaining cameras themselves, as long as they are open about that when they sell them. It's in the maintenance record that the camera had a rebuild by a non proffessional, for example.

 

Almost forgot, when the first Aatons came here they were quite cheap, about 18000 NZD From about the same time, I have a price list for a basic ACL kit with multispeed motor and one 400' mag and no mount adapter at about 17500 AUD. AUD was always worth a bit more. Anyway, I think the Aaton was targeting the price point of the ACL.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Gregg MacPherson

[Pavan Deep]

I don't know much about Eclair cameras, but they seem to be more common here in England than the CP-16 or the Scoopics.

 

 

Pav

Edited February 21, 2016 by Pavan Deep

[Mark Dunn]

I don't know much about Eclair cameras, but they seem to be more common here in England than the CP-16 or the Scoopics.

 

 

Pav

Er, they're from France. It's closer.

[rob spence]

My personal Eclair is currently on Ebay ( camera near London)...

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/151986672851?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

I just wanted to post for the record that there are many service departments at rental houses in Los Angeles still working on film cameras despite what any “water cooler” gossip might indicate.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Kenny N Suleimanagich

[Tyler Purcell]

Rather than pretending to understand design one could ask a camera tech who's able to make the comparisons, what he thinks of the oscillating mirror. My first ACL had huge mileage on it, but was well maintained, super quiet. Mirror never gave any problem. I don't think the ACL tick comes from the mirror or the link arm, though I conjectured that it might be noisy on a poorly maintained one.

I just trust my own judgement having done a lot of mechanical engineering. You can't expect a weighted object to start and stop quickly like that and survive. The joint necessary for that action will fail no matter what you do and you can't get one over at your local home depot. It's a poor design, which is why NOBODY ELSE even bothered using it outside of a few super 8 cameras.

 

Don't know why you are slagging off at the AZ Spectrum designs. Very clever guy actually, he can do anything with the ACL motors.

Umm, sticking a rather large plate between the camera body and the viewfinder because the camera body doesn't have a beam splitter for a REAL video tap? Dude, I have no idea what planet your on, but that's unacceptable. It's 2016, not 1982... stop thinking this is the past and think about TODAY. Why would anyone in their right mind even contemplate buying a camera with a video tap that pushes the camera further away from the body and hot little metal box right next to your bloody face when shooting>!?!?! That is pretty much the poorest design ever imaginable and when I saw it, I almost thought it was a joke. Also, why would you need to do anything to a camera motor? If the camera was designed properly, the motor should do everything you need from the factory.

 

The prices you suggest for the cost of an ACL and add ons are a silly fiction. Sensible buyers look for a kit that has all they want.

Find one for me... send a link. I want to see a complete kit; video tap, rails, on-board batteries, magazines, the whole thing. Ohh and not in NZ or AU... that doesn't help anyone. Find one in Europe or the North America.

 

If you ask the Aaton designer about the position of the batts on the Xtera he will talk about ballance and stability.

As an engineer and having shot with the LTR/XTR's, what I see is Aaton solving one of their biggest problems; electronics draining the battery. They needed space to run two batteries instead of one, which can't be done in the original configuration because there isn't enough space. So they pushed the power system further back on the camera where they COULD run two batteries. Now they'd have enough amperage to run the more advanced electronics. They couldn't fit that big LCD display and video outputs anywhere else, they had no choice but to integrate it into the location they used. So yes, the balance is better. However, it was a necessity of the design, rather then JUST FOR BALANCE.

 

I did not realize that you could put a PL mount adapter onto an Aaton hard mount. I always thought that you had to re-mount the camera. Change the hard mount. Did the camera techs have that wrong? I thought your LTR was Aaton mount, yes?

You do have to change the hard mount. It takes around 2 minutes to convert the hard mount. Not a big deal and never something you'd do on set anyway. I leave mine on aaton mount because most of my glass is Arri B and the adaptor I have works much better in Aaton mount.

 

ACL parts, there are places one can look for new parts. I guess you don't see them untill you actually need them. Also, ACL is quite a modular design, one will sometimes see a motor or viewfinder on eBay.

Ohh I've been looking since we stated this conversation. I'd like to know where you can find new parts for these cameras. It's really the only way to keep these cameras alive for the future.

 

I don't have a great problem with people maintaining cameras themselves, as long as they are open about that when they sell them. It's in the maintenance record that the camera had a rebuild by a non proffessional, for example.

You act as if film cameras are some crazy complex device that only specialists are aloud to touch! Just for the record, film cameras are dead! It's a dead business. Nobody cares about service/maintenance records anymore. All people care about is if the camera works and if it doesn't, they'll just sell it on ebay broken and buy another. The days of spending 20k on a camera and $50k on glass are over. Professional 16mm has finally been relegated to a format for "the people" like digital.

[Tyler Purcell]

I just wanted to post for the record that there are many service departments at rental houses in Los Angeles still working on film cameras despite what any “water cooler” gossip might indicate.

Yes, yes, film specialist rental houses like Abel and Panavision, still have technicians. However, shops like Otto and Alan Gordon, don't anymore. They send all their service out of house.