Jump to content

Best use for a camera no one wants?


Jay Young

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

Sorry Jay, I absolutely didn't mean to pick on the CP16. I was merely filling in the reasons why it's a camera that "nobody wants", from my own experiences with them.

 

I spent two years with a few different CP16R's shooting two lengthy short films. At the time in the late 90's, they were the only camera I could borrow from school to work on personal projects with.

 

As I said in my first post, it's not the camera body which really makes the difference, it's the lensing and film stock.

 

No Worries Tyler.

 

I guess I come from a more controlled mindset when it comes to cinematic language. It seems modern filmmakers want a camera that weighs nothing, floats via anti-gravity so they can move it however they wish, is able to remote control, outputs a video tap that is better quality than the final image wirelessly, and never needs maintenance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

the one thing most persons want is a camera which has as universal lens mount as possible so one is not limited to a few old and rare special mount lenses. I haven't actually used a CP camera but have considered buying one for years and looked for them on eBay etc. but always backed off because it is so darn difficult to find lenses for them. the PL mount seems to be a good idea though most of the people who would really use this kind of cameras a lot would maybe be more happy with a stills mount so they can use cheaper lenses. MFT would be among the best option but too difficult or impossible to do for most camera bodies so either EF or Nikon would be nice I think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I guess I come from a more controlled mindset when it comes to cinematic language. It seems modern filmmakers want a camera that weighs nothing, floats via anti-gravity so they can move it however they wish, is able to remote control, outputs a video tap that is better quality than the final image wirelessly, and never needs maintenance.

Yep, all of those things are correct. It staggers me when I talk to potential renters of my package and they want hot gears, wireless video and an ultralight, all-day battery system. I'm like hold the phone, all day battery with a video tap? Yea, not gonna happen on any small/portable camera.

 

I'm very much a run and gun filmmaker and I want a complete, lightweight package that's comfortable on my shoulder. Even for bigger projects, I just hate the mess of bigger cameras with all those cables running everywhere, what's the point? I love film partially because all of those accessories are unnecessary, it simplifies shooting life tremendously. The moment I'm having to plug a cable into my camera, the moment it's "tethered" to a battery or monitor, I'm kinda done with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I was a fan of the CP16r. It was a neat camera once you figured out its quirks. My bane was always the issue with the shutter not being in sync with the pull claws. I did finally (thanks to this forum actually!) learn how to overcome that problem and check it out every day before a shoot and it became just as customary as checking the gate for hair. I never could get the Mitchell mags to run as quiet as the ugly square mags that came with the camera. That was sad because I had to choose between aesthetics vs silence on the set. Silence always wins though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've owned a CP-16R, it was great for what I needed it to do. I had the amazing Canon 12-120 zoom with macro and fluorite coatings. Those are seriously underrated.

 

The threading was a pain, and the bow tie shutter wasn't the greatest in a world where everyone was used to half-moon when it came to motion blur. Eventually I got a 16BL, then Eclair NPR. When the film camera market essentially collapsed two years ago, I bought the 416 I own now. The main thing that pushed me away from these older cameras was the increasing difficulty of maintenance. My go-to Optical Electro House closed.

 

I think if you like it and it works, just hold onto it. You might do well finding a nice Aaton XTR or SR3. Those go for pretty low prices these days. And the cameras themselves really do have noticeable refinements over the decades that you come to appreciate. But ultimately I would just do what makes you most comfortable, both from a financial point of view and one of what your production would need.

Edited by Kenny N Suleimanagich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The wonderful people at Panavision get it, when I emailed them for a quote on a rental package earlier this year they sent me a list with so many accessories it tripled the day rate easily. I email back and said I just wanted a camera and they came back with a fantastic price, all the gear I needed, they didn't question anything. Arri on the other hand I guess I'm going to have to go in person as the people I talked to on the phone don't seem to understand that I don't NEED cinetape, or wireless FF (even tho the new model is cooooool), just a camera.

 

I"m fine tethered to a battery, or a wall for that matter. And, when I need to be able to run with the camera on a shoulder, I usually choose the SR as it seems to work a bit better for that. I've watched films from friends of mine swoop and swirl around actors 360-degrees. They want to utilize the camera language of The Revenant, and Gravity but with a single take in as small a camera as possible - which is interesting, but that is not the language I speak.

 

Watching some Star Trek: TNG last night I had to back up a bit and watch a few seconds twice; I noticed they went handheld for one particular shot. I had to make sure I saw what I did, as it goes against the camera language they used in the early seasons. Very interesting. I don't know why cinematographers my age are looking towards free floating cameras and constantly moving frame. I'm very much of another age when it comes to camera moves I enjoy. Everyone goes crazy over Chivo, but it's Hoyte Van Hoytema I've got my eye on. I've resorted to keeping the camera on a jib most of the time, which allows me a lot of free movement, but also is totally stationary when I need it locked off.

 

I think this is the reason older camera systems don't really make me worry about anything. I'm very likely going to buy a Mitchell Fryes camera in the near future, and I'm holding out for a nice Arri 2c if I need handheld 35mm work, as its getting harder to rent an Aaton Penelope, or any decent 35mm camera that is small anymore.

 

I was actually looking for a 16BL before I bought this CP. That was almost 10 years ago. I am not unhappy, but I am glad I was able to get an SR as well.

 

My only problem with the plastic magazines is for some reason the material inside seems to snag on the film edge and pull it out of the core. Then I end up with 400 feet of trouble. When the mag starts gently squeaking, I know what happened.

 

I got a great price from Visual Products for a hard PL conversion, and they have the parts so I'll that route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Just a question... but why wouldn't you use the SR all the time? Is there something the CP16R does, that the SR doesn't do?

 

I do.

 

I've tried to sell the CP, but it seems no one has any money, which I can at least agree on.

 

The original spirit behind this thread was ' most effective way to have two cameras without spending thousands '... because having two is twice the fun!

 

And, since it seems no one is either interested or has the cash to buy it, I'll just keep it and use it as a beater camera in situations where I don't want to put a more.. expensive? worthwhile? camera?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In practice, the CP16 gets nosier after a while, it's noticeably quieter after a service. The Arri BL16 had a similar dB figure, but seemed to run at a lower frequency than the CP..

 

A barney or coat was a common requirement with the CP16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I have found the same. The last shoot I did I found a good amount of duvetine folded and thrown over the top worked very well, or at least the sound guy smiled and nodded...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about the 16BL is you need to use the lens housing, and even then you need the 3x3" Optical Flat filter to keep everything blimped. Conversion to PL and S16 is near impossible, and the camera also needs to be periodically lubricated. Not to mention spare parts are next to impossible to come by and technicians don't really work on them anymore. I sold mine in 2012 for $600 with the Angenieux 12-120.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Well, the CP 16 is a quiet camera, original leaflet says 30 dB and 28 dB, studio rig, at 3'. The SRs are still less noisy but more expensive.

Untuned SR I/II are kinda loud. You've gotta really have perfection, especially when it comes to the magazine, for them to be anywhere near "silent".

 

I remember the big problem with the CP was the magazine. Every one of them squeaked, you were constantly battling that. I have some CP16R demo footage I use on my flatbed and in the close/intimate scenes, you can here the "whirr" of the camera.

 

The BL is a lot louder, I always had to put on a barney to quiet it down. Though I will admit, many scenes we just used a furniture pad or leather jacket.

 

The SR3 is better, I have no idea what they did since it's so similar, but it's a lot quieter. Still I have yet to hear an older camera anywhere near the quietness of the XTR. Even my LTR is "silent" compared to a few of the SR's I've had here in the shop, right next to it on the same day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Well, as if by fate - I pulled out the dummy rollers where the sound head use to be for a good clean, and then it would NOT go back on. Its like the tensioner pin got bigger/misshapened, OR the aluminum tube that sits on top of that pin became warped? Very weird. Since I don't have another dummy head, or the original sound head I can't tell which is actually out of spec.... oh well. Anyone ever had similar issues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

The CP16 is a quiet camera if it is in good condition. Some older specimens may emit a claw click if it is worn or has been bent by operator carelessness. If I could buy film economically and avoid the risks with shipping for processing I would still use it.

If the two rows of chrome balls pressed into the gate are not worn flat, there should be no contact between the imaged portion of the film and the gate. CPs rarely scratch the film in the gate and have to be worn out to within an inch of their lives to do it ever.

The magazines are another matter. It is important to be sure the film egress from the front passes between and not behind the felt-surfaced light trap rollers. Because there is little workspace for fat fingers between the film roll and the outlet, threading that floppy film-end through in the dark is an awkward business. If the film passes wrongside of a roller, it may make contract with a metal surface.

The same goes for the rear in-feed but this is easier to get right because you can do that in daylight once the front magazine door is closed and taped secure.

It is helpful to make a single steep long fold in the end of the 16mm film so there is a long and stiff arrow of about 400mm which makes feeding the film through the egress slot from the roll easier. You trim the arrowhead off afterwards. Do not form a double-folded arrowhead. It will be too thick and may damage the light trap rollers.

Some loaders of the CP mags have had a dalliance with feeding the film-end through before sliding the roll core onto the spindle. This is not recommended. The chances of the film roll centre popping out and the entire roll falling apart like the toilet roll from hell are too great regardless of dextoral skills, it is really one of those "not if but when" things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as if by fate - I pulled out the dummy rollers where the sound head use to be for a good clean, and then it would NOT go back on. Its like the tensioner pin got bigger/misshapened, OR the aluminum tube that sits on top of that pin became warped? Very weird. Since I don't have another dummy head, or the original sound head I can't tell which is actually out of spec.... oh well. Anyone ever had similar issues?

Jay. There is a way of getting that back on. You will observe that the inner piece which goes over the pivot stud in the camera body is itself able to move inside of an outer assembly. From memory there are two tiny flat shoulders on the pivot stud. The matching slot in the dummy roller assembly has to be rotated slightly against a spring tension so that the matching slots then slip onto the shoulders on the pivot stud. Once this is done, the dummy roller assembly has a spring pressure applied to it and acts to dampen film movement. Somebody here may be able to add the detail of how that is done. It is fairly simple but I have forgotten. Do not take the dummy roller assembly apart. It is behaving exactly as it should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On more vague recall, I think there may be a very small lever built into the assembly, which you push against to hold back against the spring so that the shoulder flats and slot engage and the assembly will slide fully home and you can put the nut back on. Then you can release it and tension will be applied to the assembly.

If you observe the close-ups in this clip, you will observe a silver-coloured piece of metal protruding elbow the swing-arm of the dummy assembly. That is from memory what you need to pull down, away from the dummy arm to re-engage the slot on the flat shoulders of the pivot pillar. I am no longer certain on this. I think it was applicable to the normal sound head swing-arm which had a small similar protrusion closer to the pivot pillar.

Hopefully other folk who use the camera will chime in to clarify what may be my incorrect memory on this topic.

Edited by Robert Hart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...