Jump to content

Y16


David Sekanina

Recommended Posts

I will take some photos and start a new thread, it's just been hectic keeping track of things. Recently I have been working on multiple projects; the 100ft magazine for the ACL, reflexing a K100 to  and have been building a 16mm scanner too.

Pav

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, Nicholas Kovats said:

Logmar is developing new 16mm and Double Super 8 cameras with computer controlled direct drive sprocket drive and non-optical HD video assist. 

Yea but... they will be toys sadly. 

Their entire design philosophy is flawed unfortunately. They use a rising/lowering oscillating mirror design. This design makes the movement loud and large, with a bulky housing in the front of the camera. It also keeps the FPS limited.  Having seen and worked with the logmar S8 camera and of course, played around with the 65mm camera, I just can't imagine the 16mm camera being anything "new" design wise. 

Where I'm super happy they're trying, it's a shame they aren't listening to what filmmakers NEED and coming up with excuses why they can't make those types of cameras. Also support is a deal killer for anyone who is going to spend that kind of money. Having to send the camera to them for any service. It's kind of a deal killer unfortunately. 

There are some rumors about some other cameras coming up the road, but it'll be a while. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
8 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Yea but... they will be toys sadly. 

Their entire design philosophy is flawed unfortunately.

This is borderline slanderous Tyler, please don't do that. It really depends on the requirements you set as an engineer. With all their cameras they tried to hit certain goals, be it weight, manufacturing cost, reliability and a few dozen more. In engineering it's almost always a tradeoff.A huge rotating mirror shutter on a 5/65mm camera is not a simple feat, and I can understand why they decided against it.

y65.JPG.7a995c8fdf2f1908e1fe50bae4070562.JPG

I find it wonderful they invest their time and money developing new cameras.

Edited by David Sekanina
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
6 hours ago, David Sekanina said:

It really depends on the requirements you set as an engineer. With all their cameras they tried to hit certain goals, be it weight, manufacturing cost, reliability and a few dozen more. In engineering it's almost always a tradeoff.A huge rotating mirror shutter on a 5/65mm camera is not a simple feat, and I can understand why they decided against it.

I wholeheartedly disagree. This isn't 1963. There is little to no demand for an unusual camera. Just look at what happened to all the companies who tried, all of them failed.

There is no demand for a camera that has less features than the ones that already exist,  but costs MORE. Ya either build what cinematographers NEED or you don't build anything. You of all people completely understand that and you don't have to defend them because they're doing something that nobody else is doing. Who is going to risk buying a foreign camera when there are so many great cameras that exist? It's one thing to build a traditional studio camera that is based on an older design, with lots of cross referenced parts, it's another thing to build something that is all new from the ground up that doesn't match what filmmakers need. 

As film stock cost increases, more and more people will be selling their cameras due to the high resale value. I'm already seeing more and more really good 16mm packages become available. This trend will continue as we are at "market cap" currently. 

In terms of the 65mm camera, I mean who is using it? They had it on Tenet and my friend was an AC on the project. They said it was used on one shot and that shot didn't make it into the cut. So who is going to use it again? Remember, when you're shooting 65mm, it comes down to risk mitigation. For a studio, why would they risk shooting on an unknown camera when the Panavision lightweight 65mm cameras exist? Remember, rental houses like Panavision exist because you can count on them to insure the cameras are perfect. Would Panavision risk taking on a new camera system that's untested? This isn't an Arri 765, this is some very unusual home brew camera and I doubt they'd really want it. Remember, Panavision is becoming "The" large format rental house, now that they are taking over 15p IMAX camera rentals as well. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
5 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I wholeheartedly disagree. This isn't 1963. There is little to no demand for an unusual camera. Just look at what happened to all the companies who tried, all of them failed.

There is no demand for a camera that has less features than the ones that already exist,  but costs MORE. Ya either build what cinematographers NEED or you don't build anything.

I think the real problem is that people want the camera to be completely custom built for their personal needs but they still want it to be factory made, cheap and easily and fully user repairable which is often impossible with any kind of advanced equipment.  

Additionally, people generally know what they WANT which is always EVERYTHING but always slightly different than what  everybody else wants.... but they most often don't fully know yet what they actually NEED and what compromises can be made to be able to make the camera project happen in the first place. For example do you take higher max framerate OR smaller and lighter camera body, you can't have both?

That is the real issue with owner operators, directors, general staff, producers especially on digital but on film too. Someone shows them that the new cool equipment X does a really cool thingy and then they generate a mindset that every other camera should do that same feature too, even if it is never needed in the real projects they would personally do with the camera. Alternatively they have had a camera in the past which does, for example, time lapse and thus all of their current cameras MUST have that feature too even if they will never use it in real life. ( for example the last time I have shot time lapse was about 10 years ago so I don't need my cameras to have that feature and I know it perfectly well)

The potential customer asking "add this feature and that feature and this gadget and wifi and bluetooth and built in gimbal and must be this camera motor type because the other camera they have seen in 90's had that motor etc"  without taking even 1 second to think WHAT THEY PERSONALLY ARE GOING TO DO WITH THE CAMERA.  No one cares what someone else did with that camera model in the 60's and what type of motor and lens it had then; what are YOU going to do with the camera NOW and what features YOU NEED RIGHT NOW WHEN SHOOTING WITH THE CAMERA?  (not asking about what you want, asking about what features you will NEED in everyday use? )

 

That is the real issue I think. People always wanting customised cameras and wanting features which they don't really need but which make the systems so difficult and expensive to manufacture that it hijacks the whole camera project and then no one is going to have ANY cameras ever.

So the issue is that only custom built cameras can be sold but people are only willing to pay a very low price which does not make it possible to individually custom build every single camera from ground up.  That is a real issue with niche products like film cameras which are made with very small financial margins and the whole project can easily fail if one customer cancels their order because the camera does not have timelapse feature the customer would never really use in real life ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/22/2020 at 6:58 PM, David Sekanina said:

...... To build an XTR style camera today would cost over 60K, as you cannot benefit from a larger scale manufacturing as Aaton did in its day -

Heroic effort David!

Sorry I haven't been able to read all the thread. But I noticed this comment, and having just recently looked at some 1980 prices and 2022/1980 dollar value, I wanted to add something.

In 1980 an Eclair ACL II with best Vf, motor, two mags, basic accessories and no lens, was USD21950 (2022 value USD75580). The first LTRs that came to NZ I was told at the time were USD18000, but that might have been strategic pricing. These cameras were, roughly speaking, mass produced.

Without scale, the manufacturing costs will rise. Making mechanical parts in China, in even small runs, the costs will lower. Maybe, as speculated already, shifting to electronic rather than mechanical means to achieve some functions, should save cost.

Can't miss a chance to upvote for optical VFs. An electronic VF is a really unappealing idea.

Was someone on here slagging off about oscillating mirrors when critiquing the new Logmar S16. We've heard this nonsense before. Probably someone pretending to be a mechanical design engineer....It can be easily observed from the ACL, that oscillating mirrors can reduce the bulk of the camera body and can be very quiet. Note that the mirror Hz is half the camera fps. 

Sigh, whaddaya gonna do. No more down voting allowed. 

Gregg.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proof of the pudding is in the tasting and the footage I've seen from the Magellan looks great. Who cares if the thing makes some noise and has an oscillating mirror? I don't know why some are so negative. They make out they've seen it all and know it all. Is it so difficult to make a box that pushes film through it at 24 fps and has a precision mechanism inside, with a shutter that is calibrated to the movement, and has a hole you look through to frame the thing? Of course it can be done! Yes, it will be expensive. It mightn't be perfect. Wow, imagine if it didn't even have a reflex viewfinder. The horror! Insert picture of Munch's 'The Scream.'

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also don't understand the modern obsession with clinical perfection. Many seem to want celluloid film to have the rock-steady registration of digital image capture. Good heavens, if that's what you want, shoot digital. The whole point of real film is that it's a more artisan sort of look. It's more down to earth. That's why people seek it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus there's digital image stabilisation in post, if you must have it.

One of the great benefits of the digital revolution is that it's given a whole new impetus for shooting on celluloid. Because the results look so good and exhibition isn't subject to the rapid wear of film prints as in the past. If someone is making new film cameras, get behind them and help them along. But the interest is rising so much everywhere they don't really need the help.

If you're relentlessly negative about new developments in film, you really run the risk of coming across as a bit of a dill.

Edited by Jon O'Brien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
11 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

That is the real issue I think. People always wanting customised cameras and wanting features which they don't really need but which make the systems so difficult and expensive to manufacture that it hijacks the whole camera project and then no one is going to have ANY cameras ever.

I don't see how an Arri SR and an Aaton XTR are "customized" cameras. That's what people want. They just want "industry standard" equipment. I agree, the accessory situation kinda gets out of hand, but I understand it. I don't think anyone who will be building out a pro rig for a feature, will ever shoot with a Logmar camera anyway, but that's beside the point. "Normal" filmmakers do need rails, to attach their follow focus onto. "Normal" filmmakers do need a quiet camera so they can shoot sync sound, otherwise why bother even making something new when there are so many great MOS cameras? "Normal" filmmakers would probably also like someone close to them who can service the camera when it breaks, because it will break. Those aren't really specific requests, those are just normal things that are flat-out missing. 

11 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

So the issue is that only custom built cameras can be sold but people are only willing to pay a very low price which does not make it possible to individually custom build every single camera from ground up.  That is a real issue with niche products like film cameras which are made with very small financial margins and the whole project can easily fail if one customer cancels their order because the camera does not have timelapse feature the customer would never really use in real life ?

If someone made a 416 duplicate for $50k, using backwards compatible parts, they'd literally not be able to make enough of them. There are literally people right now willing to pay $90k for one. You're right a "custom" built camera has nearly no value. A re-tooling of a "classic" camera does. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
8 hours ago, Gregg MacPherson said:

Without scale, the manufacturing costs will rise. Making mechanical parts in China, in even small runs, the costs will lower. Maybe, as speculated already, shifting to electronic rather than mechanical means to achieve some functions, should save cost.

This is why the only way to be successful is to base it on an already existing design. This way, all the parts you make, can be used to "support" older cameras. Thus,  you can not only sell new cameras, but also flood the market with new parts. I'm not saying the camera body has to be identical, but things like magazines need to be interchangeable with some other camera. It's also impossible to re-design the wheel, the cost of doing so, plus the high failure rate, will put anyone out of business. 

8 hours ago, Gregg MacPherson said:

Can't miss a chance to upvote for optical VFs. An electronic VF is a really unappealing idea.

High resolution (not 1080p) electronic EVF without a ground glass, that's the goal. It's very appealing to people who actually use these cameras for a living. Optical viewfinders have way too many issues and video taps are NOT recordable. For modern production, you need a "backup" recording so if the film for some reason didn't work, at least you'd have a nice high-res version of the shot. Costly to design? Yep! But worth it. 

It would be impossible to make an optical viewfinder today, the costs would be extraordinary. Knocking out the optical viewfinder, saves you a lot of money. 

8 hours ago, Gregg MacPherson said:

Was someone on here slagging off about oscillating mirrors when critiquing the new Logmar S16. We've heard this nonsense before. Probably someone pretending to be a mechanical design engineer....It can be easily observed from the ACL, that oscillating mirrors can reduce the bulk of the camera body and can be very quiet. Note that the mirror Hz is half the camera fps. 

The ACL has a horrible, unusable viewfinder when running. So get off your high horse, it just does not work. I've serviced countless of them, very cool design, but the viewfinder is so bad when running, it ruins what otherwise is a decent camera. Also, if you saw the Logmar design, they aren't oscillating side to side, the mirror rises and lowers into position. This gives not much light down the viewfinder. They solve this by using a digital image capture solution that holds the image in buffer memory to remove the flicker. Clever, but only achievable with digital viewfinder. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
5 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

The proof of the pudding is in the tasting and the footage I've seen from the Magellan looks great.

You actually checked the flange distance? Did you see a resolution chart? Did you check corner focus? A hand crank camera from 1919 can give you a great image. The difference between a professional camera and a toy is if the image is perfect or not. Would you spend 10 million dollars shooting your movie on a camera that was creating an imperfect image? 

5 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Who cares if the thing makes some noise and has an oscillating mirror?

The sound guy! lol 

Do you actually shoot sync sound scenes? The MAJORITY of filmmakers do and a quiet camera is the most critical thing. We already have GOBS of 5 perf 65mm MOS cameras. The need for a new MOS camera is non-existent. Everyone is focused on sync sound cameras, which the Magellan is not. 
 

5 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I also don't understand the modern obsession with clinical perfection. Many seem to want celluloid film to have the rock-steady registration of digital image capture. Good heavens, if that's what you want, shoot digital. The whole point of real film is that it's a more artisan sort of look. It's more down to earth. That's why people seek it out.

Film is expensive to shoot, with Kodak raising the prices on stock, with the expense of processing, transfer and cameras, it costs thousands of dollars to shoot what one CF card on a digital camera can do over and over again with out added cost. So why would you want your expensive image to wobble? Why would you want your expensive image to have frame edges that are out of focus? Why would you want scratches and dirt in your frame? Because it's an "artisan" look?  Truth is, nobody who can afford to make a decent sized product on film, would agree with that statement. Heck, most of what I shoot these days is artisan stuff, with high fashion artists. None of them allow any instability in frame. 

3 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Plus there's digital image stabilisation in post, if you must have it.

Post image stabilization is time consuming and not without its faults. Not something I would "trust" to solve actual problems. 

3 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

If someone is making new film cameras, get behind them and help them along. But the interest is rising so much everywhere they don't really need the help.

If you're relentlessly negative about new developments in film, you really run the risk of coming across as a bit of a dill.

It's called being a realist. I don't live in the clouds. You can't do what they're doing and create a great camera that will sell. So they've taken a lot of money and completely wasted it on a project that will go nowhere. That pisses me off. The problem is that good designers like David, don't get the money to actually build products that COULD work and COULD be useful. Instead, his great designs, some of which would REVOLUTIONIZE the industry, are just for show. 

We don't need "another camera", there are PLENTY of cameras. The industry needs a ground breaking camera designed for the commercial market, which would radically change the dynamic of the used market, but also as I said above, be built on a "classic" reliable movement. Money is no object at this point, people will pay $50 - $80k for a new camera. I would beg to argue, the industry also needs a low-cost entry level camera. Neither which are being made. 

I'm frustrated because I've seen the Magellan first hand. I've seen the Chatham first hand. I've shot with the latter and where it does create the most stable image for super 8 ever, it's incredibly flawed. As if nobody at the company had ever used a movie camera before. Same goes for the Magellan, it's mind boggling what they're doing with that camera, literally hurts my brain. They weren't just re-inventing the wheel, they were re-inventing the tools used to build the wheel and the roads used to drive the vehicles on, without ever seeing streets, other wheels or the machines to make wheels prior. The cameras remind me of other failed attempts to make "unique" film cameras in the past, all of them failures. So history is being completely ignored, 100's of years of building successful camera designs, thrown out the window because some engineer in Denmark knows better? 

So yea, I'm not just negative, I'm bitter about the whole thing because it's a wasted opportunity. 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

1: So they've taken a lot of money and completely wasted it on a project that will go nowhere. That pisses me off.

2: The problem is that good designers like David, don't get the money to actually build products that COULD work and COULD be useful. Instead, his great designs, some of which would REVOLUTIONIZE the industry, are just for show.

3: So yea, I'm not just negative, I'm bitter about the whole thing because it's a wasted opportunity.

1: As far as I know, they've used their own money and time to develop their cameras.

2: Didn't know you were a fan, thank you I guess, I thought you hated them. But I never asked for money. I doubt I designed anything revolutionary, I stand on the shoulders of giants like Fritz Gabriel Bauer and Jean-Pierre Beauviala. I now have the benefit of 40 years of technological/manufacturing  progress since,  to maybe solve some of the problems in a more compact and elegant way. While I sometimes work on projects that are just design/ergonomic studies "for show" (I still want to design a Pentax 67 III, knowing very well it would never be manufactured) the Y2 and Y8 camera projects were different beasts, somewhere between R&D and plans of manufacturing a small batch. I halted both for different reasons, but I learned a lot working on them and use this knowledge now.

3: Kudos for being honest, but that's a bit sad. It's really their time and money. Instead of being bitter about it, why don't you start a thread, where you show how you would design a camera? With sketches, scribbles, diagrams etc. Put in two weeks worth of time and people would take notice. You might not like their cameras, but you have to admit, they put in the time... years of development.

 

Edited by David Sekanina
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Money is no object at this point, people will pay $50 - $80k for a new camera. I would beg to argue, the industry also needs a low-cost entry level camera. Neither which are being made.

 

I literally have a perfectly good Aaton LTR on my desk which I can't afford to shoot any film with because I have used all the money for developing crystal sync systems and camera mods almost no one is willing to buy even when them being quite "revolutionary" and pretty affordable. We are talking about 500 to 1k usd cost mods which is nothing even for a hobbyist if they actually are using the camera for anything at all. Selling one piece of them per model does not cover any of the developing costs, it barely even covers the parts needed for it.

Developing new film camera accessories OR film cameras is TOTALLY a hobby,  NOT something you can do for a living.  Maybe it would be worthwile for someone being a millionaire in the first place, then wanting to waste his/her money on making cool camera accessories instead of actually shooting with the cameras. But I can't really see much of a real profitable business opportunities in this field for anyone and to me it sounds like the "I would pay 80k for a new crystal sync 16mm camera" persons are most likely just "tire kickers" who "would of course" really pay 80k for the camera IF THEY WIN THE LOTTERY FIRST AND THUS HAVE TONS OF FREE MONEY TO WASTE AROUND instead of taking it from their pension plan or making their production company to pay for it (if there is any)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

.....The ACL has a horrible, unusable viewfinder when running. So get off your high horse, it just does not work. I've serviced countless of them, very cool design, but the viewfinder is so bad when running, it ruins what otherwise is a decent camera........

Which ACL viewfinder are you refering to? I know of 5 different designs. I've looked through 4. The early Ang. ones on the ACL are a smaller image and maybe not as bright as an SR1, but there was nothing about it that one would have called horrible in it's day, relative to it's peers. The big fully orientable Kinoptik is a big bright, sharp image. I don't have other cameras here to compare, so unlike you, I will not pretend to know more than I do...

And again, with this pretending to know ACL intimately and having serviced them. Define "serviced". How many movements have you had out of the body, and what did you do to them....? Now define "countless". Rhetorical questions really.

And while I'm in the mood to complain, how about editing yourself Tyler.  Write less but more meaningful words.

Edited by Gregg MacPherson
Added words to make fun of Tyler's writing skills.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
7 hours ago, Gregg MacPherson said:

Which ACL viewfinder are you refering to? I know of 5 different designs.

Per my post above, "when running" which has nothing to do with the physical glass elements at all. 

The problem is, when the camera runs, there is not very much "image" going into the viewfinder. Thus, it's very hard to determine focus. I've shot with the camera quite a bit, I really like it honestly. I just absolutely hate the viewfinder for the flicker and lack of being able to know if it's in focus during a shot, due to the design, which as you know, was never used again after. 

7 hours ago, Gregg MacPherson said:

And again, with this pretending to know ACL intimately and having serviced them. Define "serviced". How many movements have you had out of the body, and what did you do to them....? Now define "countless". Rhetorical questions really.

Again, I really like the camera, so I've worked on dozens of them. First thing I do is pull the movement out because it's so easy to access and those pivot mounts are susceptible to cracking. Most of the cameras come to me because they don't work at all, or they're very loud. Last few I worked on were very recently, I had a collector drop off all of their Eclairs one by one. I'm glad they didn't need any parts because sourcing is a nightmare, but all of them needed major work with gummed up intermediate shafts, very common issue. If you visit my instagram, you can see a few of them I posted on there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
8 hours ago, David Sekanina said:

3: Kudos for being honest, but that's a bit sad. It's really their time and money. Instead of being bitter about it, why don't you start a thread, where you show how you would design a camera? With sketches, scribbles, diagrams etc. Put in two weeks worth of time and people would take notice. You might not like their cameras, but you have to admit, they put in the time... years of development.

I already discussed my ideas a while back, but I don't think there is a reason for a new thread because it's been talked about. I know very well what filmmakers need/want, it's just about fulfilling those needs. I think your 16mm camera ideas do a good job at that. I also know there are some other people who want to make new cameras as well, so we'll see what happens. 

I'm more of a guy who takes parts that exist, machines them to work differently, 3D prints parts and makes a physical prototype first. Then I'll scan those parts and get them into the computer for a final drawing for manufacturing purposes. I don't like theorizing  because it takes too much time and without a physical mockup, nobody really cares. If I SHOWED people a finished product, I could raise the money. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Per my post above, "when running" which has nothing to do with the physical glass elements at all. 

The problem is, when the camera runs, there is not very much "image" going into the viewfinder. Thus, it's very hard to determine focus. I've shot with the camera quite a bit, I really like it honestly. I just absolutely hate the viewfinder for the flicker and lack of being able to know if it's in focus during a shot, due to the design, which as you know, was never used again after. 

Again, I really like the camera, so I've worked on dozens of them. First thing I do is pull the movement out because it's so easy to access and those pivot mounts are susceptible to cracking. Most of the cameras come to me because they don't work at all, or they're very loud. Last few I worked on were very recently, I had a collector drop off all of their Eclairs one by one. I'm glad they didn't need any parts because sourcing is a nightmare, but all of them needed major work with gummed up intermediate shafts, very common issue. If you visit my instagram, you can see a few of them I posted on there. 

Tyler, as an ACL owner myself I know a couple things about the camera-

1)There aren’t that many of them, they were primarily used for news gathering but some went into feature production- most of the bodies that went into news gathering died there either from lack of service or were given to/purchased by camera operators in the UK that didn’t take the best of care of them and then became barn finds and 

2)There aren’t that many places that are referred to for ACL service- number one in the US was S16 run by Bernie O’Doherty, Andrew at AZSpectrum also has been a regular technician in addition to duall who used to provide S16 service and finally VP. With four solid houses that were/are quite often backlogged with ACL work I find it very difficult to believe you were also providing that service especially again, as I have been an ACL owner for some years now and have never heard your name mentioned once as someone to go to for that service (nor amcamera which I know you are affiliated with)

Which brings me to my point- I find (among your other fairly dubious claims which are usually used to straw man sometimes legitimate arguments but usually not) your claim of working on multiple dozens of ACLs pretty flimsy, one look at the eclair message board will show the dearth of these bodies even available as unusable parts cameras so you saying you’ve worked on literally over 24 of them when there were at least 4 houses known to be pros and your name is not even in the mix seems like exactly the kind of overstatement I’ve personally come to expect here. I’m not sure what my point is here except that frankly I don’t really believe you, and the picture you are painting doesn’t really hold up.

Gregg, I also miss the downvote button, the participation trophies are not useful.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
40 minutes ago, Travis Shannon said:

Tyler, as an ACL owner myself I know a couple things about the camera-

I buy broken cameras and re-sell them. That's part of why I've serviced so many. 

Again, I really like the cameras, but I resold cameras as a way to pay bills for 6 years, so I couldn't keep any. 

40 minutes ago, Travis Shannon said:

1)There aren’t that many of them

I mean, sure there are less old French cameras in the US than in Europe, but I've seen plenty of them come in for service. I don't know where people are getting them, but they are very popular in Los Angeles. Probably due to the low cost, sync sound operation, using inexpensive lenses (c mount) which is really nice. 

40 minutes ago, Travis Shannon said:

2)I find it very difficult to believe you were also providing that service especially again, as I have been an ACL owner for some years now and have never heard your name mentioned once as someone to go to for that service (nor amcamera which I know you are affiliated with)

I don't need to advertise, I have way too much work as it is. People find me through social media, mostly Facebook and Instagram. I generally have around 4 - 6 cameras in for service at any given time. I have an ACL and NPR in for service right now actually, both "new" owners wanting their cameras CLA'd before they start using them. Both came from college fleets that were sold off recently.  I don't market the fact I work on Eclair cameras because frankly, I can't do everything to them. But they are so easy to work on, any tech should be able to re-time, collimate, flange check and CLA no problem at all. 

40 minutes ago, Travis Shannon said:

one look at the eclair message board will show the dearth of these bodies even available as unusable parts cameras

Nobody uses message boards, so I don't understand why that's even being used as a gauge in 2022. Might as well use eBay, to which there are always ACL's listed by crazies who think they can get $6k for one. 

Also, by your own admission, the top techs who service them have a backlog. So there are plenty of people with them. 

40 minutes ago, Travis Shannon said:

so you saying you’ve worked on literally over 24 of them when there were at least 4 houses known to be pros and your name is not even in the mix seems like exactly the kind of overstatement I’ve personally come to expect here. I’m not sure what my point is here except that frankly I don’t really believe you, and the picture you are painting doesn’t really hold up.

The great thing is, you don't have to believe me. Your belief has no effect on my business. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no doubt Tyler has worked on ACLs. They are nice and simple, even I have opened several. Mirror/shutter timing seems relatively easy to work with, clean and relube too (though I'm still trying to find the cause for some strange stiffness in one of them. We'll see if I go as far as try to replace the main drive with a spare).

Still, there are things like adjusting the pull-down claw or removing the ground glass or checking FFD that I have no idea how to do, and what I have done thus far might not pass a real pro tech's bar. I'm an amateur and before this January, I didn't really even know how the movement looks like. So, please don't send your ACLs to me ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I buy broken cameras and re-sell them. That's part of why I've serviced so many. 

Again, I really like the cameras, but I resold cameras as a way to pay bills for 6 years, so I couldn't keep any. 

I mean, sure there are less old French cameras in the US than in Europe, but I've seen plenty of them come in for service. I don't know where people are getting them, but they are very popular in Los Angeles. Probably due to the low cost, sync sound operation, using inexpensive lenses (c mount) which is really nice. 

I don't need to advertise, I have way too much work as it is. People find me through social media, mostly Facebook and Instagram. I generally have around 4 - 6 cameras in for service at any given time. I have an ACL and NPR in for service right now actually, both "new" owners wanting their cameras CLA'd before they start using them. Both came from college fleets that were sold off recently.  I don't market the fact I work on Eclair cameras because frankly, I can't do everything to them. But they are so easy to work on, any tech should be able to re-time, collimate, flange check and CLA no problem at all. 

Nobody uses message boards, so I don't understand why that's even being used as a gauge in 2022. Might as well use eBay, to which there are always ACL's listed by crazies who think they can get $6k for one. 

Also, by your own admission, the top techs who service them have a backlog. So there are plenty of people with them. 

The great thing is, you don't have to believe me. Your belief has no effect on my business. 

It’s interesting that you mention eBay as a gauge since this site doesn’t seem to be one in your mind. The number of completed listings is far more reflective of complete ACLs than broken parts cameras you allude to buying and then repairing (even though you’ve personally said you apparently like the ACL although the vf [one of the most important aspects of a 16mm camera] is “unusable” so it seems an odd practice to partake in) Sourcing parts is also a nightmare as you yourself said so- how you were able to supply over 24 cameras with them is a bit baffling to myself as well. You are correct in that I don’t have to believe you, I choose not to. Apparently business is booming so I hope it keeps up for you, can’t imagine it has much to do with customer service though. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Heikki Repo said:

I have no doubt Tyler has worked on ACLs. They are nice and simple, even I have opened several. Mirror/shutter timing seems relatively easy to work with, clean and relube too (though I'm still trying to find the cause for some strange stiffness in one of them. We'll see if I go as far as try to replace the main drive with a spare).

Still, there are things like adjusting the pull-down claw or removing the ground glass or checking FFD that I have no idea how to do....

The ACL movement block is a very simple, compact design, but as with all good design, the simplicity and sophistication come together. The complexity is hidden. If trying to self service the movement, the things one does not know or understand can easily trip one up. If a full service manual was available it might help, but only if one had serious skill and intellect to begin with. On another thread, Dom jaeger opined that owners beginning to service their own cameras was likely to yield disastrous results. I agree.

Opening the body to remove the movement block is not hard. Assessing the wear on moving parts, the condition of the lubricants, checking the function of the claw movement and making the camera quiet...requires expertise. If a rebuild with full disassembly, even more expertise. Are there any special tools or jigs needed..?

The ACL is getting old enough that original lubricants in the sintered bronze bushes may need to be cleaned and re impregnated, or replaced. So a full disassembly and rebuild. 

I believe that all service and especially the identity of the (ad hoc) tech should be on the record, and produced on demand when cameras are sold. We have a list of legit camera techs we are trying to grow, maybe we need a list of dodgy ones, with "he who shall not be named" at the top of the list. 

Thinking more on the sophistication hidden in the simplicity...Years ago there was a camera technician on the forum who described in minute detail how his Aaton CLA jobs commonly segued into major rebuilds, requiring (for example) measuring the pulldown claw wear and regrinding it, removing oil, gunk from the sintered alloy bearings and re-impregnating under vacuum, and more...(hope I have remembered that correctly). It made me realize how little one knows, looking at this simple little ACL movement block.

So, my opinion, if one wants to tinker, one needs the right initial mind and skillset, and needs to be up for a lot of learning. 

Gregg.

PS: Travis, no downvote, but there is a "laughing" icon, which can read as ridicule if deserved.

Edited by Gregg MacPherson
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Gregg MacPherson said:

On another thread, Dom jaeger opined that owners beginning to service their own cameras was likely to yield disastrous results. I agree.

It's ultimately about finding a balance between the extremely careful, OCD like relationship to one's camera ("I have to buy an expensive service before every shoot just to be sure, even if I haven't used my camera that much and it seems to work well") and a too relaxed approach ("this is how I remove pieces from my camera without any fear of breaking something by taking it apart in a mess and pushing carelessly with my screwdriver").

If it's a 60-90k camera used for award winning TV-series, please don't open it unless you know what you are doing. If it's a camera body that would essentially lie unused due to dried, messy lubricants and you wouldn't send it overseas for servicing in any case, why not learn a bit about how it works, try to service it, learn as much as possible from different sources.

As for ACL, what I have learned from those who have collected such information more than I have over decades and who have serviced ACLs themselves is that 1) they don't have names for some specific lubricants. Thus I went for Klüber Isoflex LDS 18 Special and Nye #140B clock oil. Furthermore, never are these ACLs going to run through as much film as they did when they were used by a TV station. 2) I have manual pages for correct way to set the shutter/mirror sync. No way would I have done it otherwise ?

The question about the self lubricating parts is interesting. ACL2 manual says that "The four drive shafts run in selflubrificated bearings and the camera mechanism should NEVER be oiled." Obviously, "never" might not mean 50 years later. The very important question is, do service houses such as VP do something about those self lubricated bearings when they rebuild ACLs? 

As I mentioned, one ACL movement is giving me a bit of an headache, because unlike previous ones, cleaning old grease and regreasing didn't solve everything. The funny thing is though that this is officially ACL2, so youngest of them all. Were it the other way around, I'd first have thought that it must be the self lubrication having run out. I'm still betting on dirt under main drive cover. But I'll probably know more after I remove the vertical shaft and see how much there is friction in the main drive after that. At least I have new old stock spares for the main horizontal drive shaft so I could replace it.

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...