Jump to content


Photo

ECLAIR NPR (Nikon Mount?)


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Matt Bizer

Matt Bizer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 24 April 2007 - 12:00 PM

Ok, so I hear there is a c-mount to Nikon for the Eclair npr.

Does this mount work and will any 15-150 or other nikon lens cover super 16mm?
  • 0

#2 Matt Bizer

Matt Bizer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 24 April 2007 - 02:41 PM

Actually, I will just state my situation.

I have an Eclair NPR and I am looking to convert it to super 16.

what are my lens mount options/ best choices for lens mounts and lenses that cover the super 16mm frame.

i am new to the super 16mm world and this will be my 1st conversion of any camera I own.

any info on experiences and ideas for the NPR let me know! I am open to feed my brain.

Thanks for the help everyone,

Matt
  • 0

#3 Bernie O'Doherty

Bernie O'Doherty
  • Sustaining Members
  • 232 posts
  • Other
  • Newark Valley, NY

Posted 24 April 2007 - 04:45 PM

A couple of things regarding this lens.
First of all, it's not in the same league as Zeiss or Cooke. Loses definition mid-range on the zoom.
Second, it's quite heavy for the little 'c' mount. Needs a support.
Thirdly, it's out of the ballpark when compared with good primes. Why go all the way to Super 16 and end up with questionable glass/images ? The camera is only the box which holds and moves the film. The glass is what's important. I would save up and try for either used Russian primes, or used Cooke/ Zeiss/ Canon zooms.
  • 0

#4 Matt Bizer

Matt Bizer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 24 April 2007 - 06:17 PM

A couple of things regarding this lens.
First of all, it's not in the same league as Zeiss or Cooke. Loses definition mid-range on the zoom.
Second, it's quite heavy for the little 'c' mount. Needs a support.
Thirdly, it's out of the ballpark when compared with good primes. Why go all the way to Super 16 and end up with questionable glass/images ? The camera is only the box which holds and moves the film. The glass is what's important. I would save up and try for either used Russian primes, or used Cooke/ Zeiss/ Canon zooms.


Thanks for the feedback. In using Cooke / Ziess/ Canon would I need to upgrade to a different lens mount or will I be able to find these in reasonable ease as C mount covering a super 16mm frame?
  • 0

#5 Bernie O'Doherty

Bernie O'Doherty
  • Sustaining Members
  • 232 posts
  • Other
  • Newark Valley, NY

Posted 24 April 2007 - 08:11 PM

You can get them in either Eclair or Arri. If you get them with the most popular, an Arri bayonet, you can put an adaptor on there and it will mount to your Eclair. Price for adaptor around $250, maybe cheaper on Ebay.
  • 0

#6 Matt Bizer

Matt Bizer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 25 April 2007 - 02:23 PM

You can get them in either Eclair or Arri. If you get them with the most popular, an Arri bayonet, you can put an adaptor on there and it will mount to your Eclair. Price for adaptor around $250, maybe cheaper on Ebay.


Thanks for all the help.

I just realized that you are the same Bernie that I want to send my camera to for the modification.

Thanks for all of your help.

-Matt
  • 0

#7 Alex Turner

Alex Turner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Director
  • San Francisco

Posted 01 May 2007 - 08:34 PM

Thanks for all the help.

I just realized that you are the same Bernie that I want to send my camera to for the modification.

Thanks for all of your help.

-Matt


Actually, I?ve found Nikon lenses to be quite sharp, certainly comparable if not better than an old set of Russian primes. Of course it depends on what the condition of the lens you are using is. The Nikon adapter + lenses are relatively inexpensive to boot.
  • 0

#8 Mac Zefer

Mac Zefer

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 03 August 2007 - 05:02 AM

Check out Les Bosher and George Zorzoli at Optical Electro House for a precise conversion of the NPR to Super 16.
  • 0

#9 Mac Zefer

Mac Zefer

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 03 August 2007 - 05:15 AM

Check out Les Bosher and George Zorzoli at Optical Electro House for a precise conversion of the NPR to Super 16.

Also, Lenses, on the cheap check out the Kinoptik 9mm 1.5 c-mount that can be ordered from Ikonoskop in Sweden. Sharp lens and covers Super 16. 900 Euros roughly. Look for Optar Illuminas too. The 15-150 is not a good lens. I mean if you are going through the effort to go Super 16 you want a sharp picture. If you have 8k get a Canon 8-64 (PL mount). This is a great lens. I blown up numerous films to 35mm that I shot with this lens and you could hardly tell it was shot on 16. Or just rent. It's a hassle but a good way to get the best glass. Minimum you're looking at 4500 for a halfway decent zoom.
  • 0

#10 Martin Yernazian

Martin Yernazian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Director
  • San Francisco/Los Angeles CA USA

Posted 03 August 2007 - 02:55 PM

Hey Marc

Well I'm actually in the same debate than Matt, but I wonder, which films have you done with the 8/64 Canon that you blown up to 35mm? I will love to see some of them, anything I can rent ?
For know this are my top choices:
Canon 8/64
" 11.5/138
Cooke 10.4/52
Zeiss 12/120 t2.4

I want a zoom, because their versatility and quickness


Best
  • 0

#11 Mac Zefer

Mac Zefer

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 03 August 2007 - 05:29 PM

Hey Marc

Well I'm actually in the same debate than Matt, but I wonder, which films have you done with the 8/64 Canon that you blown up to 35mm? I will love to see some of them, anything I can rent ?
For know this are my top choices:
Canon 8/64
" 11.5/138
Cooke 10.4/52
Zeiss 12/120 t2.4

I want a zoom, because their versatility and quickness
Best


Unfortunately nothing you can rent. I play in the festival circuit with experimental films. But there are plenty of films that have been shot on S16 and then blown up. Duart in NYC does excellent work. I would go with the Canon. I prefer 8mm rather than the 11.5 but both are great lenses. Certainly they are better than the Cooke and the Zeiss as those lenses are S16 conversions and usually they cost a little less 3-4k less than the Canon.
  • 0

#12 Robert Skates

Robert Skates
  • Guests

Posted 04 August 2007 - 09:34 AM

I've mention this before and everyone seemed to ignore it. In the super 16 format a good number of regular 16 lenses will cover if you frame for the 1.85:1 aspect ratio. The super 16 aspect ratio of 1.66 is not standard for any presentation medium. It was always meant to be cropped. If you plan to frame for 16:9 then you will have a bit more of a coverage issue with regular 16 lenses. My Cooke 9-50mm covers super 16 1.85 from about 11.5-50mm, in 16:9 it become roughly a 17-50mm, in 1.66:1 it covers from around 20-50mm.

I shoot mostly low budget features and shorts. The $2,000.00 price tag to convert my lens to super 16 is not worth the difference between 16:9 and 1.85:1 The 16:9 is really only for projects produced for T.V. widesceen broadcast. If you are shooting for widescreen T.V. broadcast then there should be a big enough budget to rent a proper camera kit. If you are shooting something that may have a theatrical or straight to dvd distribution then 1.85:1 will be the best choice.


The topic of lens coverage in super 16 is relative to the aspect ratio you intend to shoot in. I brought this topic up only because there are so many questions related to "Low cost lenses that will cover super 16." If money were not an issue we would be taking about our ARRI 416 and ZEISS Master Prime kits.
  • 0

#13 Martin Yernazian

Martin Yernazian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Director
  • San Francisco/Los Angeles CA USA

Posted 04 August 2007 - 02:05 PM

You have a great point there, I actually never heard you say that , so sorry for not paying the proper attention
My goal is to produce my own feature projects by the end of this great year, you are right the ratio is key

Thanks for that great advice, still I think I'm shooting for the Canon 8-64, because of the sharpness and versatile of the glass, ( the Cooke is great to, but as yet I have not seen anything done on the Cooke to appreciated more) Any Examples?


Best
  • 0

#14 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 06 August 2007 - 03:23 PM

My Cooke 9-50mm covers super 16 1.85 from about 11.5-50mm, in 16:9 it become roughly a 17-50mm, in 1.66:1 it covers from around 20-50mm.



If you're framing for 2.4/1 centered, I think most regular 16mm zooms wide angle primes will cover the superscope area.

Since the zeiss 10-100/2.8 T3.3 barely covers 16R, it won't cover at the wide end.
  • 0


Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Opal

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Technodolly

The Slider

Opal

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Ritter Battery