Jump to content


Photo

Has anyone here filmed Anamorphic with a Camaflex?


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Giles Porter

Giles Porter

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Student

Posted 17 February 2009 - 04:51 PM

Hi

I am gradually getting a Cameflex ( 35 not 16/35 ) package together and I wondered if anyone could let me know what I need to do to the camera to shoot 'scope'.

Are there any films that I could watch that have used the Eclair to do this?

Any help or advice would be very much appreciated.


Many thanks

Giles
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 February 2009 - 05:01 PM

You just need the lens centered for Academy/1.85 (sound) which most 35mm Cameflexes would mostly likely be (as opposed to Silent/Super/Full), you want to make sure that the gate is not Academy because anamorphic uses 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture height (not sure what is common for Cameflexes) and you need an anamorphic 2.40 groundglass for framing.

And ideally you'd want a desqueezing viewfinder though that is not mandatory if you can get used to shooting while looking at a squeezed image. I suspect there isn't one available for a Cameflex.

I don't see the point of needing to look at footage shot on a Cameflex with anamorphic lenses -- the camera itself does not impart any look on the footage.
  • 0

#3 Giles Porter

Giles Porter

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Student

Posted 17 February 2009 - 05:55 PM

You just need the lens centered for Academy/1.85 (sound) which most 35mm Cameflexes would mostly likely be (as opposed to Silent/Super/Full), you want to make sure that the gate is not Academy because anamorphic uses 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture height (not sure what is common for Cameflexes) and you need an anamorphic 2.40 groundglass for framing.

And ideally you'd want a desqueezing viewfinder though that is not mandatory if you can get used to shooting while looking at a squeezed image. I suspect there isn't one available for a Cameflex.

I don't see the point of needing to look at footage shot on a Cameflex with anamorphic lenses -- the camera itself does not impart any look on the footage.




Thanks David

I am pretty sure that the lens is centred but I will check that the gate is full height and get it modified if not.

I realise that there is no particularly useful point in watching something shot with a Cameflex but I waited my whole life to get it so I feel rather attached to it in a sentmental way and it will be a little while before I get to shoot anything with it myself.

I will post back with news and hopefully useful info as soon as I have progressed further.
  • 0

#4 Erik Turestedt

Erik Turestedt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Director
  • Sweden

Posted 30 May 2009 - 11:42 AM

Or you could make a 2 perf conversion, to shoot "scope" in camera, spending half the money on stock and process.

Waiting for my 35mm Eclair Cameflex CM3 2perf to be delivered... So I'm soon Cameflex guy too...
  • 0

#5 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3510 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 31 May 2009 - 03:10 AM

Are there any films that I could watch that have used the Eclair to do this?

Wasn't "Jules et Jim" shot on a Camflex? That was anamorphic.
  • 0

#6 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 01 June 2009 - 05:00 PM

Wasn't "Jules et Jim" shot on a Camflex? That was anamorphic.


Yes in deed. At home I have aphotocopy of a production still from it showing Cotard using a Cameflex with an Angie 35-140mm and a Franscope attachment.

'Contempt' also used a Cameflex with a Franscope attachment. The Criterion disc has a short with Cotard discussing the Franscope attachment.
Behind the scenes footage is included. When the BNC was being used as a prop camera, Cotard was under a blanket with the cameflex.

Posted Image

Maurice Fellous infatuated with the franscope lens.
  • 0

#7 Alex Georgiou

Alex Georgiou

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Other
  • London UK

Posted 01 August 2009 - 08:04 AM

Thanks David

I am pretty sure that the lens is centred but I will check that the gate is full height and get it modified if not.

I realise that there is no particularly useful point in watching something shot with a Cameflex but I waited my whole life to get it so I feel rather attached to it in a sentmental way and it will be a little while before I get to shoot anything with it myself.

I will post back with news and hopefully useful info as soon as I have progressed further.



Hi,
Try filming on 2-perf camera and let the lab transfer on 4 perf- to Panavision format. No need for anamorphic lenses.
Good luck.
ALEX GEORGIOU www.supervision2perf.com

Edited by Alex Georgiou, 01 August 2009 - 08:05 AM.

  • 0

#8 stevie wara

stevie wara
  • Guests

Posted 25 September 2009 - 03:49 AM

Thanks David

I am pretty sure that the lens is centred but I will check that the gate is full height and get it modified if not.

I realise that there is no particularly useful point in watching something shot with a Cameflex but I waited my whole life to get it so I feel rather attached to it in a sentmental way and it will be a little while before I get to shoot anything with it myself.

I will post back with news and hopefully useful info as soon as I have progressed further.



Hi Giles,

I hope you will receive this post before attempting to have your cameflex modified.

Simply opening up the vertical height on an academy aperture cameflex (i.e. a cameflex standard) will not necessarily allow you to film in scope.

The mirror assembly for a scope-aperture cameflex is more compact than that for academy aperture. The difference lies in the radius of the mirror counterweight. This is the weight that keeps your spinning reflex mirror in balance so that your camera doesn't shake itself to destruction. The counterweight on a scope-capable cameflex is thicker, yet formed on a tighter radius than that of the standard cameflex.

This means that if you were to re-machine the gate, yet retain the standard mirror assembly, the counterweight would partially cover the scope aperture with an encroachment of about 0.050 inches, which is significant.

* * *

The cameflex certainly could impart a certain look to a film (anamorphic or otherwise) in the sense that it is so compact and can be so easily held by hand. I would think that searching out and viewing films that have been shot with this camera would be of great use to you.
  • 0

#9 dino wiand

dino wiand
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Director

Posted 27 December 2009 - 09:25 AM

Young Girls of Rochefort is a good example. I think they used a Kinoptik lens (like Jack Cardiff had for William Tell) . They got a great look from Rocheford. But camera not good for sync sound unless you don't mind re-recording the sound. Musicals however no problem. Eclair Camaflex is a great camera however.

Hi

I am gradually getting a Cameflex ( 35 not 16/35 ) package together and I wondered if anyone could let me know what I need to do to the camera to shoot 'scope'.

Are there any films that I could watch that have used the Eclair to do this?

Any help or advice would be very much appreciated.


Many thanks

Giles


Edited by dino wiand, 27 December 2009 - 09:27 AM.

  • 0

#10 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 31 December 2009 - 04:57 PM

Simply opening up the vertical height on an academy aperture cameflex (i.e. a cameflex standard) will not necessarily allow you to film in scope.


What about widening an academy aperture from 22mm to around 25mm for Super35?

The 16mm height would be the same.
  • 0

#11 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 31 December 2009 - 05:02 PM

Young Girls of Rochefort is a good example. I think they used a Kinoptik lens (like Jack Cardiff had for William Tell) .


A Kinoptik lens is not anamorphic. & 'Wm.Tell' was shot with BNCs from New York. They would have been equiped with Balters or Cookes.

You are referrring to Cinepanoramic anamorphic attachments.

---El Pedante
  • 0

#12 stevie wara

stevie wara
  • Guests

Posted 06 January 2010 - 04:03 AM

What about widening an academy aperture from 22mm to around 25mm for Super35?

The 16mm height would be the same.



Hi Leo,

I asked myself this very same question during the conversion of my cameflex to 3perf. In the end, I decided against widening to a "super35" width. Here's why...

1. The ingoing and outgoing recessing of the aperture plate is only to academy width. So the film base of the widened aperture would be in constant contact with the aperture plate through its entire travel vs being in full contact only at the point of exposure. It seemed that the film base would be at higher risk for scratching in the extended area, and the idea of extending the recessing didn't appeal to me either.

2. I have old glass, kinoptik primes, and the image circle for some of my lenses would cause vignettes in "super35".

3. By widening the aperture, you are also increasing the time needed for the mirror to sweep the frame, thus you would have to close down your shutter to compensate. 200 degrees would be out, and I'm not even sure that a 180 degree opening would be restricted enough to avoid any pulldown blurring.

4. Recentering the lens mount would be an expensive pain.

5. Recentering the viewfinder would be an expensive pain.

6. The mirror itself couldn't be recentered, so its sweep wouldn't be even. This may or may not be a significant issue, and I never did the math on this one since points 1 through 5 had already convinced me to abandon any intentions of "super35".


Converting a cameflex to anamorphic or "super35", in this era, doesn't make sense to me. If you're shooting 35mm then, for me, that implies a feature film. If you're shooting a feature with a cameflex, then you probably don't have a budget that can justify the added expense of going anamorphic.

However, converting a cameflex to 3perf or 2perf seems a reasonable expense, as you can save a lot on film and developing costs, and quality 2K DIs are now becoming very affordable.

Edited by stevie wara, 06 January 2010 - 04:05 AM.

  • 0

#13 Rioux Pierre Samuel

Rioux Pierre Samuel
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Quebec

Posted 24 January 2010 - 07:39 PM

Hi Leo,

I asked myself this very same question during the conversion of my cameflex to 3perf. In the end, I decided against widening to a "super35" width. Here's why...

1. The ingoing and outgoing recessing of the aperture plate is only to academy width. So the film base of the widened aperture would be in constant contact with the aperture plate through its entire travel vs being in full contact only at the point of exposure. It seemed that the film base would be at higher risk for scratching in the extended area, and the idea of extending the recessing didn't appeal to me either.

2. I have old glass, kinoptik primes, and the image circle for some of my lenses would cause vignettes in "super35".

3. By widening the aperture, you are also increasing the time needed for the mirror to sweep the frame, thus you would have to close down your shutter to compensate. 200 degrees would be out, and I'm not even sure that a 180 degree opening would be restricted enough to avoid any pulldown blurring.

4. Recentering the lens mount would be an expensive pain.

5. Recentering the viewfinder would be an expensive pain.

6. The mirror itself couldn't be recentered, so its sweep wouldn't be even. This may or may not be a significant issue, and I never did the math on this one since points 1 through 5 had already convinced me to abandon any intentions of "super35".


Converting a cameflex to anamorphic or "super35", in this era, doesn't make sense to me. If you're shooting 35mm then, for me, that implies a feature film. If you're shooting a feature with a cameflex, then you probably don't have a budget that can justify the added expense of going anamorphic.

However, converting a cameflex to 3perf or 2perf seems a reasonable expense, as you can save a lot on film and developing costs, and quality 2K DIs are now becoming very affordable.


I personaly looking for a long time on Eclair but they are over 60y old now ? at this time many used a full gate all the time on them...
And the touret got 3 lens seat and many have one of them centered for Scoop lens.
If you look for more on Eclair look at e bay France...
The camera is much more heavy compared to a Konvas M2 but very nice mechanic.
Your prism is clean ? many with age became less transparent... this is a thing the Russian made better. Bernie in Usa fix them and he cut them with a lazer.
You have some shoulder 400 mag available for them rarely for sell for the Eclair Cm3
  • 0

#14 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 25 January 2010 - 03:07 PM

If you find a Cameflex that hasn't been modified, you might think twice about doing much to it. Not many were made compared with Arri's and Eyemo's. Have a look at "Antiques Roadshow" -- There are always cases where they tell somebody that if a certain item hadn't been sanded and varnished, it would have been worth tens of thousands more. Would you serve crew meals on antique china?





-- J.S.
  • 0


Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Technodolly

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

The Slider

Visual Products

Glidecam

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC