Jump to content


Photo

Eclair NPR scratches


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Giray Izcan

Giray Izcan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 May 2012 - 01:28 PM

I recently bought an EClair NPR. It seems like the camera runs great; however, both of my footages came out with multiple vertical scratches from the top of each scene to the bottom in a continuous manner. I checked the gate and the chrome feels smooth, no rough parts at all. What do you think the reason is? Here are links to my films:


Thanks.
  • 0

#2 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 20 May 2012 - 02:05 PM

I recently bought an EClair NPR. It seems like the camera runs great; however, both of my footages came out with multiple vertical scratches from the top of each scene to the bottom in a continuous manner. I checked the gate and the chrome feels smooth, no rough parts at all. What do you think the reason is? Here are links to my films:


Thanks.


Interesting that you have a scratch in the centre like that.
Be sure to check the entire film path including rollers and in the magazine, not just the gate!
Good luck!

love

Freya
  • 0

#3 Giray Izcan

Giray Izcan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 May 2012 - 02:24 PM

Interesting that you have a scratch in the centre like that.
Be sure to check the entire film path including rollers and in the magazine, not just the gate!
Good luck!

love

Freya

Thanks, I checked everything, and also took apart the front film chamber to clean inside. At first, I suspected a loop issue, but the camera was running pretty silent. By the way, I know that my shots were not exactly smooth while panning and tilting. The reason for that is that I use a Manfrotto 501 with my NPR, which is way overweighted for the tripod head's limits. Thanks.
  • 0

#4 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1883 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 20 May 2012 - 04:30 PM

When the potter is first introducing himself to camera the lines (scratches) are quite curved and sometimes there are dashed or brocken lines that are almost constant rather than changing frame to frame. Wierd. Can you see the scratches easily on the film? Are they on the emulsion side?

Have you tried running some clean film with the take up door off - trying to see where the scratch starts?

I liked the look and documentary tone of this little film. I liked the deep blacks and the modeling. Can we see a high resolution version somewhere? What stock was this?

If you need a cheap heavy head there have been O'Connor 50s on eBay.

Cheers,
Gregg.

Edited by Gregg MacPherson, 20 May 2012 - 04:34 PM.

  • 0

#5 Giray Izcan

Giray Izcan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 May 2012 - 04:49 PM

When the potter is first introducing himself to camera the lines (scratches) are quite curved and sometimes there are dashed or brocken lines that are almost constant rather than changing frame to frame. Wierd. Can you see the scratches easily on the film? Are they on the emulsion side?

Have you tried running some clean film with the take up door off - trying to see where the scratch starts?

I liked the look and documentary tone of this little film. I liked the deep blacks and the modeling. Can we see a high resolution version somewhere? What stock was this?

If you need a cheap heavy head there have been O'Connor 50s on eBay.

Cheers,
Gregg.

Both of those were shot on double-x. And yes there seems to be scratches visible on both of the negatives (emulsion side). If you notice, the "Joshua Tree" video has significantly less scratches. Do you think it is a loop problem? I did run a film through with the take up lid open, and didn't see the film rubbing against anything, i.e the top and bottom guiding rollers etc. Thanks.

Edited by Giray Izcan, 20 May 2012 - 04:52 PM.

  • 0

#6 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1883 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 20 May 2012 - 06:05 PM

I don't have experience with NPR mags. I have been fixing some old ACL mags but they are not the same. You may get lucky and someone has seen and fixed this on NPR mags before. If it is the mag. There are some things you can do however to help logically deduce what the problem is.

Load some clean camera stock and try to replicate the scratches. This confirms that they were in fact made in the camera. If you run with the mag doors off you may even be able to see where the scratches happen. Maybe it even happens at low speed.

Assuming you replicated the scratches. Do all your magazines give the same scratches? If not then it's a problem with that particular mag.

I'm guessing that you have carefully checked that you are loading your mags correctly? Loop sizes? You haven't got the thread path wrong so the film is rubbing on something?

Are all the rollers moving freely? Check the ones in the light trap. If you have rollers set at an angle check those are free.

Just saw a video of an NPR running with the doors off. I would do what I could to see where the scratches happen. For example, can you end your thread path just after the feed side drive sprocket, let the film just fall out of the magazine from there. What about ending the thread path as you exit the light trap, could you gently pull it through with your fingers? Ideas like that.

Cheers,
Gregg
  • 0

#7 Herbie Pabst

Herbie Pabst
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 May 2012 - 04:34 PM

I own an Eclair NPR and I've had scratches similar to yours. NPR mags have feed guides(during loading). They move into place when the take-up door is off. When you put the door back on, the door pushes against a chrome pin that move the guides out of the way of the film. You have to make sure that the door is pushing the chrome pin and not riding over the pin. When the cover rides over the pin the guides do not retract and will scratch the film much the way yours is scratched. When closing the take-up door it's very important to slide the cover against the pin and all the way forward, then push down and lock the door.

If the pin has been push down you will need to pull the pin up(my pins didn't move up) or what I did was cut a small piece of plastic and crazy glued it to the door so the pin could be actuate by the door. I used a small piece of Corian counter-top material, I install kitchens as my day job. Bernie O. really liked that one, a carpenter fixing a film camera.

Hope this helps.

PS. Don't run scratch film with take-up door off, for the above reason.
  • 0

#8 Herbie Pabst

Herbie Pabst
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 May 2012 - 04:45 PM

PPS. I didn't want to break the pin that's why I went with adding the plastic block on the door.
  • 0

#9 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1604 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 21 May 2012 - 09:45 PM

I'm not familiar with NPRs but that's a bit of a design flaw if the guides leave your film looking like that!

The scratches on the second film are curious - curved, wiggly, sometimes splitting into two - unlike what you usually get from camera scratching which is straight and vertical. It reminds me of cinch marks - when a loosely wound roll of dirty film is flattened and tightened on it's core. But those are randomly spaced, whereas here the curve and angle of the scratches is repeated in each frame. It suggests that wherever the scratching was occurring the film was weaving in a repetitive manner with each pulldown. Very odd..

The second film scratches also seem very deep, so there should have been quite a residue of emulsion dust or film "hair" wherever it occurred.
  • 0

#10 Giray Izcan

Giray Izcan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 21 May 2012 - 10:00 PM

PPS. I didn't want to break the pin that's why I went with adding the plastic block on the door.

Thanks Herbie. I watched couple of your films on youtube, where you were testing ultra 16 format. I will send the camera to Bernie for Ultra 16 conversion, laser brightening and full camera service as well. Do you gain significant resolution and image quality when you convert the camera to ultra 16 from regular 16? For telecine, I was considering cinelab, because cinelicious is ridiculously expensive. I would like to know ur opinion on ultra 16. I originally wanted to convert it to super 16, but the price is 2500 for Eclair NPR. And I do not want to be stuck with CA mount. That much money, I can get BL 2 or BL 3 camera pretty much. Thanks.
  • 0

#11 Herbie Pabst

Herbie Pabst
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 May 2012 - 07:08 AM

Ultra16 is in between R16 and S16 resolution. It also matters which type of transfer you do, telecine or scanning. As far as I know Cinelicious is the only place that has a U16 gate for their scanner and they do, or did do, U16 "UpRes" to 1080p telecine. Cinelab only can do "UpRes" telecine for U16. They said they were getting a new scanner that can handle U16 sometime this year at reasonable pricing, for scanning. The whole point to converting to U16 is so you can use R16 lenses with the U16 gate and have a wider gate. I have found that not all R16 lenses cover the U16 gate.

I do not regret converting to U16 and having the brightening done to my camera. I'm hoping Cinelab gets their U16 capable scanner soon I'd like to give that a try, also curious how much they will be charging.

Edited by Herbie Pabst, 22 May 2012 - 07:12 AM.

  • 0

#12 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1883 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 22 May 2012 - 05:36 PM

Thanks Herbie. I watched couple of your films on youtube, where you were testing ultra 16 format. I will send the camera to Bernie for Ultra 16 conversion, laser brightening and full camera service as well. Do you gain significant resolution and image quality when you convert the camera to ultra 16 from regular 16? For telecine, I was considering cinelab, because cinelicious is ridiculously expensive. I would like to know ur opinion on ultra 16. I originally wanted to convert it to super 16, but the price is 2500 for Eclair NPR. And I do not want to be stuck with CA mount. That much money, I can get BL 2 or BL 3 camera pretty much. Thanks.


If you search the forum you'll find the ideas about standard/ultra/super 16 have had a lot of debate. Some will argue that if you are shooting fine grain stock on standard 16 you can get a good cropped image.

S16 cameras are quite cheap at the moment. I have seen well serviced ACL and Aaton sell on eBay for what your conversion will cost. You have to watch carefully for these, and here I am assuming the vendors are not liars or conmen. Sorry, I have not been following NPR on eBay.

If you do stick with NPR the CA-1 mount can take an Arri-B adapter. Don't know if it can take a PL adapter. When you are deciding what camera and format to go with you need to plan out what lenses you may end up owning or renting.

Cheers, Gregg.
  • 0

#13 Giray Izcan

Giray Izcan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 May 2012 - 09:10 PM

If you search the forum you'll find the ideas about standard/ultra/super 16 have had a lot of debate. Some will argue that if you are shooting fine grain stock on standard 16 you can get a good cropped image.

S16 cameras are quite cheap at the moment. I have seen well serviced ACL and Aaton sell on eBay for what your conversion will cost. You have to watch carefully for these, and here I am assuming the vendors are not liars or conmen. Sorry, I have not been following NPR on eBay.

If you do stick with NPR the CA-1 mount can take an Arri-B adapter. Don't know if it can take a PL adapter. When you are deciding what camera and format to go with you need to plan out what lenses you may end up owning or renting.

Cheers, Gregg.

Thanks Greg, it seems like 3 percent image size difference between ultra and super 16 wouldn't have a dramatic impact on image quality. I think this is especially the case if the product is intended for hd viewing. Even for theater projection 3 percent shouldn't be a big deal. Honestly, if I were to shoot a theater release feture film, it would be on 35 anyways. I don't know if they have CA-PL mount adapters. I know there are C-PL mount adapters - if I am not mistaken - at Visual Products for around 800 dolars. This option is pretty cool, because this way, you can still use easily accessible c or CA mount lenses, only rent PL lenses when you need it.

Edited by Giray Izcan, 22 May 2012 - 09:13 PM.

  • 0

#14 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1883 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 22 May 2012 - 11:38 PM

Thanks Greg, it seems like 3 percent image size difference between ultra and super 16 wouldn't have a dramatic impact on image quality. I think this is especially the case if the product is intended for hd viewing. Even for theater projection 3 percent shouldn't be a big deal. Honestly, if I were to shoot a theater release feture film, it would be on 35 anyways. I don't know if they have CA-PL mount adapters. I know there are C-PL mount adapters - if I am not mistaken - at Visual Products for around 800 dolars. This option is pretty cool, because this way, you can still use easily accessible c or CA mount lenses, only rent PL lenses when you need it.


If you have a look at the numbers on this page it's useful. I didn't check his numbers properly yet. It's an area where small errors make a big diffeence to our ideas so I would check carefully.
http://marylandfilms...6-compared.html

Assuming he has no wrong data.
U16 projected frame area does look close to S16 for Cinema (1.85/1). For HD (1.77/1) based on the areas he gives U16 has about 11% less area than S16.

If you do go U16 there are less labs and some charge more for U16. I saw one that did anyway when I was researching labs yesterday. So you need to be happy with your lab and transfer costs and access.

If you are trying to get sharp images for HD or cinema then you need sharp lenses. If you only need to own a zoom then maybe a Zeiss 10-100 will cover. They sometimes are cheap. If not then you end up with the same problem as S16 - the Zooms are still not cheap to own. If you need sharp primes for your U16 and end up getting MKI Zeiss distagons, these cover S16 so you might as well be shooting S16.

Do Kooke Kinetal 9mm cover U16? Sometimes Kinetals are cheap.

Paying 800 for a new adapter is a fairly expensive way to do it.

Cheers,
Gregg
  • 0


Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Tai Audio

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

CineTape

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Opal

Tai Audio