[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Eclair Cameras: acl original packaging-factory materials-comments
amen to that. i could only imagine what some of you have had to go through prior to just a few years ago when the internet was just beginning to make information and resources publically available. heck, i beleive(not certain really)this thread is only a year or two old itself. so finding the folks(who are most likely members here, now) back then that could help address such issues regarding the acl was most likely a challange, and i'm sure many will attest to that. so what i am able to learn about the equipment and the resources in a matter of months now, took years for others before me. but one thing i will not be able to cheat is the actual refinement of my art as it relates to filming/exposing/processing/editing, for these things are purely earned with hard, solid experience.
perhaps some of you could enlighten me as it relates to the proposed 'picture quality' from one camera to the next. now for me it is obvious to see the acl is a much better camera then the r16 in terms of its construction, and in many points it's design as well. but does it not stand to reason an equally impressive image could come from either camera? after all, it is merely a question of exposure as far as the filmstock is concerned. would the argument not be more applicable to cite the quality of the process of shooting film increases with a better made camera, then the quality of the exposed film itself? or am i off base here? i hear alot of people telling me and others that the quality of the exposed film is so much better on this particular camera over and instead of that particular one. like, comparing a higher end arri to an acl, is it not merely the features and construction of the camera as it relates to ease of use and options that make a $40k arri better th
en a $3k acl? could they both not shoot the same quality of film if each was running correctly as they were intended?
once i have each of these practically unused cameras(each of them appear like they had not been used, or used very little, and include r16, acl, npr, gsmo, [i have not yet found an arri in this class, in fact i do not know what arri is in this class ... anyone know?]) properly adjusted, tuned and mounted with the same lens type, which will be the angenieux 12-120, and a set of primes(yet to determine which type) i can use with each of them, i will perform the exact same film tests under the same, controlled/measured/documented lighting conditions, which will later be used on the dvd in split screens for side by side comparison.
do any of you think there will be any obvious quality differances as it relates to the 'exposed film' between each of these cameras? and if so, why? the reason i ask, is because thus far, the only thing i can tell in terms of differances in quality is the manner in which the cameras run and perform, as it directly relates to the construction quality and design attributes. sorry if this seems laymo, but i have not had neither the time or experience to make this assesment for myself, and until i do these side by sides, i would like to hear what some true pros or long time filmshooters have to say about it. i think this is the number one question all NEW filmmakers aks themselves when looking for the camera which they can afford, or trying to determine if it would be worth it to spend the extra money for a nicer on, as the price variations between the above mentioned cameras vary greatly from one to the next. and so myself, like many others, and more to follow, end up purc
hasing a camera based on public opinion/popularity based on the rants and raves, or the judgements and critiques. and because each person has their own reason for purchasing a camera, perhaps understanding why one is beter then the next(in particular types of use and application) for their specific purpose would save both time and money for all involved.
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Michael Welle <mwelle@starband.net>
Reply-To: EclairACL@topica.com
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 17:13:08 +0000
Eric wrote: i beleive i have collected as much original material for the
r16 as did exist when it was made/sold, including original packaging.
but these acl/npr cameras are a totally differant gig. did they ever
make a box for these cameras? of were they sent out in regular shipping
boxes/crates? and then photos of the actual manufacturing facility
Eric,
This is something I've been wondering myself. In particular, was the
camera originally shipped in a box with that padded Samsonite suitcase
with the lens attached. If so, doesn't that basically contradict what
Aaton says in their manual for the LTR54 when they say ALWAYS, ALWAYS,
ALWAYS, ALWAYS remove the lens when transporting the camera. You see, I
don't remove the lens. I had a case specifically built for my ACL at
Star Case and I shipped it off to Bernie, and the camera is working
beautifully. Do you really have to remove the damn lens every time? I
hate it because I end up getting it improperly seated and I just don't
want to deal with it. I love this line from Elvis Costello because it
really reminds me of the Eclair:
"I just know I've gotta get out of this place. I can't stand anymore of
that mechanical grace. Though you say it's only an industrial squeeze,
it looks like a luxury it feels like a disease."
I really feel like I don't have any mechanical grace, but I love the
pictures the ACL takes. The films look like a luxury but the process of
making them feels like a disease (problems, problems, problems). Why
can't it just be simple like a video camera? Everything feels like an
industrial squeeze.
Michael Welle
--
eric martin jarvies sr
cabo san lucas, bcs mexico cp 23410
NOTICE<<<
ANY AND ALL WRITTEN TEXT EXCHANGED IN THIS EMAIL THREAD MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING NON AND FOR PROFIT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF MY OWN INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE KNOWLEDGE-BASE / FORUM / JOURNAL, LOCATED AT HTTP://WWW.EARTHID.ORG OR ANY OTHER INTERNET SITE OR FORM OF PRINT/DIGITAL/ANALOG MEDIA, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO; VHS, DVD, FILM, PUBLICATION(BOOK, MAGAZINE, ADVERTISEMENT), AND AUDIO. RESPECTIVE CREDIT, COPYRIGHT, TRADEMARK, SERVICEMARK, OR PATENT WILL BE MADE PART THEREOF ACCORDINGLY. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM SLANDER OR HERESAY, AND CONSIDER ANY SUCH QUOTE(S) I MAY USE FROM THIS COMMUNICATION THREAD A DIRECT REFLECTION OF YOU AND/OR YOUR POSITION AS IT RELATES TO THE DISUSSED SUBJECT MATTER AND YOUR OVERALL OPINION(S) ACCORDINGLY AND RESPECTFULLY, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. I GIVE FULL PERMISSION FOR YOU TO EXPRESS THE EXACT SAME RIGHTS IN RETROSPECT.
--
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: elroro@propagandaindustries.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84xYK.bdbHPA.ZWxyb3Jv
Or send an email to: EclairACL-unsubscribe@topica.com
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^----------------------------------------------------------------