8mm Forum: 16-CL vs. 16-AL

This is topic 16-CL vs. 16-AL in forum 16mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000177

Posted by David Pannell (Member # 300) on April 04, 2007, 03:20 AM:

Primarily directed at Kevin (Mr Elmo) Faulkner, but other contributions welcome, what are the main differences between these two machines?

I know one can look up specs. and read about them in Juergen Lossau's book on projectors, but I should really like to know from an owner/user/operator practical standpoint, as to which is 'better' and why?

Many thanks,

Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on April 04, 2007, 04:09 AM:

AL is the traditionnal Auto Load...
CL is the easy going Channel Load...

Posted by John Whittle (Member # 22) on April 05, 2007, 12:34 PM:

The AL projector is an earlier design and I think probably better built. But it is an auto-threader with all the problems associated with that design.

The CL is a later design, much simplier (and I think pirated by Eiki for their SL design). There are a few versions of the CL since it existed over quite a number of years and the take-up assembly was changed toward the end to a much better belt system. Elmo also made these for Kodak as the CT-1000.

The CL came as optical and optical mag and as a push button load machine.

The AL came as optical and optical mag and I think a mag recording machine.

John

Posted by David Pannell (Member # 300) on April 05, 2007, 03:17 PM:

Thanks Jean-Marc and John.

Thus far I have had no trouble with my ST-1200HD M auto-threading, though I do prefer manual threading - one has 'control' over what is happening, and can check the lacing at every stage; NOTE: My 16mm and Std 8 Ampros and Std 8 Elmo!

If the AL is reckoned to be better built, and therefore presumably inherently more reliable, it might be the better choice, despite the auto-threading.

I do regularly polish the guides on the 1200 and so I guess the same level of maintenance should apply equally to the AL.

What say you? Also, it might be relatively difficult to ensure one obtains the latest version of the CL! Yes? Is this sound reasoning?

Posted by Steven Sigel (Member # 21) on April 25, 2007, 01:39 PM:

To John W:
Are you sure? - I'm fairly certain that the 16-AL is a later design, not an earlier design.

All the ALs I've seen have had push button controls, the newer take-up arm system, and the newer amplifier (same as the CX models, but different from the CLs).

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on April 26, 2007, 03:51 PM:

The AL seems to me to be a sort of a clone of the CL using the same chassis and motors etc to close the film path sort of thing. I`d guess it was after the CL. I found the two I had to be noisier and sligtly less reliable than the CLs.
Best Mark.

Posted by Louis Li (Member # 776) on April 29, 2007, 12:37 PM:

hello.
can i ask for your opinion on how good a projector is the CL?
i have a friend selling who wants to sell it for about a 100US
and im still considering.

I'm currently using a pageant 256.

Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on April 29, 2007, 04:41 PM:

Hi

I use a Bauer and an Elmo CL. It is hard to say which I prefer as I like them both but the Elmo is an excellent machine Quiet running and kind on film. You can get at it easily to clean it as well. Also, being able to remove the film half way through is an advantage from time to time. At £50 or $100 you can't go wrong in my view

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2