Eyemo Model Q owners

[Jonas]

I just got an eyemo model q, and it seems to be in good condition. But I don't have a manual and I live in Denmark where everyone shoots with video (dogme etc) - so there's no help to get from other filmmakers.

 

This is my first film camera so please excuse my lack of technical knowledge.

 

Could some of you help with a few questions?

 

The camera winds up fine and I get it to run.

Am I suppose to use the focus magnifier (on the right side) just to focus?

After that the lens is moved infront of the 'shutter blade', right?

And then you use the small 'peeping holes' on the left of the camera to frame or?

 

If you have some good advices please tell.

 

Thanks for your time!

[John Sprung]

The ground glass viewer on the right side can be used for focus, and with a rackover base, it can be used for framing. I built one for my Q. I also built a longer straight out the back viewfinder tube for it by replacing the mirror elbow with a low power microscope.

 

Those little peephole lenses on the left are intended to be a sort of parallax finder without any parallax adjustment. Remember, this was primarily a WWII combat camera. They're not a good solution, particularly not compared with the mirror shutter Arri I that the Germans had. It's very important with the Eyemo to get in the habit of making sure you change the finder lens every time you change the taking lens.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Jonas]

So with a so-called 'rackover base' it would be possible to use only the focus magnifier (on the right), correct?

 

What is a rackover base? :unsure:

(tried to google it, but...)

 

Thanks!

Edited November 16, 2004 by Jonas

[Jonas]

I found something called a 'rackover slide'.

 

The camera is mounted on a rackover slide, which requires the use of a tripod, titler or other firm support. Focusing is carried out using the eye-level focuser, and the camera is then moved using the rackover slide. This returns the taking lens to precisely the same position and that occupied by the focusing device, ensuring accurate focus and framing.

 

Is that what you mean?

[John Sprung]

Is that what you mean?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, exactly right.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

The camera winds up fine and I get it to run.

Am I suppose to use the focus magnifier (on the right side) just to focus?

After that the lens is moved infront of the 'shutter blade', right?

And then you use the small 'peeping holes' on the left of the camera to frame or?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There was an Eyemo manual in PDF somewhere on an antique camera site, you may be able to Google it.

 

There's a guy on Ebay that sells one too, Sam Longoria I think. I got mine for under $20 US.

 

The three lens model has a focusing finder on the right (on the left if you're looking at the camera facing you). You focus with that finder, then switch the lens onto the filming gate, tightening the knob. Be sure that the turret fits all the way into the focusing finder and the film gate. If it doesn't, you will have soft (out of focus) footage! Some crashed Eyemos have slightly warped turrets, so be careful.

 

When you film, you look into the finder on the camera door. There are different finders, ones with the three lens mini turrets, and then there are also zoom finders which have one lens and it zooms in and out (very small image btw).

 

It's a fun camera, but don't even dream of shooting a feature with it as your main camera, you'll go nuts.

 

- g.

[John Sprung]

It's a fun camera, but don't even dream of shooting a feature with it as your main camera, you'll go nuts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, maybe a comedy if you want the actors to laugh every time the look at the camera.... ;-)

 

Seriously, it's a great affordable camera to have on hand for stock shots and inserts. Keep some '45 handy for grabbing sunset skylines, and you might get it to pay for itself.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Jonas]

Thanks for your replies guys!

 

Well, Im going to learn the craft so I guess it's a nice camera to start out with.

 

I don't care about the physical size of the camera, It's unhandy for sure - but if it's was good enough for old Kubrick - Im sure it'll be good enough for me - AND the actors.

 

I am currently writing a script. It's far from good but with rewrites, rewrites and rewrites it's getting just a little bit better every time I give it a go.

 

As you say George, I'll probably go nuts - but I don't think my work as a beginner would be better with a panavision camera. You have to learn to crawl before you walk and when all is said and done - at the end of the day: it's what's on the screen that matters.

 

Thanks again for your time!

Edited November 17, 2004 by Jonas

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I'll probably go nuts - but I don't think my work as a beginner would be better with a panavision camera. You have to learn to crawl before you walk and when all is said and done - at the end of the day: it's what's on the screen that matters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know if this means you intend on using it as an A camera for your feature, which is something I tried myself btw.

 

I just shot with my Eyemo 71QM today, actually, and it's for a sequence for my feature film. The reason I used it was that I wanted to have the look of the older lenses on it with the B&W film I was using, I wanted the combat footage look (being I was filming a sniper and terrorists).

 

Also, the camera is very sturdy and if I dropped it in the sand I wouldn't get a heart attack (if my Arri did the same, I would have to wrap the shoot at once and wouldn't roll a frame until I disassembled and cleaned the hell out of it back at home).

 

It's certainly a useable 35mm machine, hands down. The things that annoy me about it are 1) winding it up, and the electric motor adds a lot of weight and even more noise, 2) dealing with the hard to move three lens turret, doing the prefocus and parallax framing through a TINY viewfinder, and 3) one minute loads - you start rolling you have to reload already! The 400' mags make the camera immobile and the center of balance on a tripod is very poor.

 

It's also not comfy to handhold in my opinion, although it's light it's clunky. The one lens models may be better for this, but I never tried them. Bottom line is it takes more work and opens more opportunities for error. When you're involved in a serious production where actors are standing around and waiting, that can become expensive.

 

Another point, actors tend to not take you as seriously with such a camera. Today I took a videotape and showed my actress footage that I shot with the Eyemo before I took her to film with me, just to prove to her that it's a serious piece of equipment. She was a sweatheart and didn't have any problems, but it's a good idea to do it anyway, helps people take you more seriously.

 

If you wanna shoot an MOS film I'd suggest looking into a Russian Konvas (which you can get for close to Eyemo prices and is a considerable improvement) or an Arri IIa/b/c. If you just wanna get your feet wet with 35mm, the Eyemo will do of course. Just think carefully if you want to do something serious with it, what that will entail.

[Jonas]

What I meant was: with new lenses I guess the eyemo will be my A-camera for my first feature.

 

George: It's a good idea to show the actor some footage before you shoot. But then again: I'll shoot with unknown actors. They will get paid but not much. If they can't take the camera serious then maybe you have to ask yourself if they really should be in the movie in the first place. Here in Denmark you are very lucky to be in a 35mm movie even as a professional actor. (this is Von Trier country, remember -DIGITAL is king!)

 

Maybe I should add, that I don't think the eyemo is suitable for a DP. But as Im only interested in bringing my own work (scripts) to life, I dont have to 'sell/advertise' myself and my equipment the same way as a profesional DP would.

 

Thanks for your input, George!

Edited November 17, 2004 by Jonas

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Maybe I should add, that I don't think the eyemo is suitable for a DP. But as Im only interested in bringing my own work (scripts) to life,  I dont have to 'sell/advertise' myself and my equipment the same way as a profesional DP would.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, when you're behind the camera, you're the DP at the moment (unless you're just operating, and in this case it's the operator's headache)!

 

I am shooting and directing my film myself, I am more focused on becoming a director than a cinematographer really. I enjoy cinematography more than any other aspect of production (i.e. gaffing, sound, editing, etc) and I think I'm good at it, so I do it too.

 

When I was working with the Eyemo I was becoming very exhausted very quickly, esp. winding that damn spring motor. I gave up fast and bought an Arri IIc.

 

Really, give yourself a break and get a Konvas, they go on sale for under $2000 (some working models under $800). You will have better lenses, real reflex viewing, a quick change 60M/200 ft mag perfect for shooting short/waste ends (takes a bit of learning to load but isn't so hard), and an electric motor that runs several speeds. I also think the Konvas is easier to handhold than the Eyemo, even though it weighs a bit more.

 

This isn't about being a DP or not a DP, it's about having the right tool for the job.

 

As for actors, pro or amateur you still should foster the understanding with them that you're using a piece of equipment that is reliable and produces good quality images. The Eyemo is capable of that, but it's a very good idea just to show it to them. Actors are so used to independent filmmakers that don't know what the hell they're doing, and that lie to them about so many things. Just shoot some interesting footage (that you can use for your film) and get a good transfer to video that you can share with them anywhere there's a VCR. Not hard to do and worth the effort, believe me. It's always a good idea to show your work anyway, actors like to see that the person they're working with is competent. That helps them go the extra mile for you sometimes.

 

- G.

Edited November 17, 2004 by GeorgeSelinsky

[Jonas]

I'll give the eyemo a test, and then maybe I'll try something else. A konvas, eh? I've seen some on ebay. Maybe this forum has some info. I'll do a search...

 

I really think you have a point about showing some footage to the actors. They deserve to know who they are dealing with as well. Good idea!

 

cheers,

Jonas

[Jonas]

George: how is your Arri? Is there a notable difference in picture quality? To for example an eyemo, konvas etc...

Edited November 17, 2004 by Jonas

[Jonas]

Or is it simply a matter of which lens you use?

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Or is it simply a matter of which  lens you use?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm using rather old lenses, Cooke Ser III and II. They may even be available for the Eyemo (Ser I were more common with them though). The camera really doesn't affect image quality, the lens does. The Konvas has pretty decent glass from what I hear, though I've never conducted tests.

 

The camera does affect how fast you work, how much you physically exert yourself, and also the likelihood of error. Working with a huge and heavy camera like a Mitchell BNCR is going to take more time when moving between setups, and having to do the rackovers for focusing with non-reflex cameras also takes some extra time. Winding the spring eats energy and takes time, and also limits the length of your shots to about 20 seconds - that can be VERY inconvenient for some instances. In camera loads of 1 minute are another inhibiting factor, you have to reload more often with greater frequency, interrupting the pace of the shoot more often. Add to that the fact that on a low budget shoot each cast/crew member does more work than usual and is overworked, and you have less time to get it right, having a clunky camera like the Eyemo is really a bad idea. Work efficiency counts for more than you may think, this is something you can only really learn from experience.

 

Sure, people love to look at the Eyemo and say "With this little bugger you could make an entire feature film!" Could - sure, if it was either using the Eyemo or having to purchase an Arri 535 with Zeiss glass. But would you WANT to? Not me. There are other options, just a notch higher, that will work just fine, cameras that are made to handle the rigeur of feature film work like the Arri II or even the Konvas.

 

Today's shoot for me was very easy, it was pick up work, so the extra work with the Eyemo was not such a big deal. I didn't even reload once today, that's how little I shot. A few days ago I also shot with it (I actually did a dual format shoot, in 16mm and 35mm) and I had to reload in a changing bag (wanting to conserve as much film as possible). It was a bit more hectic and had I shot with the Arri I think I would have saved perhaps fifteen or twenty minutes of time. That adds up after a while.

Edited November 18, 2004 by GeorgeSelinsky

[Jonas]

You make some very good points, George. I guess getting my feet wet is the only way I'll get the experience. For that my eyemo will do. For the feature - I guess I'll look for something else. Thanks for all the good advice. I'll certaintly keep them in mind.

 

Jonas

[dangertree]

George,

 

Whenever I read your reports I am always seized with the same thought, I'd really hate to work (any capacity) on a George Selinsky film. :-)

 

I'd watch one though. Good luck with it.

 

Ta.

 

I'm using rather old lenses, Cooke Ser III and II. They may even be available for the Eyemo (Ser I were more common with them though). The camera really doesn't affect image quality, the lens does. The Konvas has pretty decent glass from what I hear, though I've never conducted tests.

 

The camera does affect how fast you work, how much you physically exert yourself, and also the likelihood of error. Working with a huge and heavy camera like a Mitchell BNCR is going to take more time when moving between setups, and having to do the rackovers for focusing with non-reflex cameras also takes some extra time. Winding the spring eats energy and takes time, and also limits the length of your shots to about 20 seconds - that can be VERY inconvenient for some instances. In camera loads of 1 minute are another inhibiting factor, you have to reload more often with greater frequency, interrupting the pace of the shoot more often. Add to that the fact that on a low budget shoot each cast/crew member does more work than usual and is overworked, and you have less time to get it right, having a clunky camera like the Eyemo is really a bad idea. Work efficiency counts for more than you may think, this is something you can only really learn from experience.

 

Sure, people love to look at the Eyemo and say "With this little bugger you could make an entire feature film!" Could - sure, if it was either using the Eyemo or having to purchase an Arri 535 with Zeiss glass. But would you WANT to? Not me. There are other options, just a notch higher, that will work just fine, cameras that are made to handle the rigeur of feature film work like the Arri II or even the Konvas. 

 

Today's shoot for me was very easy, it was pick up work, so the extra work with the Eyemo was not such a big deal. I didn't even reload once today, that's how little I shot. A few days ago I also shot with it (I actually did a dual format shoot, in 16mm and 35mm) and I had to reload in a changing bag (wanting to conserve as much film as possible). It was a bit more hectic and had I shot with the Arri I think I would have saved perhaps fifteen or twenty minutes of time. That adds up after a while.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited November 18, 2004 by dangertree

[GeorgeSelinsky]

George,

 

Whenever I read your reports I am always seized with the same thought, I'd really hate to work (any capacity) on a George Selinsky film.  :-)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lol!

 

In fact working on my set is fun I'd say, all the people who work for me quickly become my friends and they stick through a lot with me. I never had anyone walk my set ever.

 

- G.

Edited November 18, 2004 by GeorgeSelinsky

[John Sprung]

Maybe 30 years ago I would have had the energy to work on a Geroge Selinsky film. ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Dan Salzmann]

Getting back on the Eyemo track. I use a 71Q with a 25mm Cooke lens and it has a special look and charm. It is certainly not an Arri but the handcranking capability can have it's uses (a military march or "The Addams Family" theme on a walkman gives a very accurate 18fps thanks to the governor in the handcrank mechanism).

Also having a completely self contained 35mm camera with no battery, etc in a shoulder bag has a certain charm as well.

I see cameras as each having their own place much like any other tool.

By the way, the original US Army manual for this camera has a great one page guide on "How to destroy cinematographic equipment" so that it is of no use to the enemy.

I'd love to find other Cooke lenses for it if anyone has any leads.

[Jonas]

Just curious:

How much do you guys think a reflex-conversion would cost?

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Just curious:

How much do you guys think a reflex-conversion would cost?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd guess anywhere around a thousand bucks and up. You would also be wise to change the lens mount at that point. I don't know if they do those mods to the spider Q models though.

 

Even if you do that you're still stuck with the spring motor and the 100' internal loads. Btw, the viewfinder system they install is a pellicle reflex, which tends to be dark and also can eat as much as a 1/3rd stop or more.

 

- G.

[John Sprung]

You might check with Clairmont about Eyemo modifications. They have a substantial machine shop, and a few years back I remember them having a lot of Eyemos they were working on.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Guest NCSProducts]

Just curious:

How much do you guys think a reflex-conversion would cost?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

About 2K. That includes mount change.

It's cheaper to buy an Arri II, and generally makes more

sense. <_<

 

For an Eyemo manual, try http://www.eyemo35.com

 

Click on the link at the bottom of the page to get to the Eyemo motor section of

the NCS Products website, then click on the Eyemo page link in the motor

description. You end up here :)

 

With the Revolution Eyemo motor, you can shoot sync 1-36fps. It also

has built-in 'video' speeds (23.976 and 29.970 fps) and of course it does time lapse.

 

The Eyemo is great for time lapse.

See the website for more info.

 

- Dom Alt

NCS Products

Eyemo Motor