Patrick Neary

Hi-

Try this link for a pdf manual (it uses the wayback machine)

http://web.archive.org/web/20050211020515/.../Fries35R_1.pdf

if it doesn't work, drop me a line and I can email you the pdf of the manual. It looks like Fries must no longer be in business.

You might have better luck doing the same thing but with all Nikon mount, you'll have an easier time finding wider lenses, 20mm, 15mm, etc.

Fortunately the mainspring on the Eyemo is nowhere near the shutter assembly. You can pull the front assembly with shutter in about 5 minutes and review the workings - it's quite clever, simple and functional. It's possible you could make a new cam that would cause the pulldown to operate at twice speed (ie 24 pulldowns when camera is marked 12 fps). You would also need to replace the original 170 degree shutter with a bowtie shutter such as found on the old CP16's.

Hi-

Like John Sprung pointed out, you wouldn't have to operate the cam at 2x speed or mess with a bowtie shutter, you just need to move the pin on the cam closer to center to shorten the pull down and increase the dwell. I also wonder if you might need to reshape the cam, it's been awhile now since I had mine in pieces.

If all else fails, any chance you can select a part of the location that will be shaded naturally via tree or building or what not? :)

I remember a quote in AC (I think it was Ron Garcia about shooting "Twin Peaks") where he said about shooting exteriors on a tv schedule; (something to the effect of)

"backlight, fill and boogie"

It was one of the most useful things I've ever read in that magazine!

Bounce on this project isn't really an option just in case you were thinking.

 

Cheers

Hi-

That's unfortunate because it might be your only realistic option. The lights you mention won't do squat on a sunny day at those distances.

From what I have been able to find out about it, it basically seems to be a military film for ariel photography of U.F.O's.

 

Hope that helps.

 

love

 

Freya

Well then that explains why all my shots of UFOs photographed with regular film never turn out!

OK, prizes go to whoever can provide a comprehensive history and uses of this:

Hey, I will be doing a film test soon and this is my first time shooting on film. I will be shooting on vision2 and vision 3, 16mm. I was wondering if there is any advice or reliable process so that the test goes smoothly? Any help would really be great. Thanks

 

Nick

Hi-

Here's a good nuts and bolts guide to shooting a film test, although I don't know how many people actually do a wedge spectogram; I know I never have...

http://www2.alfonsoparra.com/php/baul/test...esfotos.doc.pdf

The idea is to not to shoot a variety of scenes, but to shoot one (rather boring) setup, over and underexposing it, then printing both a one-light and corrected workprint.

About the mimicking, seems very difficult, because the movements match perfectly.

Hi-

That they do, even the phone cord which would have been a dead giveaway- can't wait to hear how it was done!

Sorry for that off the cuff bit of smart-ass-ness.

Hi-

I did something similar awhile back, we had a number of night scenes to shoot on a nice new ballfield (AAA), with great lights (made by Musco). Shooting 5218 at asa 400, the best exposure I could find on the field was 2.8/4 split, but you'll find that even the best lit fields have very spotty levels, and great swaths of the area will fall to 2.0 and well below.

Color temp wise we just shot clean and corrected out the minor blue tinge and very minor green spike (these were incredibly clean lights).

ASA 50 just won't cut it, even on the best field.

Hi-

It will be interesting to hear how they did it- It looks like an impossible shadow, maybe a stand-in (in silhouette) was mimicking the actress?

>About Moonlight Media: Moonlight Media (formerly Firestorm Features), is a media company that specializes in motion picture production & distribution...<

...And all this time I thought you had to actually produce and distribute a motion picture to make such claims, silly me!

Is an adopter needed for the nikon lens? And where can I buy one? Sorry for so many questions, Thank you.

Hi-

There isn't an adapter for Nikon Lenses, you need to have the mount machined onto the camera by a camera tech, usually to the tune of $1000- $2000.

There are pentax screw mount to eyemo mount adapters that slide into the eyemo mount, but they are very difficult, if not impossible, to find.

Here you go, you can buy a roll and find out:

http://cgi.ebay.com/16mm-FILM-KODACHROME-B...id=p3286.c0.m14

Although as Charles pointed out, chances are it has shrunken by now to short pitch!

If you search around on this forum you'll see at least one reference from one of the lab guys who was pretty adamant that KII was long pitch. Other than a Kodak old-timer, they (the lab folks) are probably the only ones who would remember.

Hi-

It seems a pretty safe bet that it was long pitch.

I think the old ASC chart you are referencing (I've got the 3rd edition here) lists short pitch as "Camera original intended for release printing" which K_II was not.

Then long pitch as "Camera original reversal intended for direct projection" which K-II was.

It's funny that Kodak would change 16mm Kodachrome to short pitch before they discontinued it, maybe it simplified production, or they figured no-one was direct projecting 16mm anymore?

I've got a circa- early 80's Kodachrome 16mm box here but it doesn't list the pitch anywhere on the packaging the way modern stocks do.

Or telecined on a film chain in 1967 and duped for years after that, come on...

and look at the final "fixed" composition on page 4. Lawrence could lick the match out he's so close to it.

and his nose is on fire!

"Besides that, there's just too much distracting scenery. " !!!!

(I think it's just a joke.) ;)

I hate to rain on their parade, but you can adjust the knob like so on that expensive little gizmo to tilt up and down, or...

YOU COULD SLIGHTLY BEND YOUR WRIST!!!

Patrick:

 

"How did you test the Horizontal AoV on that camera/lens combo? "

 

I set a measure bar at 72 inches from the lens focal center, at a true perpendicular to the camera centered line of sight, and photographed the ruler, and then scanned the processed film at 4K and measured how much measure bar was in the horizontal picture, and then replicated the distance and width in a digital software, and measured the angle from focal center of lens to edge of picture based on those dimensions.

 

Bill

Hi (again)-

WOW, thank God for the EDIT feature!

There is the formula right in front of my face, p164 in my tattered AC manual.....

EDIT:

But still, curiosity got the best of me and about 5 minutes of searching found this:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/techn...cal_length.html

along with a few "google books" results (on optics and photographic optics) that point out quite clearly that precise determination of the focal length of a compound lens is a bit of a complex issue, certainly more complex than the formula in the AC manual. I wonder why the difference in methods?

So again, unless I'm just misunderstanding your method of finding the focal length, respectfully, I wonder if that's why you're getting an odd reading.

I assume you're in or near LA, with some of the best camera houses and optical techs within driving distance, why not consult with someone who knows this stuff and can assist?

And with some egg on my face, I'll bow out now.....

Tom:

 

I've tested one 25mm Cine Ektar and got a horizontal anlge of view (HAOV) of 22.65 degress, on a K-100 camera.

Hi-

How did you test the Horizontal AoV on that camera/lens combo?

Hi-

I think you'll find K-II resolution stated at around 63 lpmm, and that's under optimal lab test conditions.

To put things in one kind of perspective, I had some 16mm Kodachrome out awhile back and was looking at some frames (a seagull, not Bigfoot) sitting still on a piling, shot with a tripod mounted bolex and switars, and I could see just about everything detail-wise the emulsion had to offer with a 8x loupe.

And that was a camera original, shot with a good lens in good light on a tripod of a static subject, not a hand-held, moving subject on a dupe, or dupe of a dupe of what is probably the worst stock ever for duping; kodachrome (or kodachrome-II, if that's what the original was.)

Not to be a party pooper, (and not picking on your post, Bill) but it's hard to take too seriously proclamations about the minute details people are finding on that particular film.......

so what's wrong with regular 16?

The filmo and eyemo are wind-up spring driven primarily. You can hand crank directly, but the crank they made for them is too small to be practical. The same input shaft works with the optional electric motor, which is far more practical than the crank.

 

-- J.S.

AHEM! I beg to differ- I'm in the midst of shooting a silent, hand-cranked short for a friend and while the Mitchell is a pure delight, the Eyemo hand cranks wonderfully with that tiny crank!

Scroll down on my Flickr page a bit and you can see the Eyemo in action here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/monkeycam/

(by the way, I think everyone should have to sign their posts like Freya, what a happy place this would be!)

Love,

Patrick :)