Patrick Neary

Hi Paul- The governor in most eyemos sits behind the 1st cover plate (as you're looking into the film chamber) just right and below the feed spindle. This diagram shows the flip side of the plate as you've removed it (the parts numbered 4, 6, 7 etc.) Older Eyemos and Filmos put the governor under the front turret- (it was that goofy round bulge on the left, just opposite the lens, that looked kind of like a covered lens mount.) I can't answer for Jean-Louis, who will certainly give a more qualified assessment, but I was looking at mine (as it sat in pieces) with an eye to 2-perf, and have to say it looks like it would be at least a relatively easy conversion, the movement is so simple. You'd have to move the little pivot pin (which moves the pulldown claw up and down) closer to center to shorten the vertical movement, and also regrind the disc it rides on (which moves the pulldown claw in and out) so that the claw would drop below the aperture plate, then pop back up to pull the film at the right interval. Then fashion your 2-perf aperture plate. I guess the other piece would be the feed and take-up roller-sprockets, which you'd have to slow down so they weren't trying to push and pull 4-perfs worth film at every cycle- I would assume a modest re-gearing would be in order. You wouldn't have to mess at all with feed or take-up spindles. Really good free Eyemo repair manual here: http://www.intervalometers.com/bh/index.php

Well it's done and on to film testing. For anyone interested, I've attached a couple before and after shots; the first shows the flake graphite which was coating everything inside the camera- My best guess is that someone attempted a quick-and-dirty repair many years ago by squirting gobs of the stuff straight into the camera. It's really only supposed to be on the spring, and that compartment is pretty well sealed to keep it contained. In this instance, it was glopped all over and ultimately had frozen the shutter. That junk is hard to clean, but each gear and washer and screw, etc. got a naphtha wipe-down and re-grease. It's a great way to get to know a camera. The second shows my best stab at controlling the killer-spring (note cord tied around most coils to keep it from exploding in a catastrophe of flying razor-wire.) I left it attached to the camera's back plate in a kind of compromise between pulling the whole thing off -dangerous without a B&H tool but better for cleaning, and leaving it attached which is easier to manage but not as easy for thorough cleaning. I really highly don't recommend messing with that thing, its potential for pain and destruction is terrifying. And finally the finished, clean, purring Eyemo. :)

Thanks everyone for the valuable input- I've got the spring mostly uncoiled, but still attached to the back plate (I let the mechanism run out while containing the spring in a 400' film can :) )- I can wipe down most of it this way. My entire garage is coated with this stuff now. Does anyone have a suggestion for what kind of graphite to use to re-lube this thing once it's clean? Bicycle-shop stuff maybe?

Thanks Jean-Louis, that must be it! I didn't know that it was possible for flake graphite to go bad, but this stuff is like 10-year-old mayonnaise. It looks like the real problem was a bad back-plate seal that let the graphite into the gear and film chambers, and the camera's oil/grease into the spring chamber. The spring is very sticky, so next step is to pull the mechanism as a whole and see if I can dunk the spring in solvent to clean it up (without removing it from the backplate), then re-lube it with fresh graphite, and re-seal the whole mess on assembly. If you don't hear from me again, assume that something went horribly, horribly wrong.

Oh this isn't trouble, it's fun- especially after 6 hours of breathing naphtha fumes! I would guess the filmo and eyemo use the same spring (everything else seems to be the same inside) but the shop manual shows a special B&H tool you need to pull and install the thing without the threat of sudden decapitation. I wonder if there's a single soul left on the planet who works on these things, and more importantly, has spare parts. The other thing I could do is put on a bomb-disposal suit, pull the offending spring and install a hand-crank in the main drive shaft (this one doesn't have the lower motor-drive socket) and fully commit to hand-cranked shooting once and for all.

I'll check tonight to see if I'm glowing in the dark! I've also had a few filmos and another eyemo (among other spring-wind contraptions) and never seen anything like this, it's just weird. and messy.

Hi- I've been tearing apart and cleaning an eyemo I just picked up for a song, and it was full (and I mean FULL) of this fine metallic "glitter" - like someone took one of those bottles of silver glitter you get at a craft store and just dumped the whole thing into the innards of the camera. It turns out that it's coming from the spring; it's shedding tons of this fine metallic cr*p. Like a blizzard every time you wind it. Has anyone come across this phenomenon before? What the heck is this junk, detritus from H-Bomb tests at Bimini? Has anyone had the spring completely replaced in their filmo or eyemo, who did the work? (I'm not going near that thing) :blink: Thanks for any insight...

Hi- I have to say that this hasn't been my experience. I used to own a nice set of 35mm cooke speed panchros, and would use them interchangeably between an old 16bl and 2C. If I wanted a 40mm for the 16mm camera, I would put the 40mm on the 16mm camera. It didn't (and doesn't) matter that the lens was designed for 35. Your mileage may vary. :)

Hi- If your group hasn't seen this already, it's an extensive photo-tour of the Bach-Auricon building as it was being demolished (i gather from the pix) http://www.flickr.com/photos/crib/sets/72157605228742822/ I don't know anything else about it, but it sure would have been interesting to rummage around like this photog was able! You have to wonder what happened to all of that stuff.

well, like it or not, that's where 35mm motion picture is eventually headed; artsy-craftsy, kind of like large format shooters still working with tintypes.

It's not an instrumentation camera (why would you need a viewfinder, or SS sound?) but it's clearly intended for some sort of aircraft application, I just wonder what that was? Capture pilots yelling at each other over the racket of the engines?

Panavision's cool little calculator uses 0.001" for all of the 35 DOF calcs, so I would guess it would work for 2-perf as well.

Hi- Anyone venture a guess (or actually know) how this Mitchell was used, and for what?: http://cgi.ebay.com/Mitchell-SS-Camera-Air...Q2em118Q2el1247 Recording single system sound in a military aircraft?

ok I'll stop making stuff up now- So the only tidbit I've found is that Kodak seemed to use the code "CAMEROSITY" for more than one still camera line, and presumably some of the cine cameras as well, with C=1, A=2, etc. so that an "RC" preceding the numbers would mean that a camera was manufactured in '51, or 1951. Tom, does your K-100 have two letters preceding the 4-digit number?

I did a promo for TCM quite a while back and we needed a similar effect (but in B&W) so we shot on 7222 and the telecine op actually had a piece of ratty old (blank) film they ran through so we could overlay scratches and dirt. it was a good compromise because we really had thought about spooling out and dragging the camera neg behind the car on the way to transfer. also don't forget the importance of emulating the shooting and lighting style of those old films, that's half the fun. :)

I was actually surprised that it wasn't even more contrasty, like a kodalith or something. It looked great, do post your results!

the only thing I might add is to buy expired filmstock off ebay from a seller with lots of negative feedback! :) that sounds like too much fun- but you might want to check the condition of the film at various stages so you don't completely demolish it!

That's some great looking stuff! Did you alter processing at all, or is that exposed normal/processed normal?

Hi- From my internet research it seems that the serial #7691 suggests the following: 7= the camera was manufactured in 1956 6= a single lens model 9= the camera was to be assembled by long-time employee Sam Poindexter, but... 1= he called in sick that day, and Luther Fuller did the actual work, although the combination of the #s 7&6 preceding suggest that Fuller was unable to complete the entire assembly due to recurring arthritis, and the work was finished off by some nameless drone on the following monday. Or it might be the 7691st camera to come off the line, one or the other! :)

wouldn't that be sweet to have Nikkors 20mm to about 135mm all at a stop faster!

Hi- I think there might be a flaw in logic here, in that I can't imagine that adding optical elements to an existing lens could increase its resolution. Usually it's the opposite because you're adding more optical stuff that the light now has to travel through on its way to the film.

Thanks for those links! I would have tried the cinekodak forum, but it won't let me register. Is the serial number on your K100 a letter/number combination? On the hawkeyes certain letters correspond to dates of mfgr. and I was wondering if the letter-code was Kodak-wide or just for those particular cameras.

Hi- Does anyone have or know of any kind of serial number reference for these cameras? I found one for old Hawkeye brownies that decodes the letter/number sequence on those fun little cameras, and I'm wondering if such a thing exists for the K100 series. thanks-

Hi- I've got a Zeiss 50mm t2 that is pretty nice, and I bet would be even better if one of the internal elements wasn't covered with tiny bubbles! :)

Hi Saul- The confusion here is that you're relating back to an 8-perf, 35mm still frame and we're all talking about a 4-perf 35mm motion picture frame. One of the cool things about the DSLRs like the 40D is that the sensor size is almost exactly the same size as the 35mm motion picture frame, so mounting a 32mm Cooke S4 on a 40D (if you could) gives you basically the same FOV as it does when mounted on a 435 or Moviecam or whatever. I thought that was clear from several of the previous posts, but apparently not. Finally, don't take this all so personally, I know my posts tend to be kind of abrupt, but they're never meant to be unfriendly. This is a forum, after all, there's supposed to be some back-and-forth, right?