42 replies to this topic

[Leo Anthony Vale]

"My main question is eyepieces for these. Where do I get them? How can I comensate for parallax?"

---The 47mm Cooke seems to have been the standard lens in the late 30s and the 40s.
A 50mm view finder lens should be okay.

"Are there reflex lenses? For example, my Bolex's 12-120 reflex lens changed my whole life!"

---Theoretically the 38-154mm Pan-Cinor was availiable in Eyemo mount with a finder.
But can you find one? Don't hold your breath.
Also That would be a big, heavy set up for an eyemo mount. It would need a hefty lens support and a bridge plate.

I think Astro-Berlin a reflexfinder for very long lenses. Similar to the Leica Visoflex.
Maybe Kinoptik too. But again can they be found?


"Also, are coated wide lenses available, say 25-35mm? Are all of them prone to vignetting?"

---Baltars were made in eyemo mounts. They're post WWII and were the standard Hollywood lens during the 50s and mid 60s, until rackover Mitchell BNCs were replaced by reflexed ones and Super Baltars.
The Miltars are coated and from the 50s, last new lenses designed specifically for the eyemo.
& there should be some 'film-o-coated Cooke Speed Panchros, first series and Series II.
Maybe 18.5mm Angie. But that would be a holy grail.
There were also m-42-> eyemo adaptors. Those would most likely be found already screwed onto on Takumars and Zeiss Jenas.

Is there a ground-glass prism I can fit to the film gate to check through-the lens sighting?

---Not sure, but some spider turrets had one fitted on the motor side which could be used for rackover with a sliding base or tripod head.

---LV

I have an Ilex cinemat 75mm F2.9 (A metric eyemo lens! Does this mean it's more recent?)
A Carl Meyer Cine Telephoto 6 inch F4.5 (who are Carl Meyer?)
An EyeMax Telephoto Type V 6 inch F4.5
An Eyemax 2 inch F2.8 lens

---Could it be Hugo Meyer?

German. After Zeiss Jena, a major supplier of lenses for Exakta and Pracktika.

---LV

[Mike Rizos]

Thanks very much for the info on that lens.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

"Are there reflex lenses? For example, my Bolex's 12-120 reflex lens changed my whole life!"

---
I think Astro-Berlin a reflexfinder for very long lenses. Similar to the Leica Visoflex.
Maybe Kinoptik too. But again can they be found?
"Also, are coated wide lenses available, say 25-35mm? Are all of them prone to vignetting?"

-The ad at the bottom of this very long page shows the Asro Cine Identiscope mounted on a Kodak K-100(?).

http://www.exaklaus.de/astro.htm

It doesn't say what cine cameras it could be mounted on. There's a larger picture on a still camera 1/3 up the page.

& Gauss-Tachars were availiable in eyemo mounts.
Don't confuse these with the even older Pantachars which are are slight variations of Tessar designs. Those were quite popular in the 30s, but are soft for current standards and/or styles.

I've heard that Gauss-Tachars are on a par with Cookes and older Zeisses.
But again: try and find them.

---LV

[Robert Hughes]

Lots of good info on Eyemo lenses in this thread.

I'm pretty sure the black lens a few posts back is the Eyemo mount General Scientific 25mm lens; it looks like mine of the same description. On some Eyemos the GS 25mm vignettes in the corners (light fades to black). If you have an Eyemo with S35 full frame gate the vignetting will be worse than for an Academy frame gate.

I've seen a picture of one of those big Pan Cinor dogleg lenses on an Eyemo, but have never seen one live. Some Eyemos were retrofitted with mirrored reflex shutters like an Arri, but it sounds like more trouble than it's worth.

Edited by Robert Hughes, 31 March 2006 - 12:49 PM.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I'm pretty sure the black lens a few posts back is the Eyemo mount General Scientific 25mm lens; it looks like mine of the same description. On some Eyemos the GS 25mm vignettes in the corners (light fades to black). If you have an Eyemo with S35 full frame gate the vignetting will be worse than for an Academy frame gate.

---One of the things I noticed while going through all the Movietone footage is that the lens mounts might be centered on either the academy or the full aperture. Obviously the oldest models would be centered on the full aperture, but otherwise don't know which models are centered on academy. & one can't tell just by which aperture is in the camera. I noticed this on full aperture footage where one could see vignetting in the track area.

Another eyemo quirk I came across is that sometimes it misses a perf and pulls down 3 perfs.

The General Scientific lenses were named Miltars, which suggests they were designed for the military.

& B&H made another camera with eyemo mounts, the A9. If remember correctly. Had cameflex type mags and no viewfinder. Used a bore sight and sometimes a tracking finder. Probably a recording camera for the military.

---LV

[Leo Anthony Vale]

& B&H made another camera with eyemo mounts, the A9. If remember correctly. Had cameflex type mags and no viewfinder. Used a bore sight and sometimes a tracking finder. Probably a recording camera for the military.

---checked on this. It's the A-4, a 1942 aircraft bomb spotting camera.

So it predates the cameflex...hm

---LV

[Robert Hughes]

Academy versus Full Frame (S35) aperture wasn't so much time dependent as application dependent. Newsreel Eyemos were Academy so that optical sound tracks could be added; military bomb spotting Eyemos were full frame to cover the greatest film area.

Missing a perf ? Could be a film loading issue. I ran into similar problems on an Eyemo 71K when I made the loops too small (having worked with Filmos I wasn't prepared for the larger film loop requirement). But I haven't run into that problem on any Eyemo shoots lately.

IIRC the A-4 may have been a military designation for the Eyemo 71-Z, which incorporated a folding winding handle like a Bolex. Perhaps it's like the cameras that the shop in Florida occasionally sells off - old white military cameras which are square boxy devices with electric motors and Eyemo mechanisms. I know the Eyemo is also sometimes referred to in military manuals as the PH-330-A/G/H/J (one of four different models).

Miltars were indeed built for the US military and NASA. If you look at pictures of the interior of Mercury capsules you can sometimes see a Miltar lens staring out over and behind the astronaut's right shoulder.

Edited by Robert Hughes, 31 March 2006 - 03:43 PM.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Missing a perf ? Could be a film loading issue. I ran into similar problems on an Eyemo 71K when I made the loops too small (having worked with Filmos I wasn't prepared for the larger film loop requirement). But I haven't run into that problem on any Eyemo shoots lately.

IIRC the A-4 may have been a military designation for the Eyemo 71-Z, which incorporated a folding winding handle like a Bolex. Perhaps it's like the cameras that the shop in Florida occasionally sells off - old white military cameras which are square boxy devices with electric motors and Eyemo mechanisms. I know the Eyemo is also sometimes referred to in military manuals as the PH-330-A/G/H/J (one of four different models).

---Bad loop might be it.
Since we were setting up the footage for Xfer, 3-perf frames had to be removed.
The worst I encountered was a surfing shot. At least one bad frame per foot. It might have been overcranked, thus worsening the problem.

I've seen pictures of the A-4, it's not a redesignated eyemo.
I saw illustrated ads in AC from an LA store sellig eyemos, 2709s and A-4s in various configurations with all sorts of accessories.
The A-4 took a Cameflex type magazine and had a borefinder sight. It probably could take a sports finder.
The borefinder made me think it was a recording camera, reather than a production camera.

Quick check shows that aerotecdata.com sells the A-4 manual AN-10-10AA-4 4/43.
But can-t take a peek.

---LV

[Simon Wyss]

I have some new information.

 

The Eymax 6 inch f/4.5 telephoto lens is Wollensak’s four-element lens, a derivative of the 1905 Busch Bis-Telar. See there

 

 

The focusing is put into an interface between camera and lens. With a Filmo or an Eyemo one can see the conical distance ring in the viewfinder (with some Eyemo models also a spirit level). One estimates or knows the object distance in order to set lens focus accordingly. Some Filmo and Eyemo models have a focusing aid built in. Through a peephole one sees the image on a ground prism surface for critical settings. It’s the system introduced in 1912 with the Standard Cinematograph Camera. There is nothing more accurate and easy to maintain by the technician than the rackover system. Paillard adopted it for the Bolex H cameras but only in two quite distant steps.

 

The world has gone a long way to madness with lenses. Sure, a recent Leitz or Zeiss or Cooke grants brilliant pictures. Yet, movies only rarely answer their fineness. Action is disrupted, colours and light tumble over each other, I mean poetic they aren’t. Subtle narration, things to discover in calm but still changing scenes was last in use maybe 80 years ago, if not longer. When the Eyemo camera appeared, in 1925, such an essential concept was soon lost to the talkies. So shooting with a spring driven mechanical camera and simple lenses can mean to tie in with cinema for the eyes and less for the ears. We all know The Audience is Listening which is correct in the narrow sense of the word but cinema is pictures first and sound second. Without pictures it would be radio drama.

 

The standard mount with the Arriflex cameras is a metric copy of the Bell & Howell spigot mount. ARRI brought their first mirror shutter camera with a copy of the Bell & Howell compression lock. So many ideas came from Chicago but not with optics. In that field the company depended on others. I’m sure the 50 mm (2 in.) triplet is a Cooke.

[Simon Wyss]

Still more information:

 

Bell & Howell Lumax, Acura, Eymax, Extol, Anate, Telate are made by Wollensak.

 

The Bell & Howell Co. purchased lenses from Wollensak, Taylor, Taylor & Hobson, Angénieux, Berthiot (Hyper-Cinor), the General Scientific Corp., Chicago (Miltar), and in Japan.

 

Anate derives from Anastigmat Triplet Economy. Telate from Telephoto Anastigmat Economy. Wollensak lenses whose name begins with a V are four-element designs, either Petzval or Tessar types. Raptar stands for Rapid Tessar.

 

Bell & Howell Co. made a line of projection lenses in house but the company when founded was based on extensive outsourcing. Only few parts of their perforators, cameras, printers, and splicers were actually made in Skokie. From 1930 through 1932 Bell & Howell bought themselves into the majority of the TTH stakes, a more or less friendly take over. Not all TTH lenses for small-gauge film cameras are of the finest quality. Mechanics sometimes leave a little to be desired. Pressure from Chicago. Wollensak had to adapt some simplicity, too. Some lenses have crimp-closed mounts, impossible to open without loss of original state of parts.

[Simon Wyss]

Partly wrong what I wrote

 

Extol are Hugo Meyer, Görlitz.

 

Not all Wollensak V initial lenses have four elements, the Verito has three elements.

Bell & Howell never made any lenses themselves.

B. & H. sold TTH to the Rank Organisation per January 1^st, 1946 while retaining first

purchase rights to parts and lenses. That way TTH Cooke lenses continued to be

sold on B. & H. apparatus until about 1961.

[Simon Wyss]

Carl Meyer is a mesh-up of Carl (Zeiss) and (Hugo) Meyer, nothing but a brand name for Burke & James lenses.

[Webster C]

Maybe I missed this elsewhere but what would it take to get a Leica Visoflex to work properly, with the correct focal depth (I hope my terminology is correct here) mounted to the front of an Eyemo?

 

https://www.ebay.com...6-/282935843416

 

- Is it even possible? I had an Eyemo modified years ago to take Canon lenses (I believe that a short section of the Eyemo barrel had to be removed to get the depth correct).

[Dom Jaeger]

Leica M flange depth is about 10mm shorter than Eyemo, so you'd probably need to replace the turret with a custom hard front.

Canon flange depths are longer than Eyemo, so conversion is easier, but the mount diameter becomes an issue, hence material being removed.

[Webster C]

Thanks for the info Dom. BTW, I really like the postings on your Cinetinker site where you dissect the Eyemo, Arri IIB, and Bolex.

 

If the flange depth is shorter for Leica, could I make a custom adapter for the Visoflex > Eyemo (probably by taking apart an old Eyemo lens)? I would be extending the distance a little, correct?

[Dom Jaeger]

From what I understand of the Visoflex, it mounts to the camera via Leica M mount and gives you reflex viewing through the attached Leica lens. So you'd need to modify the Eyemo mount to accept a Leica M lens mount, which means having the new mount seat around 10mm inside the old Eyemo mount. That's why I think you'd need a whole new front, an adapter won't work.

[Webster C]

I realize that I misunderstood which one was shorter and which was longer, thanks for your follow-up Dom. Long ago I sold the Eyemo that I had modified with the Canon mount, but I'll track down some photos of it and post here.

[Webster C]

Here's the old Eyemo that I sold to a WW2 collector. Somehow I came across this little Canon mount which required very little modification of the camera to fit it on. A very old cameraman in Portland, Oregon by the name of Bill Crispin did the work.  

Attached Images

• 
• 
• 

[Webster C]

Apparently someone has done the Eyemo/Visoflex adaptation. Found this on an auction site, here's the description:

 

"almost similar 35mm camera to the previous lot, converted for Leica M39 screw mount with unique by Leitz built 18x24mm Visoflex I (no.22446) with semi-reflecting mirror for simultaneously scoping and filming and Telyt 4.5/20cm no.1503010 (hood), VIOOH universal finder no.87574 (with strap, used as directors viewfinder), metal case."

Attached Images

• 
• 
• 

[Webster C]

I think someone mentioned this lens recently in the forum? I dug it up over the weekend - years ago I got this Angenieux 18.5 lens in an Eyemo mount. Beat-up and dirty, but still a beautiful lens. I have barely ever used it since I only shot with my Eyemo a few times. I don't think there are adapters to fit the Eyemo mount to Micro 4/3rds? 

Attached Images

• 
•