Jump to content


Photo

More Crazy Eyemo Q's.


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 08 November 2009 - 11:15 PM

Let's say you could line the inside of an Eyemo and use very small cores (instead of spools), what's the most film that can be packed into it?
  • 0

#2 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 09 November 2009 - 12:01 AM

Let's say you could line the inside of an Eyemo and use very small cores (instead of spools), what's the most film that can be packed into it?


Just outta curiosity, why would you want to do that? Sound proofing or are you trying to stuff as much film as will physically fit into the camera and the sides of the spools don't completely fill the chamber or what? :unsure:
  • 0

#3 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 09 November 2009 - 12:08 AM

Just outta curiosity, why would you want to do that? Sound proofing or are you trying to stuff as much film as will physically fit into the camera and the sides of the spools don't completely fill the chamber or what? :unsure:


Most film possible.
  • 0

#4 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 09 November 2009 - 01:40 AM

Well, just find one of those little ruler things with the cylinder that fits into a core and gives you approximate footages for 2" and 3" cores. Hold it up to a 100 ft daylight spool, and read off the scale for 2". My guess is about 60 ft.



-- J.S.
  • 0

#5 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 09 November 2009 - 03:09 AM

Well, just find one of those little ruler things with the cylinder that fits into a core and gives you approximate footages for 2" and 3" cores. Hold it up to a 100 ft daylight spool, and read off the scale for 2". My guess is about 60 ft.



-- J.S.


I should have qualified my idea about the core. I was thinking more of a custom core that was little more than a thick tube that went around the spindle with only tape to hold the film on. Then run the film spool-less out to the farthest dimension without jamming. Some of the inside of the housing would have to be felted to avoid scuffing the emulsion. How many feet would you guesstimate it could take with that kind of configuration?
  • 0

#6 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 09 November 2009 - 04:06 AM

I should have qualified my idea about the core. I was thinking more of a custom core that was little more than a thick tube that went around the spindle with only tape to hold the film on. Then run the film spool-less out to the farthest dimension without jamming. Some of the inside of the housing would have to be felted to avoid scuffing the emulsion. How many feet would you guesstimate it could take with that kind of configuration?

Essentially what you just described is the Konvas Russian core for the 200 ft mags. They have an angled slide clip/slot for the film not tape. I think tape will give you problems you don't want. That could be machined fairly easily if you know someone with a machine shop who will work with you. Maybe rather than lining the film compartment you could have a flange made similar the what they use for spooling cores, those mica flanges or aluminum like this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/...e=STRK:MEWAX:IT

You would as you already know, substitute a thin slotted sleeve style center for the core sized one on the editing flange.

You do know, of course, depending on the model, Eyenos will take 100, 400 up to 1000 ft loads. Do you now have an Eyemo?
  • 0

#7 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 09 November 2009 - 11:02 AM

No. If I had one, I'd just see how much film I could cram in it.
  • 0

#8 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1584 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 09 November 2009 - 12:18 PM

The Eyemo spools have pretty thin cores at about 1" plus there is an indent on the spool which I think indicates where they are supposed to be loaded to for 100' I regularly stuff my Eyemo spools completely full which seems to yield over 120' of film. That is about as much as you can jam in there unless you made special spools with even smaller cores. The spindle that holds the core in the eyemo is about 1/3" so this is theoretically possible and may yield around 140' of film....

-Rob-

Attached Images

  • IMG_0689.JPG
  • IMG_0690.JPG

  • 0

#9 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 09 November 2009 - 03:36 PM

I think Rob has the right idea here. What you want to do is make your own special daylight spools with extra small cores. Without spools, how do you thread the eyemo without edge fogging the whole roll? Of course you'd have to wind film onto your special spools, and transfer it off to cores or something before it goes to the lab. Giving you your same daylight spools back is a very non-standard service for labs.... I'd also go with Rob's guess of about 140 feet, the last 20 - 30 of which would be very curly if the film stayed too long on the special spools. ;-)




-- J.S.
  • 0

#10 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1584 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 09 November 2009 - 03:55 PM

Giving you your same daylight spools back is a very non-standard service for labs.... I'd also go with Rob's guess of about 140 feet, the last 20 - 30 of which would be very curly if the film stayed too long on the special spools. ;-)
-- J.S.



I think most labs will return Eyemo spools upon request I know we do they ar a little unusual and a simple note included with the film will help them return home.

I usually load my own Eyemo spools in the darkroom here at Cinelab and depending on the shot i will load them normal at around 100' or stuff them full which makes camera loading a little tougher.

-Rob-
  • 0

#11 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 09 November 2009 - 04:03 PM

I think it depends on how many daylight spool jobs a lab has in a particular night. Back when they were doing lots of them, certainly it would have been unusual to get your same spools back, not ones from somebody else's film.




-- J.S.
  • 0

#12 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1584 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 10 November 2009 - 12:59 AM

I think it depends on how many daylight spool jobs a lab has in a particular night. Back when they were doing lots of them, certainly it would have been unusual to get your same spools back, not ones from somebody else's film.
-- J.S.



An Eyemo spool is not totally regular and if you are making a spool from scratch why not stencil your name on it with a message that it is special. If there is a message the film loader should see it at some point especially if it includes a note with instructions. Labs generally follow the notes they are given is they are prominent and clear this is a universal film lab truism trust me I work at a film lab....


-Rob-
  • 0

#13 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 November 2009 - 01:29 AM

The message should be on the can labels and camera reports. The spools themselves, at least in the labs here, would be handled in total darkness while building up a big roll to feed the machine, then put aside, still in the dark. Writing on the spool itself might not be noticed until the next day if at all. That is, unless the operator has been told to look for the special spools.




-- J.S.
  • 0

#14 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1407 posts
  • Other
  • Basel, Switzerland

Posted 19 November 2009 - 02:42 PM

Do you know the ‘A’ type core? Its diameter is one inch, you can place it on the spindle with its square bore. So you find some of them and roll her. Better of course were spools with smallest possible core. Next point: Get thinner film. If they've been on the moon there was Eastman-Kodak Ektachrome 160 (T ?) on a thinner polyester base. Maybe that somewhere there's still an odd film made by the yellow brother, maybe even in 35 and perforated. I don't know. What I know for certain is that there are black-and-white stocks with a dry thickness of 2.7 mils.
  • 0

#15 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1407 posts
  • Other
  • Basel, Switzerland

Posted 20 November 2009 - 02:12 PM

Found something exciting: Code 1414, Kodak High Definition Aerial Film 3414 on an Estar ultra-thin base of 1.5 mil = 0,0381 mm, ~ 1970.

Reference: http://www.taphilo.c...lmnumxref.shtml (wrong metrical value given there)

That would lead to 400 ft of film on the H spool in your Eyemo.
  • 0

#16 David Venhaus

David Venhaus
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Other
  • Wiseburn, CA

Posted 25 December 2009 - 11:56 PM

Though not as thin as the above mentioned ^ film, there are several different lab films that are available in a thinner polyester base. I've experimented with several different ones, wound on daylight spools and used in an Eyemo. Some of them can fit about 200ft on a regular daylight spool. I don't know if those types of films would be suitable for your intended application due there specific characteristics, as they are intended for lab use rather then as camera negative.
  • 0

#17 Henri Titchen

Henri Titchen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 December 2009 - 05:05 PM

Remember that a polyester (estar) film jam in a camera may strip gears. Acetate/tri-acetate tears more easily and is less likely to damage a camera.

The gear at the base of the drive sprocket/s in my eyemo is brass. (Many of the other gears appear to be steel.)

Though not as thin as the above mentioned ^ film, there are several different lab films that are available in a thinner polyester base. I've experimented with several different ones, wound on daylight spools and used in an Eyemo. Some of them can fit about 200ft on a regular daylight spool. I don't know if those types of films would be suitable for your intended application due there specific characteristics, as they are intended for lab use rather then as camera negative.


  • 0

#18 David Venhaus

David Venhaus
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Other
  • Wiseburn, CA

Posted 26 December 2009 - 06:24 PM

Remember that a polyester (estar) film jam in a camera may strip gears. Acetate/tri-acetate tears more easily and is less likely to damage a camera.

The gear at the base of the drive sprocket/s in my eyemo is brass. (Many of the other gears appear to be steel.)


Yeah, I've stripped the gears in a Krasnogorsk 3 while running polyester based film through it. The gear that stripped was not metal though, I think it was made of fiberglass or some similar material. All the gears in the Eyemo are brass or steel, as far as I can tell, when I took one apart. I've shot over 10,000 ft of polyester based films through it and never had a problem, even with jams occurring, the camera just usually stops. I think the gears and the associated mechanisms seem strong enough to be able to handle it.
  • 0

#19 Henri Titchen

Henri Titchen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 December 2009 - 06:42 PM

See attached photo from an eyemo I repaired.

I don't know the cause. It shows how these gears can be damaged.

I guess it was some sort of jam that damaged the gear.

Yeah, I've stripped the gears in a Krasnogorsk 3 while running polyester based film through it. The gear that stripped was not metal though, I think it was made of fiberglass or some similar material. All the gears in the Eyemo are brass or steel, as far as I can tell, when I took one apart. I've shot over 10,000 ft of polyester based films through it and never had a problem, even with jams occurring, the camera just usually stops. I think the gears and the associated mechanisms seem strong enough to be able to handle it.

Attached Images

  • chewed_gear1.JPG

  • 0


Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

CineLab

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Opal

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

The Slider

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Glidecam