eyepiece leveller

[Charles Papert]

The classic eyepiece leveler has been based on the fact that a film camera viewfinder must be physically connected to the body in the optical path. A digital camera has no such requirement. Classic eyepiece levelers work well under the best of circumstances but if you are positioned above or below the camera, the arc becomes non-linear and the leveler stops working, or there is a annoying telescope in or out as you tilt.. Levelers are also a bit fragile and once bent slightly, they become a frustrating piece of gear to work with. Also, if the rotation lock at the front of the arm is accidentally engaged even partially the result will feel like resistance when tilting the camera--the operator thrashing madly at the tilt lock on the head in vain during a take, unable to figure out why his tilts are so clunky. It's happened to me more times than I'd care to remember!

A much better system would be to fix the viewfinder to the tripod head between the pan and tilt pivot points, so that it will pan with the camera but not tilt. The trick will be to come up with a rigid enough way to mount and extend the EVF vertically it feels solid to the operator's eye under the expected amount of pressure.

 

[Emmanuel Cambier]

A much better system would be to fix the viewfinder to the tripod head between the pan and tilt pivot points, so that it will pan with the camera but not tilt. The trick will be to come up with a rigid enough way to mount and extend the EVF vertically it feels solid to the operator's eye under the expected amount of pressure.

Well, now we are getting somewhere… food for thoughts.
Thank you Charles.

Yours Emmanuel

 

[Christopher Ferguson ICG]

Oooo, custom build?

Oooo, custom build?

Ahh,
I think I'll enjoy building custom pieces out of carbon fiber for Red accessories.
Cool.

 

[Zk2007]

The classic eyepiece leveler has been based on the fact that a film camera viewfinder must be physically connected to the body in the optical path. A digital camera has no such requirement. Classic eyepiece levelers work well under the best of circumstances but if you are positioned above or below the camera, the arc becomes non-linear and the leveler stops working, or there is a annoying telescope in or out as you tilt.. Levelers are also a bit fragile and once bent slightly, they become a frustrating piece of gear to work with. Also, if the rotation lock at the front of the arm is accidentally engaged even partially the result will feel like resistance when tilting the camera--the operator thrashing madly at the tilt lock on the head in vain during a take, unable to figure out why his tilts are so clunky. It's happened to me more times than I'd care to remember!

A much better system would be to fix the viewfinder to the tripod head between the pan and tilt pivot points, so that it will pan with the camera but not tilt. The trick will be to come up with a rigid enough way to mount and extend the EVF vertically it feels solid to the operator's eye under the expected amount of pressure.

Or something like the Panavision Genesis viewfinder and leveler seems to be a good solution too.

 

[Scott Webster]

I'm sure the folks at vfgadgets will come up with something for the Red.

http://www.vfgadgets.com/VFextentionArm.htm

 

[Brook Willard]

I'm sure the folks at vfgadgets will come up with something for the Red.

http://www.vfgadgets.com/VFextentionArm.htm

It just warms my heart every time this link comes up. Think about it: they're charging north of $2,000 for what is essentially a magic arm and some random machined bits. I don't doubt that they'll come up with something great... but for >10% the price of the camera? I'll pass.

 

[Scott Webster]

It just warms my heart every time this link comes up. Think about it: they're charging north of $2,000 for what is essentially a magic arm and some random machined bits. I don't doubt that they'll come up with something great... but for >10% the price of the camera? I'll pass.

The purpose of the link was to give an example of what could be done and a company that manufactures a solution for existing cameras.

I hear you on the price. I couldn't justify putting one a F900R or Varicam and in NZ$ we're looking at 3K. Let alone a $17,500 camera.

The chorus of "The Red (insert camera, lens or accessory here) only costs this much" will be a song most suppliers aren't going to enjoy hearing.

 

[Zk2007]

Yes, I have been looking at VFgadgets. Those arms are really expensive for what they are. One thing RED seems to be set to change is the notion that everything in the motion picture business can and must be expensive. Some of the stuff although still expensive, are worth the money, like Matte boxes and follow focuses, because a lot of engineering goes into them. But how can that arm cost basically the same as a good follow focus like Chrosziel? Totally unrealistic.