eyepiece leveller

[Emmanuel Cambier]

How well will the Red viewfinder play together with an eyepiece leveller?

[chuck colburn]

How well will the Red viewfinder play together with an eyepiece leveller?

I'm hep,

[Emmanuel Cambier]

Han,han…
so you are hep, my friend.
I wish I knew what that means.

[Brook Willard]

Well the camera isn't released, so we don't really know.

The EVF has no need for an eyepiece extension because it's a self-contained unit. You can mount it wherever you need it.

If you insist on using an eyepiece leveler, here's a guess solution:

Mount the EVF on one end of a CF rod. Mount the other end of the rod to a rotational point on the body. Mount the eyepiece leveler to the eyepiece or the eyepiece end of the CF rod. Plug EVF in. Level away.

[Emmanuel Cambier]

Well the camera isn't released, so we don't really know.

The EVF has no need for an eyepiece extension because it's a self-contained unit. You can mount it wherever you need it.

If you insist on using an eyepiece leveler, here's a guess solution:

Mount the EVF on one end of a CF rod. Mount the other end of the rod to a rotational point on the body. Mount the eyepiece leveler to the eyepiece or the eyepiece end of the CF rod. Plug EVF in. Level away.

Hi Brook
I might not have been clear enough, my bad.
I'm talking of the ability to have the viewfinder remaining at a constant angle to the ground while the camera tilt up or down.
Sure you can attach the viewfinder anywhere and that's super cool, but it has more to do with the way it's attached in order not to follow the camera.
I'm not sure what you mean by "a rotational point on the body" though.
yours Emmanuel

[Brook Willard]

I'm aware of how eyepiece levelers work, don't worry. What I'm describing should work just like what you have in mind. See the crude picture. If properly engineered, there is no reason that this shouldn't work just as well as an extension eyepiece with a leveler. While I understand that what is pictured is essentially just an eyepiece support, a proper leveler works on the same concepts.

[Emmanuel Cambier]

Well Brook,
I think your system ought to be very good, and you sure know how those things work, I was more worried about a lack of clarity on my part really.

I just hope the Red team will make it easy for it to work, but it seems very unlikely that they would overlook something like this.

Thank you so much for your explanations.

Yours Emmanuel;)

[Jarred Land]

Well the camera isn't released, so we don't really know.

Mount the EVF on one end of a CF rod. Mount the other end of the rod to a rotational point on the body. Mount the eyepiece leveler to the eyepiece or the eyepiece end of the CF rod. Plug EVF in. Level away.

Brook.. your getting higher and higher on my star list every day :)

[Zk2007]

If you insist on using an eyepiece leveler, here's a guess solution:

Mount the EVF on one end of a CF rod. Mount the other end of the rod to a rotational point on the body. Mount the eyepiece leveler to the eyepiece or the eyepiece end of the CF rod. Plug EVF in. Level away.

What's a CF rod?

An eyepiece leveler is very useful indeed for film style work.

[Dominic Jones]

CF = Carbon Fibre, if I'm not mistaken...

Not a choice of necessity, but keeps the weight of the rig down.

[Zk2007]

Oh, ok. I thought it was some special type of rod as in order for the leveler to work the rod would have to have some sort of locking solution.

[Ace]

CF = Carbon Fibre, if I'm not mistaken...

Not a choice of necessity, but keeps the weight of the rig down.

Carbon fiber. Its so hot right now!

[Brook Willard]

I figured CF would match the camera :D

As for a lock, they could exist in the same manner that they do on a standard optical eyepiece system. One on the 90˚ from the camera [aka the "rotational point"] and a telescope lock on the EPL.

Somebody's gonna build and patent this thing and I'm gonna be SOL.

[Zk2007]

I figured CF would match the camera :D

As for a lock, they could exist in the same manner that they do on a standard optical eyepiece system. One on the 90˚ from the camera [aka the "rotational point"] and a telescope lock on the EPL.

Somebody's gonna build and patent this thing and I'm gonna be SOL.

Not sure I get it. Can you post a drawing or something?

[Dominic Jones]

He's basically describing the same system as was posted earlier (it's a pretty standard VF rig) - look at the triple picture of the Red and SRII systems on page 1...

[Brook Willard]

The point marked as "rotational point" in the drawing could have a position lock. This isn't really useful for the EPL function but it's just a nice thing to have. The part that is labeled "EPL" would telescope and lock in place. The shorter it is, the lower the angle of the eyepiece in relationship to the body. The longer it is, the higher. That lock would only to be to set the desired angle - the magic of a proper eyepiece leveler would take care of the rest.

[Vincent Rice]

I think one of the principles of the Red projects is that they intend to publish a 'bible' of all the mounting point measurements and positions once they are locked down so that third parties can provide the required bits and bobs to hang off the camera. They have their hands full just making a camera.

[krobar]

Since the viewfinder is independent of the camera, it might be nice if both arms were telescopic. That way you would not only be able to adjust the height of the eyepiece, but also its distance from the camera.

-Kurt

[Damien Molineaux]

Hey Brook,

Where did that picture of a Red come from? I don't recall seeing it before.

Cheers,
Damien


I'm aware of how eyepiece levelers work, don't worry. What I'm describing should work just like what you have in mind. See the crude picture. If properly engineered, there is no reason that this shouldn't work just as well as an extension eyepiece with a leveler. While I understand that what is pictured is essentially just an eyepiece support, a proper leveler works on the same concepts.

[Brook Willard]

It was posted on DVXuser once upon a time if memory serves. I have all the renders [and every other RED image I've ever found on the forums] saved to a folder on my desktop. I'll post them tomorrow [it's almost 3:00AM and I just got back from a shoot... I'm all camera'd out tonight].

[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]

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.