Is there such a thing as large format roll film? 4x5 or 8x10 or other standard sizes

[Josh66]

View attachment 49189
Is it like the left, or the right side? Or something else?

I see problems with both. On the left, it would always pull exactly one frame, but there would be nothing keeping the receiving spool tightly wound. On the right, the pegs get further apart as the film winds, so evenly spaced holes would tear.

Or is it like on the left, but there is some sort of ratchet/transmission between the two spindles or something? or is the receiving spool spring loaded, or what?

Take the image on the right, and move the 'gears' away from the spool.

The 'gears' only need to measure the length of film going over them, they don't have to actually be the thing that transports it. It would be linked to the spool somehow, and disengage it when the correct amount of film has been advanced.

 

[Gavjenks]

Ah, finally found one terrible quality image. This one at least does indeed seem to be like the left image of mine, with a ratchet transmission that spins the loader a fixed amount and the holder a ratcheted variable amount to keep it tight:

So in my case, measuring out the spacing of the sheets geometrically in the right way would definitely be easier than building something like that. 'Kay.

 

[Josh66]

Ah, finally found one terrible quality image. This one at least does indeed seem to be like the left image of mine, with a ratchet transmission that spins the loader a fixed amount and the holder a ratcheted variable amount to keep it tight:
View attachment 49190
So in my case, measuring out the spacing of the sheets geometrically in the right way would definitely be easier than building something like that. 'Kay.

I'd say that it is probably more similar to the right side image of yours. The advancing lever is likely coupled with the spool, and that thing to the left of it is simply measuring how much film is being advanced, and uncoupling the mechanism at the proper point.

But it's hard to see on that, as you said, poor quality image.

It might be worth buying a junk camera for $10 or something just to take it apart and see how it works.

er... Nevermind. I think you were right.

Still, buy a parts camera, lol.

 

[Josh66]

http://www.keh.com/camera/Mamiya-RZ-Backs-and-Magazines/1/sku-RZ11005000499N?r=FE

http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Manual-Focus-Camera-Bodies/1/sku-PK020107001870?r=FE

Either would be a small investment to see what is going on in there.

 

[Gavjenks]

Yeah, I'll pick up a junk camera at the antique store down the street. That is a good idea.

 

[unpopular]

why are you so stuck on roll film?

 

[Gavjenks]

why are you so stuck on roll film?

Because I haven't really seen any great reasons mentioned so far for why it would be worse than sheet film.

People have given reasons for why my HOMEMADE roll film might be worse than COMMERCIAL sheet film in holders. And that very well might be true. But not many reasons for why it would be worse on an even comparison (i.e. both professionally made or both homemade). A couple. "bending may make it hard to project for enlargements" for example, but not very deal-breaking ones, compared to what seems like a massive advantage in weight and convenience in the field.

Considering I would go DIY for either solution, holders or roll, I still think roll sounds more effective and/or fun.

 

[Light Guru]

why are you so stuck on roll film?

Because I haven't really seen any great reasons mentioned so far for why it would be worse than sheet film.

compared to what seems like a massive advantage in weight and convenience in the field.

This is where you just don't seem to get it. You are NOT going to give you a weight or convenience in the field advantage. If it was going to give the advantages you say don't you think there would be a large format roll film solution that would have been popular with photographers for decades.

Rolled film was invented in 1883 if you really would gain a weight and conveyance advantage by having 4x5 or 8x10 cameras use roll film then it would have already caught on in the last 130 years.

 

[Derrel]

My thought is this: unless the feed and take-up rolls are the diameter of paper towel core tubes,or larger, 4x5 sheet film is NOT going to bend worth a damn. And it's going to be a real challenge to get this previously rolled-up 4x5 inch sheet film to lie flat enough to make a decently sharp image across the image area, unless you have some really amazing way to get the curvature out, such as a vaccuum back system. But, whatever...

 

[unpopular]

why are you so stuck on roll film?

Because I haven't really seen any great reasons mentioned so far for why it would be worse than sheet film.

1) Because the stiffness of sheet film will be a considerable challenge
2) Because attaching sheets of film to a polyester transport base will introduce more problems than it solves
3) Suitable films do exist - but for some reason you've opted for the more absurd direction
4) There is no advantage whatsoever to use rollfilm when magazines already exist or could be fabricated more easily and used more reliably - why do you think Graflex went in this direction in the first place? I can load a Graflex magazine in like 5 minutes and without the need of some semi-automatic jig that attaches film to polyester and spool it into some jam-ridden, wavy gravy rollfilm back.
5) The previous six pages, most of which I hadn't read

 

[Gavjenks]

^
1) Yes, stiffness might be an issue. But it requires $5 worth of film to test various radii until I can't bend it or it kinks. Worth experimenting for $5 (I would have already as of writing this, but I had to mail order the film)
2) Is not a reason why roll film is worse than sheet film in general.
3) Is not a reason why roll film is worse than sheet film in general.
4) Is not a reason why roll film is worse than sheet film in general (again, invalidly comparing my homebrew plan to a professional alternative)
5) Is not a reason why roll film is worse than sheet film in general

My thought is this: unless the feed and take-up rolls are the diameter of paper towel core tubes,or larger, 4x5 sheet film is NOT going to bend worth a damn. And it's going to be a real challenge to get this previously rolled-up 4x5 inch sheet film to lie flat enough to make a decently sharp image across the image area, unless you have some really amazing way to get the curvature out, such as a vaccuum back system. But, whatever...

Okay, so vote #2 for stiffness.

This is where you just don't seem to get it. You are NOT going to give you a weight or convenience in the field advantage. If it was going to give the advantages you say don't you think there would be a large format roll film solution that would have been popular with photographers for decades.

Rolled film was invented in 1883 if you really would gain a weight and conveyance advantage by having 4x5 or 8x10 cameras use roll film then it would have already caught on in the last 130 years.

^ Is not a reason why roll film is worse than sheet film in general (you're just inferring that it probably is)





So yeah, basically, you guys have said: Stiffness. Which will take 5 minutes to test when the film arrives. I'll let you know.

 

[Derrel]

Well, I think you ought to consider a square-format mask for the back, for subjects that would benefit from a nice square image, like flying pigs and such.

flying_pig.jpg

 

[Light Guru]

Okay, so vote #2 for stiffness

Make that 3

This is where you just don't seem to get it. You are NOT going to give you a weight or convenience in the field advantage. If it was going to give the advantages you say don't you think there would be a large format roll film solution that would have been popular with photographers for decades.

Rolled film was invented in 1883 if you really would gain a weight and conveyance advantage by having 4x5 or 8x10 cameras use roll film then it would have already caught on in the last 130 years.

^ Is not a reason why roll film is worse than sheet film in general (you're just inferring that it probably is).

I'm not saying roll film is worse then sheet film. I'm saying roll film is impractical at large format sizes. And the is 130 years of film history backing this statement.

 

[Gavjenks]

Yes, obviously I'm talking about at large format sizes.

"It hasn't been done often" is not itself a reason why it is impractical. There could be a million reasons why not. Many of which may not apply to me as a clearly non-typical user with non-typical goals and motivations. Which is why I am only considering actual reasons to be particularly informative. Such as stiffness potentially causing problems with unwillingness to roll or unwillingness to UNroll for processing.

An example of a reason why it hasn't been done much that would NOT interest me is "Because shooting 25 8x10 shots of film in one outing would be impractically expensive for most people anyway." Since I am equally motivated by a cool gizmo with impressive CAPABILITIES as I am by actually shooting, I would not be very put off by this, even if it is actually too expensive for ME too. Also, I wouldn't be shooting with this every day like a lot of serious professional or full time users of LF might, so on the rare special occasions when I make a whole LF marathon adventure out of the day and go somewhere inspiring, I might be quite willing to drop $100 on 25 shots of film, if I am struck by the mood to use it in a non-traditional sort of way somehow that might justify that volume. Like some whimsical experiment that would be wasteful for a pro trying to actually make profit.

So the specific reasons matter, see? Not just the end conclusion of the typical user.

 

[Light Guru]

"It hasn't been done often" is not itself a reason why it is impractical.

If it was practical why was it not be done more often in the 130 year history of roll film.