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



## Gavjenks (Jul 2, 2013)

If so, what sorts of cameras use it?  If not, why does this not exist?

I may consider making some myself if it doesn't exist, and would be interested in knowing what sorts of pitfalls or snags I might run into.  Or if it exists, then it might be silly to make.  Basically, I was considering one of two possible designs:

1) affix the commercially purchased loose sheet film somehow to a roll of durable, reusable plastic clear material, and leave a gap in every space, or every 3rd space or whatever, that can be used to focus on the ground glass.  So you would take a photo, then roll it to the nearest empty spot, pull back a light shade, focus on the ground glass, pull the light shade back again, and roll to the next unexposed piece of film, then shoot.

2) Make a crude large format "SLR" but without bothering with a prism, of course.  Just a fold down mirror, designed with nice velvet "gaskets" or similar so that in the down position, it completely blocks light from the film, and in the up position, it blocks any light coming in from the ground glass (which would be positioned on the top of the camera).  Operated by a manual lever and locking mechanism built into the hinge.  So you would take a photo, then lower the mirror (a light shade would be in place over the GG to prevent light getting in while the mirror is half lowered), pull back the light shade on the GG, focus and compose, pull the shade again, raise the mirror, roll the film to the next position, and shoot.



The only major issue I can anticipate with either system is that the film may not lie flat enough, but it could probably be made to pass through long guides on top and bottom as it rolls past to help with this.

What am I missing?


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 2, 2013)

I believe the K-20 aerial camera used 5 1/4" roll film ... I do not think that there is any present day camera that does.
... I think that Kodak did make some 5" roll film for duplication equipment.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 2, 2013)

Out of curiosity, why?  Pitfalls that I can see are simply the size.  An 8x10 film holder is already a big piece of kit, making supply and take-up drums that would be large enough to 'wind' the film without damage would mean a VERY large set-up indeed.  Making it light-tight would also be tricky; you'd still need a darkslide of some sort to seal off the ground glass, and the potential for spoiling film by winding it forward with the shutter open are just a couple that come to mind.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 2, 2013)

Sheet film will probably object strenuously to being rolled in any kind of tight radius, and if you get away with that, flattening it back out as your surmise is likely to be a problem.

Using some more rollable film stock might be possible. You can at least get 70mm film stock, which might only have 65mm of usable width, which is still a little wider than 120/220 film. Slightly.

At bigger sizes, I assume flatness and dimensional stability both become issues.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 2, 2013)

Yeah, I was gonna say, there used to be aerial cameras that used rollfilm...BIG rollfilm! When I was a kid, these monstrous old beasts were sold for $69-$99 through the photo magazines in the small, back-of-the-magazine advertisements, by a handful of outlets.

Back then, $49 to $59 would buy a used but clean late 50's/early 1960's Zeiss-Ikon Contaflex 35mm SLR; $79.99 would buy something like a Russian-made Zenit 35mm SLR, and $109 would buy the lowest-end Mamiya/Sekor 35mm SLR; at that time, the Minolta SRT 101 and 50mm lens was $149.99.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 2, 2013)

Were these roll films not very use-specific?  That is, I suspect that the substrate was a lot more flexible than that used for today's 8x10 sheet film, and from I've seen of those cameras, mostly in old movies, they were BIG units.


----------



## Designer (Jul 2, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> What am I missing?



You didn't mention a motor drive.

I mean; if you're going to the trouble of building a giant roll-film camera, then you must want some fairly upscale frames-per-minute.  (prolly not frames-per-second)


----------



## Designer (Jul 2, 2013)

ps: you might have to cannibalize one of those aerial cameras for the lens, too.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 2, 2013)

You should man up and make a roll ambrotype system that drags some sort of flexible substrate through a silver nitrate bath and so on. Make it powered by steam for bonus points.


----------



## Light Guru (Jul 2, 2013)

Oh sure here is a roll right here.
Kodak 5in x 350ft Aerographic Duplicating Roll Film 2421 126MMX107M 4x5 7 | eBay

Would I recommend trying what you say you are going to try.  ABSOLUTELY NOT. 



Gavjenks said:


> I may consider making some myself if it doesn't exist, and would be interested in knowing what sorts of pitfalls or snags I might run into.  Or if it exists, then it might be silly to make.  Basically, I was considering one of two possible designs:
> 
> 1) affix the commercially purchased loose sheet film somehow to a roll of durable, reusable plastic clear material, and leave a gap in every space, or every 3rd space or whatever, that can be used to focus on the ground glass.  So you would take a photo, then roll it to the nearest empty spot, pull back a light shade, focus on the ground glass, pull the light shade back again, and roll to the next unexposed piece of film, then shoot.



That seems that an awkward way of doing it.  First off why would you leave clear spaces so you can focus.  You should familiarize yourself with graflock backs that allow you to remove the ground glass after focusing add attach all sorts of back like poloroid back, and 120 roll film backs. 

And how would you attach the commercially purchased loose sheet film to your roll without damaging the sheet of film.



Gavjenks said:


> Make a crude large format "SLR" but without bothering with a prism, of course. Just a fold down mirror, designed with nice velvet "gaskets" or similar so that in the down position, it completely blocks light from the film, and in the up position, it blocks any light coming in from the ground glass (which would be positioned on the top of the camera). Operated by a manual lever and locking mechanism built into the hinge. So you would take a photo, then lower the mirror (a light shade would be in place over the GG to prevent light getting in while the mirror is half lowered), pull back the light shade on the GG, focus and compose, pull the shade again, raise the mirror, roll the film to the next position, and shoot.



There are already old 4x5 SLR cameras out there. 






Even if you did shoot a roll of film that size how would you develop it?

I shoot 4x5 film almost exclusively, and frankly see what you propose as adding a LOT more work onto a process that already takes a LOT of work.  And I dont see you really gaining anything from it.

One of the great things about shooting large format B&W film is being able to adjust the development time of individual sheets of film in conjunction with the zone system.  Shooting roll film does not make that possible. 

If you are looking for a way to not carrying around a lot of film holders when shooting 4x5 then simply get yourself some Grafmatic film holders that hold 6 sheets of film and have the thickness of just under 3 4x5 film holders. I even have 3 Grafmatic film holders that I can sell you as I find that I prefer the regular 4x5 film holders.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 2, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> Even if you did shoot a roll of film that size how would you develop it?



Look for "Going out of Business" sales from a major photo lab.
Buy a Dip'n'Dunk processor from them for pennies (I think they might pay you to remove it) ... then get it on your flatbed truck.
Getting it into the basement is the hard part.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 2, 2013)

> Sheet film will probably object strenuously to being rolled in any kind of tight radius



Yes it is more stiff, but are you sure it would actually case any damage or IQ degradation? What radius do you think the film could be bent at without damage? I've only ever done tray developing for it, but I understand that some people already bend their film at fairly sharp angles to do drum processing, via the so-called "taco method:"
http://static.flickr.com/110/257236162_352bed18af.jpg

A radius that size would make roll film plenty practical. The reel could easily fit inside a reasonably sized camera if you can bend it that tightly. However, holding it in that much of a bend for hours might be different than holding it that way for minutes. Maybe it doesn't damage it for developing times but would for longer term storage.



> You should man up and make a roll ambrotype system that drags some sort of flexible substrate through a silver nitrate bath and so on. Make it powered by steam for bonus points.


Lol yes. I remember seeing an automatic developing assembly line made out of legos somewhere =P.  Not nearly as badass as steam power, of course, but it was fairly compact.

You joke, but this sort of thing is actually the main motivation for doing a project like this.  I like making interesting gadgets as much as I like actually taking pictures.



> That seems that an awkward way of doing it. First off why would you leave clear spaces so you can focus. You should familiarize yourself with graflock backs that allow you to remove the ground glass after focusing add attach all sorts of back like poloroid back, and 120 roll film backs.



That would work, but the whole point of roll film is speed and convenience. Removing the whole back doesn't sound very speedy or convenient (30 seconds probably, at least), compared to just winding a crank twice, etc. (maybe 5 seconds, much faster if indeed a motor drive were added as suggested above).

If I were to implement something like you're suggesting, I think it would be something more like "the entire rolling assembly folds down into a recess in the bottom of the camera and then back up again," which would be similar to the removable back, but require only a sliding of a light screen and a flick of a lever and 1-2 seconds to convert back and forth

(If you wanted to be *really slick*, you could even mechanically link the screen and the lever, so one action automatically pulls the screen and then lowers the assembly a split second later, and conversely on the way back)



> Even if you did shoot a roll of film that size how would you develop it?


Just like any other roll film. Respooling onto a drum, or designing the spools in the first place so that you can just develop them directly in a tank and only have to spool/respool once per roll total.  Yes, this removes the flexibility of developing each shot separately, but that's not why I'm drawn to LF film.  I care more about the detail and "look" and so forth than advanced dark room shenanigans.

Or if you realllllly wanted to expose each one separately, you could always just cut them and do that.



> Out of curiosity, why? Pitfalls that I can see are simply the size. An 8x10 film holder is already a big piece of kit, making supply and take-up drums that would be large enough to 'wind' the film without damage would mean a VERY large set-up indeed.



If you can bend it at the radiuses linked to in the "taco method" without damage, then spools would only be like 2 inches in diameter, and you'd only need 2 for potentially dozens of sheets of film. Compared to 20+ film holders or even several grafmatic ones, this is lighter weight and smaller.

If you cannot bend it that much, though, then it may indeed become too bulky/heavy by comparison to be practical.



> How to connect it to the roll?


All kinds of ways would work. Adhesives, staples (if designed so that the staples are protected on the back to not scratch other sheets, or the sheets are lined up mathematically to have their edges always overlap other edges only), etc.

I'm not concerned about damaging the very edges of the film permanently.  I would simply crop every photo down 5% or so to remove the damaged area if desired.  This is no different than pieces of film being roughly edged from a traditional film holder.


----------



## Helen B (Jul 2, 2013)

There's also the Gowlandflex, though that is a TLR. It has the advantage of not having mirror slap. 

Have you considered a rangefinder 4x5 with a Grafmatic (as mentioned by Light Guru)? Those are OK for handheld, speedy use.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 2, 2013)

Also, if the bending radius is indeed the main bottleneck of this whole plan, then another possibility would be to use Harman direct positive paper, which is fiber based and can probably bend much more easily.  I've never worked with it, though, so I don't know if it's actually more flexible.

On the downside, that stuff needs to be pre-flashed to get reasonably low contrast, and you have to develop it within a couple of hours of shooting (and it exposes slowly enough that the speed of roll film might be a little silly). But still a possible solution for fun.



> There's also the Gowlandflex,


Cool stuff!


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 2, 2013)

Designer said:


> ps: you might have to cannibalize one of those aerial cameras for the lens, too.



Careful with that -- back in the 50s a number of lens makers experimented with rare earth elements in making glass to boost the refractive index. Some of them made radioactive lenses and the old Areo Extars that Kodak put on those old cameras were some of the most radioactive made.

Joe


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 2, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > ps: you might have to cannibalize one of those aerial cameras for the lens, too.
> ...


An extra arm would make it a lot easier to adjust all the settings on a camera, though.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 2, 2013)

How about just buying a trio of Graflex Grafmatic multi-shot film holders? Six sheets per load. Grafmatic Sheet Film Holder

Here's a video:


----------



## Light Guru (Jul 2, 2013)

dxqcanada said:


> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> > Even if you did shoot a roll of film that size how would you develop it?
> ...



Good luck finding one that would have a peace of equipment that would be able to handle processing a 5"x130" roll of film.  Even back in the hay day of film that was supper specialty.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 2, 2013)

Derrel said:


> How about just buying a trio of Graflex Grafmatic multi-shot film holders? Six sheets per load.
> 
> Here's a video:



That would work fine. Mainly I'm less interested in it because it would be significantly more expensive, and way less fun/unique (I like making the gadgets for the sake of making the gadgets, not just for photography that results from the finished product. If rolls is something that hasn't been done much/at all, then it would be "cooler" if it works).

What you suggest is indeed my best backup plan, though, if the roll idea falls through or has some fatal flaw(s).


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 2, 2013)

Derrel said:


> How about just buying a trio of Graflex Grafmatic multi-shot film holders? Six sheets per load. Grafmatic Sheet Film Holder
> 
> Here's a video:



:thumbup::thumbup:*GRAFMATIC!!*:thumbup::thumbup:

Every sheet with a scratch guaranteed!

Joe


----------



## Light Guru (Jul 2, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> affix the commercially purchased loose sheet film somehow to a roll of durable, reusable plastic clear material, and leave a gap in every space, or every 3rd space or whatever, that can be used to focus on the ground glass.





Gavjenks said:


> That would work, but the whole point of roll film is speed and convenience. Removing the whole back doesn't sound very speedy or convenient (30 seconds probably, at least), compared to just winding a crank twice, etc. (maybe 5 seconds, much faster if indeed a motor drive were added as suggested above).
> 
> If I were to implement something like you're suggesting, I think it would be something more like "the entire rolling assembly folds down into a recess in the bottom of the camera and then back up again," which would be similar to the removable back, but require only a sliding of a light screen and a flick of a lever and 1-2 seconds to convert back and forth



So let me get this strait you plan on focusing on the ground glass but are concerned with the speed of changing a back on the camera. 

LOL REALLY!!!!

It litany takes a second to change a back. 

If your really concerned about speed and convenience then a roll back is not really going to help you with large format do you realize how much wait you would be adding onto the camera not to mention the physical size increase on an already large camera. 

If you are really concerned with speed and want to shoot large format you should just get a wanderlust camera and some graflex film holders and use zone focusing.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 2, 2013)

He just wants to build a gizmo. That's cool. Go nuts, man!


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 2, 2013)

> do you realize how much wait you would be adding onto the camera not to mention the physical size increase on an already large camera.



Approximately 2-3 ounces in weight (rolls = maybe 1 and a little extra wood to house them = 2), and about 3-4 inches larger in the back. (I would angle it like a trapezoid most likely to make room with minimal extra materials). For the whole design + tripod this represents about a 5% increase in weight and a 20% increase in volume (when bellows are retracted fully.  10% increase in volume with bellows extended).  Pretty negligible.

Also, one must consider that interchangeable backs ALSO add weight, since you're carrying more than one back... So at the end of the day, it is probably about equal either way.

There is a significant cost in design difficulty, but again, I find designing stuff fun, so I don't really view that as a cost.  And actual dollar amount of materials is almost certainly vastly lower to make my own device that to get a camera and back system commercially made, even used.



Anyway, I'm not very interested in "what's the most conventional way to add more film reserves to my LF camera."  I'm more interested in whether it would be possible to do large format roll film (as in, would bending damage it too much, etc.).  Don't worry so much about whether you think it is the most practical or not for purposes of this thread.



> He just wants to build a gizmo. That's cool. Go nuts, man!


This.

...Unless there is some reason the gizmo is doomed to fail that is obvious from the outset.


----------



## Light Guru (Jul 2, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> > do you realize how much wait you would be adding onto the camera not to mention the physical size increase on an already large camera.
> 
> 
> 
> Approximately 2-3 ounces in weight (rolls = maybe 1 and a little extra wood to house them = 2), and about 3-4 inches larger in the back.



WOW where did you learn to figure weight. There is absolutely no way your back plus film will 2-3 ounces in weight.  A standard 4x5 film holder is about 5 ounces an its 1/2 inch thick. Your talking about easily adding several pounds of weight on to the thing. 

A 3-4 inch wooden film back will not only be much more then then 3 ounces. My 4x5 field camera is 4 inches thick when folded and weights around 5 pounds without a lens. Even if you subtract 2 pounds for the medal hardware and weight of the ground glass that's still 3 pounds and it is the thickness of what you think your roll film holder would add. You are literally doubling the size of the camera. 



Gavjenks said:


> Anyway, I'm not very interested in "what's the most conventional way to add more film reserves to my LF camera."



Yea that's obvious. But at the same time your also not thinking how practical what you are describing is.


----------



## Designer (Jul 2, 2013)

Why, hell, the screws alone would weigh half a pound!


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 3, 2013)

> WOW where did you learn to figure weight. There is absolutely no way  your back plus film will 2-3 ounces in weight.  A standard 4x5 film  holder is about 5 ounces an its 1/2 inch thick. Your talking about  easily adding several pounds of weight on to the thing.



Dude, I was talking about ADDED weight from the roll system, not the whole camera or back. As in:  [weight of a back with a roll system accommodated] - [weight of a normal back without a roll system] = a few ounces.

Which was too low. I indeed underestimated. However, the right answer is closer to my estimate than "a few pounds" is.  Here, I actually went and looked up the densities and such exactly, and it would be:
1) Two basic hollow plastic (for example PVC) reels with an inside diameter of approx. 1.5 inches and a height of 8 inches each = *9 ounces* total (liberal estimate to allow for a small arm inside to hold the axle connections).  Very thin aluminum tubes might actually be lighter weight.
2) Assorted screws (I just weighed a bag of random screws I have on the table, approx as many as I would need to make a couple hinges and fix reels and a couple inch long turning crank) = *4 ounces*
3) To fit the reels on the sides without getting in the way of the image, I would make the camera a trapezoid large enough to fit them in the corners. The difference between a 14/10 x 5 x 8 inch trapezoidal box versus a 10 x 5 x 8 inch box =  .38 inches x 8 inches more material on each side wall + 2 x 8 on the back + 20 square inches more material total top and bottom.
If the walls and top are 3/8" plywood and the bottom is 4/4 lumber, then that adds up to 18.14 cubic inches more wood. For softwoods like douglas fir, this is about *5.5 ounces*

Total added weight = *1.16 pounds.*

And the roll system could conservatively hold a good solid 20 sheets of film, which would require over *3 pounds* with standard 2 sheet holders or grafmatic holders (grafmatics are apparently about equally heavy per sheet as standard holders).  Making it a significant weight savings.


Diagram:


edit: the blue circles should be hollow.  Too lazy to fix.



Note: this design is assuming a radius of curvature approximately equal to what those people using the "taco method" of developing were using.  I do not know if their method involves enough bending to actually damage the film or the image.  If so, then the rolls would need to be larger, and so would the trapezoid, and the weight addition would go up.  Nobody seems to know how much bending is okay though, so I may need to just test it empirically first somehow before spending time building a camera (shoebox pinhole anyone?)


----------



## gsgary (Jul 3, 2013)

I watched the BBC program Imagine last night on Don McCullin he was using a large format camera that he was shooting and advancing


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 3, 2013)

gsgary said:


> I watched the BBC program Imagine last night on Don McCullin he was using a large format camera that he was shooting and advancing


Oooh, that sounds worth watching anyway just for the show, let alone a clue in the hunt for roll film.

Sadly, the BBC won't allow foreigners to stream their shows even if they offer to pay the associated programming taxes... grr/grumble


----------



## Helen B (Jul 3, 2013)

I now see that you just want to make a weird gizmo rather than answer a practical photographic desire, so I'll answer in that vein.

Your film curvature test isn't really about damage, but about the resulting curvature set at the time the film is exposed - which may be seconds after it comes off the roll. Film flatness is already an issue with conventionally-used sheet film, and existing large roll film aerial cameras can use vacuum flattening. You could use vacuum flattening via a perforated GG.

Another common issue is film/GG registration. Because your System 1 would have quite a large mismatch between the plane of the film and the plane of the GG you would probably want a little quick system to rack focus out that fixed amount after focusing on the GG - not dissimilar to the idea of racking to 'chemical focus' in the good old days of my youth - ie the 19th century [_sic_&#8203;].

I don't know how much experience you have with LF or how much LF film you use or want to use. Once upon a time I would have suggested trying Quickloads with a GG-modified holder (a holder with a GG and dark slides on both sides). That system would still be quick and light, and would get round the curvature set that roll film would create. You would not be the first to design a reusable Quickload-type system for holding standard sheet film. It would also make switching film or switching development easier.

Remember that LF aerial roll film is thinner than sheet film for a good reason.

If you stick sheets to a long roll backing, how will you avoid feed problems at the leading edge of each sheet (which will be wanting to curl up)? Not insurmountable, of course, if going one way, but more of a problem for your reversible idea. You may also have problems with the difference in relative length when rolled and when flat. That would be solved by fastening the leading edge only.

I guess that when doing a practical evaluation you have to ask if your whole system (camera to print) gives you the quality you want when compared to, say, a Mamiya Press shooting 6x9 film with the very good holder that those Mamiyas use. Will you be printing optically or scanning and printing?


----------



## amolitor (Jul 3, 2013)

If you want the film to lie flat, your system should probably arrange so that when the sheet is in position to be exposed, the tensions on it tend to curve it in the opposite direction to the curve it takes on your "rolls". The Mamiya RB/RZ system places the rolls behind the film plane, for example.


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 3, 2013)

An 8X10 Graphmatic (that didn't scratch) would be pretty cool.


----------



## Light Guru (Jul 3, 2013)

Helen B said:


> I now see that you just want to make a weird gizmo rather than answer a practical photographic desire, so I'll answer in that vein.



Exactly.



Helen B said:


> Another common issue is film/GG registration. Because your System 1 would have quite a large mismatch between the plane of the film and the plane of the GG you would probably want a little quick system to rack focus out that fixed amount after focusing on the GG



Good point.  With his design the film plain will be so far back from where the ground glass normally is he has also made it so the camera is going to be limited on what lenses you will be able to use with it.  You will not be able to use a 90mm (roughly 30mm equivalent on a full frame DSLR) lens with a camera that has his roll back on it, I doubt a 150mm (roughly 50mm equivalent on a full frame DSLR) You may be able to use a 210mm (roughly 70mm equivalent on a full frame DSLR) but you will not have any room for movements as the lens will be moved so far back because the film plain is being moved back 3-4 inches as the OP estimates the added thickness his roll back would add. 



Helen B said:


> I don't know how much experience you have with LF


Good point.  If the OP does not have much experience shooting large format then I suggest he get a fair amount before diving into a project like this. I would even suggest that he head over to the large format photography forum as he will reach many more people who are familiar with large format shooting.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 3, 2013)

Helen B said:


> I now see that you just want to make a weird gizmo rather than answer a practical photographic desire, so I'll answer in that vein.
> 
> Your film curvature test isn't really about damage, but about the resulting curvature set at the time the film is exposed - which may be seconds after it comes off the roll. Film flatness is already an issue with conventionally-used sheet film, and existing large roll film aerial cameras can use vacuum flattening. You could use vacuum flattening via a perforated GG.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the variety of useful input!.

I really like the leading edge attachment-only idea.

Vacuum flattening is intriguing as well.  I have some experience with this sort of thing from another project of building a pipe organ.  I think positive pressure inside the camera body may be easier, though (also with perforated GG). Pumping a bike pump a few times attached in the side with a tire valve+ air filter in a moderately airtight box prior to tripping the shutter = flat film! And unlike vacuum, it doesn't create an issue of how to avoid things getting in the way of looking through the GG.  Then, if you wanted to make it more automated at the expense of more weight, you could easily substitute an electric car tire pump for the bike pump without needing to alter the design at all. Lol.



> If you want the film to lie flat, your system should probably arrange so that when the sheet is in position to be exposed, the tensions on it tend to curve it in the opposite direction to the curve it takes on your "rolls". The Mamiya RB/RZ system places the rolls behind the film plane, for example.


How does this not scratch the emulsion as it grinds across?



> With his design the film plain will be so far back from where the ground glass normally is


Eh?  It would be right on top of the GG.  The film would be unspooling from the back of those tubes, not the front, in case that was unclear.  And I would rig up some sort of system so that film actually rests inside the tube (maybe 2 nested tubes? Not sure yet), for light protection anyway, so the feed location would always be constant.  Metal guide rails and/or something like the air pressure flattening system would then make the film less than 1mm from the GG.



> Good point. If the OP does not have much experience shooting large format then I suggest he get a fair amount before diving into a project like this. I would even suggest that he head over to the large format photography forum as he will reach many more people who are familiar with large format shooting.


I borrowed a friend's for a couple months. So a little experience. Neither none nor a lot.  I realize this may lead to me making dumb mistakes, but I will learn most efficiently if I am forced to build with a bit of a challenge.  The main goal is fun and learning and a unique product, more so than never making a single mistake and getting it all right the very first time. *shrug*


----------



## table1349 (Jul 3, 2013)

http://thefitnesstutor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Edited-Caveman-cartoon.jpg


Besides, it's already been done.  
Film back for a 6X7   http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Z/00ZSiV-406311584.jpg

4X5 Calmet roll film back: http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00K/00KUSw-35686584.jpg

6X17 with film back: http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2554/4116837447_41bf0d0cf0_z.jpg?zz=1

Of course if you are going to do this project.  I say do it right.  This is the camera to shoot for with a roll film back: http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2013/02/largestview.jpg


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2013)

Arista Ortho Litho Film 2.0 24 in. x 100 ft. Roll | Freestyle Photographic Supplies

for example.

Develop in dilute rodinol 1:75 or greater depending on contrast. Could probably be processed in an open drum dipped into a tray and continuously agitated by rotation; 10' roll length could be developed in a 4' drum, and 5' lengths fitting inside a standard 55 gallon shipping drum.

A 24x6" camera would provide 10 exposures on a 5' roll.

Be prepared to go through a LOT of fixer.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 3, 2013)

Now that's a big roll of film...damn.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 3, 2013)

unpopular said:


> Arista Ortho Litho Film 2.0 24 in. x 100 ft. Roll | Freestyle Photographic Supplies
> 
> for example.
> 
> ...



Cool, I just ordered 10 rolls.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2013)

^^^ LOL - well? the OP asked!


----------



## table1349 (Jul 3, 2013)

unpopular said:


> ^^^ LOL - well? the OP asked!



I was thinking that with an xacto knife a strait edge and a leather hole punch I could turn it into 35mm film on the cheap.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2013)

There are other graphic art films. But a lot of them are really weird, frequently designed for IR laser imagesetters. I have no idea how well they'd develop out in photochemistry, or if they are silver-based at all.

Imagesetting Film | Lowest Prices on Imagesetter Film

If you can find some on ebay for cheap, might be fun to play with. I had a few rolls, but never got around to playing with it and ended up getting stored in poor conditions and just threw it away.

If in doubt though, rodinal!


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^ LOL - well? the OP asked!
> ...



LOL! At least it's ortho. If it were Pan you'd have to have a truckload of band-aids near by.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 3, 2013)

So, a roll of 120/35mm (same area) is roughly 80 square inches ...right?

If you cut that thing into ten 2x10 foot rolls, it would be (per roll) 2880 square inches (36 times the area of a 120 roll).  Yeah, you'd be going through the chemicals pretty quickly...


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2013)

I used to process 11x14" industrex direct x-ray film. Granted, this was a thick, VERY dense emulsion on both sides of the base (weird), that stuff just ATE fixer.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 3, 2013)

Uh, the RZ/RB system is hard to explain, but the emulsion is not dragged across anything. Here is a crude picture:


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 3, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Uh, the RZ/RB system is hard to explain, but the emulsion is not dragged across anything. Here is a crude picture:
> 
> View attachment 49133


Oh okay, no that makes perfect sense.  I assume you could make the sides of the plate rounded too to prevent extreme radius bending.

Thanks!


----------



## amolitor (Jul 3, 2013)

Yeah, there's rollers and crap in the obvious places. The whole thing is a dang work of art, really.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Oh okay, no that makes perfect sense.  I assume you could make the sides of the plate rounded too to prevent extreme radius bending.
> 
> Thanks!



IIRC this kind of transport usually has rollers on the plate and the film transports up at about a 45° angle before being pulled across the pressure plate. Bear in mind, the films you'll have access to in this size will be pretty flexible, especially if you use the imagesetter films as they usually go into machines that transport, print, process and dry in one continuous movement.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2013)

Imagesetter Film IR for Ecrm Agfa etc 13 3 x 100 Spec 867 New | eBay

Might be fun to play with, you'll need a suitable safelight, usually green iirc. No idea if you can develop it ... standby

ETA - yes, the developers all look like hydroquinone. Very dilute rodinal should work, though perhaps still pretty contrasty.


----------



## Light Guru (Jul 3, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> http://thefitnesstutor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Edited-Caveman-cartoon.jpg



Yup that abut sums up this thread.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2013)

^^ probably the best part is that it was done before ... back when you could still get Aereographic films. Even at the time I didn't really get it beyond the fact that it was a large format roll film camera, what was the point? couldn't you have always scanned large format negatives and call any old Omega D 4x5 with a decent lens a "gigapixel camera"?

Photographer Seeks Resolution


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 3, 2013)

> Even at the time I didn't really get it beyond the fact that it was a large format roll film camera, what was the point?


The point is being able to 

A) shoot more sheets of film with more convenience and less transport weight, and
B) As you say, scan or print for much higher resolution and all of the other associated benefits of LF film. Same reason anybody shoots LF film.

I agree that the "gigapixel project" marketing/hype is silly, since his film is no higher resolution than any other random 35mm off the shelf film, and that it in no way represents a "revolution" or anything. But that doesn't make it not worth doing or the images not cool. It just makes that guy kind of a tool and the reporters a little gullible.

Also, my goal was never WOW-ing the world with an amazing new invention.  Sure, it would have been cool if that were possible, but I very much suspected all along that it existed.  Hence the title "is there such a thing as large format roll film" not "OMG I'm going to invent large format roll film for the first time ever."  Now that I know for sure it exists, I still want to do it merely to have fun, to have what might end up being a more convenient camera (maybe not), and to be able to reap all of the typical benefits of LF photography in the balance. Also, I still get to make a unique object insofar as it will be handmade and the mechanism will be a little different than any other, even if the concept has been done.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 4, 2013)

Gav- well, you have to really understand that at the time it was pretty impressive. DSLRs were just really taking hold, and 6mp was considered really high end at the time. 4gp seemed like infinite resolution.

I am not sure how much weight you're really going to end up saving, to be honest. Even a 6cm rollfilm holder easily weighs about the same as four or five 4x5 film holders, each holding two exposures, and certainly just as bulky. My guess would be that for 8x10, this would be substantially moreso as 8x10 film holders are not significantly thicker - if at all - than 4x5 film holders, yet, an 8" roll film holder would be substantially bigger than a 6cm or 4" roll film holder. 

You MIGHT have a point if you could manage to load the thing in the field, but, that kind of adds another level of complexity, certainly nothing you couldn't overcome, though - really the least of your concerns...

But I have a feeling you'll quickly find that the weight of an 8" rollfilm holder would be counter productive, and that you can carry a lot of film plus a loading tent with similar weight ... and besides, I am not sure how much large format you've used, convenience isn't exactly the attraction.

THAT SAID - there are other alternatives, such as magazines.

Graflex Grafmatic 4x5 Cut Sheet Film Holder Magazine Works Great Septums OK | eBay

I have not ever used the Grafmatic, but I have used the older bag type:

Graflex Professional 4x5 Cut Film Magazine w 12 Septums 2 | eBay

These work by lifting each septum into the bag with a rod, and then pushing it to the back of the magazine. On the back of each septum was a number and on the back of the magazine was a red window, when properly ordered the windows would count down the exposure to zero. 

It takes some getting used to, but works extremely well, and used one for a few years before obtaining a proper view camera. These bag type magazines fit onto the now obsolete Graflex back, and not the modern Graflock back as some Grafmatics do, however, they are not complex pieces of gear and could easily be reverse engineered.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 4, 2013)

This thread reminds me of my boyhood dream of a gigantic miniature horse; basically a Shetland pony, but with the size of a Clydesdale, and the temperament of a Morgan. But that gave way to dreams of a more practical nature...dreams of a full-sized helicopter based on the anatomy of a dragonfly. A much better system than the silly rotor concept.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 4, 2013)

> an 8" roll film holder would be substantially bigger than a 6cm or 4" roll film holder.


My calculations earlier were already assuming an 8" roll film holder.  It would be about 1.5 lbs, or maybe up to 2-2.5 to allow for the convenience of a nested tube design more similar to normal roll film, that could be handled in the light of day (and that could be reloaded in light as you suggested). Although reloading isn't really the goal so much as having everything I want in there all at once (otherwise why not just use holders?), so I dunno if that's worth the bother and the weight. Could go either way.

I'm not sure why everybody is convinced that a few 8" plastic/aluminum tubes, a very slightly wider camera back, and sundry fasteners are going to weigh massive amounts... it's not a fear that really seems to add up.  By way of comparison, consider the extra %age of weight that a roll film system adds to a 35mm or MF camera. Not much. Maybe 10-25% depending on materials used elsewhere in the body. There's no reason why this wouldn't scale linearly (the material to build a camera twice the film size = 8x more material.  A roll system for twice the film size also = 8x more material)



> magazines


That's a nifty solution.  Thanks! 



> convenience isn't exactly the attraction.


Eh, right, but are people shooting LF* in spite of *the lack of convenience, or *because *of the lack of convenience ("romance" etc.)?


----------



## unpopular (Jul 4, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> > magazines
> 
> 
> That's a nifty solution.  Thanks!



Trust me, a far better one than what you are proposing. I don't think you really are appreciating the complexity of what you have in mind - every element from the processor to the rollfilm holder itself to how you'd obtain appropriate sized bulk film is going to just be an uphill battle.

Not to mention with roll film you loose the ability to process each exposure individually allowing you to utilize the Zone System more effectively.



Gavjenks said:


> > convenience isn't exactly the attraction.
> 
> 
> Eh, right, but are people shooting LF* in spite of *the lack of convenience, or *because *of the lack of convenience ("romance" etc.)?



My point is that carrying around film holders is the least of the inconvenience involved with large format. It's really not that big of an issue by comparison to everything else. You just strap them together with a rubber band and stick them in your backpack. Ten 4x5 film holders each holding two sheets of film would weigh maybe a pound at most.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 4, 2013)

The idea was not to purchase roll/bulk film.  It was to take standard LF sheet film and attach it semi-automatically at home base (i.e. with a jig to allow me to do it in darkness) to either the next sheet of film, or a polyester (or otherwise similar most likely to the film itself) substrate, which gets rolled into the feeder roll, with a leader remaining.  Then lights can go on, attach to other roll, load into camera.

The leading candidate for attachment I have considered is heated crimping, since you can buy polyester based sheet film, and polyester is heat deformable. Fast, very jig-automatable with no bending issues or scratching issues. Basically the roll passes through the jig, and has an L or U shaped bracket to let you blindly line up the film in the correct position, then a fixed position arm comes down and heat crimps the two together in maybe 30sec-60sec per sheet. The same jig also has a spot to punch a semi-hole on the edge of the roll where the film is attached, so that later on you know where film is by touch, and can shear it into individual sheets again with a paper cutter or sliding razor type of deal for traditional individual processing, with no additional special equipment.

You can buy 0.002" x 40" x 100' polyester film cheaply enough to add only *$0.07* per shot to the sheet film cost itself. And since they come up to 100' feet long, you could have over 100 shots on a roll, theoretically.  I would probably do more like 25 to make engineering easier and for the obvious unnecessary-ness of 100 shot LF rolls.

I of course need to test this theory with some actual film.  i have other ideas for attachment if it doesn't work or seems too dangerous.  But if it does work, then this solves the film source problem, as well as the developing problem.



> Ten 4x5 film holders each holding two sheets of film would weigh maybe a pound at most.


12 8x10 holders (equiv. to above plan of 25 shot rolls) = about *$500* looking at ebay prices (compared to probably like $100-150 futzing around with my own designs for the roll mechanism alone and such), and according to LF forums, they weight about 2 pounds each for the affordable ones (which makes sense since the 4x5s i have used are about half a pound each and are 1/4 the size). So you'd be looking at *20-ish pounds*, or the weight of a tent, whichever is lighter, to hold the equivalent of my maybe 2 pound roll.

...This is looking more and more like an actual serious upgrade that would make much more of a a real usage difference for 8x10...

Considering I could probably easily construct a wooden 8x10 camera under 20 pounds with tripod, this is potentially like a 50% weight savings for the whole kit, if you actually want to shoot that much film! Could easily start to make the difference between being able to carry the thing versus not.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 4, 2013)

Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent carbon based life forms on this planet.


----------



## Light Guru (Jul 4, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> The leading candidate for attachment I have considered is heated crimping, since you can buy polyester based sheet film, and polyester is heat deformable. Fast, very jig-automatable with no bending issues or scratching issues. Basically the roll passes through the jig, and has an L or U shaped bracket to let you blindly line up the film in the correct position, then a fixed position arm comes down and heat crimps the two together in maybe 30sec-60sec per sheet. The same jig also has a spot to punch a semi-hole on the edge of the roll where the film is attached, so that later on you know where film is by touch, and can shear it into individual sheets again with a paper cutter or sliding razor type of deal for traditional individual processing, with no additional special equipment.



Umm yea ok sure give that a try. 

The more you attempt to explain how you are going to do this the more obvious it is that you are just looking for the most difficult, the most convoluted, and a way that has more potential problems then sending a man to the moon. 

If your main goal is to tinker trying to build something them fine have at it, but if your main goal is to photograph and improve as a photographer then the thousands of hours your going to have to spend getting your contraption to actually work would be better spend out with your camera actually photographing things.


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 4, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > The leading candidate for attachment I have considered is heated crimping, since you can buy polyester based sheet film, and polyester is heat deformable. Fast, very jig-automatable with no bending issues or scratching issues. Basically the roll passes through the jig, and has an L or U shaped bracket to let you blindly line up the film in the correct position, then a fixed position arm comes down and heat crimps the two together in maybe 30sec-60sec per sheet. The same jig also has a spot to punch a semi-hole on the edge of the roll where the film is attached, so that later on you know where film is by touch, and can shear it into individual sheets again with a paper cutter or sliding razor type of deal for traditional individual processing, with no additional special equipment.
> ...




Ahh, let the guy tinker.  He's obviously smart enough to understand the simple cost of burning through 20 or 30 sheets of 8X10 a day would drive most people to penury and thus makes this project an exercise in creativity more than an attempt at furthering photography.

Having said that I should note that doing something for the sake of doing it sometimes has the benefit of broadening your experience and leading to solutions to other problems that would not have occurred without that prior experience.

So, tinker on Buba!


----------



## Designer (Jul 4, 2013)

And now for something completely different:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/digital-discussion-q/256571-digital-backs-view-cameras.html


----------



## table1349 (Jul 4, 2013)

"A man that started in to carry a cat home by the tail was getting        knowledge that was always going to be useful to him, A man that carried a cat home by the        tail once has learnt sixty or seventy times as much as a person that hadn't and warn't ever going        to grow dim or doubtful. For one thing, he learns never to carry a cat home by the tail again.  If a man wants to carry a cat home by the tail I say let him.  It's not easy to be eccentric these days."  Mark Twain


----------



## unpopular (Jul 4, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> The idea was not to purchase roll/bulk film.  It was to take standard LF sheet film and attach it semi-automatically at home base (i.e. with a jig to allow me to do it in darkness) to either the next sheet of film, or a polyester (or otherwise similar most likely to the film itself) substrate, which gets rolled into the feeder roll, with a leader remaining.  Then lights can go on, attach to other roll, load into camera.



Ok. We've officially entered crazytown.

An 8x10" Grafmatic would super cool and far more feasible. You could 3D print the whole thing and assemble the parts in an hour. Once you fully understand how it works, you could have a basic magazine in a few weeks.

But this? This is just nutballz crazy.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 4, 2013)

...makes my _helicopter patterned after a dragonfly_ idea sound pretty smart...


----------



## unpopular (Jul 4, 2013)

and my music synthesizer based on holographic interference genius!

We all spend time daydreaming, and technically minded people will daydream about technical things. Knowing when something is just that and when to take it to the next level is key.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 4, 2013)

Why do I have the feeling that this thread will some day end up here?  The most stupid inventions (30 pics) - Izismile.com 

I like the illuminated tires the best.  :thumbup:


----------



## unpopular (Jul 4, 2013)

it's amazing that the OP has taken a _relatively_ simple idea that has successfully been done before: a large rollfilm format, and managed to clusterfutz it into something that would be absolutely ridiculous and never ever work.

I'm not sure what lead him to think that attaching sheet film to a polyester transport base would be a good idea. I'm guessing it was challenges involved with processing or concerns over film stock, but both issues are easier to remedy than the issues that would be created by stringing along sheets of film on a roll of polyester.

Hell, coating film with emulsion would be technically easier.

Maybe it's unpatriotic to be such a naysayer to someone's dreams on the fourth of July. But no, this latest incantation would never work.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 4, 2013)

Hehe, that's okay, I didn't expect you all to give a big thumbs up.

It's going to cost me all of about $6 to test the attachment method on some throwaway pieces of film in the light, and then slide the two across a shoebox or whatever is handy to see if they can still be made flat after that, or if it warps it or something.  If it works, then the whole thing will almost certainly work, and if it doesn't, I'm out $6. I'll post the results here when I get around to it, for the amusement of the peanut gallery 

Note that I have successfully built a wooden laptop before and am in the process of making a homemade 4-octave pipe organ (+ 2 octaves of mineral oil immersed bubble pipes that make bubbling noises in a given pitch instead of standard flute sounds!), which so far is working fine. A homemade LF roll honestly does not sound any more crazy or difficult.

Also, if you build a roll camera, and it doesn't work well, you can always just chisel a mortise into it, etc. and use holders (I will take that into account), so as to have not wasted the whole project.  I usually try to design in some way to salvage my time and effort like that for a particularly crazy project.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 4, 2013)

You're going to need some really big spools... Wouldn't you need something somewhat larger than 8" so that each frame (or in this case sheet of film) has some space around it to support/position and transport it thru a camera? I'd think the spools would need to have posts with a fairly large diameter because you probably wouldn't want the film to curl too much; and the circular ends would need to be large enough to hold a long length of film wound on it. So that would seem to add extra space that would be needed in a camera to hold the rolls of film - 12 images on a roll would be 10" (+space in between) times 12 ... that's going to be a long roll of film - if you only make it long enough for a few sheets why bother? individual sheets would seem to be more efficient. 

To make prints, even putting a strip of 35mm film in a negative carrier it tends to curl enough that it doesn't lay flat til you close the carrier and sandwich it in. I would think trying to roll larger sized film would make it that much harder to keep it flat after it's exposed and developed to be able to get a good quality print from it.

Ilford just ended their annual ULF (Ultra Large Format) ordering process at the end of June (which actually includes films that aren't necessarily large format), and I don't remember offhand noticing if any rollfilms were listed, but on their site their product list includes longer rolls of film (most don't show up as being regularly in stock). 

What you're describing reminds me of the Polaroid roll films, where as the photo would be pulled out of the camera it would detach from the roll and apparently self develop the way that the peel-apart film does now. I don't know offhand what size those rolls were but certainly not close to large format size. 

I think with this project you might just end up finding out why sheet film is in sheets instead of rolls.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 4, 2013)

> Wouldn't you need something somewhat larger than 8"


Yes. Probably 9-9.5" is sufficient. And the extra 1-1.5" does not have to be housed inside the camera box necessarily. 



> You're going to need some really big spools..


0.007" is the thickness of film + transport medium. Or 0.004-5" if roll film is bought commercially.

For 25 shots per roll, and at minimum 1.25" inner roll diameter to avoid damage, excel calculates (using turn-by-turn calculations of increasing diameter) 1.936" final rolled up diameter. So a 2" inner diameter tube would sufficiently house a fully wound 21 foot long, 25 shot spool that started with a 1.25" outer diameter spindle.  Commercially bought film would of course have more clearance than this, and would allow a narrower tube. Not bad at all.

The spindle on 35mm rolls is significantly smaller than 1.25" and the film base for LF is only about 50% thicker than 35mm film.  So I think that more than doubling the diameter for 50% more thickness should be plenty sufficient to avoid damage. Though I need to test this. This is also actually thinner than I originally estimated by a lot.

And aluminum turns out to be a much better option than the PVC I originally thought of:

2 x 9.5" x 2" ID x 1/32" aluminum tube  + 2 x 9.5" x 1.25" OD x 1/32" aluminum tube = *~0.7 pounds of aluminum. *Round it up to *1 pound* for rollers alone since I also need rollers to feed it onto the ground glass. With the weight of the extra wood, etc., I'm still easily way way ahead on weight from holders.



> on their site their product list includes longer rolls of film (most don't show up as being regularly in stock).


Yeah I found a couple things like this based on earlier comments, but couldn't find very much that seemed reliably for sale. I suppose I should try contacting the company directly and asking. Goes on the list.



> I think with this project you might just end up finding out why sheet film is in sheets instead of rolls.


Quite possibly!



> I would think trying to roll larger sized film would make it that much harder to keep it flat after it's exposed and developed to be able to get a good quality print from it.


Either scanning or contact prints (which are pretty useful at 8x10) can potentially solve this. The scanner lid or, in the case of a print the glass plate holding the photo paper and negative together, would maintain flatness.  So not too terribly concerned about this.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 4, 2013)

On a related note, does anybody happen to know how 35mm or MF cameras manage to advance the film exactly one frame each pull of the lever?

I know it has sprocket holes, but how do those sprocket holes continue to line up correctly as the thickness of the film increases around the spindle? It should be pulling larger lengths of film per revolution as the thickness increases, which would seem like it would jam it at face value.

Are the sprocket holes in film spaced further apart as you advance further in the roll, or something?  My film camera has a new roll of film in it right now so I can't look at it =P

Diagram:



I mean, I could certainly just solve this by calculating out how much the pull changes every turn, and pre-punching the roll substrate at those intervals, so that 2 turns always = 1 sheet and I can line it up in the dark just fine.  But if there is an easier way, I would prefer not always doing that.  Also, it is wasteful of roll length.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 4, 2013)

..................


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 4, 2013)

If you're going to basically glue the sheets together, the glue will obviously have to be flexible once cured ("super glue" won't work).

3M makes a few adhesives that would probably actually work well (imagine industrial strength contact cement) - but it's kind of messy, takes a long time to cure, and I would never want to have to apply it in the dark...



As far as the diameter of the film on the take-up spool increasing as you advance the film, I don't think that necessarily matters at all.
The take-up spool doesn't have to be the thing actually advancing the film.  It just needs to be there to hold it.  Or, it could have a clutch that would free it up after a certain amount of film has moved across the mask (some sort of roller touching the edge of the film could be used to measure how much film has advanced), stopping it from advancing more film.

Not sure how 35mm or 120 cameras actually take care of that, but if you had access to the drawings of one, or were willing to take one apart - it should be pretty easy to figure out.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 4, 2013)

I thought you were some kind of mechanical engineer??? There's no need to calculate ever-increasing film takeup spool diameter. There's a much simpler and more-reliable, more-versatile method that allows for many slightly different film thicknesses and reliable,accurate film frame spacing on rolls of any length from 12 to 72 frames, and even worked on long-roll 35mm cameras equipped with HUGE magazines full of bulk 35mm film.

35mm film has a standardized perforation spacing, called Kodak Standard pitch &#8211; KS-1870. This world-wide standard allows for the design of cameras that simply advance each frame by eight perforations, or approximately 38 millimeters. The gap between the frames is supposed to be two millimeters.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 4, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Are the sprocket holes in film spaced further apart as you advance further in the roll, or something?  My film camera has a new roll of film in it right now so I can't look at it =P



8 holes per frame, for the entire length of the film.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 4, 2013)

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 and works like a clock escapement, or what?


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 4, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Jul 4, 2013)

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 (Jul 4, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> 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 (Jul 4, 2013)

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 (Jul 4, 2013)

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


----------



## unpopular (Jul 4, 2013)

why are you so stuck on roll film?


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 4, 2013)

unpopular said:


> 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 (Jul 4, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > why are you so stuck on roll film?
> ...





Gavjenks said:


> 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 (Jul 4, 2013)

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 (Jul 4, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > why are you so stuck on roll 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 (Jul 4, 2013)

^
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 (Jul 4, 2013)

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 (Jul 4, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Okay, so vote #2 for stiffness


Make that 3 



Gavjenks said:


> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jul 4, 2013)

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 (Jul 4, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> "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.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 4, 2013)

Light Guru said:


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



Because it's probably impractical for the *average/typical usage case and average/typical motivations*.

Which, again, may not be the same as my motivations or usage. Large companies manufacturing consumer goods don't cater to weird gizmo tinkerers or people who want to use their cameras for strange experiments.  For the vast majority of photography history, LF camera makers would have been catering to basically landscape and portrait professionals, and that's about it.  Nowadays it's probably still almost all portrait and landscape professionals, although more niches and artistic uses, and what "landscape" means of course will have crept in, percentage wise.

This does not match my profile very well.  I'm not looking for the most efficient solution in terms of investment and profit for selling images to the public to hang on their walls. So the actions of an industry that HAS been focused on that do not necessarily apply to me. Things like pure investment return, streamlined workflow, etc.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 5, 2013)

For example, it might just so happen that, let's say, a camera with a roll system is about 50% more expensive to make with the additional moving parts, etc.  And maybe it could be made 300% faster to reload the next shot.

For your typical landscape/portrait shooter, 300% faster shot reload is fairly MEANINGLESS. If you took 3 hours to hike to some location and set up for one particular shot, then why do you care if you can take another shot in 3 seconds versus 10 seconds? You don't, so of course, you wouldn't be willing to pay 50% more for your camera.

But that doesn't necessarily make it objectively more impractical!  It could potentially weigh just as much and work just as flawlessly, etc. It could, theoretically, be equally or more physically practical in EVERY way.  Yet people still wouldn't buy it and it wouldn't live on in history, simply because the cost wouldn't be justified.


Greatest market popularity does not necessarily = highest performance. Same reason why we don't all own 1DX's


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 5, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Same reason why we don't all own 1DX's



There may also be a few other factors...


Also, I don't think you can really say that more moving parts = more expensive camera.  There's no reason this imaginary camera has to cost 50% more.  The most expensive camera I own is also the most basic one, with the fewest features.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 5, 2013)

... or you could use proven, existing technology that works just fine and accomplishes all the things you want to more reliably, with fewer moving parts and less weight.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 5, 2013)

unpopular said:


> fewer moving parts


Yes, but if done well, this isn't necessarily a problem for usage, so much as for design effort.  But design is fun for me, so I can't really count it as a cost.



> and less weight.


Speculative/why? At 1 lb. each per side/sheet for a typical 8x10 holder, the holders already outweigh an aluminum roll system and the larger camera to house it at about 3-4 shots.

Grafmatic type solution is niftier, but is apparently not very much lighter than the equivalent number of normal holders in actual practice.



> There may also be a few other factors...


Quite possibly!  But since half a dozen people don't seem to be able to name many of them specifically, I'm doubting a little bit that there are.

Other than the well-rehashed stiffness (getting it to roll, getting it to lie flat later)
And alleged weight.  However, doing the math in multiple ways, the holders for equivalent number of shots always end up adding up to multiple times more weight than this. For 4x5 or 8x10.

These are literally the only two concerns that I can find that have been mentioned that actually might apply to rollfilm in general versus sheet film, and not just one particular plan of mine versus some other possible plan. I just flipped back through all the pages and didn't see any others.  May have missed one, lemme know if so.  Most of the rest of the comments are (admittedly amusing) snide comments, suggestions to go buy commercial products which is just not something I'm interested in, helpful tips, or links to multiple past LF rollfilm solutions by others.



Edit: Oh also the annoyance of having to cut a roll up if you want to process sheets individually.  Fair enough, and a legitimate difference, but fairly trivial. A paper cutter makes short work of even a massive roll in minutes.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 5, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Edit: Oh also the annoyance of having to cut a roll up if you want to process sheets individually.  Fair enough, and a legitimate difference, but fairly trivial. A paper cutter makes short work of even a massive roll in minutes.



Good luck guessing where one frame stops and the next starts, prior to developing, and in the dark.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 5, 2013)

It seems like 35mm film must advance the same amount each time due to the sprocket holes. I wonder if 120 advances the same length of film each exposure or gradually increases as it winds around the spool (since you're using the numbers on the paper backing to determine when it's advanced the right distance)? I don't know if you could tell without exposing a roll of film - you could measure the film with the back of the camera open I suppose from one number to the next and see if they're the same distance apart.

The thought had crossed my mind too that since sheet film has been used since early in photography that sometime someone must have thought of trying roll film... I would expect rolling large sheets of film wound that tightly would cause curling that would make it more difficult to work with than having it in a sheet format. I've had 35mm film developed and uncut (like when I did pinhole shots) and it curls like the dickens and takes some doing to keep it flat - I would think larger film in a long roll would be that much harder to use, or that large sheets of film that have been wound in a roll for any length of time would be hard to work with.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 5, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Good luck guessing where one frame stops and the next starts, prior to developing, and in the dark.



This is actually the main reason why i originally thought of having a roll of polyester to attach them to.  Not so much to be cheap, but to be able to precisely measure things in the daylight and punch tactile guide marks in the polyester at the right locations (much like the perforated tactile indicator on a piece of sheet film to tell you which way it goes).

1) Run finger along edge of polyester roll until feel prepunched bump. 
2) Push until it lines up with a screw head that indicates the line of the paper cutter.
3) Move hands out of the way and cut with paper cutter.Sh

Should be accurate to a millimeter or three, and doable at a pace of 10 seconds a sheet or so.




I also want to be able to precisely measure out the  geometric spacing so as not to have to build a crazy ratchet transmission sprocket system thing. Punch holes also would indicate this spacing in the dark.


----------



## Light Guru (Jul 5, 2013)

I'm guessing Gav is the type of guy that would spend 500 hours making a 50 step rube goldberg machine just to turn on a light switch. 

If you want to make your life more difficult then go for it. 

And remember this is coming from a guy who uses a large format camera as his primary camera.  Large format photography is a lot of work already, and you are taking it to a whole new level of difficulty, the contraption want want to build and especially your desire to attach individual sheets of large format film to something else just so you can roll it up just gives so many opera unites for things to go wrong.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 5, 2013)

I quite admit the rolling on top of another thing may not be the most brilliant idea.  But still going to give it a try with my test sheets.  It does solve a lot of issues on the off chance it works.


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 5, 2013)

This thread is fun.

As far as film flatness goes if you could find some really good (read that as in best filter type) glass you could use the back of that as your basis for the film plane and simply clamp the film to the glass from the back with a plate after you've gotten the film advanced.

You'd also be doing yourself a favor if you incorporated a way to cut and remove the exposed film in case you didn't want to shoot the whole roll.  You'd then have to figure a way to reattach the unused portion to your take-up spool.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 5, 2013)

To prototype this thing, I'd probably just build the rolling mechanism, and focus using an external device. Like, measuring the lens to film plane distance accurately, or a rangefinder.

Building something that lets me see through the thing to a ground glass, and then mechanically moves a bunch of just around to bring the film into the same plane, seems to be a separate problem from the rolling device. One problem at a time, I say.

On the other hand, the point is to have fun, so why not just throw stuff up there? WOO!

Here's a whacky idea for you:

Your substrate that you're fastening these sheets of film to? Get some of that thin magnetized crap they use for fridge magnets, and fasten an array of strips of that material to the back. Then make your pressure plate out of of steel. Easy to machine it flat, and it'll hold your film down. Engineered right (which might include a permanent spacer-film to get the right degree of stiction), your film should still slide laterally when you roll, but still lie flat. My first thought was an electromagnet, but I am pretty sure the flexible magnet material actually alternates polarity across the sheet, so that probably would not work.

You might actually get *better* film flatness with this gizmo, if you did that.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 5, 2013)

If you would like to have a better understaning of why there are people that insist on doing crazy things all we have to do is look to our primate cousins.  The average person when they peel a banana grasps the stem and tears the banana open, or at least tries to tear it open.  We all know that does not always work. 

Now watch a primate with a banana.  They turn it, to us humans, upside down and pinch the bottom.  It always spitls open and they peel it from there with no difficulty.  They never look to reienvent the wheel.  They are just interested in food, rest and sex and not always in that order.  


Tell me, who is the smarter creature in this equation?


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 5, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> If you would like to have a better understaning of why there are people that insist on doing crazy things all we have to do is look to our primate cousins.  The average person when they peel a banana grasps the stem and tears the banana open, or at least tries to tear it open.  We all know that does not always work.
> 
> Now watch a primate with a banana.  They turn it, to us humans, upside down and pinch the bottom.  It always spitls open and they peel it from there with no difficulty.  They never look to reienvent the wheel.  They are just interested in food, rest and sex and not always in that order.
> 
> ...



You are leaving out the important detail that the monkey will probably throw that same banana at his friends after it has already been digested.  Kind of throws a monkey wrench into the equation, one might even say...


----------



## table1349 (Jul 5, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > If you would like to have a better understaning of why there are people that insist on doing crazy things all we have to do is look to our primate cousins.  The average person when they peel a banana grasps the stem and tears the banana open, or at least tries to tear it open.  We all know that does not always work.
> ...




Major Wars and Conflicts 	
 

 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]*War* [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]*Date(s)*[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Egyptian Invasion of Asia[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1479 bc[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Persia Empire Wars[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]546 - 539 bc[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Persian-Greek Wars[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]499 - 401 bc[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Peloponnesian Wars[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]460 - 404 bc[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Greek City-States Wars[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]395 - 362 bc[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Alexander & Macedonian Conquests[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]338 - 322 bc[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Hellenistic Monarchies, Wars of the [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]318 - 170 bc[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Punic War, First[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]264 - 241 bc[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Punic War, Second[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]219 - 202 bc[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Invasion of the Hsiung-nu[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]203 - 200 bc[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Third Macedonian War[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]168 bc[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Punic War, Third [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]149 - 146 bc[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Gallic Wars[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]58 - 52 bc[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]First Triumvirate, Wars of the[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]53 - 45 bc[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Second Triumvirate, Wars of the[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]43 - 31 bc[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Roman Empire Wars[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]27 bc - 476 ad[/FONT]
  [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Byzantine Empire Wars [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]395 - 1453[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Muslim Conquests [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]624 - 982[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Charlemagne, Conquests of [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]773 - 796[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]German States, Wars of the [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]891 - 1789[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Norman Conquest of England [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1066[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Crusades [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1096 - 1254[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]English-French Wars [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1194 - 1337[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Mongol Wars [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1214 - 1402[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]English Scottish Wars [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1314[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Hundred Years War [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1337 - 1453[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Venetian-Turkish Wars [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1416 - 1573[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Wars of the Roses [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1455 - 1487[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Spanish-Moslem Wars [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1481 - 1492[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Spanish Conquest of Mexico [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1519 - 1521[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Mogul-Afghan War [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1526[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Spanish Conquest of Peru [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1531 - 1533[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]English Spanish Wars [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1588[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Thirty Years' War [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1618 - 1648[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]English Civil Wars [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1642 - 1651[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Spanish-French Wars [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1648 - 1659[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Jacobite Rebellions [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1689 - 1745[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Great Northern War [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1700 - 1721[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Spanish Succession, War of the [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1701 - 1714[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]French and Indian War [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1754 - 1763[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Seven Years' War [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1756 - 1763[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]American Revolution [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1775 - 1783[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]French Revolutionary Wars [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1792 - 1802[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Napoleonic Wars [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1803 - 1814[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Indian Wars in United States [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1811 - 1887[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]War of 1812 [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1812 - 1815[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Peruvian War of Independence [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1824[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Texan War of Independence [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1836[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Afghan-British War, First [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1839 - 1842[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Mexican War [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1846 - 1847[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]American Civil War [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1861 - 1865[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Seven Weeks' War [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1866[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Franco-Prussian War [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1870 - 1871[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Afghan-British War, Second [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1878 - 1880[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Zulu-British War [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1879[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Sudan, War for the [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1881 - 1899[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Spanish-American War [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1898[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Boer War, Second [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1899 - 1902[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Russo-Japanese War [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1904 - 1905[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]World War I [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1914 - 1918[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Afghan-British War, Third [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1919[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Turkish War of Independence [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1919 - 1923[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]World War II [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1939 - 1945[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]French Indochina War [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1946 - 1954[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Arab-Israeli War [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1948 - 1949[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Korean War [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1950 - 1953[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Hungarian Uprising [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1956[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Vietnam War [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1965 - 1975[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Six-Day War [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1967[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]October War [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1973[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Iran-Iraq War [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1980 - 1988[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Persian Gulf War [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1991[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Terrorism, War on [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]2001 - 
[/FONT]

Just to name a few of the more remembered wars. 

Details aren't your strong suit.  Not one of the above was started by primates.  Humans throw more S#!+ around than all the primates that ever existed.  Plus primates get over a little $#!+ slinging very quickly and all is good. Not something that can be said about humans now is it? :lmao:


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 5, 2013)

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but primates start wars all the time. Gangs of chimps routinely raid other territories, tear off enemy limbs, rape their females, etc. For no particularly necessary reason other than likely territorial greed etc.

I cant give you a list, because chimpanzees dont tend to write down notes about their conflicts. But they are just as vicious and gory as we are if not more so per capita

So we *both* start wars. And only one of us routinely flings actual feces.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 5, 2013)

It's hard to really say if primate teritorial disputes are 'wars' in the same sense that we think of them as humans. Certainly at the basis of all wars, it's about resources - be it land, food, energy or spiritual/religious influence.

But what primates clearly lack is the ability to think about these disputes in terms of what will benefit them in the long term. There is a diference between fighting a strategic war with specific desired outcomes of objectives involving making specific choices about who to attack, who to ally with and what methods to take, and responding to stimuli through instinct. It is also unclear if other primates work together for the common good of the group - which is a cornerstone of human warfare - or merely responding to their own interests in a common way.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 5, 2013)

I wonder if primates were restrained to a narrow band of territory, perhaps by a long roll of polyester rope, if perhaps they might not suddenly become better citizens, and better neighbors. They would of course, have to be tied to this long rope in the dark, and held in check by a rope support system. It seems imminently practical, and like one hell of a good idea,methinks!


----------



## table1349 (Jul 5, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but primates start wars all the time. Gangs of chimps routinely raid other territories, tear off enemy limbs, rape their females, etc. For no particularly necessary reason other than likely territorial greed etc.
> 
> I cant give you a list, because chimpanzees dont tend to write down notes about their conflicts. But they are just as vicious and gory as we are if not more so per capita
> 
> So we *both* start wars. And only one of us routinely flings actual feces.



Seriously..... SERIOUSLY???

You are trying to equate the willful well thought out and planned geo/political acts of conquest, slavery, extermination and destruction by man with the natural process of survival of the fittest of all creatures in nature, even in those living in communal societies.    

What you call "territorial greed" has been shown to be part of overall survival.  Chimps with larger feeding territories and an abundance of food in turn have larger females.  These females in turn have shorter cycles between mating periods and an increased survival rate of their young.   As for routinely doing this, as you like to say, where are the statistics.  The Gombe Stream incident that was recorded by Jane Goodall was a unique incident even among the primate world.  It also seems to be unique to the chimps in East Africa, as the West African Coast Chimps do not exhibit this sort of violence.  Neither do the Bonobos, a close relative of the Chimp.  Add to the fact that the very group of Chimps that exhibited this behavior and has been most written about is the same group of Chimps that Jane Goodall had social human interaction with.  That has been a major source of contention in the scientific community since this was first observed and recorded.  

What you haven't shown is a Chimp or Primate Auschwitz, Treblinka or Birkenau where the Chimps or any other Primates attempted to eradicate an entire species for no other reason than insane racism.  Nor have I seen evidence of Spider Monkeys, Chimps or any other Primates raiding other territories to take another group of primates or any other animal as slaves, to work for them and provide for their masters, to barter them off as property or extract tribute.   Nowhere have I seen or read of any primate, or any other animal for that matter willfully destroying the territory of another, rendering it a useless waste such as Dresden, or the scorch and burn tactics that man has used through history.  They do exhibit the behavior of taking to survive.  Survival of the fittest in the animal world is far different than what Man considers survival of the fittest.  Perhaps your context of "warfare" is based on your experience or possible lack there of.  

Human vanity likes to put things into the context of Human experience such that it is, even when it doesn't fit.  That is the nature of being human.  Not every act of violence in the human nor the animal world is an "act of war."  

As Mark Twain observed, "It is said that Man is the noblest work of God.  Well now, who found that out."


FYI.  Dogs don't really do this either.  








But it would be kind of cool and create a whole new market for velvet paintings.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 5, 2013)

impractical tinkerers make for bad anthropologists.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 5, 2013)

unpopular said:


> It's hard to really say if primate teritorial disputes are 'wars' in the same sense that we think of them as humans. Certainly at the basis of all wars, it's about resources - be it land, food, energy or spiritual/religious influence.
> 
> But what primates clearly lack is the ability to think about these disputes in terms of what will benefit them in the long term. There is a diference between fighting a strategic war with specific desired outcomes of objectives involving making specific choices about who to attack, who to ally with and what methods to take, and responding to stimuli through instinct. It is also unclear if other primates work together for the common good of the group - which is a cornerstone of human warfare - or merely responding to their own interests in a common way.



Primates "clearly lack" this?  What are you basing that on?  Their raids do in fact benefit their group as well as its individuals in the long term. And they are in fact fairly strategic (not as strategic as ours, but is that for lack of a strategic mind, or lack of pencil and paper to draw out and share plans?) So how can you possibly say whether or not this was planned or just coincidental?  Did you interview the raiding chimps? 

The way you state it later in the same paragraph is much more reasonable: "It is also unclear if..."  <--yes, this.  We don't really know, because you can't exactly get an IRB to approve controlled studies on chimps mangling and raping one another. All we have are uncontrolled observations in the field.



> I wonder if primates were restrained to a narrow band of territory,  perhaps by a long roll of polyester rope, if perhaps they might not  suddenly become better citizens, and better neighbors. They would of  course, have to be tied to this long rope in the dark, and held in check  by a rope support system. It seems imminently practical, and like one  hell of a good idea,methinks!



Well we have these things called fences   Not sure what you're on about with the whole rope thing.  Anyway, yes, as you suggest, it seems clearly evident that well fed and looked after chimps with well defined territories are indeed much better citizens. As can be seen in any zoo or laboratory with chimps or other primates in it.  Occasional scuffles but rarely mortal attacks.  And of course, this lines up well with our own experience as humans.



> You are trying to equate the willful well thought out and planned  geo/political acts of conquest, slavery, extermination and destruction  by man with the natural process of survival of the fittest of all  creatures in nature, even in those living in communal societies.


Conquest, slavery, extermination, and destruction are all very well documented in the animal world, across many species. As to how "willful" any of it is is of course always a matter of speculation and inference at the end of the day, since ants and fish and birds and monkeys don't speak English.

But I'm not sure why willfulness matters much anyway in regard to this discussion. It started off in comparing non-human and human primates to one another on some sort of "goodness" scale.  And I'm not sure I see why it's particularly more or less "good" to have your family all murdered and dismembered / enslaved in front of you by a "willful" versus a non-"willful" agent. Seems pretty irrelevant to me, in addition to being almost impossible to study with high precision in the first place.



> What you call "territorial greed" has been shown to be part of overall survival.


*It is part of survival for humans, too.*  The more land and resources you have, the better you can arm yourself, the more resistant (statistically) you are to drought and famine.



> As for routinely doing this, as you like to say, where are the statistics.


Don't need stats because I agree with you: some populations aren't very violent at all.  Just like some human populations aren't nearly as violent as others. The particular groups of West African chimps that happen to be studied by anthropologists there might simply be the Canadians of the chimp world.  So?



> What you haven't shown is a Chimp or Primate Auschwitz


Auschwitz is a ridiculous thing to ever expect from primates purely for logistical reasons, alone.
Primates don't have railroads to move that many enemies into one place at a time.
Primates don't even have a means of travel to have even met that many enemies or know that that many other chimps EXIST
Primates don't have newspapers and radios to spread propaganda, even if they can communicate a call to violence in person.

This does not seem so much to do with humans by merit of being humans, so much as it has to do with humans having access to technology to let craziness spread more efficiently when everything lines up right.  If you look at tribal groups of humans, you don't see mass genocide, either.  A tribe may go kill everybody next door, but not launch global campaigns to kill more people.  

Is that because tribal people are just less "evil" or more moral than industrialized Germans?  Almost certainly not. It's much more probably because it's simply logistically impossible.



> Nor have I  seen evidence of Spider Monkeys, Chimps or any other Primates raiding  other territories to take another group of primates or any other animal  as slaves, to work for them and provide for their masters, to barter  them off as property or extract tribute.   Nowhere have I seen or read  of any primate, or any other animal for that matter willfully destroying  the territory of another, rendering it a useless waste such as Dresden,  or the scorch and burn tactics that man has used through history.  They  do exhibit the behavior of taking to survive.  Survival of the fittest  in the animal world is far different than what Man considers survival of  the fittest.  Perhaps your context of "warfare" is based on your  experience or possible lack there of.


Ants do pretty much all of those things. And that's just one biological family.
And again, your attempted distinction of "oh they do it to survive but we [implied] don't" is confusing at best. Almost everything we do as nations has survival benefits. Scorching land stops your enemies from getting resupplied (if you are defending), and makes them weaker and less likely to kill you.  or if you're invading and can't hold the territory (too far, etc.), scorching stops them from regrouping and retaliating, meaning you are more likely to survive.  Slaves are also obviously beneficial to one's survival: they provide labor without using as many resources as citizens, thus leading to more efficient usage of whatever you have and less likelihood of running out and dying off. Etc. etc.

There are some exceptions (religious wars over not very strategic land, holocausts, etc.), but the great majority of the time, it's prefectly rational, even if violent or "immoral."


----------



## amolitor (Jul 5, 2013)

You idiots got sidetracked on a stupid discussion that I am gonna guess exactly zero of you is remotely qualified to entertain opinions on.

What pisses me off is that my BRILLIANT MAGNET IDEA got lost in this mess.


----------



## runnah (Jul 5, 2013)

amolitor said:


> You idiots got sidetracked on a stupid discussion that I am gonna guess exactly zero of you is remotely qualified to entertain opinions on.



They should run for office, or at least become managers.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 5, 2013)

4x5 sheet film, when accidentally bent too much, develops nasty crescent, and sort of V-shaped marks that show up after development. As far as I know, all of Kodak's 4x5 sheet film is on their *Estar Thick Base*. This is not the same thing as 120 rollfilm--it's stiffer and thicker, for flatness. Because,surprise,surprise, it's not rollfilm..it's designed to STAY FLAT, in a film holder.

Here's a PDF file from 2010 listing some of the physical characteristics with very detailed measurements.

KODAK Publication No. TI-2598 - Google Search


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 5, 2013)

Screw war, let's get back to reinventing 4x5/8x10!

Magnets might work but I do hold a fondness for my idea of a clamp system to hold the film flat.

The biggest problem I see is that of not wanting to shoot the whole shebang at once but wanting to develop what you have shot in between time.

What about loading a box of film into one side and having a mechanism to place individual sheets into position as you 'advance' your film? That way you'd be able to keep your exposed film apart and even be able to switch film types as needed.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 5, 2013)

Magnets, smagnets.  There is one way and one way only to solve this crisis to the human race.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 5, 2013)

Mike_E said:


> Magnets might work


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 6, 2013)

amolitor said:


> You idiots got sidetracked on a stupid discussion that I am gonna guess exactly zero of you is remotely qualified to entertain opinions on.
> 
> What pisses me off is that my BRILLIANT MAGNET IDEA got lost in this mess.


Hey my day job is a research psychologist.  Although I don't work in an animal lab.

Anyway, I'm not sure I entirely understand the magnet idea. Isn't that stuff like, really really thick? I can't afford 21 feet of it if it is going to add a lot of width to the roll.



> Magnets, smagnets.  There is one way and one way only to solve this crisis to the human race.


My girlfriend has a signed roll of duct tape from them, hehe.



> What about loading a box of film into one side and having a mechanism to  place individual sheets into position as you 'advance' your film? That  way you'd be able to keep your exposed film apart and even be able to  switch film types as needed.


My original original idea was to have essentially a box of flim in a panel on the right and a box for exposed film in a panel on the left, and swing in, pick up, swing out, other side swings in, deposits, swings out.

But couldn't think of a way to actually affix the film well enough.  I even considered a hold in the side of the camera with a rubber glove that you could reverse to get out of the way when not in use, lol.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 6, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Hey my day job is a research psychologist.



You definitely joined the right forum then.


----------



## ianwartist (Jul 7, 2013)

Hello:

Have you heard of Alan Greene's excellent book "Primitive Photography"?  It covers, step-by-step, how to build two different types of LF cameras, as well as create your own lens from existing optical elements.  It also covers making your own Calotypes.  I used it as a guide to make my own 10x12" folding camera with a 400mm lens.  Like you, I enjoy making things, but they must also be operational.  I am in the middle of doing all of my tests with it, and they are coming along well.  It takes sheet film, so it may not be at all what you're interested in, but I mentioned it because of your interest in building.  Might be worth a look.

Thanks!







Gavjenks said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > You idiots got sidetracked on a stupid discussion that I am gonna guess exactly zero of you is remotely qualified to entertain opinions on.
> ...


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 10, 2013)

Update!

So i finally got some 4x5 in the mail to experiment with.  Results so far from strips cut from a test sheet:

*Wrapping* the film around a 1/8" tube --> film kinks into distinct angled kinks

Wrapping the film around a 1/4" tube (bic pen) --> when unrolled, it curls so much that when placed on a flat surface, it curls around and back over (>180 degrees).  Obvious film damage can be seen with the naked eye. 

Wrapping the film around a 3/4" tube (highlighter) --> when unrolled, on a flat surface, both edges rise up about 10mm from the table surface.  Not good for taking a flat photo even if held in place on both edges I'm guessing, probably damaging the film a little.

Wrapping the film around a 1 1/4" tube (dowel rod I have lying around - this was my planned roller diameter) --> when unrolled, on a flat surface, both edges rise up about 2.5mm from the table surface. Looks quite possible to flatten without much difficulty.  Certainly if using an air pressure system, and probably with edge guides.  I doubt the film is significantly damaged, but before making a camera, I will take some shots with pre-rolled film in a simple pinhole setup and develop them to look for stress lines or anything like that (will post here about it).

Wrapping around a 1 5/8" PVC tube --> 1.5mm of rise on each side when unrolled.

Original rolls were for a minute or two.  After an hour of being taped in place again, the 1 1/4" roll now rises 5mm when unrolled. And the 1 5/8" tube now rises to about 2.5mm.

I still have them back on the rolls now, and will check again tomorrow.


*Connection*:
Heat fusing was not so successful. However, I was simply using a homemade heated piece of angle metal heated in a stove, not anything like what I would actually use.  Just wanted to see if it was *trivially *doable.  It is not. Temperature needs to be much more exact (either nothing happens or it starts working but then bursts into flames for a fraction of a second then vaporizes over a range of about 50 degrees), so I need to ideally find a friend who has one of those bag sealers with even, controllable heat along the whole length, because I don't want to drop $100 on one just to find out it doesn't work. Might work just fine with the correct tool.  If so, I think I could get actually MORE usable film space than with a traditional holder, since it only needs to be fused on two ends, not the long ends. (4x4.75 or so instead of 3.75x4.75 or whatever)

Unexpectedly, stapling actually works pretty well, lol!! As long as the staple runs perpendicular to the direction of rolling (which I could do in a jig using this Cool Tools ? Mini Booklet Stapler ). It only distorts about 1/4" of film around the staple in either direction, so 4"x4" of the film would be unaffected, possibly 4.25" x 4" if I can get precision lining up (this represents 15% of film surface lost, versus about 8% lost in a traditional film holder). The piece of polyester it is attached to seems to effectively stop any scratching of other sheets of film top or bottom, at least to the naked eye.  I will also test this with a couple test sheets in a pinhole box before building anything serious of course. There may be microscopic scratching, or it may locally increase the radius of curvature of the sheet above it too much. One problem here is that i can't make it so that exactly 1 or 1.5 turns or whatever always = one shot.  I have to make it an odd amount, like 1.37 turns, so that staples dont all line up on top of one another and make the roll wonky shaped.  But that's not so bad if the top of the roller is marked off with hash marks and there's an indicator on the top of the camera so you can do 1.37 turns without thinking.

Also considering thread, if I can come up with a way of doing it in a jig in the dark easily.

Blerh... really hoping the heat method works with the right tool, though, cause these other ideas are pretty hackish.  Might come up with something elegant though.  Back to drawing board.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 10, 2013)

Honestly, for joining sheets of film, tape is probably best.  It's proven, it works, the only question is can you do it in the dark?


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 10, 2013)

Wow I'm an idiot, why did i not think of tape?  yes, I can easily do that in the dark. Well constrained roll + wooden jig + reference point to pull to each time before pressing down the last 1/4" or so should be pretty consistent.  + a guide in the same spot for running an X-acto blade to remove the ends flush.

Do you have any particular types of tape in mind?  I'm thinking packing tape for a good ratio of strength:thickness   Would need to probably order a special narrow roll from some weird place online though.  Never seen anything under about 2 inches in stores.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 10, 2013)

Hey Gaf - not to discourage you in this abserdity or anything, but I thought you might be interested in these:

shopgoodwill.com -- Search Results

They're going for peanuts and the price hasn't budged in the last couple days


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 10, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Do you have any particular types of tape in mind?



I do.  (I wouldn't have mentioned it otherwise.)

This is the tape I use for securing bulk loaded 35mm film to the spool, among other things.  Super strong, and very thin/flexible, and it sticks to film very well.

It might be expensive...  I can "acquire" it from work...

It's made by the Orcon Corporation - "Orcotape OT-6".  Orcon part number: 12206020.

It's paper backed (peel the paper off to get to the sticky side - that will probably make cutting it down to the right size easier - could be done ahead of time in the light).


Apparently OT-6 is obsolete for new design - the replacement is OT-16A - http://www.orcon-aerospace.com/datasheets/OT16A_092311_US.pdf

edit
If you don't mind waiting a week or so, I can mail you a roll so you can see if it's something that might work.  No idea what it actually costs, but with all the certifications and crap from the FAA, it's probably expensive.

A new roll is 60 yards, so even a partial roll would probably last you a while...


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 10, 2013)

Thanks for the heads up Unpopular. I bought one normal holder to make testing stuff easier in a pinhole box already, but a grafmatic may be too good to pass up regardless of my plans.

O||||O, will PM with further tape questions!


----------

