why are there no 17.5mm movie cameras?

[half 35]

Generayrix X


Hi
Precise frame by frame is the key of motion film
And without perf holes, is praticaly impossible to make a precise advance, frame by frame.

regards,
Ricardo

[Herb Montes]

There is also film availability. I can walk into any mall, grocery store, pharmacy or department store and find 35mm still camera film. 220? I haven't seen any in a long time around here. I would have to go to a specialty photography store in a big city to find other camera films.

[GeneratriX]

Generayrix X


Hi
Precise frame by frame is the key of motion film
And without perf holes, is praticaly impossible to make a precise advance, frame by frame.

regards,
Ricardo

Hi Ricardo;

I think anyway could be possible to implement some kind of capstan/pinchroller system, based on step motors.

But yes; now thinking about it more deeply, I think can't be too easy for the kind of tool availables on my garage!

I'm positively sure that it could be built in a specialized micro-mechanics workshop, with a variable degree of complexity, depending of the kind of design used.

Well; just another idea to trash! :lol:
Greetings by Brasil from Argentine!
Cheers!

[GeneratriX]

There is also film availability. I can walk into any mall, grocery store, pharmacy or department store and find 35mm still camera film. 220? I haven't seen any in a long time around here. I would have to go to a specialty photography store in a big city to find other camera films.

Sorry Herb; I've not awared that it could be a trouble. Never mind!

Here in Rosario/Argentine I can find the rolls easily; so, I know now that I can consider me a lucky guy, since all my photograph gear is Praktisix/Pentacon 6x6 stuff! So, 120/220 film rolls are the rule for me, and I have some beautiful Carl Zeiss lenses.

I've looked on these rolls many times, fascinated by the highly ductile kind of support of such film. I'n fact I think it could be cutted easily once developed, by an arrange of blades in a custom metallic support, getting six strips of 9~10mm, to join it later on a single one.

But it was just thinking. Unnafortunately I can't get enough spare time to develop/build such camera.

I'll be looking forward anyway to see the Ricardo's invention, to see if I can make something similiar later.

Nice to talk with both!
Cheers!

[Herb Montes]

That's the result of the rising popularity of digital cameras. The last camera shop in my area closed down a year ago not being able to compete with the discount stores such as Wally-Mart. :?

Now I have to drive about 60 miles if I want to find camera gear or get it online. I can still find plenty of 35mm film for still cameras locally. Yeah, I used 220 and even 620 film many years ago, along with 110. One of my favorite little cameras to take snapshots with was a Kodak Pony.

[GeneratriX]

One of my favorite little cameras to take snapshots with was a Kodak Pony.

Yack! ...The 110 film was hard to get even years ago in my city! But I've used a few times a 110 little pocket too! ;)

Thanks to GOD, Kodak even consider well the 120 film format, and hast two wonderful lines to work with. Anyway, it is just a hobby for me.

I hope to see always more people giving their support to the chemical film, in the several formats that can exist today!

Long life to the FILM!
Digital Film is functional; Chemical Film is beautiful! ;)

[Herb Montes]

One of my favorite little cameras to take snapshots with was a Kodak Pony.

Yack! ...The 110 film was hard to get even years ago in my city! But I've used a few times a 110 little pocket too! ;)

Thanks to GOD, Kodak even consider well the 120 film format, and hast two wonderful lines to work with. Anyway, it is just a hobby for me.

I hope to see always more people giving their support to the chemical film, in the several formats that can exist today!

Long life to the FILM!
Digital Film is functional; Chemical Film is beautiful! ;)

Actually the Kodak Pony was a 35mm rangefinder camera. I used various cameras over the years and even tried Kodak's disc film system but did not find it very good for decent pictures. I prefer using film over digital because of the control I have over the final image. Having worked in a photolab I understand the challenges in good photgraphy and how digital cameras have put imaging skills in the hands of even the clumsy.

[GeneratriX]

Actually the Kodak Pony was a 35mm rangefinder camera. I used various cameras over the years and even tried Kodak's disc film system but did not find it very good for decent pictures. I prefer using film over digital because of the control I have over the final image. Having worked in a photolab I understand the challenges in good photgraphy and how digital cameras have put imaging skills in the hands of even the clumsy.

Hi Herb!,

I've never seen a Kodak Pony, so, I can't talk about it. But I've used several kinds of cameras, as follows (by chronological order):

Agfa 126
Fujica 35 RageFinder
Asahi Pentax Spotmatic
Asahi Pentax MX
Asahi Pentax ME Super
Mamiya C330
Leica DRP (1936)
Minolta GX
Miranda Sensomat
Pentacon Six TL
Praktisix IIA

...I'm pretty sure I've used to own some other cameras, but I can't remember now. :roll:
Anyway, I'm missing a lot my first Asahi Pentax Spotmatic (Super Takumar 1:1.8 / f 55mm)

As a dumb, I've selled when young (18 years old) these cam to pass to a ME Super. BIG MISTAKE!!! I've never found again in my way another 35mm camera so good as the Spotmatic!!! The Takumar optics are the best of the best! I've ven used Nikon and Canon, and the resolution and contrast of the Super Takumar is a prodigy hard to beat! I have even a lot of pictures with the Spotmatic in my files.

...Ahhh; Good times!

Leica DRP was very good, but mine was with a drilled courtain, and I've never fully enjoyed by this. But the Leitz Wetzlar optics are fines! I'll give it my second place behind the Spotmatic. The third place is for the Pentax MX.

...And if you talk about 120 film rolls, the Mamiya C330 was a very good Twin-Lens-Reflex; but I feels more comfortable with Single-Lens-Reflex, as the Pentacon/Praktisix, or some others. Optics are both good; the Carl Zeiss from the Pentacon seems a little bit sharper than the Sekor in Mamiya. But Sekor has a little bit more contrast.

Good to read that you have done photolab work! Really cool! ...My mind brings a lot of questions to make you in the future! :lol: ...Well, I don't like bugging you! ;)

What do you think? ...We'll see the day when fully digital paper prints can match a good chemical glossy paper print at 20"x20" ? :roll:

Good luck!
Cheers!

[Actor]

Being more specific, it has some advantages, as follows:

4) Black paper-back on one face of the film, protecting it.

Although 120 has backing end-to-end, the paper-back on 220 is only on the ends. For most of the length of the roll there is no backing. It's one of the tricks they use to get twice as much film on the roll.

[GeneratriX]

Being more specific, it has some advantages, as follows:

4) Black paper-back on one face of the film, protecting it.

Although 120 has backing end-to-end, the paper-back on 220 is only on the ends. For most of the length of the roll there is no backing. It's one of the tricks they use to get twice as much film on the roll.

Hey! Never mind! :roll: But thanks by your explanation! ;)
...I've only developed Black&White 120 years ago, but never tried with 220 film rolls. But hey; now that you mention it, of course has a lot of sense! ...But I've never seen an "un-rolled" (sorry, I can't find the right english word for this!) 220 film roll.

In fact, what I'm using more frequently here are packs of five 120 film rolls, as the Portra VC 160 flavor from Kodak.

Anyway, I don't know if the lack of paper-back could be a real trouble, compared to the not so wide availability of the 120/220 film in many places, to make some prototype of "short-shoots" motion picture camera... as pointed "Herb Montes".

I hope to be always able to get easily here my beloved 120/220 film rolls!

[half 35]

Hello all

I make 4 fotos of progress in my developmente works.
I dont know how to post images here. If anything have interest ,send-me a private mensage, and I send this foto by E-Mail.

Regards

Ricardo

[Carlos 8mm]

Precise frame by frame is the key of motion film
And without perf holes, is praticaly impossible to make a precise advance, frame by frame.

I saw many years ago in a British (I think) TV series about Cinematography Story, a 1910´s- 20´s special hand crank movie camera that used unperforated 35 mm film ( the same camera made the perforations while shooting or before). Very interesting machine.

Herb, do you know something about that camera :?:

Carlos.

[MovieStuff]

I saw many years ago in a British (I think) TV series about Cinematography Story, a 1910´s- 20´s special hand crank movie camera that used unperforated 35 mm film ( the same camera made the perforations while shooting or before). Very interesting machine.

That was the BioGraph camera. It used unperforated film to avoid infringing on Edison's patents. The loop hole was that Edison's patent said his camera used perforated film. While the act of perforating film was in the public domain and anyone could do it, actually using perforated film in a movie camera infringed on Edison's patents. Thus, the BioGraph camera would expose the film and then perforate it. From what I have seen of the mechanism, the perfing process happened almost simultaneously to the exposure but just a split second after to ensure decent registration. But it was enough after exposure to classify as a camera that was using "un-perfed" film to create the moving image. Edison's patent agents were notorious for enforcing his patents through violence, if necessary. It was serious business and came to be known in Hollywood as the "Patent Wars". There is a very good film about that time period called "Nickelodeon" by Peter Bogdonavich. A very under-rated movie with an improbable cast of Burt Renyolds, Tatum O'Neal, Ryan O'Neal, Brian Keith, Jack Ritter and others. Surprisingly very well done and funny.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[half 35]

Hello
I need the opinion of 35mm SLR cameras own,for my necessity of down the normal 50mm lens in the SLR, for more wide lens, arond 15mm focal lens.
Maybe an adapter for wide angle, or on fische-eye ,adapter?
Or another simple solution for this.
Any sujestion are ok.

Regardas
Ricardo

[GeneratriX]

Maybe an adapter for wide angle, or on fische-eye ,adapter?
Or another simple solution for this.
Any sujestion are ok.

Regardas
Ricardo

Absolutely not!

...You need a true focal distance for the lens, and even could be preferable the use of just a plain astronomy ocular (I don't know how to tell this term in english) with some perforated disk to fix the diagragm aperture by now.

I can't suggest the use of wide-angle converters in front of the 50 mm normal lens. Astronomy lenses are a good source for cheap and good quality optics. Or even better, get any used optic element from an unusuable projector or Super8 camera. Or just buy a cheap russian lens for projectors or cameras , they are with very high quality and rated between betters in their price range.

Whatever the solution you can choose; just check to see if are not vignetting (or dimmed image) on the corners and edges of the picture frame.

Is easy get adapted any of thoses lenses, just building an adapter with a camera body cap, with a proper method to fix it to the new lens, either screwing it directly, or by means of screws and a plate.

Good luck!