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

[amolitor]

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

 

[unpopular]

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]

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]

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

Yup that abut sums up this thread.

 

[unpopular]

^^ 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Light Guru]

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]

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.

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]

And now for something completely different:

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