Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,971   Posts: 1,523,552   Online: 782
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3

    amend that

    You've really got me thinking now.
    I tried running an unperforated film through my Canon AE-1 today and I can't get it to work.
    It's all about pulling power - oo er - I'll wrack my brains and see if I can remember how I did it. It was quite a long time ago.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3

    Some progress

    I have remembered what the crucial difference is.
    You load the film in the dark without a cassette which eases the friction so that the wind on spool can take the weight of pulling the film through.
    Obviously this makes for more hassle but not as much as finding someone to manually perforate your films.
    HOWEVER, I have been loading and winding an unperforated film through both my FM2 and Canon AE-1 and one in five times the film gets stuck halfway through.
    The problem is that the leverage from the manual wind on device goes primarily to the sprocket spool rather than the wind on spool. I tried taping the end of the film to the sprocket spool and this would work if there was sufficient room around it to take the film.
    I can't believe that this is an insurmountable problem and I'm going to have a chat with camera mechanic I know. I think the answer is to somehow cement the wind on spool to it's shaft to give you greater leverage or maybe even replace the wind on spool with a different one.
    I will report back.

  3. #23
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,587
    Remember wind on spools use a clutch to allow them to turn backwards for rewinding. That limits their winding torque. Maybe that could be tightened some. I don't know if any cameras had a direct connection which would disengage with the rewind button, instead of a clutch, but that would work well.

  4. #24
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,349
    That clutch or rather friction clutch by which the take up spool is driven by the sprocket wheel in the classic set-up is not intended for rewinding, but to compensate that the take up spindle grows by taking up film and thus steadily the rotation ratio between both to has to change.
    For rewinding the sprocket wheel would be disengaged from the transporting/cocking lever.

    Another aspect is that some cameras have got a pair of pressure wheels which push the film onto the sprockets. With unperforated film this will make it difficult for the sprockets to rotate under film.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    799

    Unperforated 35mm film

    Most 35mm cameras would be damaged by forcing unperforated film through them. If you must use this film type in a regular 35mm camera then you might cut it down to 24mm. If the take-up spool can pull the film through properly then the sprockets will just turn without engaging any sprocket holes. The problem will then come if you want to use a small tank to develop the film. If you use roller or dip & dunk processing you will be OK. A reel or apron might leave marks in the image area.

  6. #26
    McFortner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Stockbridge, Georgia, U.S.A.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    316
    Images
    42
    You could always use it to respool 828 film rolls or 126 cartridges. Both use the same width film.

    Michael

  7. #27
    craigclu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    NW Wisconsin, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    765
    I've got an old Konica Autoreflex T that's rigged for non-perfed film. It's got an intermittent shutter and likely needs a cleaning. I've never used it and likely won't. If someone wants it, they can have it for the postage. It uses a shaft with 2 rubber friction rings in place of a sprocketed shaft. The camera doesn't look bad but has a slight lifting of the leatherette on one side of the front. Contact me by direct email if you'd like a new plaything.....
    Craig Schroeder

  8. #28
    Nano_Burger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1
    I've also wanted to use unperforated film in a 35mm camera. I've modified a few by wrapping electrical tape around the toothed spindle until the it becomes a friction drive instead of a sprocket drive. Will work, but you have to put up with non-standard spacing which sucks for scanning. Anyway, the best way is to get a EOS 10s or EOS 10qt. It does not require sprocket holes for film positioning and will give you very nicly spaced exposures. Currently (2011), these bodies go for less than peanuts on eBay. I got 1 for $20 and one recently for $1. Shipping is on top of that, but still very good for a great advanced camera body. However, a deteriorating bumper in the camera causes the infamous tar on the shutter blades. Can be cleaned easily enough with napthea. Just thought I'd share this for the good of the community.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    799

    Unperforated film with 35mm SLR

    I have a Konica Autoreflex which was modified to work with unperforated film. Whenb I get arount to having it serviced I will look for some unperforated film for it. This would give me 24X36mm images. If you modify a roll film camera to accept unperforated film you will get an image 35mm wide and as long as your format will allow. 6X6 would give you a 35X60mm image size.

  10. #30
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,229
    Yes, I wrote about this a while back. I have Kodak ImageLink microfilm in 35mm width. It CAN be run though a manual 35mm camera but with much consternation. In the dark you manually load the film onto the take-up side but NOT attached to the take-up spool. Leave it loose. Because it is rather tough to load much this way you will not get more than about one foot into this compartment. (Lead the film into the space between the take-up spool and the right edge of the camera and work it around to the other side of the take-up spool until most of the foot is wrapped around the take-up spool.) Now simply let the film glide over the sprockets and over the film aperture and tape the end onto a spool you insert into the compartment that is normally for a cassette of film. Close the back. Now cock the shutter and nautually the film does not move but it is already set for the first exposure. For the NEXT exposure simply turn the film rewind lever clockwise about one turn (you will have to determine, beforehand, how much of a turn is needed to advance one frame.) In this way you have about six to eight frames per load.

    For processing, start with developing for one half the time used for Ilford Pan F and if that is still too much contrast dilute the dev. As far as EI (speed): I find that and EI of two stops slower than Pan F (about 6) is best as this film is VERY unforgiving with over exposure. You WILL lose much shadow detail with contrasty scenes but with dull lighting it is sensational. - David Lyga

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin