My intentions were bit different, but market will tellI don't get it. I develop 35mm and 120 in a Paterson and it's frankly the simplest and most fool-proof thing I do in the darkroom. Is this a solution looking for a problem?
. Generally there are two major ideas behind it. 1. That there aren't many alternatives to expensive Processors like JOBO, Filmomat, etc. which take off bit of film developing labor if you develop film more then few rolls per month. 2. Second idea is that most of the Minilabs used in lab are soon to be depreciated, so there is a question where and how we can develop C-41, E-6 in future. This came out of also in my research, that most haven't done C-41 at home because it seems too complex. So this time compensation is mostly for color film, which makes the process much easier, for few rolls you even don´t need a sous vide, only throw you chemicals to sink and use warm tap water to heat up them, just look that temperature is in right range.For some people (especially those who shoot a lot of film) this might be a good compromise between hand inversion and shelling out for a Jobo (or equivalent) or inventing/building your own roller processor. For people like me, who shoot and process a few rolls a month, it's of less utility. I still see the likelihood of leak problems with that half-seal where the tank connects to the base, though perhaps I'm seeing trouble that hasn't appeared (yet). Given I have enough reels to, if needed, process 32 rolls of 120 in a single session if I have the stamina (loading all on dry reels -- and I'd have to come up with a better solution for hanging rolls to dry), but almost never actually process more than one tank in a day, this isn't really aimed at me.
Regarding leaking problem, this was a problem at first and still can be a problem if processor isn't pressed properly on tank. But I came up with these outer supports which presses tank sealing surface firmly to processor O-ring seal.
