Cassette to Cassette -- how do I say that in Russian?

[Donald Qualls]

Working up to the ultimate RB67 35mm panoramic setup, tonight I took another step.

Now, you can't do this with just any 35mm camera -- in my experience, most don't have a removable take up spool, but the ones that do are mostly pre-War designs, like the Contax II/III and their clones (and mutated, evolved clones), the Kiev rangefinder line.

Now, since I have a Kiev 4, I thought it would be fun to load it up with a cassette to receive the film rather than just letting it roll up on a spool. I noticed when I first got the camera that the supplied spool (with Cyrillic letters that look like "Cueb" and would translate as Kiev molded in one flange) looked just like the spool out of a reloadable 35mm cassette. I compared it, and it's dimensionally identical. The only differences that might matter are that the Kiev spool has texture on the long end, presumably to let you grab it and roll the film that first turn, and it has the slot that lets you slip the film leader in.

When winding into a cassette, however, there's no strong reason not to just tape the film to the spool. I've done that with bulk loads for years, and now I've done it while loading a camera. I used my recently acquired Griswold film cutter to cut a perfectly square end on the fresh roll of XP2 Super, removing the trimmed leader, disassembled the empty cassette, and turned the spool upside down. This is critical in order for the cassette to work in the take up side of the camera. That done, I tore off a couple inches of masking tape, secured the film end to the spool core, and slipped the film into the velvet trap in the cassette before putting the cap back on.

It took a minute or so to set up the cassette, and literally five seconds to load the camera after I'd done so. That was slick. I don't think I'll carry all my 35mm film preloaded to cassette take up, because it needs twice the space, can't be put back into a film can, and I only have a couple cameras that can use this setup, but it certainly works well for the Kiev. Even better, when you come to the end of the roll, if you're watching the frame counter, you can just fire off two frames of nothing (even with the lens cap on), open the camera, and take out the film, secure in the knowledge that all your images are safe inside the cassette. No rewinding for five minutes with that fiddly little knob (no crank on a Kiev 4). Also, if you have a camera with a back that's not very secure (my Kiev isn't one of those, at least), this method, similar to the "prewind" used by some point&shoot models, protects (most of) your exposed frames inside the cassette.

 

[mohmad khatab]

Working up to the ultimate RB67 35mm panoramic setup, tonight I took another step.

Now, you can't do this with just any 35mm camera -- in my experience, most don't have a removable take up spool, but the ones that do are mostly pre-War designs, like the Contax II/III and their clones (and mutated, evolved clones), the Kiev rangefinder line.

Now, since I have a Kiev 4, I thought it would be fun to load it up with a cassette to receive the film rather than just letting it roll up on a spool. I noticed when I first got the camera that the supplied spool (with Cyrillic letters that look like "Cueb" and would translate as Kiev molded in one flange) looked just like the spool out of a reloadable 35mm cassette. I compared it, and it's dimensionally identical. The only differences that might matter are that the Kiev spool has texture on the long end, presumably to let you grab it and roll the film that first turn, and it has the slot that lets you slip the film leader in.

When winding into a cassette, however, there's no strong reason not to just tape the film to the spool. I've done that with bulk loads for years, and now I've done it while loading a camera. I used my recently acquired Griswold film cutter to cut a perfectly square end on the fresh roll of XP2 Super, removing the trimmed leader, disassembled the empty cassette, and turned the spool upside down. This is critical in order for the cassette to work in the take up side of the camera. That done, I tore off a couple inches of masking tape, secured the film end to the spool core, and slipped the film into the velvet trap in the cassette before putting the cap back on.

It took a minute or so to set up the cassette, and literally five seconds to load the camera after I'd done so. That was slick. I don't think I'll carry all my 35mm film preloaded to cassette take up, because it needs twice the space, can't be put back into a film can, and I only have a couple cameras that can use this setup, but it certainly works well for the Kiev. Even better, when you come to the end of the roll, if you're watching the frame counter, you can just fire off two frames of nothing (even with the lens cap on), open the camera, and take out the film, secure in the knowledge that all your images are safe inside the cassette. No rewinding for five minutes with that fiddly little knob (no crank on a Kiev 4). Also, if you have a camera with a back that's not very secure (my Kiev isn't one of those, at least), this method, similar to the "prewind" used by some point&shoot models, protects (most of) your exposed frames inside the cassette.

If you have some Russian vocabulary that you want to know its meanings clash then photograph the word and send it in a comment here ,, and we will find many Russian colleagues who provide you with an accurate translation.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If you have some Russian vocabulary that you want to know its meanings clash then photograph the word and send it in a comment here ,, and we will find many Russian colleagues who provide you with an accurate translation.

Sorry, Mohmad, that was a joke of sorts. I was posting about loading my Kiev 4 to advance into a second cassette, rather than to a spool. Since it's a Soviet-made camera, I titled my post that way. It probably didn't survive Google Translate intact (jokes, especially ones based on puns or language quirks, generally don't).

 

[mohmad khatab]

Sorry, Mohmad, that was a joke of sorts. I was posting about loading my Kiev 4 to advance into a second cassette, rather than to a spool. Since it's a Soviet-made camera, I titled my post that way. It probably didn't survive Google Translate intact (jokes, especially ones based on puns or language quirks, generally don't).

Dear Friend
Yes you are absolutely right ,,
I suspected it was a joke ,, but I said to myself (and what if it was not a joke and the colleague needed some help)?
So I decided to write this response to you even if you need some help we can find it for you. What more Russian colleagues here in the forum.
- Yes, Google translation from and into Russian is really very bad, so I never rely on her and ask for help from a Russian colleague.
You are welcome
God bless you

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm native Russian.
Cassette to Cassete - iz cassety v cassetu.

 

[brainmonster]

That's quite interesting. I really like the 120 setup which rolls the film onto a take up spool which is then removed, so you don't have to rewind the film. Feels more old fashioned. By the way Donald, thanks for all your helpful responses to my questions on threads, they are always very helpful.

 

[Donald Qualls]

@brainmonster Unfortunately, I could only (practically) set up to do that with bulk loaded film -- because I'd need a leader on the film tail, and some way to know I'd reached it. The frame counter on the Kiev 4 isn't very reliable; it's far too easy to accidentally move it when handling the camera to install or remove a filter, set shutter speed, and advance film. Therefore, I generally shoot until the advance ties up, and with the cassette to cassette setup as it stands, I'll still have to rewind to protect those last two or three frames.

Which wouldn't be a big deal for black and white; I do bulk load and own three bulk loaders, so it would be simple enough to put a few inches of leader in each cassette and use my Griswold to cut perfect ends and make tape splices. At present, however, I've only got two 35mm cameras that can do this (both Kiev 4), plus my panoramic setup on my RB67, which requires much longer leaders to avoid waste and protect the images for daylight loading and unloading.

It's clearly possible to set up this way with commercially loaded cassettes, but it would require rolling the entire film into a second cassette in the dark, cutting and splicing in the leader, and rewinding. Possible, but not very practical, compared to bulk loading with leader(s) preinstalled.

 

[abruzzi]

If you were bulk loading, I wonder if you could figure out a way to temporarily attach the film to the spool in such a way that when you're advancing, it would just pull off into the takeup. The drawback of course is that you couldn't shoot until it runs out, because you'd probably not know. You'd want to get good at pulling the exact right amount. so you know that after x exposures you just keep advancing.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Can't depend on the counter wheel that much on my Kiev(s) -- it's freely resettable with a milled edge that goes right under my thumb when I "Contax grip" -- so I never really know how many shots I have left.

That would be very practical, however, with the RB67 (which is where this is headed, in the end -- to be able to field reload 35mm panoramic without a dark bag). In the 220 film back I use for 35mm, the frame counter and advance stop are driven by a friction wheel -- normally running on the edge of the 220 film (on the base side), but I've taped it to the turn around roller so the 35mm film works with the counter. No dancing with the double exposure lever, and further, if the film pulls off the supply spool, it'll just keep advancing, as if at the end of a 120 or 220 roll.

The down side is, I mostly envision shooting panoramic with color film -- not sure why, I just "see" that 24x70 format in color. That might change over time, but also, bulk loading cassettes have no other means to attach the film to the spool other than tape. It might be possible to tape the film tail on only one side and wrap the tape onto the spool so that it will peel off when you come to the end of the film, but I think that would require more tension than I usually want to apply (through the advance gearing of a 40+ year old film back). My current plan is to (in order to deal with commercial cassettes) splice the leader to the head end of the film, attach it to the takeup cassette spool, then (in the dark) wind the film through into the previously empty cassette, cut it close to the commercial cassette, and splice a tail on, sized so that when the film comes taut, the last exposure is in the cassette. The down side I see is that will mean I'll always wind up shooting one on the leader -- still working on that -- and I'll fog a couple inches at the tail while splicing, which will inevitably spoil part of the last shot that went on actual film.

I suppose I could open the factory cassettes and cut the tail end, leave the tail unattached, and hand wind it onto a reloadable cassette spool (without taping), close that up, then splice the head leader and thread that into the takeup cassette. Not like the RB67 had a DX reader in the 220 back. Seems like a really good way to make a bunch of scratches and fingerprints on the film, though...

 

[reddesert]

To the degree that I understand what you are trying to do, which may be small:
- it would be nice to splice in a tail leader so that you don't unpredictably fog the last couple of images on a roll
- it would be nice to minimize the amount of re-rolling.
It's attractive to say you should:
- add a tail to a bulk load cassette, attach the commercial film leader to the tail, then (in the dark, or with a bulk loader) roll the film into the bulk load cassette. Now you have a cassette pair, with the commercial cassette as the new takeup.

You can't use this in the Kiev because the long end of the spool on the takeup cassette is the wrong way around - it won't fit in the camera. But I'd guess you can use this in the RB67 by swapping your 120-35mm adapters, if they are not already symmetric. You'll fog a few frames at the beginning while loading the back, but none of them will be actual ruined exposures.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The RB67 is where I specifically want/need the leader at the head end: When I load the film insert, there's a start mark, and it's fourteen inches from there to the start of the film on a 120/220 roll. That means the film back advances that far before reaching "1" on the counter. That's almost a quarter of a 36 exposure roll. If I can splice 12-14 inches of film leader onto the film in the cassette, i can start frame one just after the fogged bit at the head (the film I had to pull out to make the splice). But at the end of the roll, there's still close to a foot of film between the cassettes -- again, 20-25% of a roll, if I'm using 36 exposure length (more if I load a short roll).

With the price of even bulk loaded film today, I'd prefer to avoid wasting 25% of my film...

In my Kiev, I fog about the same length, what's between the cassettes (I cut off the shaped leader tongue, but that would have been wound on the spool before closing anyway) -- but without a tail I can't just open the camera, I still have to rewind to protect my last couple exposures. As you suggested, the ideal solution in a 35mm camera would be to let the film pull off the supply and wind across, combined with a reliable way to detect that this has happened. Some cameras will advance without limit once the sprocket wheel is no longer driven by the film, but the Kiev (and most others I've used) drives both spool and sprocket from the advance knob (with a friction clutch so the spool doesn't tear up the film as the diameter increases).

For the RB, if I were certain there was room inside the takeup cassette, pulling off the supply would work, too -- but with a fourteen inch leader and 36 (18 at 72 mm wide, actually 16-17 due to the wider gutters in 6x7) exposures I'd be risking a jam due to overfilled cassette.

Hmm. I wonder if it would be possible to convert just the counter in a 220 magazine to 12 exposures (say, install the drive and counter parts from a 120 mag) -- that would automatically free advance after ten frames, which is long enough that if there's film hanging out at the end, it's waste... ...but it's still waste...

 

[MattKing]

In the interest of pedantry I would mention that RB67 backs are actually two part - the outer shell and the inner insert.
I have never encountered anyone who switches inserts between shells, but you can.
This is only relevant because you need to match the generations - RB Pro inserts with RB Pro shells, RB Pro-S inserts with RB Pro-S shells and RB Pro-SD inserts with RB Pro-SD shells.
If you are considering swapping parts, you may need to take that into account.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I need the 220 insert to handle no-backing film correctly. Just dropping a 120 insert into the 220 shell won't work, because my 120 6x7 insert is a Pro S and I'm pretty sure my 220 film back is a ProSD. What I was talking about was converting the actual frame counter to 10 frames instead of 20.

The two 120 shells I have are marked respectively for 6x7 and 6x4.5, I wouldn't want to swap inserts between the shells or I'd potentially wind up composing for the wrong format. Not to mention overlapping frames one way, and leaving huge gaps the other.

 

[MattKing]

How does the thickness of 35mm film compare with the thickness of 120 film plus backing? I would expect that due to film cupping, the results wouldn't differ much between 220 and 120 options.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I thought something similar, but I'm told that 35mm film is generally slightly thinner than 120 even without the backing paper. The backing is about 1/3 the thickness of modern 120 film. Also, if there's room in the cassettes for leader or tail (one or the other, at least, a bit over a foot of additional film that won't be processed), the 220 back would be preferred because it doesn't stop counting at 10. A 36 exposure roll with only an inch or two of fogged leader ought to hold at least 16 frames 72 mm wide. A 220 roll was 20 frames, and is similar length to 135-36, so I might actually need the 20 frame counter.

I've got leader material (which I'll be able to reused many times) and a splicing tool, I plan to try leaders on a dual cassette load next time I load the 220 back with 35mm.

 

[MattKing]

From an old (1997) Plus-X datasheet:
"PLUS-X Pan Film (PX) is available in 135 size and 35 mm long rolls on a 5-mil gray acetate base.
PLUS-X Pan Professional Film (PXP) is available in 120 and 220 size on a 3.6-mil acetate base."

 

[Donald Qualls]

Hmm. Okay, that's opposite to what I was recently told. Still, 1.4 mil (= 0.0014 inch) is only about 0.035 mm, so shouldn't make a noticeable difference (unless I'm shooting wide open and on the wrong end of tolerance stacking).

 

[MattKing]

Hmm. Okay, that's opposite to what I was recently told. Still, 1.4 mil (= 0.0014 inch) is only about 0.035 mm, so shouldn't make a noticeable difference (unless I'm shooting wide open and on the wrong end of tolerance stacking).

I think it was our earlier discussion about film thickness that you may be referring to - the one that was complicated by issues with non-metric to metric conversions.
What I find interesting is how the current Kodak datasheets only report thickness for sheet film.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Different divisions -- all the roll film is a byproduct of the cine production (no idea where sheet film fits in that), and Alaris doesn't want to give a spec that Eastman might change without warning.

Maybe.

Meanwhile, I don't think film thickness will affect image quality. Film flatness might, but I've seen some very nice images shot with the basic version of the setup I'm headed toward.

 

[MattKing]

Different divisions -- all the roll film is a byproduct of the cine production (no idea where sheet film fits in that), and Alaris doesn't want to give a spec that Eastman might change without warning.

Maybe.

I don't think so.
First, Kodak Alaris are the ones who drive the issue of what still film products are to be manufactured, based on what Kodak Alaris can sell. The motivation for the re-introduction of Ektachrome came mostly from Kodak Alaris' end.
Also Eastman Kodak isn't going to change anything about base thickness for cine film - cine film cameras aren't being made any more, so you won't see them unilaterally invalidating all/most of the cameras that remain.
I think it is more to do with the fact that they have removed almost all of the "formats available" information from the datasheets, and the base thickness information was always associated with that.

 

[Donald Qualls]

That's also a good possibilty.

Honestly, we've just about gotten to the point where as long as I can count on Foma, Ilford/Harman, and Fuji, I'll just watch until Kodak sinks or sails again. The only thing they still sell that I'm interested in is B&W film, and I can't bring myself to pay the differential for what's still a hobby.

Which has nothing at all to do with casette-to-cassette loading or running 35mm in a 220 film back.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, when I tried using 35mm film in an RB67 back I used 120 backing paper cut to size as a leader and low adhesion (essentially "break-away") tape for the bulk load cassette.
I only did it a couple of times, for fun, so didn't worry about not being able to unload the back until I got back to the darkroom.
With the RB67 I could always just switch over to 120 film in another back.

 

[Donald Qualls]

And that's the way I've done it (except, so far, I haven't used a leader; I've been doing "proof of concept" to date). However, I like the effect enough on the one roll I've had processed and posted images I've seen to expect to want to be able to reload in the field -- so I'm doing what I always do, overthink and overdesign. Except in this case, I don't have to actually invent anything, I just have to glue the pieces together in the right order.

 

[removed account4]

I'm native Russian.
Cassette to Cassete - iz cassety v cassetu.

Thank you !
J

 

[eli griggs]

Try "Maxell to Maxell" and point your index fingers to each other.