DIY Film Packs possible ?

[Dave B]

I just got a 45x107 Kosmo Clack Stereo / Panoramic camera. It came with several holders, each good for one glass sheet. It also came with a Film Pack Adapter. I am certain of it's identity. I've never used a Film Pack, and can not find out how they were configured via google. I'm guessing there is not much to them other than paper & film. I guess 120 paper could be cut & taped to make a usable film pack.

Can usable film packs be made from cut or roll film ( 120 in this case ) to make something for use in obsolete film packs in obsolete formats ?

What is the configuration of the contents of a film pack ?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

This seems like a very tedious project, but you could find an old film pack and dissect one to verify this. In fact, I think you would have find one for this format, so you can "refill" it, and I've never seen a 45x107 film pack. The film has to be thin to work, so rollfilm rather than cut film.

 

[Dave B]

Thank You.
Since others are not already blabing about doing it, I suspected the solution would be pretty horrible. I studied the Film Pack Adapter some more. I can drive out the hinge pin and remove the back cover. I swear I can hear a Lubitel 166 ( with a broken viewing mirror ) crying out "Kill me now please." Chopping up Lubitel parts for a "home brew" roll film back, and somewhat similar carving of rolls of 120 film, could be a slightly less messy solution. I'll hold off untill I get some much better projects out of the way. Eleven itty bitty plate glass holders came with the camera. I'll try making some backing pieces to put film on top of and load as plates.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

You could cut some sheets of glass to the appropriate size and just put it behind the film.

 

[Dave B]

Doh !, Interface of the "Film Pack Adapter" is so simple, a third Idea occurs.
Scratch build a crude roll film back using the Lubitel as donnor, and use unmodified 120 film. Don't know why, but apparently I've got to yack somewhere before a near reasonable solution occurs.

 

[Dave B]

You could cut some sheets of glass to the appropriate size and just put it behind the film.

That's what I was thinking of, depth of film holders seems too little for
1/16" glass, Chased around on the web and found a source of thin stuff.
As best I can measure, and from what I found via google 'thin glass'. 1.2mm thick glass would be best. It occurs to me now that Perf Board, used for cobbling electronics projects, is pretty stiff and thin, if it is thin enough, it's what I'll use.

Depth was determined by placing dime and penny in holder, slide would close over penny with NOTHING to spare, and holder has 4 tab springs near corners to push glass foward. Dime thickness looked usable.
Per
http://www.usmint.gov/faqs/circulating_coins/index.cfm?flash=yes&action=faq_circulating_coin
US Coin - Penny Nickle Dime
Weight - 2.500g 5.000g 2.268g
Diam. - 0.750" 0.835" 0.705"
Thickness - 1.55mm 1.95mm 1.35mm
and 1/16" = .0625" = 1.5875mm

 

[Dave B]

Doh! Doh! Doh!
Small circuit board chunk I found, is thick as a penny.
CD is thinner & covers this small format, slight ridge on data side, probably spaced with tab springs of plate holder, wont even have to sand ridge off.
CD completely covers 4.5cm x 10.7cm format. Looks like I'm going to
have to sacrifice 1025 Free AOL hours for each of 11 backing pieces. THANKS AOL.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Normally, I'd say take that to hybridphoto.com, but I think we can allow this use of digital technology on APUG.

 

[Dave B]

1 of 11 done. I drew a template to lay CD on for scoring, scored each side 5 times HARD, printed side first, then chucked short sides along score line in vice and bent back & forth to break on line with fatigue. Chucking long side in middle on vice with hang out on both ends was mistake. Align long side to one edge, fatigue that side untill weak than shift and fatigue other end of line for straight break. Hoard of AOL disks was inspired by ( playing ) card throwing record of 216'. I presume CD disks could be digital version of James Bond movie Goldfinger villian Odd Job's hat, but real.

 

[Dave B]

Finaly found what I wanted to know about film packs. I'd known about USPTO and certainly freepatentsonline came up with numbers to put in USPTO, but I could not find what I wanted. Mostly light trap variations were coming up.

What I found that worked was
In Google click "more" click "patents" entered "film pack" 1907, 1909 etc patents came up, text and images.

Entire path is simple U shape with apex at far end from pack opening. far end of each full length paper tab/back is tacked with a thead so only the tab being pulled tears and comes out and rest of pack does not jam / come out. film is taped across film tab / backer at films leading edge. A leaf spring pushed pressure plate in the middle pushes the layers of unexposed film piece and their tab / backers against the pack opening originaly protected with a tab/backer that did not have a piece of film taped across it. There is no pressure against the exposed film that is drawn around the U apex to the area at the back of the pack behind the pressure plate and it's spring. Film & tab / backer sheet in area behind film is wider than the portion of tab / backer that is drawn out of the Film Pack Adapter.

 

[titrisol]

Reviving this
As I was digitizing 45x107 plates taken by my grandfather in the 20s/30s I came across a box of film negatives taken in the 60s.
It seemed to be hand cut film which was placed in the plate holders and shot.
Results were very good and most pics were sharp.
I wonder if I cut some 5x7 sheets ????

 

[pentaxuser]

Normally, I'd say take that to hybridphoto.com, but I think we can allow this use of digital technology on APUG.

Tells the story of how much we have changed since Feb 2007

pentaxuser

 

[Donald Qualls]

I wonder if I cut some 5x7 sheets ????

People recut X-ray film routinely -- it's 8x10 or larger with 8x10 costing about what Fomapan 4x5 does. And it's orthochromatic, so you can cut under red safelight. Check dimensions of sheet film, though; it's a couple millimeters smaller than nominal inch sizes because the sizes were originally glass plates, and film was downsized to fit in film sheaths that in turn fit in plate holders.

 

[titrisol]

Thanks Don
7x17 sheets should give me 16 plates per sheet... awesome

 

[Donald Qualls]

16 plates per sheet.

Seems reasonably economical. Most X-ray has double sided coating, so scratching can be an issue, but at the price, many large format and ULF shooters consider it worth the risk. If you know someone who does sheet metal bending, you might be able to get some film sheaths made to hold the film flat and in the correct plane. Let's see, 45x107 looks like postcard format -- you might even find vintage film sheaths if you ask in the right place.

 

[titrisol]

Seems reasonably economical. Most X-ray has double sided coating, so scratching can be an issue, but at the price, many large format and ULF shooters consider it worth the risk. If you know someone who does sheet metal bending, you might be able to get some film sheaths made to hold the film flat and in the correct plane. Let's see, 45x107 looks like postcard format -- you might even find vintage film sheaths if you ask in the right place.

The camera came with the metal sheats, they are for glass plates so I'll add some black cardboard behind the Xray
12 shots per "cartridge"

 

[Donald Qualls]

Oh, you bought that one. Yep, recutting looks like the solution. Technically, those are "septums" like the ones in a Grafmatic -- but yes, a layer of something glued in ought to let them work with film.

 

[titrisol]

Oh, you bought that one. Yep, recutting looks like the solution. Technically, those are "septums" like the ones in a Grafmatic -- but yes, a layer of something glued in ought to let them work with film.

I got it a few years ago, was working on making the guillotine shutter more reliable as it was all over the place.
Replaced the spring and lubricated it so now it is clicking at 1/40 consistently.
I will use the XRay film with black cardboard to get to the 1.3-1.5mm thickness and see what comes out. It is an experiment so I'll be happy with images at first and learn going forward.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I got it a few years ago,

Okay, maybe I saw it in the "what did you fix today" thread rather than classifieds...

 

[AnselMortensen]

Film Pack film was typically on a thin base, like roll film.
Svema 100 film is available in many sizes, and is on a thin base, if you're looking for a film to try out.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'd love to use film packs if they were available, but think about the economics. The packs held up to 16 sheets; what do 16 sheets of Kodak film (say, T-Max 100) cost in 4x5 these days? Then add some to that for the pack shell, pull tabs, and human handling to assemble the whole thing (this used to be done into the 1980s by two women working a full shift in total darkness) -- I'm guessing with today's film prices (and wages) a pack would run anywhere from $50 (Shanghai G3 assembled by Chinese third graders) to $150 (Kodak or Ilford). Figure about twice the price per exposure of 4x5 sheet film for 4x5 pack film of the same emulsion.

Then you need different carriers for your developing tank, since the sheets in pack film are both a little larger and quite a bit thinner than standard sheet film.

We have a better chance of seeing 220 return to regular production in one or two emulsions.

Now, whether it's practical to make it yourself... well, you'd need to start with thinner base film than modern 120, and in larger sizes. You'd need shells with the correct dimensions and internal components, along with a film pack adapter to fit your chosen camera.

Some of these issues could be overcome more or less readily, Pack shells probably aren't in that category, though...