FilmNX, Desktop Film Processor (or YA-DFP, Yet Another Desktop Film Processor?)

[Nathan FilmNx]

Hi!

I've come over from digital photography to analog photography (family/hobby photography) and became quickly overrun with spent rolls of film. Like many before me, I made a home-friendly desktop processor to simplify my workflow, reduce waste, and extend chemistry life.

The first version worked well, while not being especially clever. In this second revision, I'm feeling like it might be getting close enough in maturity that it makes sense to explore opening the design (via GitHub) and potentially offering the next iteration as a kit or a finished product if the cost vs. value works out especially well.

The main challenge I worked to solve in this second revision is to reduce internal volume and dead space within the machine. Borrowing some technology inspiration from microfluidics and biotech devices, I think I've done that with the rotary distribution module replacing the archaic solenoid-valve system. I'm currently 3D printing the rotary module in an industrial polymer proceess (MJF), the rest of the BOM is sourced or CNC machined.

Main Features of this revision:

1. Three removable chemistry reservoirs (temperature controlled and NFC labeled)
2. Up to three external tanks (I use just one with rinse water)
3. App-based Protocol builder, monitor, and remote start (iOS prototyped presently)
4. Weight and current-based feedback system to ensure fluid is on the move and where it should be (vs. leaking or simply running low).
5. Other "digital" features (therefore off-topic)

Some sample videos (unlisted videos as I'm looking more for feedback than awareness!);





Why OpenSource: A number of reasons ranging from wanting to share (ego?), recognizing the value of community feedback and contributions, and fully understanding that cost is a big deal with something like this where it is easy for the product costs to grow out of proportion to the value it provides (opening it means you can build it yourself, and only implement features you want). I'm anticipating releasing the sources (CAD and firmware) as a creative commons non-commercial license (meaning you can use the project sources for personal use all you want).

Any questions or feedback is appreciated, including other forums you'd recommend.

Thanks!

-Nathan (Portland, Oregon)

 

[calebarchie]

Exceptional work, I'm sure someone would suggest the use of nitrogen burst agitation rather than rotary. That the beauty of going open, would you be interested working with us on another project?

C

 

[Nathan FilmNx]

Exceptional work, I'm sure someone would suggest the use of nitrogen burst agitation rather than rotary. That the beauty of going open, would you be interested working with us on another project?

Thanks! Well, I'm using ~78% nitrogen for agitation (ie. normal air) currently.

What is the other project you are referring to? This is an "extracurricular" project for me, besides this, I'm working on an automated mechanical DSLR/mirrorless-based film strip scanner.

-Nathan

 

[ic-racer]

Nice project. Thanks for sharing. Agitation will 21% oxygen may hasten exhaustion of the developer, but out of simplicity, may be OK if enough total developer is supplied at the start of the process. Of course there is plenty of oxygen floating around and mixing with the chemicals in the drum of the time-proven JOBO processor.

 

[jvo]

certainly is interesting... well done! i could see myself using it.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Like many before me, I made a home-friendly desktop processor to simplify my workflow, reduce waste, and extend chemistry life.

I like this bit above, “Like many before me..” . I doubt many before you have ever done anything like this. Makes my hobby efforts seem pretty lame.
As far as suggesting other forums, there are probably some people over at https://www.rangefinderforum.com/ who would be interested, though it isn’t as majority analog as it used to be.

Amazing work on your part, and I appreciate that you have taken the care to attend to finish so it doesn’t look like something cobbled together in shop class. How well it actually “works” in achieving even and precise development in comparison to existing methods will be the key in the end. That, and cost. The fact that it appears you have not only designed a processor, but apparently integrated a DSLR instant scanning solution right next to the processor, that’s pretty trick. Good luck to you, and hats off.

 

[jtk]

I like this bit above, “Like many before me..” . I doubt many before you have ever done anything like this. Makes my hobby efforts seem pretty lame.
As far as suggesting other forums, there are probably some people over at https://www.rangefinderforum.com/ who would be interested, though it isn’t as majority analog as it used to be.

Amazing work on your part, and I appreciate that you have taken the care to attend to finish so it doesn’t look like something cobbled together in shop class. How well it actually “works” in achieving even and precise development in comparison to existing methods will be the key in the end. That, and cost. The fact that it appears you have not only designed a processor, but apparently integrated a DSLR instant scanning solution right next to the processor, that’s pretty trick. Good luck to you, and hats off.

"DSLR" does not scan, therefore it cannot remove dust/scratches...however if done right a digital camera (mirrorless is not "dslr") could photograph the film prior to removal from the machine with minimal loss to optics. Would be better if a true scan could be done.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

"DSLR" does not scan, therefore it cannot remove dust/scratches...however if done right a digital camera (mirrorless is not "dslr") could photograph the film prior to removal from the machine with minimal loss to optics. Would be better if a true scan could be done.

Poor choice of words on my part, I was only going with what seems to be the unfortunately prevailing idiom, for the sake of brevity. I use a Nikon 9000 myself, having tried DSLR scanning, so I appreciate the correction, personally. Others differ. Main point is about the film processor, however.

 

[Nathan FilmNx]

Nice project. Thanks for sharing. Agitation will 21% oxygen may hasten exhaustion of the developer, but out of simplicity, may be OK if enough total developer is supplied at the start of the process.

Thanks, this is helpful. It would be a simple matter to add provisions for a nitrogen bottle (and low impact as by simply not connecting it, you'd get air-based agitation). I'll try to dig up some data that can help us approximate the benefit (in chemistry life) to using pure nitrogen for agitation (feel free to point me at something / or shout out your experiences here).

-Nathan

 

[Nathan FilmNx]

"DSLR" does not scan, therefore it cannot remove dust/scratches...however if done right a digital camera (mirrorless is not "dslr") could photograph the film prior to removal from the machine with minimal loss to optics. Would be better if a true scan could be done.

Yes! Though mechanically handling the film inside the machine is a bit tricky (in terms of maintaining reliability and cost), it is totally possible and I have at least one idea here that seems worth trying.

I'd just say, for my needs, I'm not a big fan of scanning film. Basically - I think it is far to slow for what I perceive as a slight resolution improvement (though often needs post adjustment). If I was a better photographer (and hadn't started in the digital age), I'd probably take WAY less pictures and scanning would be more manageable!

From my results so far, my Nikon D850 (and even my old Nikon D7000) have produced (what I consider) excellent results in a fraction of the time. I even like to fuss with the backlight color temp/intensity as a sort of "analog lightroom". Part of this could be because I "digitally process" the filmstrips immediately after drying them.. therefore dust hasn't been an issue (for my eye).

My opinion here is admittedly super-convenient as it is far easier to rig-up an automated film strip advance + shutter trigger than a dedicated film scanner.

-Nathan

 

[Nathan FilmNx]

I should also add, that UV ICE techniques could be applied to the DSLR method, maybe that's worth considering?

Amazing work on your part, and I appreciate that you have taken the care to attend to finish so it doesn’t look like something cobbled together in shop class. How well it actually “works” in achieving even and precise development in comparison to existing methods will be the key in the end. That, and cost. The fact that it appears you have not only designed a processor, but apparently integrated a DSLR instant scanning solution right next to the processor, that’s pretty trick. Good luck to you, and hats off.

Thanks Larry!

Yes, getting the right ratio of performance vs. cost is probably the biggest challenge here. I feel like the prototype is a very consistent performer, and that I have a good line of sight to "production" performance. This confidence has a cost, namely the cost! This version is currently ~30% more expensive (by the BOM) than my first version.

I'd love to hear what people think something like this would be worth and the relative distribution of the group of folks that would be interested. Hobo is probably a good reference point. I know some of the other automated film desktop developers have pushed into $4-5k (at their own peril I suspect). I'm sure plenty of analog shooters are plenty happy without any more automation in their workflow, so for some set of our community, $0 is probably accurate.

Thanks!

-Nathan

 

[John51]

What the make/model of the pump?

 

[Nathan FilmNx]

What the make/model of the pump?

It is a 24v BIOChem 24P pump.

Thanks!

-Nathan

 

[Pablo Prieto]

Hi Nathan,

I'm really interested to build one for my film association. Let us know if you release the machine or its plan.

Thank you for all your efforts

Pablo

 

[GDvisuals]

Hi Nathan & All,
Also very interested in this. What's the status of the project? I also tried to do something like that but it's very much a WIP. Would love to help in any way I can!
-Guillaume

 

[Randy Stewart]

Assuming that film processing quality is on par or better than the competition, then price and user programming are the issues I see. I'm not clear on how agitation is done, but it looks like it may be done by withdrawing the solution and refilling periodically, sort of a reverse dunk and dip procedure. There are others out there. The very costly for what it does Filmomat from Germany, and a new unit in final testing from New Zealand, price yet to be fixed. Your big limit is the three solution limitation, which the NZ unit does not have. Frankly, for what these units would have to cost to be reliable, I cannot see the point in spending that amount of money on a unit which limits me to the second rate quality imposed by the prevailing three bath home-user C-41 kits, and worse, the three bath E-6 chemistry kits on the market today. Perhaps yours could offer an optional three bath tank extension to expand to a six bath system for those who want that function. in any event good luck with the project, from Vancouver across the river.

 

[bunktheory65]

Actually this is NOT the method to be spending time researching upon. There was a device marketed once upon a time that tired to let people develop film canisters at home without the need of a darkroom. And without removing the film from the canister first.

Far to many folks copying the idea of the daylight processor tank, that removes the film from spool or canister, spools it onto a processing real and then lets you fill a daylight safe processing tank.

 

[AgX]

I do not understand what you are trying to say.

Maybe you mix up "daylight-loading tank" with "daylight tank". The still most common tanks are daylight-tanks.

The daylight-loading tank was invented by Agfa in the 30's. And for decades marketed in Europe. Much later Jobo came up with an own design. All these devices went out of production.
And now remakes of the Agfa ones seem to have become in fashion now.

 

[bunktheory65]

I do not understand what you are trying to say.

Maybe you mix up "daylight-loading tank" with "daylight tank". The still most common tanks are daylight-tanks.

The daylight-loading tank was invented by Agfa in the 30's. And for decades marketed in Europe. Much later Jobo came up with an own design. All these devices went out of production.
And now remakes of the Agfa ones seem to have become in fashion now.

ars-imago LAB-BOX Developing Tank


seems to be the style evgeryone wants to sell.

However the work should be on the system that doesnt require the canister of film to even be opened.

 

[AgX]

I still do not get your point.

-) the terminology used here is that with "canister" we mean the plastic protective container type 135 film is typically sold in. This must be opened anyway. But I assume you meant "cassette" instead.

-) The idea behind the Agfa daylight-loading tank for type 135 film was that the cassette has NOT to be opened. Neither in daylight nor within the new tank.
And this concept, even design, has been taken taken over in the Ars Imago Lab Box.

 

[PittP]

Main Features of this revision:

1. Three removable chemistry reservoirs (temperature controlled and NFC labeled)
2. Up to three external tanks (I use just one with rinse water)
3. App-based Protocol builder, monitor, and remote start (iOS prototyped presently)
4. Weight and current-based feedback system to ensure fluid is on the move and where it should be (vs. leaking or simply running low).
5. Other "digital" features (therefore off-topic)

Amazing concept ! - apparently designed for micro-volumes like 1-2 rolls at a time, with a distinct convenience, "techy" and design appeal (the Filmomat comes to mind - and reportedly sells).
It reminds of things of the past: The Dutch Filmrunner (even President Bush had one, guess which Bush!, the machine was aka Metorette - smart design, too), a similar small machine by Durst, the Filmetta, the big clumsy Jobo ATLs - all are rotary drums (with the associated rapid oxidation of chemicals), all use the reservoirs in the waterbath for temperature control (warming-up delays!), few, however, offered genuine recovery of chemicals.
The trick with the vertical tank had been implemented by Durst (sorry, forgot the model name), the film"tank" would be moved manually from solution to solution, agitation was by a motor in the handle - assuring both horizontal and lateral flow and a very even development. While it may have looked like a giant AP-tank with a spindle, the thing was quite sophisticated in this detail. Besides using an enormous amount of chemicals compared to the rotary tube, oxidation was minimised to levels of stand development.
The latter may be a hint for the design of your small tank.
With your way of filling - emptying the tank and agitation by vertical rotation only, some oxidation-sensitive chemistry may outlive and outperform the rotating tube many times (think of E6 reversal).
In practical use, I'm not a fan of the water bath: Takes too, too long, is unflexible when changing from one process to another ...
Thus, the concepts of Phototherm Sidekick and Midtone Machine have a point: The Sidekick keeps 17 (!) solutions + water available - put the film into the drum, chose the process, and off it goes. No waiting, only processing time, and at the end, all is done and clean for the next run.
Well, in UI, programming and options for recycling of solutions, we feel the limitations of its processor of "once upon a time" ...
Curious to see the further evolution of your interesting and original approach!
Good luck and good light!
Pitt

 

[bunktheory65]

Amazing concept ! - apparently designed for micro-volumes like 1-2 rolls at a time, with a distinct convenience, "techy" and design appeal (the Filmomat comes to mind - and reportedly sells).
It reminds of things of the past: The Dutch Filmrunner (even President Bush had one, guess which Bush!, the machine was aka Metorette - smart design, too), a similar small machine by Durst, the Filmetta, the big clumsy Jobo ATLs - all are rotary drums (with the associated rapid oxidation of chemicals), all use the reservoirs in the waterbath for temperature control (warming-up delays!), few, however, offered genuine recovery of chemicals.
The trick with the vertical tank had been implemented by Durst (sorry, forgot the model name), the film"tank" would be moved manually from solution to solution, agitation was by a motor in the handle - assuring both horizontal and lateral flow and a very even development. While it may have looked like a giant AP-tank with a spindle, the thing was quite sophisticated in this detail. Besides using an enormous amount of chemicals compared to the rotary tube, oxidation was minimised to levels of stand development.
The latter may be a hint for the design of your small tank.
With your way of filling - emptying the tank and agitation by vertical rotation only, some oxidation-sensitive chemistry may outlive and outperform the rotating tube many times (think of E6 reversal).
In practical use, I'm not a fan of the water bath: Takes too, too long, is unflexible when changing from one process to another ...
Thus, the concepts of Phototherm Sidekick and Midtone Machine have a point: The Sidekick keeps 17 (!) solutions + water available - put the film into the drum, chose the process, and off it goes. No waiting, only processing time, and at the end, all is done and clean for the next run.
Well, in UI, programming and options for recycling of solutions, we feel the limitations of its processor of "once upon a time" ...
Curious to see the further evolution of your interesting and original approach!
Good luck and good light!
Pitt

Recycling of wash water would be truly beneficial, alas no one really seems to have done much studying upon the chemicals in wash water other then whats his name who used a filtration system based upon activated charcoal filters

 

[AndrewBurns]

This is quite a funky looking processor design that I hadn't seen before, a little similar to my first concept. Too bad it seems to never have progressed, but having gone down a similar path myself I can definitely understand the difficulties that lie between a working prototype and finished product.

 

[Robert Maxey]

I suggest a kit. The DIY mentality is strong these days and you might sell some to the more hands on types. In kit form, it would be perhaps less expensive and it might draw people into the film world looking for an easier way to develop film.

Bob

 

[AndrewBurns]

My concern with kits are that they represent potentially a significant increase in the work required to sell and support when compared to fully assembled machines. First there's the additional effort required to make a much more comprehensive set of assembly instructions and troubleshooting guide, then there's the time and effort required to support everyone who buys one and inevitably has issues during assembly. Shipping costs wouldn't be any lower but packaging costs would probably higher and any cost savings in labour would be wiped out in after-sale support, so I don't think you could really even sell it for less. Maybe a smaller and more simple machine could be sold as a kit, but my Chomabox-4 at least wouldn't make sense IMO.