Hasselblad 70mm is it still possible?

[mshchem]

Thanks for the info! Those are some nice books you've got

Attaching an image of what I was able to find up till this point from different manuals and catalogues

The regular 70 back was made for the pre-loaded / reloadable cartridges while the 100-200 version of that back could fit up to 200 exposures if film was thin enough, However it had to be loaded in the dark since there was no cartridge protecting the spool. What I'd like to find out is – are the spools for 100-200 backs same as those used in the cartridges for the 70 backs? They do look similar!

P.S.: the 100-200 back could be loaded with:

0.14mm thick film > 100 exposures
0.12mm thick film > 115 exposures
0.11mm thick film > 125 exposures
0.08mm thick film > 162-175 exposures
0.07mm thick film > 200 exposures

Yes they do look similar. What I have is several of the Kodak cassettes, plastic spool in the metal shell. The one you have in the picture looks like the end flanges are slightly cupped, maybe to help constrain the thin film?? My plastic spool has flat flanges.

I could guess, but that doesn't help.

 

[mshchem]

The more I look at all the pictures the flanges actually look flat not cupped. Spools from Hasselblad, I think , were metal not plastic.

 

[Stanly]

I think the spools were a bit different over the years, from different manufacturers and materials ... the width of the spool should be same since the film is also same, I wonder if flange radius is also same as well as mounting points!

 

[Nokton48]

You have to use thin films to shoot really long rolls of 70mm, which is still doable. I bought one of the A500 Backs, it didn't work and Ebay refunded my money. Regular A70 will do up to 200 exposures according to film thickness, it's in the instruction sheet. The regular A70 will do this, of course film counter stops at 70 LOL. A200 has extended film counter. This takes regular 70mm Kodak, Linhof, Hasselblad 70mm cartridges I have about 50 in house. All of these are just regular 70mm Kodak Cartridges, painted and rebadged.

 

[Stanly]

A200 has extended film counter. This takes regular 70mm Kodak, Linhof, Hasselblad 70mm cartridges

Interesting! So you're saying the 70-100/200 back will also take the cartridges too? It looks like the mounting points for the spools are thicker compared to the regular 70 back

 

[mshchem]

 

[mshchem]

I have a half dozen books on Hasselblad. There's nothing more explicit than these couple of paragraphs.

 

[Stanly]

I have a half dozen books on Hasselblad. There's nothing more explicit than these couple of paragraphs.

Indeed! So as I suspected the 70/100-200 Magazine won't accept cassettes (or as I called them before cartridges), only spools. All that's left to find out if spools are same for the 70/100-200 back and cassettes for regular 70 back. Thanks!

 

[Nokton48]

You can make two hundred exposures with a regular A70 Back, it's in the A70 instruction sheet. Look it up. It is explicit that thinner films will need to be utilized, and the frame counter stops at 70 (of course!). But it's cool for 200 exposures.

Sorry if I confused, I've never seen an actual A200 in the flesh. But I have five or six A70's around, they have all been recently rebuilt. So actually I'm not too interested in the A200, but it's definitely an interesting rarity.

Sounds like the A200 uses special spools. Wonder if parts are interchangeable when doing a CLA? Just Sayin'.

 

[mshchem]

Or this seems like the best version

 

[mshchem]

From my reading of this latest, it sounds like spools are spools. Just the 100/200 won't accommodate the outer metal cassette

 

[Stanly]

two hundred exposures with a regular A70 Back, it's in the A70 instruction sheet

Would love to have a look at that sheet, was only able to find the 70-100/200 instructions. It makes sense for it to be possible to load more with thinner film though

There was a tiny bit of confusion, since I was wondering if spools from A70 Magazine's cassette fit the 70-100/200 Magazine without that outer cassette and not if A70 magazine can fit 100/200 shots we did uncover something new in the process though – you can fit more than 70 shots inside the A70 cassette!

I guess the benefit of the 70-100/200 magazine is the counter that will work beyond 70 exposures though.

From my reading of this latest, it sounds like spools are spools. Just the 100/200 won't accommodate the outer metal cassette

That's what I was hoping for! Because it appears impossible to find the 51055 Hasselblad spool on it's own

Will report if I find any other info on this topic!

 

[Nokton48]

70mm Kodak Surveillance 60 exp ADOX Borax MQ 11 min 21C by Nokton48, on Flickr

Hasselblad A70 film back comes through again 60 exposures on one roll. 70mm Kodak Surveillance film about shot at about EI 250. ADOX BORAX MQ 11 1/2 mins 21C. Kindermann 70mm tank and reel WOW it's heavy. SSSLLLOOOWWW to fill and dump, you have to tilt the tank at a 45 to fill it or it just blows all over. And balance a one gallon brown glass bottle at the same time. Not fun!

 

[Focomatter]

I owned one of these mags along with the data module but sold it. The spools from the cassettes DO NOT work in them so never used it. I suspect Kodak sold special loads for NASA. A different specification from 488. I am now 4000 miles from home but can search my files for pix of it once I get home next year.

 

[mshchem]

I owned one of these mags along with the data module but sold it. The spools from the cassettes DO NOT work in them so never used it. I suspect Kodak sold special loads for NASA. A different specification from 488. I am now 4000 miles from home but can search my files for pix of it once I get home next year.

So you have never found the mystery spools? Hasselblad sold the fancy mapping cameras to the public, maybe you had just so many spools? I have a bulk loader for the 70mm cassettes, I suppose it would load these spools to, just would need to turn off the lights.
Crazy how all this stuff was made for NASA.

 

[madNbad]

Kodak made a special run of 5222 Double X in 70mm for Christopher Nolan's "Oppenheimer". Maybe they still have some sitting around?

 

[eli griggs]

Kodak made a special run of 5222 Double X in 70mm for Christopher Nolan's "Oppenheimer". Maybe they still have some sitting around?

That's an interesting possibility.

 

[Stanly]

I owned one of these mags along with the data module but sold it. The spools from the cassettes DO NOT work in them so never used it. I suspect Kodak sold special loads for NASA. A different specification from 488. I am now 4000 miles from home but can search my files for pix of it once I get home next year.

Ouch! Bummer ... can't find any mention of those spools for 70-100/200 backs except in old catalogues and was hoping that the "usual" spools from 70mm film cassettes would work how much was that back without spools though?

P.S.: have a fun trip!

I suppose it would load these spools to, just would need to turn off the lights

Can't imagine why it wouldn't work, maybe you'd have to hold the spool though

Kodak made a special run of 5222 Double X in 70mm for Christopher Nolan's "Oppenheimer"

What I found on Kodak's page is: "filmed in a combination of IMAX® 65mm and 65mm large-format".

Oppenheimer

Oppenheimer is filmed in a combination of IMAX® 65mm and 65mm large-format film photography including, for the first time ever, sections in IMAX® black and white analog photography.

www.kodak.com

The 70mm film is the delivery film – they use it for prints distributed to theatres (attached). It has different sprockets father from the edges compared to 70mm Type II film used for photography, but if you swap the roller/gear to o-ring you could in theory expose that too. And should be available in colour slide!

 

[mshchem]

Wouldn't it be great if someone could get Kodak to make a few hundred thousand feet of Tri-X in 70mm

 

[mshchem]

Would love to have a look at that sheet, was only able to find the 70-100/200 instructions. It makes sense for it to be possible to load more with thinner film though

There was a tiny bit of confusion, since I was wondering if spools from A70 Magazine's cassette fit the 70-100/200 Magazine without that outer cassette and not if A70 magazine can fit 100/200 shots we did uncover something new in the process though – you can fit more than 70 shots inside the A70 cassette!

I guess the benefit of the 70-100/200 magazine is the counter that will work beyond 70 exposures though.



That's what I was hoping for! Because it appears impossible to find the 51055 Hasselblad spool on it's own

Will report if I find any other info on this topic!

Not sure where you're going to find any thin base film these days. I need to scour my catalogs see if I can find a actual list for sale of the 51055. Maybe you needed Top Secret spy status

 

[Nokton48]

Wouldn't it be great if someone could get Kodak to make a few hundred thousand feet of Tri-X in 70mm

I buy HP5+ in 70mm from B&H. No less expensive than 120 products in terms of per square foot, but HEY it's TypeII perforated. I keep one of my A70's loaded with it, I expose the film at EI 1600 and then process it to Ilford's specs, but for EI 3200. Negs are luscious and it's fresh high speed Type II 70mm.

Kodak Surveillance Film plays nice for me, it's very close to Olde Tri-X in my opinion. High Speed 400 and pushes well in D23 or ADOX Borax MQ which I mix myself. I bought half a case of this film from a Govt Surplus place out in Utah. Bought a roll, liked it, then bought up the rest.

 

[mshchem]

I buy HP5+ in 70mm from B&H. No less expensive than 120 products in terms of per square foot, but HEY it's TypeII perforated. I keep one of my A70's loaded with it, I expose the film at EI 1600 and then process it to Ilford's specs, but for EI 3200. Negs are luscious and it's fresh high speed Type II 70mm.

Kodak Surveillance Film plays nice for me, it's very close to Olde Tri-X in my opinion. High Speed 400 and pushes well in D23 or ADOX Borax MQ which I mix myself. I bought half a case of this film from a Govt Surplus place out in Utah. Bought a roll, liked it, then bought up the rest.

Yes, I some HP5 too. I play with 70mm just for the experience. I have the darkroom spirals and loader makes it easy.

I love 120, just right length of film.

 

[Stanly]

find any thin base film these days

To be fair, even the regular thickness film you can get about 100 exposures with working frame counter and proper spacing on a 70-100/200 back

Maybe you needed Top Secret spy status

Everyone doing anything with 70mm should get that status

Sounds intriguing! I ordered a 70 mag, but I have no idea yet what version is it and if it comes with two ... or any spools at all! Going to find that out in the new year, since post will resume work only next week.

 

[mshchem]

To be fair, even the regular thickness film you can get about 100 exposures with working frame counter and proper spacing on a 70-100/200 back



Everyone doing anything with 70mm should get that status

Sounds intriguing! I ordered a 70 mag, but I have no idea yet what version is it and if it comes with two ... or any spools at all! Going to find that out in the new year, since post will resume work only next week.

Supposedly one of the Apollo guys threw a 200 magazine with film out when they were tossing the cameras before Lunar liftoff. So there's a potential source for spools, and maybe some unexposed 0.07" film

 

[Nokton48]

I have a 500 foot roll of Plus-X Aero Recon type II. I do have three 100 foot 70mm Nikor reels and tanks, couldn't resist buying them at the time. The Recon film is thin enough, it's also sharp as a razor blade to handle. Severe cuts are possible.

70mm Aerial Films - Various by Nokton48, on Flickr

It's in the center of this 70mm pile