How do you advance half frame?

[ChristopherCoy]

I'm going to try and use my Bencini Koroll II today. I've loaded it with film and don't really know how to advance it. The numbers on a 120 roll are for 6x4.5, 6x6, and 6x9. This Koroll is 3x4.5, and there is two advance windows.

Which do I use because only the 6x6 numbers are visible? Any suggestions?

That is the 1 in the right window.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Or would you shoot one frame with the "1" in the left window, and one frame with the "1" in the right window?

 

[jon koss]

Yes, that is the correct method!

J

Or would you shoot one frame with the "1" in the left window, and one frame with the "1" in the right window?

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

My hands are precise to align a two 105x70 cms films in 3 seconds. Waste an film with taking notes about how did you advanced the film and your hands will be adjusted to do the same in next few films.

When I was thinking , I think Christopher is right , measure the two red centers distance and do what he says or similar.

Is 3x4.5 vertical or horizontal ? Do you need to advance 3 centimeters or other. It changes the game

Good luck , I think you bought the camera from APUG Sheffield. He sent me an excellent Nettar.

Umut

 

[Ian Grant]

I think Chris has misunderstood that a half frame of 6x9 is 6x4.5, not 3x4.5, the nonimal 6cm is the width of the film and doesn't change regardless of the camera as long as it takes 120 (or 620) so can yield 6x17, 6x14, 6x12, 6x9, 6x8 (Fuji) 6x7. 6x6 and 6x4.5.

Unless of course the Korrelle takes 127 film and not 120.

Ian

 

[ChristopherCoy]

The Koroll takes 120 and it shoots 3x4.5cm images. It is vertically 4.5cm. If it were a full frame it would be 6x6, and half of six is three. So if I put the number in the left window first then in the second window, I would get a 6x4.5 frame.

At least that's what I'm thinking...

 

[removed account4]

chris, did your camera come with the frame masks ...
and do you know how to remove them ?

great indestructible modern box cameras !

john

 

[ChristopherCoy]

No it doesn't have extra masks.

 

[removed account4]

No it doesn't have extra masks.

when the camera is open and you are looking at the film gate
there are 2 rectangles that crop the image and convert it to 1/2 frame
you just slide them UP / they lift out of the camera ... kind of like little clips.
it took me forever to figure that out ... careful though, easy to lose and you will never
find replacements... i believe you use the FIRST window for 6x6 after you remove the masks.

have fun
john

 

[Ian Grant]

The Koroll takes 120 and it shoots 3x4.5cm images. It is vertically 4.5cm. If it were a full frame it would be 6x6, and half of six is three. So if I put the number in the left window first then in the second window, I would get a 6x4.5 frame.

At least that's what I'm thinking...

I guess you think wrong.

127 is approx 4.5cm vertically, I've just processed 4 films today - so just checked, the previous 127 films I processed were fresh from a Brownie 127 in the early-mid 1960's while at school. If those photo's are of a 127 camera you're thunmb etc is in proportion but that's not the case for a 120 camera.

Ian

 

[Alan W]

I'm trying to figure out how you get 3x4.5 out of 120 film ?

 

[ChristopherCoy]

This is a shot if the back of my Bencini Koroll 24s, also a half frame camera. And that's a 120 take up spool.

The frame is 4.5cm vertically and 3cm wide. Same as the Koroll II.

So if I shoot half a frame (3cm), and the another half frame (3cm), and add them together I get a full 6x4.5 frame.

Am I looking at this incorrectly?

 

[MattKing]

It looks to me that the 3 x 4.5cm framing would only be available with 127 film.

I bet that that centre film gate comes out.

If so, there should be both that gate and adapters for the feed and takeup sides to permit you to switch between 127 and 120 film.

 

[bdial]

I agree with Matt, 120 would overlap the film gate with a pretty big gap (front to back). It seems like focus would be a problem. Is the pressure plate flat, is it 6 cm top to bottom?

 

[removed account4]

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Bencini_Koroll

 

[MFstooges]

This is a shot if the back of my Bencini Koroll 24s, also a half frame camera. And that's a 120 take up spool.

The frame is 4.5cm vertically and 3cm wide. Same as the Koroll II.

So if I shoot half a frame (3cm), and the another half frame (3cm), and add them together I get a full 6x4.5 frame.

Am I looking at this incorrectly?

View attachment 60164

View attachment 60165

View attachment 60166

It wastes 1.50 cm of film vertical dimension?

 

[Ian Grant]

It won't hold 120 film very flat, it does look as if it's a dual format camera to use 120 full 6x6 with that plate removed or 127 with it. But the manual clearly shows it's designed to just use 3/4 of the films width which seems to be quite poor design.

Ian

 

[Alan W]

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Bencini_Koroll

maybe this is why they don't make 'em anymore!

 

[AgX]

here is the manual:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/e-coli/sets/72157603627244207/

 

[ChristopherCoy]

It won't hold 120 film very flat, it does look as if it's a dual format camera to use 120 full 6x6 with that plate removed or 127 with it. But the manual clearly shows it's designed to just use 3/4 of the films width which seems to be quite poor design.

Ian

I'm confused. I measured the window, the manual and camerapedia link clearly state it's for 120 film, and that it takes 3x4.5cm frames.... And you still say it won't work as designed?

I usually look up to most of you for information, but y'all seem to be so against the fact that this size frame just isn't possible. What is it about this camera that makes y'all think it's wrong, or I'm wrong or whatever?

All I really wanted to know was how to advance it to get properly spaced negatives.

 

[AgX]

It won't hold 120 film very flat, ...

The rebate guides are even wider as with standard cameras for type 120, which would enhance film flateness.

 

[Alan W]

I'm confused. I measured the window, the manual and camerapedia link clearly state it's for 120 film, and that it takes 3x4.5cm frames.... And you still say it won't work as designed?

I usually look up to most of you for information, but y'all seem to be so against the fact that this size frame just isn't possible. What is it about this camera that makes y'all thing it's wrong, or I'm wrong or whatever?

All I really wanted to know was how to advance it to get properly spaced negatives.

I don't think you're wrong or anything,I'm just amazed that a camera would take the supposed benefit of 120 film,a 6 cm side,and shorten it,while still using 120 film.Seems like it would be easier to use another format.Having said that,I'm fascinated by strange old cameras myself-Good Luck!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't think you're wrong or anything,I'm just amazed that a camera would take the supposed benefit of 120 film,a 6 cm side,and shorten it,while still using 120 film.Seems like it would be easier to use another format.Having said that,I'm fascinated by strange old cameras myself-Good Luck!

One body design was used for 35mm, 127, and 120 film to cut production costs.

 

[removed account4]

sure there is a little extra room between the frames, who cares ?

 

[AgX]

asa

One body design was used for 35mm, 127, and 120 film to cut production costs.

Camerapedia does not hint at type 127. There is one type 135 and three type 120 cameras.
All have different bodies.

I assume the idea two produce as alternative to 6x6, 3.5x4 and not 4.5x6 cameras was just to get more frames on an easy to access film.

The price per frame would be the lowest of all type 120 variations. I don't guess that frame size, regarding quality, was that much an issue for that range of cameras.

With 6x6 and smaller negatives would have to enlarged anyway, so the cost regarding frame/film would only be part of the story, with the alternative of type 127 film in mind.
So it falls down on many exposures on easy to access film.