Shooting panoramic with 35 mm films in Penta 67-ii

[mtjade2007]

I have a lot of 100 ft rolls of negative and slide films in my freezer. I am planning to consume them (but not eating them) faster by shooting them through my Pentax 67-ii. Has anyone done this before without using an adapter? There used be an adapter sold on eBay but no longer seen now. The price was a bit hard to reach for me anyway.

I found that 35 mm film cassette can be easily loaded in the Pentax 67-ii's supply and take up cavities where normally 120 or 220 films are loaded. I do need to fabricate something to put the cassettes in the middle of the cavities so that the film will travel through the center of the film plane. I also need to fabricate a linkage so that when I crank the film advance lever it cranks the cassette in the take up cavity. This is not hard to fabricate.

I also have some 46mm 100 ft rolls in the freezer too. I will try to consume them with my Pentax 67-ii as well. Have planned this for more than a year. Just have not got it started.

Again has anyone done it? Will the resolution of the panoramic shots be reasonable still? I plan to use my 55 mm wide angle lens to make the shots to cover really a wide angle. Any suggestions welcome. Thanks.

 

[Steve Smith]

There's only one way to find out if it works.... try it!

I would cut up a 120 spool and modify it so it fits in the ends of the 35mm cassette and just wind onto another 120 spool. The film will have to be removed in darkness but that's not a big deal if you are going to process it yourself.


Steve.

 

[mtjade2007]

Thanks, Steve. Your replay is almost instant. Amazing.

I thought of doing what you suggested. The only drawback is that the finished roll needs to be removed in a changing bag. If I use a reloadable 35 mm cassette I can load and unload in daylight. The cassettes fits exactly perfectly in the Pentax 67-ii. Penatx must have designed it this way. For 46 mm films I have modified some 120 spools that will be perfect for the 46 mm films. I will cut the film of the length of 220 films and use the paper leaders from used 220 films. The leader paper needs to be trimmed down to the width of 46 mm. I should be able to load and unload the custom 46 mm films in daylight too.

I will process the films myself with a Jobo ATL processor.

 

[Steve Smith]

Could you run the film both from and into a 35mm cassette?


Steve.

 

[MattKing]

I bought a bunch of used RB67 backs here on APUG, and they included one with a home-made spools adapter to permit use of 35mm film for just this purpose. The advantage of course with removable backs is that when you get to the end of the film, you can put the dark slide in and remove the back, for later opening in the darkroom.

I still haven't done the experiments with the back that I would like to.

 

[SMBooth]

On Ebay there are conversion kits to do this. Includes mask and some do-dads to hold the cassette.

 

[mtjade2007]

Could you run the film both from and into a 35mm cassette?

Yes, Steve. The cassettes I will be using are reloadable cassettes. Will need a 2" piece of scotch tape to tape the paper leader on the core, reassemble the cassete then load it into the take up cavity. I will just need to advance the paper leader to where the mark on it lines up with the camera then close the back and keep advancing to the first frame. This should be just like a roll of 220 film.

The cassette will not be large enough for a 220 film's length of 35 mm film because of the leader and the tail of the roll paper. I did some calculation. It should be enough for 3/4th of a 220 film's length. That's about the length of a 35 mm 24 frame film. That will give me about 15 to 16 shots of the size of 24 mm x 68 mm panoramic shots.

With a Watson 35 mm bulk film loader I can easily load a 24 frame length of my 35 mm film with trimmed paper leader and tail on both end of the film. There seems to be no other issues for me to overcome.

 

[mtjade2007]

Putting a mask behind the curtain shutter is something I don't like. It changes the distance between the lens and the film. I would need to add the same thickness to the focusing screen beneath the prism. If the masks are too thick it may be a problem. If they are very thin then they may not be rigid enough and could be risky for the shutter. I will use no masks. I will need to draw two horizontal lines on the back of the focusing screen. That's easy to do. I have tried to put a piece of the 35 mm film in with the back closed. Then I fired the shutter set to B. With the lens removed I could see that the film was flat enough. I don't think film flatness will be an issue. I will shoot with small aperture to get deep DOF anyway. I don't need masks.

Well, I really have a lot of 100 ft bulk films. Quite some Potra NC and Portra VC. Some are Vericolor III, Agfa and Konica. I also have some Velvia 50 and Provia 100. I better start to consume them. I had them for school portrait jobs with Camerz cameras. I guess I will produce tons of panoramic shots instead of portraits for kids.

 

[Jim Jones]

Unless one can maintain film flatness and position within a very few thousands of an inch, sharpness will suffer. This precision may be difficult to maintain with improvised 35mm film adaptors. Considering the time involved in making, testing, and perfecting the conversion, it may be more practical to shoot on the film for which the camera back is designed, and crop the image.

 

[resummerfield]

Unless one can maintain film flatness and position within a very few thousands of an inch, sharpness will suffer. This precision may be difficult to maintain with improvised 35mm film adaptors. Considering the time involved in making, testing, and perfecting the conversion, it may be more practical to shoot on the film for which the camera back is designed, and crop the image.

I agree with Jim on this. I fear the 35mm film in the middle of the opening will curl on the sides unless it is properly supported.

 

[MattKing]

I agree with Jim on this. I fear the 35mm film in the middle of the opening will curl on the sides unless it is properly supported.

Of course, this might add to the cachet

 

[mtjade2007]

Film flatness and focusing accuracy has been a concern for me, which had kept me from doing it for years. Until one day when I picked up a used bulk film loader from a camera swap meet with some film left in it. I opened the loader and took the remaining film out. The remaining film was in a unknown condition anyway so I wasted it. I found something about the unused film. The film was naturally curled or rolled in the direction of the the film's length. But I found that it was completely flat on the vertical direction. This was not what I usually saw on a processed film that curls in both directions. This prompted me to cut a stripe of it and put it in the camera and closed the back. Then I had the shutter fired in B to look at the film from the front side through the opened shutter. The film looked very flat to me. I could not imagine that there would be a focusing problem. Of course I can say that all 35 mm long roll films will be like that. I will need to investigate it.

The reason I want to shoot panorama with 35 mm films is because I have a lot of 35 mm 100 ft long roll films. I will never finish shooting them through my 35 mm cameras. I will shoot 46 mm films on my Pentax 67-ii too. I have quite some 46 mm films left from a student portrait job with a Camerz camera. I have some 70 mm partial rolls too. That I can't use in my P67-ii though.

 

[mtjade2007]

Of course I can say that all 35 mm long roll films will be like that. I will need to investigate it.

I meant to say that I can't say that all 35 mm long roll films will be like that...