Options for shooting 828 cameras

[Don Day]

By the way, my method is the same espoused on several other sites, with the exception of how to make the slitting cut itself.  

FWIW, I have a hard time telling when I have actually cut clear through the paper to the plastic core, but it doesn't hurt the knife to cut into the plastic if you go more than deep enough.  I like the cleanness of edge that this cutting method produces, vs the frayed edge from using a saw (I even tried a hobby saw for a finer cut on my first experiment, but had trouble with squareness of the cut).  I also tried using a copper tubing cutter, but this type of cutter puts a lot of pressure on the film, which might induce pressure marks. The "rolling knife" method was my compromise from the tube cutter experiment--straighten out the blade, roll the spool instead of the cutter, and put the pressure on the 120 spool ends instead!  As a bonus, there is less direct exposure of the cut end to light.

The 14-exposure convention is a compromise between the spacing you get with the reused 16-exposure numbering width and the amount of material you can actually wind onto these tiny spools. I don't have an original 828 paper backing to compare with, but this convention seems about right.  828 spools require a 1/4" end for fitting into the holder, so I don't think you can easily go with any smaller of a core just to get more of the original film on the spool.  The folding in half of the front and back parts of the paper might be shortened a bit to save on bulk, but you lose the convenience of relying on the "by halves" formula in the dark.

As convenient as it is for gluing and strength, the ledge created by the bobbin flange is worth several layers of paper and film, which is why you might want to use a bit less length overall with these homemade holders.  On the other hand, the homemade spools seem to fit and rotate just fine in my recently acquired Bantam Special, so the rubbing issue is probably model-specific. I think I could have used the 14-exp roll with the homemade spool just fine on this particular camera.

I have to say that I love the heft and tiny size of the Kodak 828 models.  These were displaced far too early in their prime by the popular 35mm form factor and the huge convenience of simpler, bulk reloading cassettes.  But the 2x larger area of an 828 negative is clearly an advantage over 36x24mm negatives.

For scanning odd-sized negatives, I make up a single aperture card with channels built up of thin cardboard (strips of cereal box, in fact) that the film will slide through from one side of my flatbed scanner to the other. I can keep the negs in a single strip if I like.  My old Durst 606 has a glass carrier that would hold these negs just fine--it has an adjustable mask for any size neg up to 6x6.

[nelsonfoto]

Good info, Don. I'm going to move this one into the FAQ section.

[ImageMaker]

You know, I have a lathe; it's tempting to make a split tube to grip the roll in the chuck and mount a single edge razor blade to the tool holder to get a perfectly straight cut under power.

Beyond that, looking at your bobbin spool, you might be able to just cut the cores from the bobbin flanges and still glue the flanges onto the dowel (or use a brass tube with those nice pre-made flanges).  You'd have less gluing area, but you'd get the core diameter reduction.  And if you make a cardboard feeler like the one you recommend for the 4" film length cut, you could probably cut the paper leader and tail to a reasonable minimum length (it really only needs to be two wraps plus the distance to the takeup, probably 6-7 inches from the film end) just as easily, perhaps get the full 16 exposures in.

Of course, your getting 14 exposures makes me think I might be able to get as many as 30 or even 36 with my thought of using paper only on the head and tail.  I might have to find a way to get one of those Efke 100 70mm rolls and make a slitter, just to find out...

[Peter Evans]

I'm impressed by all this effort and am even starting to regret having long ago got rid of my first ever camera, a British Kodak plastic wonder that took surprisingly good photos on 828.

828 deserves its own website somewhere, just as for 127 there is onetwoseven.org.uk.

[Don Day]

An 828 site would be fun, Peter.  Until then, if enough 828 activity develops on nelsonfoto, perhaps it would be enough to just add a new 828 category when the time is right.  Better yet might be to add a Wiki to nelsonfoto, which would enable special interest "home pages"to be developed by the respective communities.  CE, would a Wiki interface be possible sometime?

[Don Day]

Back to cutting down 120 rolls--last night I repeated the process just to be certain it was described correctly.  From start to loading up the camera took less than 15 minutes, and it could get faster with practice.  I used a made-up spool, and got the full 14-frame version onto the spool okay, but had to retighten once to take out slack, and did have to get some tape for the retaping of the leading edge of the film (the tape on Lucky film is not restickable).  I was able to load this roll just fine into a Bantam Special--it is snug, but draws smoothly.

A single-edged blade on a rotating holder would work great, especially because the width of the blade is constant--it is not creating a constantly-widening wedge as it drives into the cut.  For those of us without lathes, I can envision a small device that could be secured in a table clamp and rotated with a hand crank with one hand while using thumb pressure on a lever-mounted blade to make the cut.

[nelsonfoto]

An 828 site would be fun, Peter.  Until then, if enough 828 activity develops on nelsonfoto, perhaps it would be enough to just add a new 828 category when the time is right.  Better yet might be to add a Wiki to nelsonfoto, which would enable special interest "home pages"to be developed by the respective communities.  CE, would a Wiki interface be possible sometime?

Don, I don't foresee adding Wiki to these forums. I might be able to add a wiki component as a separate entity, but I don't think it will integrate with phpbb. I will look into it, however.

[ImageMaker]

Back to cutting down 120 rolls--last night I repeated the process just to be certain it was described correctly.  From start to loading up the camera took less than 15 minutes, and it could get faster with practice.  I used a made-up spool, and got the full 14-frame version onto the spool okay, but had to retighten once to take out slack, and did have to get some tape for the retaping of the leading edge of the film (the tape on Lucky film is not restickable).  I was able to load this roll just fine into a Bantam Special--it is snug, but draws smoothly.

Okay, cool.  That leads me to think I might be okay putting uncut rolls on original 828 spools (especially with the minimum length leader and tail), which would let me spend an hour or so and get three rolls plus a takeup with my existing spool supply -- quite a reasonable number for one camera.  I wonder what I can do with a 28 mm strip?  I guess I could slit a 16 mm strip from it and have two loads for my Minolta 16...

A single-edged blade on a rotating holder would work great, especially because the width of the blade is constant--it is not creating a constantly-widening wedge as it drives into the cut.  For those of us without lathes, I can envision a small device that could be secured in a table clamp and rotated with a hand crank with one hand while using thumb pressure on a lever-mounted blade to make the cut.

Aaaah, now we're in the realm of jackleg engineering -- you need a length of 3/16 dowel, some 1/16 plywood (from a hobby shop), some other wood for a support, and some assorted small hardware (thumbscrew, blind nut, washers, etc.), white glue, plus a single edge blade and some shop tools.  The 3/16 dowel fits perfectly in the spool openings in 120, and it's fairly simple to build a spool drive by slotting the dowel end, gluing in a small paddle of plywood, then putting a plywood plate on top of the paddle.  The 3/16 dowel will turn freely in a 13/64 hole, or just press into a 3/16 hole in wood (with glue, to hold securely).  Easy to make up a crank for the drive key, and not too hard to spring load the other spindle end.  Hinge on a clamping device to hold the blade, and figure a way to clamp the whole unit to a table or counter (or just build it so you can hand hold it), and you're ready to run.

[Don Day]

Homemade 828 spools, fast and cheap
So you don't have a spare 828 spool to put your newly trimmed film on?  You can make one by cutting in half a Class 15 plastic sewing bobbin (10 for $1.98 at Hobby Lobby) and gluing the ends onto a 42mm length of 1/4" wooden dowel. Use a small length of waste 35mm film to set the spacing of the two flanges while the glue is wet.  I used gap-filling CA to secure the flanges after setting the width and centering them on the dowel.  After the glue has set, darken the plastic as much as possible with a permanent ink marker.  The various stages of assembly will look like this:



Usage notes:
The external dimensions of this homemade spool are very close to the real thing.  In practice, this spool fits snugly, but it might not work at all on some cameras.  Test fit the new spool in your camera before you get committed with a fresh load of film on it!

Most Kodak Bantam cameras have a pressure flap that presses against the rim of the spool for tension.  On some of these cameras, this flap faces the advancing film, and it tends to bite into the outside of the plastic flanges as the film is advanced.  I don't usually advocate modifying old hardware, but if you have no choice but to use the homemade spools on a camera that grabs at the plastic rims, you can use needle-nose pliers to ever-so-slightly tweak back the parts that touch the rim so that they glide rather than bite as the spool rotates beneath.

Editing notes:
Update 11/28/2005: Based on fitting the homemade spools into other cameras, I changed the length of the dowel from 1 3/4" to 42mm -- a small but important change that lets the spool fit more cameras.  

For what its worth, the Norton/Chicago series of black plastic box cameras that use 828-width film do NOT accept standard 828 spools; everything but the film width is smaller on these dudes.

[ImageMaker]

Having just received the 828 adapter set to fit my Kodak Reflex II (thanks, r-brian!), I note that these improvised spools will *not* work with this adapter, which uses a pin that inserts into the hollow core of original spools as a pivot.  Making the same spools with a tubular center spindle (1/4" brass tube from a hobby shop should work, if the wall isn't too thick) will not only allow use in cameras that use a spindle instead of a well, but also allow filing the ratchet teeth for the drive key so the spool can be used on the takeup side as well.

[Peter Evans]

In this thread at that other place, one Daniel Goodale Porter -- "Currently I find myself in Germany with regular trips to Iraq for a year at a time" -- announces: I have recently acquired a lifetime supply of 35mm microfilm. The catch is that it does not have sprocket holes. Don't tell him I sent you!

Incidentally, an earlier post of his here both suggests that he knows his stuff and provides a fascinating link. Somebody should invite him over here.

[ImageMaker]

Peter, given the speed of microfilm (I use it in my Minolta 16 cameras -- EI 25 to about 64, maybe 80 at best for Copex Rapid in diluted Diafine) and the ease of cutting down 120 to fit, I'm not sure it'd be worth cutting microfilm and loading it to either original or remade backing paper.  Starting from 120, I can get film ranging from ISO 25 to box-rated 3200 (real speed about 1000), plus a bunch of color options.

If you want to try to recreate Tech Pan, and do it on 828 backing, then unperfed 35mm microfilm is the One True Path.  Otherwise, I'll stick with cutting down 120.

Now, if you can find me a source for cheap bulk rolls of 35 mm camera perf Copex Rapid, Imagelink HS, or Fuji Super FS (the faster brothers in the three main microfilm families), I'd be interested; my Spotmatic and Petri 7S have fast enough lenses to make EI 64-80 comfortable, and enough sharpness and resolution to take advantage of these films...