As I remember you were pretty savvy about olde-tyme
photography.

Cleaning 40+ years of crap out of my office I found
an actual, brown bakelite, "Brownie" box camera.
Shutter sounds like maybe 1/60th.

The spool looks like 620 - which was very popular
back in the day for those kinds of cams.

Back then, Verichrome Pan was THE film for cheap
cameras. It was a sort of "double-emulsion" construct
combining some "fast" grains with "slow" grains. It
was almost impossible to take a badly-exposed pic
using that. In better cameras it produced almost
"magical" results - a slivery rendition where you
could see things both in bright sun AND deep shade
without any obvious demarcation. I liked VP. Great
for everything, but almost 'artistic' for landscapes.
Kinda duplicated how the human eye sees things.

In modern electronic systems, it'd be called "Extended
Exposure Range". Non-'linear', but aesthetic maybe
because of that. Eyeballs aren't "linear".

Anyway, with totally fixed arp/speed, a wide-latitude
film WOULD be required for decent results.

Chromogenic ???

More of a pain-in-the-ass though ...

There's also the 620 issue ... they don't sell that
anymore. It's still 70mm, same as 120, but the spool
is slightly different, thinner edges. And, of course,
paper backing for 6x6.

Hmm ... could stuff a H-Blad sensor in there, make
a $5000 "Brownie" :-)

On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 23:46:17 -0500
"56g.1183" <56g.1183@ztq4.net> wrote:

> Hmm ... could stuff a H-Blad sensor in there, make
> a $5000 "Brownie" :-)

Take one out of a rather cheaper camera perhaps or use a phone
spare part.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Host: Beautiful Theory meet Inconvenient Fact
Obit: Beautiful Theory died today of factual inconsistency

On 30/12/2023 04:46, 56g.1183 wrote:
> There's also the 620 issue ... they don't sell that
> anymore. It's still 70mm, same as 120, but the spool
> is slightly different, thinner edges. And, of course,
> paper backing for 6x6.

ISTR that you can get 120 film and wind it onto 620 spools if you are
doing it all yourself

But its all nostalgia, even a crap mobile phone will take a better image
than a brownie

--
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

― Leo Tolstoy

On 30/12/2023 09:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 30/12/2023 04:46, 56g.1183 wrote:
>> There's also the 620 issue ... they don't sell that
>> anymore. It's still 70mm, same as 120, but the spool
>> is slightly different, thinner edges. And, of course,
>> paper backing for 6x6.
>
> ISTR that you can get 120 film and wind it onto 620 spools if you are
> doing it all yourself
>
> But its all nostalgia, even a crap mobile phone will take a better image
> than a brownie
>
>

https://www.ebay.co.uk/b/bn_7022783813

Plenty of film available and spools

>

--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 23:46:17 -0500
> "56g.1183" <56g.1183@ztq4.net> wrote:
>
> > Hmm ... could stuff a H-Blad sensor in there, make
> > a $5000 "Brownie" :-)
>
> Take one out of a rather cheaper camera perhaps or use a phone
> spare part.

Raspberry Pi camera, of course! But you may find the sensor a little small
for a full 35mm frame. Would be fun to see what happened though.

Theo

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> But its all nostalgia, even a crap mobile phone will take a better image
> than a brownie

On the absolute cheapest feature phones it's surprising how bad
they can still make the cameras. I think a Brownie might win
against some.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |

On 12/30/23 9:01 AM, Theo wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 23:46:17 -0500
>> "56g.1183" <56g.1183@ztq4.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm ... could stuff a H-Blad sensor in there, make
>>> a $5000 "Brownie" :-)
>>
>> Take one out of a rather cheaper camera perhaps or use a phone
>> spare part.
>
> Raspberry Pi camera, of course! But you may find the sensor a little small
> for a full 35mm frame. Would be fun to see what happened though.
>
> Theo
>

"Brownies" were 6x6 ... not 35mm. In theory you'd
want a 6x6 sensor, LOTS of pixels, though the LENS
isn't THAT great. 6x6 with a GOOD lens is usually
pretty spectacular.

I have a Pentax 6x7 - "The Big One" - like a giant
SLR. Alas they never made a 6x7 sensor for it.
Modern 'tiny' sensors with theoretically similar
pixel counts still just don't reproduce the look
and feel of 'real' 6x7 medium-format film alas.
Modern sensors are "sharp", but film had a better
'tonal' range.

It's the old 'analog'-vs-'digital' arg. Digital is
technically 'more accurate'. 'Analog' however is
often more 'aesthetic' - better tuned to human
senses. Digital sound is technically more accurate,
but tube amplifiers/vinyl are more aesthetic. Similar
with image sensors -vs- film. Using film you get
basically 16+ bit tonal range ... and it's not
quite "linear", but more in tune with how the
human eye sees things. A medium/large format
film, say Plus-X, just LOOKS better, more "real".

On 12/30/23 4:38 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 30/12/2023 04:46, 56g.1183 wrote:
>> There's also the 620 issue ... they don't sell that
>> anymore. It's still 70mm, same as 120, but the spool
>> is slightly different, thinner edges. And, of course,
>> paper backing for 6x6.
>
> ISTR that you can get 120 film and wind it onto 620 spools if you are
> doing it all yourself

Can be done, of course. Done it. But it's a pain.

> But its all nostalgia, even a crap mobile phone will take a better image
> than a brownie

But that's not THE POINT ! :-)

Cleaning out my office I also found some far
older cams - one looks like a 3"X9" vertical
format folder from the VERY old days. The
shutters still work. I'll look at them more
closely soon and give you the exact specs.

The one in the GOOD case was a 4x5 "Press Camera".
I'd actually used that a bit back in the day. The
lenses were kinda small but the pix are just great.
You see 'em in old movies all the time. Alas do
not have the flash add-on - but don't know if
you can get those exploding flash-bulbs anymore.
MIGHT be able to dup the illumination profile
with LEDs ... but those bulbs were VERY bright.

Hmmm ... the "$5000 Brownie" is sounding better.
So absurd that it's attractive :-)

Would need at least 12-bit range in order to
fake Verichrome Pan however ... and then a
12-bit PRINTER. Do they still make those
dye-sublimation printers ???

On 12/30/23 4:54 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> But its all nostalgia, even a crap mobile phone will take a better image
>> than a brownie
>
> On the absolute cheapest feature phones it's surprising how bad
> they can still make the cameras. I think a Brownie might win
> against some.

Found almost the original digital camera, Casio
640x480, deep in my office lately. Alas do NOT
have the proper connecting cables. Look like
"stereo sound" jacks ... likely some serial
format. As I remember they did NOT have an IR
filter ... asphalt sometimes looked GREEN.

Anyway, old cams ARE attractive. I have a number
of them ... and no, SOME film formats are just
NOT in existence since the 40s. I even found
a "Polaroid Back" for 4X5 ... mostly meant for
the old B&W that produced both a positive AND
negative. Got some very old real Polaroids
too ... that are also optimized for that old
roll film. I have ONE spool of that film left.
Shoot, wait, peel ... and then apply the
acidic 'fixer' to the positive.

On 31/12/2023 05:47, 56g.1183 wrote:
> On 12/30/23 9:01 AM, Theo wrote:
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 23:46:17 -0500
>>> "56g.1183" <56g.1183@ztq4.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hmm ... could stuff a H-Blad sensor in there, make
>>>> a $5000 "Brownie"  :-)
>>>
>>>          Take one out of a rather cheaper camera perhaps or use a phone
>>> spare part.
>>
>> Raspberry Pi camera, of course!  But you may find the sensor a little
>> small
>> for a full 35mm frame. Would be fun to see what happened though.
>>
>> Theo
>>
>
>   "Brownies" were 6x6 ... not 35mm. In theory you'd
>   want a 6x6 sensor, LOTS of pixels, though the LENS
>   isn't THAT great. 6x6 with a GOOD lens is usually
>   pretty spectacular.
>
They were not.

Very few cameras use 6x6.

they were generally about 2.25" x 3.25 " on 620 film.
I only remember 127 class cameras generating square negatives

IIRC today's 'half plate' (Medium format) cameras are only 5x4"

>

--
WOKE is an acronym... Without Originality, Knowledge or Education.

On 12/31/23 3:00 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 31/12/2023 05:47, 56g.1183 wrote:
>> On 12/30/23 9:01 AM, Theo wrote:
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 23:46:17 -0500
>>>> "56g.1183" <56g.1183@ztq4.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hmm ... could stuff a H-Blad sensor in there, make
>>>>> a $5000 "Brownie"  :-)
>>>>
>>>>          Take one out of a rather cheaper camera perhaps or use a phone
>>>> spare part.
>>>
>>> Raspberry Pi camera, of course!  But you may find the sensor a little
>>> small
>>> for a full 35mm frame. Would be fun to see what happened though.
>>>
>>> Theo
>>>
>>
>>    "Brownies" were 6x6 ... not 35mm. In theory you'd
>>    want a 6x6 sensor, LOTS of pixels, though the LENS
>>    isn't THAT great. 6x6 with a GOOD lens is usually
>>    pretty spectacular.
>>
> They were not.
>
> Very few cameras use 6x6.

I'd count Hasselblad as a "significant" exception ...

Though 6x7 is "better".

> they were generally about 2.25" x 3.25 " on 620 film.
> I only remember 127 class cameras generating square negatives

A lot of the cheap 620 cams did 6x6 ... I had a
number of them. Big square negs.

127 was popular in the 60s/70s ... it was also
square ... 4.5x4.5 maybe ? Again it was most
popular in cheaper "consumer" cams. My mom
had a few, and now I do.

> IIRC today's 'half plate' (Medium format)  cameras are only 5x4"

Ummmmmmm ... look again.

IMHO, "medium-format" is at least 6x4.5 (Mamiya 645) to 6x9

Basically, it's about 35mm X 4 area

Does wonders.

I have a Mamiya 645 and Pentax 6x7 (original model).
Beautiful pix. Puts 35mm to shame.

One of the antiques looks like maybe 6x12 ...
one of those really really old vertical formats.
Likely would have to physically fabricate from
4x5 roll film. Serious pain !