• "Philosopher" - Found "Brownie" Cam - Any Modern Replacement for Verich

    From 56g.1183@3:770/3 to All on Fri Dec 29 23:46:17 2023
    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" :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Ahem A Rivet's Shot@3:770/3 to 56g.1183@ztq4.net on Sat Dec 30 06:14:45 2023
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to All on Sat Dec 30 09:38:31 2023
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to The Natural Philosopher on Sat Dec 30 09:48:52 2023
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Theo@3:770/3 to Ahem A Rivet's Shot on Sat Dec 30 14:01:06 2023
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Computer Nerd Kev@3:770/3 to The Natural Philosopher on Sun Dec 31 07:54:41 2023
    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 |

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From 56g.1183@3:770/3 to The Natural Philosopher on Sun Dec 31 01:17:57 2023
    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 ???

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From 56g.1183@3:770/3 to Theo on Sun Dec 31 00:47:37 2023
    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".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From 56g.1183@3:770/3 to Computer Nerd Kev on Sun Dec 31 01:28:42 2023
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@3:770/3 to All on Sun Dec 31 08:00:32 2023
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From 56g.1183@3:770/3 to The Natural Philosopher on Wed Jan 3 00:47:10 2024
    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 !

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)