Mechanical XPAN, is it possible?

[Deleted member 65559]

I have been following this thread for the mechanical re-creation of an XPan camera. It seems like the most often noted of Zeno's Paradoxes, the one about approaching the wall by halves. Each approach is half that of the one before it. In practical terms you will get awfully close to the wall but never there. And so it is with all the attempts to jury-rig an existing camera into an XPan. I applaud the inspiration that drives some of the folks working on this project and appreciate their frustration.

The problems I see is that the finished product is not too reliable and that the medium is film. Film is getting rarer and more expensive. Most of the shooters I know I buying a lot of expired stock when they can and new when they must. This does not seem like it will get better.

I have not used the XPan but if it is HB it is probably pretty good. The color is done by the chemists who make the film and who make the chemicals to process it. The image is the lens and HB is usually pretty good about this. So even while the film images are good or OK now they probably will not get any better. They will get worse. So other than the fun and therapy of making a mechanical jury-rigged XPan it looks to me a problem of diminishing returns.

I know some folks enjoy chemically based imagery, analog. There is a fellow here in town who explores the old palladium and platinum prints and some other 19th century techniques. But this is not practical for most of us. And film is getting less practical. So we are all left with digital except for a few. So the remaining digital solution, the other fork of this pursuit, is to have a camera with the software to do this. Digitally it is simple subtraction, chopping off the tops and bottoms of the sensor images. In-camera or in editor, easy-peasy.

Granted there is not the same satisfaction when doing the XPan with software but on the positive side you can be sure of getting that image every time you press the shutter. As my mechanical skills are minimal I will take the software route rather than the hardware one. But I will still follow this thread because I would iike to see what the board members are creating.

What makes you say "film is getting less practical" ??

 

[Retro-Grouch]

What makes you say "film is getting less practical" ??

Film is entirely practical, of course! I never let those supposed "necessities" like food, clothing, shelter, etc. supersede my film budget! 😉

 

[boojum]

What makes you say "film is getting less practical" ??

Cost and availability.

And unless you have a darkroom with enlarger you are shooting digital anyway. Your negatives are digitally scanned. You have a digital image of an analog world. Why not just chuck the film loop and do straight digital saving the whole analog porcess which ends up digital? There'd be a lot of money saved there.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Cost and availability.

And unless you have a darkroom with enlarger you are shooting digital anyway. Your negatives are digitally scanned. You have a digital image of an analog world. Why not just chuck the film loop and do straight digital saving the whole analog porcess which ends up digital? There'd be a lot of money saved there.

There still are many people with darkrooms. Enlargers given away for free or close to. My negatives aren't digitally scanned, because i process them myself. You're making some big assumptions about the world of photography.... I don't see lots of money being saved on $12,000+ Leica M-11s or Hasselblad 907 at $10,000. Yes $8.99 for a roll of Tri-X is exorbitant...

 

[boojum]

xPan FOV
30mm = 94.6 x 43.6
45mm = 71.7 x 29.9
90mm = 39.7 x 15.2

S1R in 65:24 mode with
Sigma 17mm = 93.3 x 42.8
Sigma 24mm = 73.7 x 31
50mm = 39.6 x 15.2

Bonus use of the 17mm... the SWC is 72.8 x 72.8. S1R in 1x1 with the 17mm is 70.4 x 70.4.

The Sigma fp also has a 65x24 mode and would use the same focal length lenses. The Fuji GFX system has 65x24 as well but would need different focal lengths due to the larger sensor.

All that is wonderful. My sole argument is that the attempt to mechanically imitate the XPan is difficult at best. We have been shooting digital for over a quarter century now. It has advantages. And even the most humble editor cn create XPan format by subtraction. Lens selection con determine FOV. Or use a camera that formats XPan internally.

So if the quest is to build your own XPan mechanically, great. It is challenging and interesting to watch. But for the lazy, ungifted slugs there is only the "buy" solution.

 

[boojum]

There still are many people with darkrooms. Enlargers given away for free or close to. My negatives aren't digitally scanned, because i process them myself. You're making some big assumptions about the world of photography.... I don't see lots of money being saved on $12,000+ Leica M-11s or Hasselblad 907 at $10,000. Yes $8.99 for a roll of Tri-X is exorbitant...

I have no doubt some folks still handle film from start to finish. The percentage of photographers who do cannot be very large as a percentage of the shutter clicking population. And while you may enjoy it immensely most folks do not, ergo digital.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I have no doubt some folks still handle film from start to finish. The percentage of photographers who do cannot be very large as a percentage of the shutter clicking population. And while you may enjoy it immensely most folks do not, ergo digital.

Film is dead is an old saw boojum. ....

 

[Retro-Grouch]

Film is dead is an old saw boojum. ....

But where would RFF be without all of those dead horses to beat? 😉 It seems none of us can resist taking a few whacks at them, doesn't it?

 

[boojum]

Film is dead is an old saw boojum. ....

Yeah, LP's are coming back, too.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Yeah, LP's are coming back, too.

boojum, there are, believe it or not, some who never drank the digital Koolaid.... that saved us a lot of money

 

[boojum]

boojum, there are, believe it or not, some who never drank the digital Koolaid.... that saved us a lot of money

Good for you. You must be very proud of yourself to brag about it.

I just Googled sales figures. Film cameras a little over $300 million. Digital cameras around $22 billion. Koolaid is selling like crazy these days. Can it be that just so few people in the camera world are in step and all the others not? That's better than 700 times as much money being spent on digital cameras than film cameras.

I am not sure how film and processing is cheaper than an SD card but I am sure it is. Especially when costed out over a decade.

Look, I understand that his is a very touchy and emotional subject for you. You have already demonstrated that. Have fun with film.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

It's not that emotional boojum, but without film there wouldn't be an RFF. Whatever floats your boat. Keep on with that digital stuff.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

I say we settle this argument with a Jello-wrestling match, to the death! Winner gets a new Leica, in their choice of film or digital!

 

[boojum]

And back to the thread, yes, XPan can possibly be recreated mechanically in another camera, with great difficulty and minimal chance of success. OTOH it can be replicated with the software of an image editor in post or in some cameras by selecting that crop. Another example of analog vs digital. While I can sympathize with the therapeutic benefits of designing and building this mock XPan I liken it to playing golf with a croquet mallet or making love standing up in a hammock. Yes, it can be done but there are easier ways. It sure is interesting to follow the great ideas put forth and executed. And I look forward to seeing a finished, successful mock XPan showing how well it works in analog.

 

[boojum]

I say we settle this argument with a Jello-wrestling match, to the death! Winner gets a new Leica, in their choice of film or digital!

Not both? ;o)

 

[Deleted member 65559]

In actuality a mechanical Xpan has nothing to do with film/digital. It's a beautifully designed if very specific camera. The kicker is that because of the electronics involved, it could end up being a $ 5,000 brick. I have no doubt that if we were back in the '80s say, when mechanical cameras were being built.....several companies could have built it. If you could build a Fuji 617 or a Linhof Technorama.... why not an Xpan? It's just that no one is building those kind of cameras any more.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Not both? ;o)

🤣 ....then you'd have to ask to have your film hand inspected.....

 

[boojum]

🤣 ....then you'd have to ask to have your film hand inspected.....

I'd keep it as a curiosity. I sent all my film cameras on to Sonnar Brian a while back. Not a lot but a few. ME Super, AE-1 and an XA-3 IIRC. Oh, and the stone ax that will take a photograph, the K1000. All in working order.

 

[shawn]

In actuality a mechanical Xpan has nothing to do with film/digital. It's a beautifully designed if very specific camera. The kicker is that because of the electronics involved, it could end up being a $ 5,000 brick. I have no doubt that if we were back in the '80s say, when mechanical cameras were being built.....several companies could have built it. If you could build a Fuji 617 or a Linhof Technorama.... why not an Xpan? It's just that no one is building those kind of cameras any more.

i think a big part of why is if you are going to build a camera why not go with larger negatives? They are also easier from a film advance point of view. I say that having built 6x12, 6x17 and 6x24 and adapting others for 35mm panoramic.

There are people making 35mm panoramic cameras. Check out the oxygen panomicron for example.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

i think a big part of why is if you are going to build a camera why not go with larger negatives? They are also easier from a film advance point of view. I say that having built 6x12, 6x17 and 6x24 and adapting others for 35mm panoramic.

There are people making 35mm panoramic cameras. Check out the oxygen panomicron for example.

The 'oxygen' (no longer available) is a cool idea. I always prefer medium format film, but since 220 is dead, there's no doubt 35 is more convenient for panoramics. As i see it, the attractive selling point of the Xpan were: a built-in light meter, the fact that it could do single frame or panoramics, and had 3 high quality interchangeable lenses. So you have a svelte camera you could take as an only camera on a trip. Quite a bit different than a 617.... Having said that, I'd be a sucker for a Fuji G-W 680 IV with 3 interchangeable lenses.