Mechanical XPAN, is it possible?

jkcampbell said:
In the end you only live once, if it's an Xpan you want, go for it!
Click to expand...

Truth.

The XPan is a one-of-a-kind; how many things in this life can you say that about?
If after a try it's not your thing, there's someone out there who will eagerly take it off your hands for the same or more and you will lose nothing in the process. Just richer for the experience.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1196.jpg
    IMG_1196.jpg
    34.5 KB · Views: 1
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.
 
boojum said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

EDIT: The Fuji GFX system has 65x24 as well but would need different focal lengths due to the larger sensor. The Sigma fp has a 21:9 mode.
 
Last edited:
With the 907x/CFVII 50c, you can set the in-camera crop to 65:24 for XPan format. This nets an ~18.3Mpixel, XPan format image with approximate format dimensions of 44x12.5 mm. Output files will be in this format for JPEG images and full-frame raw with cropping metadata for those applications that honor it.

The issue, for those who are trying to achieve the XPan's format and DoF, is that the smaller format will have a different DoF-to-lens opening relationships. I believe it is about 1-1.5 stops different ... that is, the 907x/CFVII 50c configured for XPan format will net the DoF characteristics at f/4 that the XPan would net at f/5.6-f/6.3. And of course a digital solution does produce film images, and film image qualities. 😀

With a Hasselblad 500CM and A16 back, you can crop the native 56x45mm format down to 56x16.6 mm to net closer to XPan format. A similar adjustment of the aperture by about 1-1.3 stops will give you the DoF equivalent. That's a fully mechanical, film camera...

G
 
boojum said:
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.
Click to expand...
What makes you say "film is getting less practical" ??
 
Deardorff38 said:
What makes you say "film is getting less practical" ??
Click to expand...

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.
 
boojum said:
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.
Click to expand...
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...
 
shawn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Deardorff38 said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
boojum said:
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.
Click to expand...
Film is dead is an old saw boojum. ....
 
Deardorff38 said:
boojum, there are, believe it or not, some who never drank the digital Koolaid.... that saved us a lot of money
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom