Unperforated film...

[brbo]

I think Nikon 28Ti/35Ti can also take unperforated film with minimum hasle.

I just bought a can of unperforated 35mm Portra 1600nc here on RFF. Was thinking of loading it into 126 cartridges, getting one of those cool looking Kodak Bantam 828 cameras, using it in my Hasselblad or even buying a Canon EOS 10S and a 50/1.8 lens...

A few days before I also decided that I'd like to sell/trade my Nikon 28Ti for something similar with a bit longer lens 35-40mm (Nikon 35Ti, Hexar AF, Contax T2...). So, today I was inspecting my 28Ti to make sure everything is OK when it dawned on me that unperforated film should be no problem for Nikon 28Ti. There is just one sprocket bump (quite low in height) on the film take-up spool and no IR sensor for sprocket holes. There is one roller in the lower right corner below the film rail and its position is such that it rolls along the film edge and so doesn't have any "sprocket holes sensing capabilities".

I cut a short 35mm wide strip of paper, put it in a used canister and used just a bit of scotch tape to fix the end of the "film" to the take-up spool (I used very little tape and made sure that rewind motor would have absolutely no problem detaching the end of film from the spool). I then tried with punching just one massive "sprocket hole" (I only have a standard paper puncher) into the film and it also worked. After the camera loaded the film I opened the gate and marked the position of the first frame. I got 6 frames before the film was rewound into the canister. I then measured the length of my "film" from the first marked frame to the end and it looks as the film is advancing with proper spacing. Great!

Anyone know of any other cameras like that? I only found references to Canon EOS 10S and 10QD on the net. I guess there are more cameras that can take unperforated 35mm film? Maybe they are just not considered serious enough (or bad enough?) to go to the trouble of using unperforated film with them?

 

[Dwig]

Ah, 127, 4x4cm - yep, that might be. But whether it defined the format? 127 slide film must already have grown scarce before extruded plastics ready-made slide frames became standard in the sixties (and I don't even know whether anybody made ready-made Superslide frames before the eighties). ...

Super Slides were born as an amateur format using 127 film exclusively. The use of cut down 120 images for professional multi-projector shows was a much later reincarnation.

Super Slides were promoted reasonably heavy by Kodak in the '50s for amateur photography. They never really caught on all that well in that market but they weren't all that rare. Kodak sold their Ready Mounts in that size (2x2" mount for 40x40mm images) and other mount manufacturers offered the size as well.

 

[Spavinaw]

More minutiae: My Kodak Pony 828 has a green window. I always wondered why it wasn't red. My Kodak Bantam RF 828 has a red window, so I know it wasn't because of the film size.

 

[Dwig]

More minutiae: My Kodak Pony 828 has a green window. I always wondered why it wasn't red. My Kodak Bantam RF 828 has a red window, so I know it wasn't because of the film size.

With B&W panchromatic films and with color films, the color of the window is of no real importance. The choice of red was only an advantage way back in the "ancient" days of orthochromatic films.

Also, all Kodak brand 828 film was perforated. The perforations were on only one side and were one per frame, 8 total on a roll. I believe Kodak only offered one camera model, the Bantam Special, that used the perfs for auto frame indexing. The rest of the Bantam models relied on the paper backing's numbers.

In general, Bantam was not a success but it's one-perf-per-frame auto-indexing survived in the 126 and, later, 110 formats.

 

[Kenj8246]

Wow, this old thread lives. 🙂 I found that the Canon EOS 10s works a treat with this film. Have also been able to get it in my Nikon F100 after punching a few well-placed holes on the leader. YMMV.

Kenny

 

[sevo]

With B&W panchromatic films and with color films, the color of the window is of no real importance. The choice of red was only an advantage way back in the "ancient" days of orthochromatic films.

The few cameras from back then that really needed a red window (for lack of a light trap) destroy all panchromatic or colour film...

 

[brbo]

One other compact that can handle unperforated film is Nikon af600 (Nikon Lite Touch).

 

[wblynch]

All the 126 Instamatic cameras had clear windows and the cartridge itself had a ittle rectangular opening. I'm sure the small opening limited the exposure risk but those cameras would sit around for months or years with film inside and I never heard anyone complain of print-through.

Of course this was film made in 1963 and later.

 

[sevo]

All the 126 Instamatic cameras had clear windows and the cartridge itself had a ittle rectangular opening.

Apparently the buyers were more easily convinced that that new cartridge mechanism was safe (or did not even realize that they were peeking into a backing paper window). But they obviously insisted on the magic of a red window on 120 cameras, even though that had no more function in the panchromatic film era - few cameras with plain windows exist, and even today, people that buy one will frequently ask here or in some other forum how they could replace the "missing" red glass.

 

[Sparrow]

You are no doubt right about its rarity and decline, but I think that glass mounts were on the way out as early as 1950. Gnome were advertising transparency frames "in metal and art board" as early as 1938 (BJA 1939) at 4/9d in art board and 10/- in metal, though these may have been only masks designed for use with conventionally bound glass; Kodachromes were supplied in cardboard mounts from All Fools' Day 1939 (picture and date http://www.zoggavia.com/Kodachrome_Slide_Film.html ); the earliest reference I can easily find to Leitz Automounts is 1945 ( http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00aiSy); one source refers to Perrotcolor being bought out in 1954, by which time it must already have been an established business; Gepe was founded to make slide mounts (among other things) in 1955, and I'd be surprised if they hadn't made superslides at the time; and my 1956 Gevaert guide (11th ed.) shows two different kinds of 35mm slide mount, as if they were nothing unusual.

All right, a bit obsessive, but then, my A History of the 35mm Still Camera (The Focal Press, 1984 or so) shows a certain talent for this. The minutiae of some kinds of history fascinate me...

Cheers,

R.

... that's only 9/6d for two, very reasonable

 

[youngcoby]

I have had the same problem: I bought 5 bulk rolls of Portra 160, upon arrival it appeared to be non-perforated (was mentioned in the ad) :bang:

But recently I found a nice solution: use it in a medium format camera with an adapter: see item 111596685128 on the big auction site (sorry, I don't know how to post links).

I tried 1 roll of B&W film, and it gives negatives of about 6 x 3.6, I think good for landscape pictures (panorama).

Unfortunately, I don't intend to start developing C41 in the near future - I'd rather use digital for color photography

 

[brbo]

Just scanned a few shots from first test roll of unperforated "Portra 160NC" in a cheap p&s (Nikon AF 600)...