Woodsy buys a box of big paper

I watched a youtube video on a chap who made a sliding box camera earlier. While he made it very well, the style of this type of camera is not to my taste at all. I think I'd rather go for the field camera look in the first instance, even if it takes me a lot longer to make and get right. As I am also having bellows made rather than attempting to make them myself (this may change depending on how brave I'm feeling!), so the cost of making bellows twice is not something I can really justify :/
 
If you extend the rails further to the rear, could you have a hinged bracket from the top of the rear standard to fit in notches in the rail, making effectively a triangular support?
 
Ok, so I've made a quick change to the design. The main uprights of the rear standard are now 60x15mm rather than 40x15mm, and the bottom wooden part is now 80x15mm instead of 40x15mm, so this is significantly more substantial. The tapered metal rail is also 80mm deep, and the clamps have been expanded to match. Looking at the Shen Hao and Ebony designs, this approximately matches in terms of depth, so at least the camera is now a lot more in proportion. Granted I don't have the diagonal metal parts (associated with the tilting of the rear standard), but they attach on the base of the rear standard (on the commercial designs) to give approximately the same surface area. I'm going to continue to try and think of alternative methods though and see if these are better and can be incorporated.

11x14_Bed_Short_FS_RS_002.png
 
If you extend the rails further to the rear, could you have a hinged bracket from the top of the rear standard to fit in notches in the rail, making effectively a triangular support?

Am I understanding this correctly:

You mean take the tapered / dovetail part, extend it's depth past the back surface of the rear standard, and then have diagonals that attach to the very furthest back part of the dovetail rail, and also at the top surface of the rear standard?
 
[QUOTE="Woodsy, post: 8733617, member: 1541”]With regard to the U shaped steel upright, I really wanted to avoid something like this. Primarily, I don't have the ability to shape metal in this way to any acceptable degree of accuracy, but it's also because at this rate the camera will essentially start looking like my Ebony just scaled up! Now, I have no problem with a 'larger ebony', in fact the bed already looks very similar, but I suppose I just wanted to make something a little more my own than just end up copying an existing design - even if it is the result of decades of clever design and engineering refinements![/QUOTE]

I can’t bend aluminium/steel either ;0) I designed the parts, then uploaded them to Fractory, which is an online manufacturing company who can laser cut/bend/thread metal parts. Individual pieces can work out more expensive, but the quality I get from them is very good.

I understand the desire to be different (my cameras are certainly ‘different’!), but physics/engineering also trumps uniqueness if you want something that is enjoyable to use [emoji6]
 
I can’t bend aluminium/steel either ;0) I designed the parts, then uploaded them to Fractory, which is an online manufacturing company who can laser cut/bend/thread metal parts. Individual pieces can work out more expensive, but the quality I get from them is very good.

I understand the desire to be different (my cameras are certainly ‘different’!), but physics/engineering also trumps uniqueness if you want something that is enjoyable to use [emoji6]

Ahh ok, I didn't know that you send designs off in such a way. Fair enough, I'll look into that :)

Sure, I get that - I've done my share of product development (unrelated) - but at the same time, a U-shaped metal frame isn't the only way to do it. I guess all I'm saying is that, for now at least, I want to explore as many ways of doing it as I can before deciding, and if I can find a way that satisfies the way I would like it to look while maintaining functionality, then that would be ideal. Now granted, if it happens to be that the choices really are limited, I'll let my opinions be guided by the facts ;) :D
 
Am I understanding this correctly:

You mean take the tapered / dovetail part, extend it's depth past the back surface of the rear standard, and then have diagonals that attach to the very furthest back part of the dovetail rail, and also at the top surface of the rear standard?
Yes, something like that. Obviously, I'm better at the handwaving, "how about this for an idea?" than the actual practical solution/implementation. So, my basic idea on rigidity is: triangles!
 
I am inclined to agree with your common point about the rear standard mount being insufficient to hold it firmly and steadily.

To answer the points specifically, I had in mind to get the dovetail rail and clamping parts machined in brass or aluminium, but even then I do agree with your point still, @Nomad Z.

Brass or ally should be strong enough. I might be tempted to make the clamp parts wider to spread any forces from an impact at the top of the rear standard. However, brass will add significant weight - depending on dimensions, around 0.5kg or more (200 x 70 x 5mm comes to 0.6kg). You could bung holes in it to reduce weight by quite a lot, but it'll still be a fair bit.

I'd be tempted to try a different shape. The dovetail isn't really needed - some sort of rectangular profile would work fine. That would need a clamping method that works on the top rather than pushing against the side of a dovetail from behind. The usual approach is a flat bar with a slot in it, with a fixing in the middle coming up through the bed, and some sort of clamp affair on the fixing. Could either keep it simple and have it incorporate swing as well as shift, or maybe come up with a two-layer setup that separates the two movements.
 
Yes, something like that. Obviously, I'm better at the handwaving, "how about this for an idea?" than the actual practical solution/implementation. So, my basic idea on rigidity is: triangles!

Yep, I hear you on the triangles! In thinking about this, and @Nomad Z 's point below, and what @stevelmx5 has been suggesting about the U shaped part, AND looking at a youtube video about camera movements, the scope is about to have a pretty large creep in the expensive direction :D

Brass or ally should be strong enough. I might be tempted to make the clamp parts wider to spread any forces from an impact at the top of the rear standard. However, brass will add significant weight - depending on dimensions, around 0.5kg or more (200 x 70 x 5mm comes to 0.6kg). You could bung holes in it to reduce weight by quite a lot, but it'll still be a fair bit.

I'd be tempted to try a different shape. The dovetail isn't really needed - some sort of rectangular profile would work fine. That would need a clamping method that works on the top rather than pushing against the side of a dovetail from behind. The usual approach is a flat bar with a slot in it, with a fixing in the middle coming up through the bed, and some sort of clamp affair on the fixing. Could either keep it simple and have it incorporate swing as well as shift, or maybe come up with a two-layer setup that separates the two movements.

So with the weight part, I think I'm just going to have to resign myself to the fact this is going to be heavy. Once I'm over this in my head, I think I'm more open to entertaining more ideas.

I've redesigned the bottom rail part to be more rectangular, as you say, and I've thought of a first draft method for clamping it down which, while not the prettiest at present, should be functional. Final form TBD :D

Now. This scope creep I mentioned. It turns out that I've been missing a massive trick from a photographic perspective in not understanding the full potential of rear tilt. Having now a more comprehensive understanding of the range of movements one can have, it's made me realise that rear tilt, in addition to front center tilt, front rise/fall, front swing and some form of relative shift motion, is really rather important. Enter stage.... a U shaped bracket... kind of.

I really want the camera to be dismantlable. As such, in my mind, the rear shift-come-dismantling-functionality is a feature I want to keep. However to incorporate rear center tilt into the design, metal (...or wood, I suppose...) uprights either side of the main rear standard frame are necessary. I've no idea how to do this yet, though I am mindful of @stevelmx5 's suggestion of outsourcing fabrication, so I'm going to now spend some time hashing together a basic design to include this functionality.

Watch. Space. Etc :)
 
Last edited:
Has anyone ever known scope creep go in the cheaper direction?

Actually I suppose refactoring might come slightly in that bag, or maybe not... ;) You might need one of those "Aha!" moments, when you realise that all the complexities you've been building like barnacles on top of other complexities can be swept away with some beautifully simple design that can be crafted entirely out of interlocking triangles!:cool::D
 
0911969C-661A-489B-9A80-5F01FD2287BF.jpeg

Absolute beast! This is my starter lens, a Schneider Symmar S 360mm. Next to it is a nikkor W 150mm.... bit of a difference!

In general, I’ve hit a bit of a snag. Turns out the free version of sketchup is utterly useless when it comes to exporting files in anything other than sketchup format. They of course want you to pay for this. So, I have managed to get fusion 360 working via my work, and my plan is to migrate the design over to this. Most frustrating, as now I have to learn fusion 360 in order to progress further.

Still! The lens is here, and though it’s a beast, it’ll get me going once finished straight away, and didn’t cost a huge amount, so I can move it on later and put the money towards a smaller lens, probably in an Copal shutter as well. Sorry for the radio silence of late, work is starting to pick up again, so I have less time to dedicate to the design/build.
 
It is indeed huge... and heavy! I think with the board it's about 1.6 kg! I'll definitely be looking to get a lighter lens in time, but it'll do for now. Also, it came on a sinar board as well, which is definitely the right way round. Sinar mounts can be converted down to linhof style mounts, but the other way round I'm not sure is even possible?
 
I've got either a Symmar or Symmar S 360mm and a straight Symmar 300mm, and they are large. I think I posted a photo when they came with a pint mug of tea and a 120 roll of FP4 as a comparison. For 10x8 I'm happy to accept reduced coverage for a smaller lens, but this may not be an option for 11x14.

I mounted both 360mm and 300mm on Linhof/Wista boards, as I have an adaptor to convert these boards to Sinar. Metal ones are available, and Intrepid sell wooden ones at around £20 I think.
 
It is indeed huge... and heavy! I think with the board it's about 1.6 kg! I'll definitely be looking to get a lighter lens in time, but it'll do for now. Also, it came on a sinar board as well, which is definitely the right way round. Sinar mounts can be converted down to linhof style mounts, but the other way round I'm not sure is even possible?

the shutter looks bigger than a linhof board!
 
the shutter looks bigger than a linhof board!

That ain't no shutter! It's just an iris unit! The shutter will be me, a stopwatch and the lens cap :D

I much prefer the shutter-per-lens approach though, it has to be said. Personally I'm not a fan of the Sinar approach to LF lenses, but in this instance, they are cheap.
 
That ain't no shutter! It's just an iris unit! The shutter will be me, a stopwatch and the lens cap :D

I much prefer the shutter-per-lens approach though, it has to be said. Personally I'm not a fan of the Sinar approach to LF lenses, but in this instance, they are cheap.

Oh yeah, I forgot sinar went their own way with shutters. It would just be bulb mode anyway especially with paper negs I'm sure a good hat will work just as well.
 
Have you thought of making a roller blind shutter they are very simple and absolutely fine for the longish exposure times that you will need. they can be fitted both behind or in front of the lens.

Even old ones like this are easily rebuildable.
 
View attachment 284950

Absolute beast! This is my starter lens, a Schneider Symmar S 360mm. Next to it is a nikkor W 150mm.... bit of a difference!

In general, I’ve hit a bit of a snag. Turns out the free version of sketchup is utterly useless when it comes to exporting files in anything other than sketchup format. They of course want you to pay for this. So, I have managed to get fusion 360 working via my work, and my plan is to migrate the design over to this. Most frustrating, as now I have to learn fusion 360 in order to progress further.

Still! The lens is here, and though it’s a beast, it’ll get me going once finished straight away, and didn’t cost a huge amount, so I can move it on later and put the money towards a smaller lens, probably in an Copal shutter as well. Sorry for the radio silence of late, work is starting to pick up again, so I have less time to dedicate to the design/build.

How big is that rear element? The electronic shutter I'm working on covers 90x90mm so could potentially drop in behind the front standard, like I'm doing with the Chroma. Currently, the limitations of the shutter are;

Max shutter speed 1/60th
Essentially adds a 2 stop ND when open
Early testing shows a slight blue cast from the LCD panels. Although this shouldn't be an issue with B&W, I haven't thought about the total effect on colour (although a colour filter on the lens (or digital post processing - -sacrilege!) could potentially resolve it.
 
How big is that rear element? The electronic shutter I'm working on covers 90x90mm so could potentially drop in behind the front standard, like I'm doing with the Chroma. Currently, the limitations of the shutter are;

Max shutter speed 1/60th
Essentially adds a 2 stop ND when open
Early testing shows a slight blue cast from the LCD panels. Although this shouldn't be an issue with B&W, I haven't thought about the total effect on colour (although a colour filter on the lens (or digital post processing - -sacrilege!) could potentially resolve it.

At present, I’m unsure. I’m not near it atm, so will measure it ASAP for you. I’d hazard a guess that it’s a fair bit less than 90mm outermost diameter though. Circa 2 stops sounds standard, given the way LCD’s work. Out of interest, what’s the closed attenuation like? I’m guessing for even the most naff linear polarisers it’ll be about -20 to -30 dB? (~7 to 10 stops, normalised to the ‘open’ attenuation)
 
Last edited:
I reckon it will fit. I've just measured my 300mm Symmar at about 78mm diameter (using a tape measure, not calipers). The outer diameter of my 360mm Sironar N f/6.8 is 80mm. That gives a bit of leeway, and I'd expect the Symmar S to be about the same size.
 
Last edited:
At present, I’m unsure. I’m not near it atm, so will measure it ASAP for you. I’d hazard a guess that it’s a fair bit less than 90mm outermost diameter though. Circa 2 stops sounds standard, given the way LCD’s work. Out of interest, what’s the closed attenuation like? I’m guessing for even the most naff linear polarisers it’ll be about -20 to -30 dB? (~7 to 10 stops, normalised to the ‘open’ attenuation)

Using my A7 as a digital meter, I measured roughly 14 stops between open and closed with the shutter. Definitely more than enough for the length of time the dark slide is removed, before being reinserted.
 
Using my A7 as a digital meter, I measured roughly 14 stops between open and closed with the shutter. Definitely more than enough for the length of time the dark slide is removed, before being reinserted.

Sounds ideal!

Out of interest, how are you planning for the shutter to be fired? Will it require some form of cable coming though the lens mount (or otherwise), or are you thinking wireless et al?
 
Sounds ideal!

Out of interest, how are you planning for the shutter to be fired? Will it require some form of cable coming though the lens mount (or otherwise), or are you thinking wireless et al?

At the moment, I’ve got a detachable 3.5mm jack connection between the main control unit and a cabled shutter button. Using a wireless/Bluetooth connection is definitely on the cards for a future prototype, although I may stick with the keep it simple mantra and use a button!
 
Last edited:
Adjustments.JPG

That’s a very unexciting photo taken with my A7 pressed against the back of the shutter and handheld at 1/25th (I think!).

IMG_4666.JPG

This is the shutter unit, with the remote shutter button, fitted to the back of my Adventurer front standard;

IMG_4667.JPG

I’m still waiting for my smaller arduino board to come back in stock (Adafruit ItsyBitsy), before I update the design for the shutter housing to integrate the controller, battery/charge circuit, and OLED into it.
 
Not knowing the ins and outs of the design, only thing I can think of it to make sure that it’s not so deep that it crops the image circle cast from the rear lens cell.
 
I'm tapping on a tablet, and if there is any way of inserting a link in a post, I've yet to find it. More on this at the end so you can skip it...

I accidentally found a Youtube video titled "How I built an 11x14 view camera". If you're interested in looking, let me know and I'll post a link when I'm on my desktop computer.


The problem I have with links is that I can successfully copy them to the paste buffer, open a new tab, paste and it's fine. Hit the link symbol on TP and hit paste, and nothing happens. Follow that immediately with opening a new tab and paste, and lo and behold it pastes.
 
Thanks for posting this Stephen, I had already seen it, but it's good to rewatch it :)

The thing that's giving me the biggest headache at the moment is the light sealing for the film holder. Most other things I think I've just about finalised in terms of the design. Otherwise I'm slowly ordering the materials and tools that I'll need. My plan is to build it by Christmas at the latest, hopefully more like October/November, but we'll see how it goes. I'll obviously post up build progress as and when it happens :)
 
I have my first bit of wood! It weighs a fair bit, but it’s at least a bit bigger than I need for the base. It needs 5mm planing off the thickness, and then finishing, so it should look rather nice by the time it’s ready! Waiting on quotes now for the remainder of the wood. DB9D5B82-D34F-4440-B6A2-05BDBD80191E.jpeg
 
Afternoon all!

Again, apologies for the lack of posting in this thread, it's been a while since I was able to post anything on account of not having much time to dedicated to the design.

I have arrived at what I feel is what I want to start fabricating, so this is a great milestone for me. I have made a number of design changes from the renders that are posted above; the main one being that I eventually went for a U shaped rear standard support as suggested by @stevelmx5, and indeed, into this I incorporated rear tilt as a movement. It'll be made from laser cut, 4mm thick Aluminium which I feel should be sturdy enough. The particular alloy is among the stronger variants of aluminium, and there will be a design tweak to come that I can make to the wooden frame of the rear standard that should stop it swaying side to side. The uprights will be 35mm deep and 4mm thick, so I feel this should be plenty sturdy enough.

I also went back to a dovetail design, and for a few reasons. 1) I feel it looks marginally better than a rectangular profile clamping mechanism - just my taste I guess. 2) Having bought some precision optics mount rails for work that are also based on a dovetail design, and feeling how sturdy these are, I was convinced I should adopt the dovetail. 3) It means the clamp tightening axis is horizontal, rather than vertical. This is important because it means I can continually turn the tightening screw in the vertical plane, whereas if it rotated in a horizontal plane, the thumb lever on the screw would foul against the bed of the camera before even a full turn could be achieved. 4) In the designs I could think of, this one protrudes out the back of the camera the least, oddly enough.

The focusing will be dual rack and pinion for the front standard, giving a total extension of between 200mm and 1000mm, so a good lens selection range. I've not yet figured out how to keep the rear standard in a given fixed position, but this is something I shall design shortly. At the moment, the rear standard can be extended (only) by about 300mm, but once set there is presently no mechanism to lock it in place. This is to come.

The camera movements are approximately:

75mm front rise, 125mm front fall.
+/- 80mm rear shift
+/- 30 degree rear tilt
Front center tilt and swing are not capped, and will be limited by the bellows - which are yet to be ordered.

I decided not to go with rear rise or swing, however the latter of which can be retrofitted with some relatively simple modifications.

The rear standard clamps I'm inquiring about getting made by a family friend, as said the rear standard metal part is being outsourced, but all other metal parts I aim to make myself.

As said in a previous post, the film holder is still the biggest headache, so I really need to get down to solving the design for this. Fidelity ones are £lol, so I really want to avoid buying one.

Anyway, here are some pics! Many thanks for looking :)

11x14_Bed_Short_FS_RS_003 (1).png11x14_Bed_Short_FS_RS_003 (2).png11x14_Bed_Short_FS_RS_003 (3).png
 
Starting to look more like a finished camera there [emoji1303]

My first question would be, have you already checked that the laser cut aluminium rear u-frame can be cut with bevelled edges for the dovetail securing of shift? Whilst I haven’t specifically looked for it, all of the parts I’ve used, aluminium and acrylic, have been cut using standard vertical cut lasers. As a result, it wouldn’t be possible to add the 45 degree bevelled edge. I’m sure you’ve already checked this though, just something that stood out.

The second point is that I may have a better shutter design on the way for you to try out. In order to make my unit more universal, I’m working on a front-mounted design, using a Cokin P-style clip on mount. For larger lenses, there will be a push on mount too. I’ve almost finished building my Instax wide test camera, and will be porting the same code into the handheld remote unit for the large format shutter, so hopefully it won’t be long before a beta unit is available.

Other than that, looking good [emoji1303]
 
Appreciate the reply fella :)

So, I shall admit now, I've taken a bit of a gamble. I sent the design to Fractory, and it passed their test straight away with the 45 degree cut out included in the design, so I pressed ahead with the order. I am assuming at this stage that this is fine, and at the very least it's started the ball rolling with an 11 day lead time. I'll call them on Monday and double check, now that you raise the point.

Yes, definitely keep me posted with regards to the shutter design; I'm very keen to try this, and indeed help if/where I can :)
 
Appreciate the reply fella :)

So, I shall admit now, I've taken a bit of a gamble. I sent the design to Fractory, and it passed their test straight away with the 45 degree cut out included in the design, so I pressed ahead with the order. I am assuming at this stage that this is fine, and at the very least it's started the ball rolling with an 11 day lead time. I'll call them on Monday and double check, now that you raise the point.

Yes, definitely keep me posted with regards to the shutter design; I'm very keen to try this, and indeed help if/where I can :)

If it's passed their initial approval you're probably good to go. As I say, I've never looked into cutting parts with angled edges, so it was just a first thought.

I'm finishing up the design for the front-mounted shutter now. I'll get it printed tomorrow and test it out on the Aero Ektar I've got here.
 
Back
Top