Interesting experiment John. The Rollei TLR plates holder for the plates adapter has four strong springs that push the glass plate or the metal basis for the film sheets against the upper and lower flanges, it works placing the film sheet on the metal basis out of the holder (there is no way to slide the film sheet itself between the metal basis and the flanges due to the springs pressure) to slide both together along the flanges up to a lateral top, this way no problem with the film sheet thickness, it is always pressed against the flanges; since the Rollei TLR uses a 6.5cm x 9cm film sheet for a 6x6cm image, you have a good area to handle the film sheet (the Rollei film sheet small size and its rigidness helps to avoid a curved film to the center); when the film holder has the right position in the camera, other springs pushes the film sheet carrier against the film gate releasing the holder lever, putting the sheet in the focal plane.- Carlos 2011/8/19 John Wild <JWild@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Not really of high quality to start with, but I experimented with my Rollei > 110 camera - using 110 cartridges. The initial sharpness was poor, > especially noticeable with such a small negative. My feeling was that the > Tessar lens should have been sharp. > > I measured the distance of cartridge location to the film gate in the camera > and compared that to the depth that the film was seated in the cartridge. > There was a lot of 'play'. I found a thin piece of acetate, cut it to shape > and inserted it between the paper backing and the cartridge back thereby > pushing the emulsion in contact with the film gate - the negative sharpness > improved to a very acceptable level. I was surprised that such a small frame > could produce 10x8 enlargements - apart from the grain. > > This is obviously a problem with 110 (or probably 126 also) cartridge > manufacturing tolerances when matched to camera manufacturers' tolerances. > > I had a Pentax 110 which did produce sharp images and also a Kodak 110 > 'plastic camera', which also produced acceptable prints; but a 'family' Disk > camera was REALLY C**P! > > John > > > On 18/08/2011 22:57, "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> ....... The support thicknes is >> controlled very accurately, at least by Kodak. There is an >> ISO standard on the thickness. However, some films came on >> thinner support, I think Technical Pan did. Some recommended >> putting thin black paper under the film to adjust for the >> difference. Most sheet film is 0.007 inches in thickness, >> the emulsion thickness doesn't really matter and is much >> thinner...... >> >> -- >> Richard Knoppow >> Los Angeles >> WB6KBL >> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> --- >> Rollei List >> >> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' >> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org >> >> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with >> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org >> >> - Online, searchable archives are available at >> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list >> > > --- > Rollei List > > - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' > in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org > > - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with > 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org > > - Online, searchable archives are available at > //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list > > --- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list