I'm wanting to take a box camera that was made in the 1920's or so and make it controlled by an arduino, so that I'm able to have a servo port for remote control of the camera. Also timed long exposures. The idea would be to attach a motor to the winding wheel, test how long it needs to wind, and save that for each time. There would be servos to swipe the mechanical spring powered shutter.
My thought is to use:
An Arudino mini
A Mini FET shield
A few servos
brushed motor.
That, I know, is something the hardware can support. I'm just unsure about what torque I need for the motor, the winding on the camera can be hard. I have access to a 3d printer to make parts as needed, though I've never used one before. So my first parts will suck. Small and light is good, as the camera is meant to go into a hexa.
I think I'll try to make it as internal as I'm able, with the ability to use it as if it was unmodified. Here is a photo of the type of camera I have (this is the same model) and an example of a photo I've taken with it in the past:
The first bit to work out is the mechanical interface. If that does not work, the rest is pointless. The control side is not difficult and you should get all the help you need for that.
Avaviel:
That, I know, is something the hardware can support. I'm just unsure about what torque I need for the motor,
For motor operation you'll need the same torque as with manual operation.
Avaviel:
the winding on the camera can be hard.
Is this going to become a fake camera? Or are you really planning to use roll-film and actually want to take photos on old negative photo film with a "modified" and motorized box camera?
This sounds like an AWESOME project! I am an avid film photographer - computerizing the handling should create a hybrid photographic technology that is unique and very satisfying. For winding think about pulling a cord that turns the winder - this is what mechanical camera winders like those in Leica and Olympus cameras do. If the winding also cocks the shutter, it's better. But if not, shutter cocking takes much less torque - a small servo should handle that just fine. And the firing will need even less. As for the aperture control, start thinking about a brightness sensor that will slide the stop in and out as needed.
ChrisTenone:
If the winding also cocks the shutter, it's better. But if not, shutter cocking takes much less torque - a small servo should handle that just fine. And the firing will need even less.
What's that all about "cocking"? That camera would appear to be an overseas version of the "box brownie". As I recall (and I should know!), the shutter was a single lever that was moved in alternate directions for successive photos. A later version had an extra shutter flap and a spring-loaded return so that it only operated on the downstroke.
As to winding, that is not so easy. The 120 film was spooled with an opaque paper backing with frame numbers printed on it. You wound until you saw a series of dots followed by the next frame number. This process is not linear as the radius of the spool constantly changes as film (and backing) is wound off one spool and on to another, so without the visual feedback, it will be tricky to arrange.
Paul__B:
What's that all about "cocking"? That camera would appear to be an overseas version of the "box brownie". As I recall (and I should know!), the shutter was a single lever that was moved in alternate directions for successive photos. A later version had an extra shutter flap and a spring-loaded return so that it only operated on the downstroke.
As to winding, that is not so easy. The 120 film was spooled with an opaque paper backing with frame numbers printed on it. You wound until you saw a series of dots followed by the next frame number. This process is not linear as the radius of the spool constantly changes as film (and backing) is wound off one spool and on to another, so without the visual feedback, it will be tricky to arrange.
Ah yes (I've never owned a Brownie, but have seen them in use.) The self-cocking shutter makes the mechanics even easier. A single stroke from a servo should do it.
Right, winding 120 film. It's non-linear through the roll, but every roll should be the same. So the number of turns could be pre-programmed on a per-roll basis. Or a reflectivity detector that looks through the red window, but iirc that view is pretty low contrast. Perhaps breaking into the camera and measuring the amount of distance the film travels would work? My Mamiya cameras used a friction wheel that turned as the film advanced to stop at the next frame on time.
On the other hand, it could work like a Holga, and just guess.
ChrisTenone:
Right, winding 120 film. It's non-linear through the roll, but every roll should be the same. So the number of turns could be pre-programmed on a per-roll basis.
That would be the most obvious; I think you would need to wind it manually (meaning control the winder) to the first frame (as it is dependent on loading the tab into the spool etc.). A(n optical) sensor would be very tricky.
ChrisTenone:
Ah yes (I've never owned a Brownie, but have seen them in use.) The self-cocking shutter makes the mechanics even easier. A single stroke from a servo should do it.
The shutter lever was very lightweight, any servo would do it easily - but you do have to be very careful about initialisation of the servo.
I'm glad for the interest! I just joined an art coop, and we have a 3d printer. I'll be using that to make parts to interface with the camera. I just took it apart, and it looks like I'll be able to hide everything inside. My current plan is to power it externally, though I may be lazy and stick a 5v BEC in there if I'm especially lazy at the time, and if the motors can support it.
Yes, winding will be... Troublesome. I'll need to rework the winding in it, more than simply stick a motor on it. Most likely I'll do work in the whole winding assembly, maybe even printing a new film holder with gears. Gears are good for high torque, right?
The on/off for the shutter is very light. I'm imagining a servo with a long flappy arm. Flap flap, just like the camera normally is. I plan on using servos for everything, rather than trying to tie it to the winding.
And the winding... While I'd like to have something read the shot numbers on the paper, not doing that would be totally easier. Overlap is cool.
Ok, next post will be photos of the insides.i forgot to take a photo of the front with the cover off, but there's about an inch of space. Plenty of room.
I can see that you could hide some parts inside, such as a servo for the shutter release.
Since the winder has to pull out to open the case and the spool is essentially the whole width of the body, I really cannot see any way to conceal it inside.
Paul__B:
I can see that you could hide some parts inside, such as a servo for the shutter release.
Since the winder has to pull out to open the case and the spool is essentially the whole width of the body, I really cannot see any way to conceal it inside.
I'm considering making a new film holder. In that case, I'd: 1. Be able to keep the manual winder stock. 2. Be able to have the motor inside in the film holder assembly.
jremington:
The photo titled "Faith" is really interesting, but I don't understand your description of it. Did you take the photo?
The entry at Flickr.com tells that he took the picture, but he doesn't know whether he used the same Clix box camera he showed in this thread or whether it was another camera ("the Argus").
And the entry tells, that the photo is not a scanned paper print, but he used a DSLR (digital single-lens reflex) camera to take a photo of the negative film ("DSLR scan"), which then was converted to positive by digital picture manipulation.
I think (almost) all of those old box cameras had "fixed focus" lenses and most of them were of bad quality (box cameras where the cheapest cameras in their time). In most cases the "fixed focus" was adjusted to far distance, optimized for sharp landscape scenery photography, sharpness from 3 meters to infinite with aperture 11. But some box cameras were also sold with a special portrait lens, which had a fixed focus to a lower portrait distance with sharpness at a range of 1-2 meters, and they could create pictures of very good image sharpness when used in that lower portrait distance.
If I'd make a guess about the Faith photo and the Clix camera, I'd say: This picture has not been made with a box camera and fixed focus lens, but with a camera that had focusing, and the focus was clearly set to much less than infinite.
jurs:
The entry at Flickr.com tells that he took the picture, but he doesn't know whether he used the same Clix box camera he showed in this thread or whether it was another camera ("the Argus").
And the entry tells, that the photo is not a scanned paper print, but he used a DSLR (digital single-lens reflex) camera to take a photo of the negative film ("DSLR scan"), which then was converted to positive by digital picture manipulation.
I think (almost) all of those old box cameras had "fixed focus" lenses and most of them were of bad quality (box cameras where the cheapest cameras in their time). In most cases the "fixed focus" was adjusted to far distance, optimized for sharp landscape scenery photography, sharpness from 3 meters to infinite with aperture 11. But some box cameras were also sold with a special portrait lens, which had a fixed focus to a lower portrait distance with sharpness at a range of 1-2 meters, and they could create pictures of very good image sharpness when used in that lower portrait distance.
If I'd make a guess about the Faith photo and the Clix camera, I'd say: This picture has not been made with a box camera and fixed focus lens, but with a camera that had focusing, and the focus was clearly set to much less than infinite.
Yup! I'm unsure which camera it was, the Argus Seventy-five (the name has italics) or my Clix 120. Both cameras have no electronics and similar abilities, though the Seventy-five has an optional up close focus... Which I've used on both box cameras. I had the film stuck to a tracing table. Then, using a macro lens, took a photo of the film. In the future I want to take four or five up close macro shots, but I haven't built a rig yet. So, scanned with a DSLR.
And thanks for the complement, jremington! I've moved on from portraits for now, but I may visit them again in the future.
No advances on the project. Using this Argus is tempting, but it's also a bit of matter of pride. I had planned this project with the Clix 120 for a few years now.
Avaviel:
I'm considering making a new film holder. In that case, I'd: 1. Be able to keep the manual winder stock. 2. Be able to have the motor inside in the film holder assembly.
It begins to be simpler to build a new camera from scratch.
Paul__B:
It begins to be simpler to build a new camera from scratch.
Not so much! The less 3d printing, the better. That and I intend to adapt the hardware/software to other film cameras.
While there are already pinhole and 120 cameras on shape ways and such, I'd rather do the work myself on the existing camera. It produces unique images, I'd have to reverse engineer it and then make it again! Making a cartridge with a motor is a good compromise, I think. That way I can remove the cartridge and manually wind. More thank likely I'll have some wires that I'll detach, where the timer functions will still work. (Having a button I can press for a long exposure would be great!)
All of this interest is awesome! This week I'll be debugging a 3d printer. Next paycheck I'll get some hardware.
Clix 120 box camera Metropolitan Industries Chicago by Shih Tung Ngiam, on Flickr
That camera would appear to be an overseas version of the "box brownie". As I recall (and I should know!), the shutter was a single lever that was moved in 
http://
