Author Topic: Kodak Bantam Special and respooling 828  (Read 3832 times)

02Pilot

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,866
  • Malcontent
    • Filmosaur
Kodak Bantam Special and respooling 828
« on: February 08, 2016, 12:19:15 AM »
I stumbled across a Kodak Bantam Special today. It needs some work, but it is complete. I didn't buy it, but I still might, depending on whether or not I can reasonably put it into service. My question is basically whether or not respooling 35mm into 828 is feasible without undue effort. It's a neat little camera, but if I can't use it, I'm not buying it.
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.


-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/

Indofunk

  • Global Moderator
  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,562
    • photog & music
Re: Kodak Bantam Special and respooling 828
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2016, 01:12:42 AM »
I had never heard of this camera until just now, so I looked it up. It is oozing with art deco vibe, and it's a nice fast 2.0 lens, so I say you must acquire it. As for using with 35mm film, if 828 is taller than a 35mm canister, then just put a little piece of styrofoam on the top and bottom. That's how I made this image. (120, but same concept)

Oh, you'll need to source a takeup spool, I suppose  ???

edit: just read up on 828 film. Seems it's the same height as 35mm, but on a spool. With a smaller diameter. So I guess there's no way a 35mm canister would even fit in there. I suppose you can just ignore everything I just said  ;D
« Last Edit: February 08, 2016, 01:16:27 AM by Indofunk »

02Pilot

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,866
  • Malcontent
    • Filmosaur
Re: Kodak Bantam Special and respooling 828
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2016, 01:45:55 AM »
Yep, even though the film itself is the same width as 135, 828 is smaller when spooled. I've found a few ways to work around this with cut-down 120 or 135, but none are really elegant solutions. It's a very pretty camera, but I'm not buying anything that's going to sit on a shelf, and I'd feel bad about yanking the lens and shutter off to stick on something else.
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.


-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/

jharr

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,916
  • Humble Hobbyist
    • Through A Glass, Darkly
Re: Kodak Bantam Special and respooling 828
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2016, 04:00:16 AM »
I have some unperforated 35mm CN film that I use for 126 instamatic. Respooling isn't that hard, but if you are thinking of adding the perforations for frame advance, that's tricky. I'd probably get the Bantam if the price is right. It's a good project.
"The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera"   -- Dorothea Lange
Flickr
Blogger

Francois

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,552
Re: Kodak Bantam Special and respooling 828
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2016, 01:53:30 PM »
I'm wondering if just using a slightly modified 35mm can central spool wouldn't be a simpler solution?
Just cutting the knob and drilling a drive system hole on the take-up spool.
Francois

Film is the vinyl record of photography.

irv_b

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
Re: Kodak Bantam Special and respooling 828
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2016, 03:22:47 PM »
I have one of these and it is a goodd little camera - I'll try and find some shots taken with it.
 Luckily I picked up another spool and I tape a length of 35mm between the two spools and load obviously in the darkroom. I leave the green window door closed and advance by twisting 8 turns which give a little spacing between shots  remembering to push in the little knob under the focusing window as you wind on.

sorry about the crappy shots

Francois

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,552
Re: Kodak Bantam Special and respooling 828
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2016, 03:27:16 PM »
I remember a long time ago, Russian film used to come in 35mm center spools with a length of black paper stuck to the film to prevent light from coming through.
You'd put the center spool in the cassette, pulling a bit of the paper out the lips, close the cassette and pull the remaining black paper out...

Maybe you could do something similar and avoid the darkroom altogether (setting the film a bit like 220 film with a paper leader and tail)
Francois

Film is the vinyl record of photography.

Ezzie

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,234
  • Late to the party
    • Silver Halides - Pictures in B&W
Re: Kodak Bantam Special and respooling 828
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2016, 04:00:15 PM »
A collector's item it would seem. Do not go over to ebay and see what is on offer there, you may be in for a shock. I would hesitate modifying one, if the prices listed there are anything to go by.
Eirik

"..All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain,.." - Roy Batty
B+W film picture blog
My DIY and Caffenol blog
The Caffenol Cookbook and bible

Francois

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,552
Re: Kodak Bantam Special and respooling 828
« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2016, 10:48:08 PM »
I'd be more tempted to rig a set of handmade spools than mod the camera... it would be a shame to damage an art deco piece
Francois

Film is the vinyl record of photography.

02Pilot

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,866
  • Malcontent
    • Filmosaur
Re: Kodak Bantam Special and respooling 828
« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2016, 11:26:53 PM »
I don't think there's enough space to mod the body to fit a standard 35mm can. The camera I looked at would need a full restoration, so if ever there was an example to hack, this would be a good candidate, but I think it's just not possible. So the options as I see them are limited to correctly respooling 828 in one way or another, backing paper included; using 135 stock on 828 spools; building some sort of mini-canisters to house a short roll of 135; and giving up. I'm inclining toward one of the latter two options. I'll have to figure out the dimensions of an 828 spool and see if I can find a suitable size of stock tubing to use for the cans.
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.


-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/

Francois

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,552
Re: Kodak Bantam Special and respooling 828
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2016, 02:34:25 PM »
I wonder if rapid cassettes would fit?
If not, I would definitely go for the modded 35mm spool option.
Francois

Film is the vinyl record of photography.

02Pilot

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,866
  • Malcontent
    • Filmosaur
Re: Kodak Bantam Special and respooling 828
« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2016, 03:26:51 PM »
I wonder if rapid cassettes would fit?
If not, I would definitely go for the modded 35mm spool option.

Not sure - I've never dealt with them. I'll have to do some research, but there are more pressing things at the moment.
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.


-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/

Francois

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,552
Re: Kodak Bantam Special and respooling 828
« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2016, 09:01:25 PM »
Just measure the inside of the camera, here are the basic dimensions for 35mm
Total minimum height of the film compartment should be 37.5mm or a hair under 1.5 inches for this hack to work.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2016, 09:03:09 PM by Francois »
Francois

Film is the vinyl record of photography.

02Pilot

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,866
  • Malcontent
    • Filmosaur
Re: Kodak Bantam Special and respooling 828
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2016, 09:45:01 PM »
I don't have the camera, but I know a standard 35mm can won't fit. I need to get dimensions for the 828 spool and the Rapid can to see if something can be hacked together from those two.
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.


-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/