UWF: Is a 6x30 or 6x36 format a reasonable concept

Hi all... having recently introduced our Fotoman 624 camera, (58x 224 mm image) it is becoming somewhat apparent that we may not understand how wide a format is realisitic when using roll-film. To aid us in future product development and to help us from going off on a tangent, we pose the following question... Is 6x30 or 6x36 a realistic roll-film format? Actual image sizes would be 58 x 290 mm OR 58 x 348 mm, creating a lens coverage requirement of 297.5 & 387 mm respectively. This limits the list of usable lenses (currently manufactured) severely, as we are limited to a maximum focal length of 210 mm on the long end. This also would place either camera in the Ultra-Wide catagory regardless of lens. Your thoughts and comment will be greatly appreciated...

I think that this is an awful idea (Well, you asked). There are so few subjects that would look good in this aspect ratio that a person would be better off shooting with an 8X10 or 4X10 and cropping. That way you would also be able to use a wide range of lenses. I personally prefer a long lens for panorama, especially city skylines.

I just bought an XPAN and this is a fairly extreme aspect ratio. I like it. I could have cropped my 6x7, but the XPAN is more convenient than that. I only use the 45mm. The 30mm is too expensive and the 90mm, who cares. I occasionally crop a 5x7 inch neg into an extreme panorama, but only rarely. Printing these formats quickly becomes awkward. Maybe digital printing would be easier, I don't know, but on what would I print 290 or 350mm negative? The 290 I could do in my 8x10 enlarger, but the 350 would be a problem except contact printing. And what paper would I print a 60x300 neg on? I'd either have to buy rolls or have some giant sheets. It all sounds very unlikely.

Historically, those aspect ratios are only used by rotating panoramic cameras. Those of course have issues with image curvature. Your idea is pretty extreme- but someone might like what it does. You'd want to look at how the 360-pan guys print their negatives, too.

This kind of format length would make good sense mostly with longer focal lengths - from 450 mm up. With 210 mm focal length you are indeed limited to very few subjects only.

Paul, I think 6x24 is plenty wide already, and already a super-small market. I bet your time and efforts would be better spent in further developing the cameras you already have. Maybe a cheapo model with a built-in cone in the most popular size?

Personally I would love to have your 6x12, which I could make good use of. Maybe on a few rare occations I could utilize a 6x17. Anything narrower is a highly specialized tool that I wouldn't even know how to use.

Thanks for asking.

I would vote for this for your next product: an inexpensive body to go with a Horseman 6x9 RFH. Or even possibly a Horseman 6x12 RFH. Many of us already have the RFH so we don't want it built into the camera. This product of course has been done by others, but not at a very attractive price it seems to me.

Paul

you are getting negative comment because none of the guys here are using those formats, they're comfortable with what they know.

I shoot those formats 2 ways, one with rotating cameras which gives a 6x30 to 6x40 format. The second way is with a 5x12 inch view camera then crop the neg in half. I've found the cropped neg so successful I getting a custom roll film back made for it using 70mm film. Also getting a 6x30 camera built using 70mm film and 240 lens.

The major design short comings with your proposal is using roll film as the leader isn't long enough to stretch that far and the use of such a short lens. I use a 300mm lens most of the time and tend towards longer not shorter lenses.

I built an enlarger for these formats but these days scanners can do the job no problem.

cheers

Clayton

The problem with a film leader not long enough is not difficult to overcome. I make my own leader from brown paper that I glue to the original film leader. No problem in the lab as for them is important the end film leader, not the start.

I have a Horseman Sw612 and I have used the Linhof Technorama a lot (through rentals). Eventually I bought a 6x12 because the aspect ratio was more usable and I could always crop to 4x12 for a 1:3 ratio without a major loss in quality. I consider the 6x24 intriguing but extreme. Going beyond 6x24 is something I fail to appreciate: this is just personal shooting style of course, no criticism of any kind implied. There may also be practical considerations (e.g., scanning the film) that would make a say 6x36 too difficult of a creature to deal with.

An interesting new product would be a 6x12 Fotoman with changeable backs. I like to go around and shoot B&W and IR at the same time and I love my SW612, among other things, because it allows me to easily switch from one film to the other. I also heard people claiming about 1:2.5 being the "perfect" aspect ratio. That would mean a 56mmx 140mm (~6x14), right?