96" x 144" or 8' x 12' !!! Yes folks ! One of the largest cameras ever made !

[Tin Can]

I know the damn thing was in Chicago for a week and had outdoor big 'prints'. It was locally documented by TV and print.

Then it left for parts unknown.

I admire the pinhole van cams, built on a shoestring and DIY funds, far more than this fugly box.

[ic-racer]

Is this bigger than his last one (which may or may not have existed)?

[Dan Fromm]

I went to Manarchy's site -- the link in the original post goes to a story with a link to it -- and watched the current video. The original video was an animation of someone's conception of a monster camera. The current video shows a non-functioning physical mockup of a monster camera that has a room cam (think Richard Learoyd) buried inside it. A twenty foot shipping container would have served but would have been a little less flashy.

The begging bowl is still out.

[Drew Bedo]

"Non functioning", as the bellows do not collapse to focus the image. I guess the film plane inside the pleated enclosure is moved to focus the image. I'd like to know if the shutter works at any speed beside Bulb.

What a lot of work all for show.

A couple of years ago there was a video out there (and a thread on here) where a guy in California did make a Mega-Format camera from a shipping container on a trailer. I think it focused withconventional ULF bellows mounted on the front. He did not use film as I recall it . . .paper?

[goamules]

It's the Greatest Show On Earth! PT Barnum said. He also said a few other relevant things.

[Dan Fromm]

Drew, what you see is a shell with the Great Oz inside it. The entire outer housing is a dummy. Mock-up, none of it works.

There's a room cam inside it. Two rooms with a wall between them. A lens in the wall, subject on one side of the wall, sheet of film (4'x6', I believe) on the other. No shutter, he uncaps the lens, pops some flashes (powerful) and recaps the lens. Nothing new but the housing. The two rooms could equally well be in a container.

Now do you get it?

[Drew Bedo]

Well the concept of a really big camera is a nice thought anyway . . . .

The second cup of coffee just kicked in and I had this transient mental flash of a Wide-Lux typ panoramic camera built into the side of a semi-trailer.

The project would be to go to wherever you could park the 18 wheel rig, and make an image 8' wide and 24' long.

[jb7]

He had a vision, pursued it, and made it happen. I'm sure he is not in the least concerned with the mean spirited comments from this parish. Whether or not it has a working bail back that takes the world's largest film holder is not at all the point; at least the camera doesn't look like it was put together with a blunt hacksaw and a hammer.

This camera, in this day and age, needs to be something other than a phone which magically connects to instagram. It needs to connect to Bart Simpson, not his grandfather.

True, the whole thing could be made to work just as well in an anonymous container on the back of a truck, but people don't have their imaginations captured by journeying to a Travelodge, they go to Vegas for that. The thing is a symbol of what's going on inside, and what's going on inside is photography. I suppose it's bound to attract the jealousy of those who use little cameras, it's only human nature, after all. It's the attitude of those who can't see the point of going larger than medium format, or those who think that their full frame digital is better than 8x10. What gives them the right to put bounds on the imagination of others?

So what if he's a barker. Ignore him, or worse, disparage him with images of begging bowls. This is a project that would never be funded by venture capitalists, so another way is necessary. Throughout history, grand projects have sparked the enthusiasm of those who have the resources to make them happen, and the only thing that makes this project different is that those people are now crowds rather than individuals. Better to have your project funded by a crowd with an imagination, than be kicked by a crowd for deviating from the sacred texts.

I hope someday to be able to see the pictures produced by it, so I can make my own mind up as to whether it was worth it. I wouldn't want to come across as someone so obviously prejudicial...

[StoneNYC]

He had a vision, pursued it, and made it happen. I'm sure he is not in the least concerned with the mean spirited comments from this parish. Whether or not it has a working bail back that takes the world's largest film holder is not at all the point; at least the camera doesn't look like it was put together with a blunt hacksaw and a hammer.

This camera, in this day and age, needs to be something other than a phone which magically connects to instagram. It needs to connect to Bart Simpson, not his grandfather.

True, the whole thing could be made to work just as well in an anonymous container on the back of a truck, but people don't have their imaginations captured by journeying to a Travelodge, they go to Vegas for that. The thing is a symbol of what's going on inside, and what's going on inside is photography. I suppose it's bound to attract the jealousy of those who use little cameras, it's only human nature, after all. It's the attitude of those who can't see the point of going larger than medium format, or those who think that their full frame digital is better than 8x10. What gives them the right to put bounds on the imagination of others?

So what if he's a barker. Ignore him, or worse, disparage him with images of begging bowls. This is a project that would never be funded by venture capitalists, so another way is necessary. Throughout history, grand projects have sparked the enthusiasm of those who have the resources to make them happen, and the only thing that makes this project different is that those people are now crowds rather than individuals. Better to have your project funded by a crowd with an imagination, than be kicked by a crowd for deviating from the sacred texts.

I hope someday to be able to see the pictures produced by it, so I can make my own mind up as to whether it was worth it. I wouldn't want to come across as someone so obviously prejudicial...

+1

[Jac@stafford.net]

I look forward to his portraits of the Amish.
.