Don't think of it as advancing the film. Think of it as cocking the shutter.
At 12:34 PM 9/19/2002 +0100, you wrote: >Cheers Jostein, I was on the verge of sacrificing a roll of film to test >this last night, but I thought... Nah, let Jostein do it!! > >The big question is whethter all cameras are consistent in this respect? >I am guessing many will see the existence of a film due to a pressure >sensor in the film chamber as you describe, but some may be as Mike says >where the film is detected by movement of a toothed wheel or IR >detection of film movement over the film plate when the take up spool is >advanced. The other thing is do all cameras using a sensor in the film >chamber have the sensor in the same place? It makes sense to use the DX >pins as you describe, but that does not mean all cameras do it the >sensible way!! > >What I find even more interesting (in a sad way) is that older cameras >will still require the user to manually wind on after taking a digital >picture!!! I find this rather amusing and quite cool! > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 19 September 2002 08:42 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Silicon Film is still alive... (??????) > > > > > > Curiosity still not satisfied. > > This is what I've found so far: > > Any film canister will return an error when loaded if the camera > > (Z-1) doesn't pick up the lip of the film. > > > > I still don't know the exact way the camera recognise a film > > canister for what it is, but the DX coding as a single factor can > > be ruled out. A Kodak HIE without DX coding produce the same > > response as do a DX coded film. I also got the same response if I > > covered the entire canister with tape or paper. > > > > However, the check for presence of film doesn't start until the > > back lid is shut. When shut, the back lid puts a bit of pressure > > on the canister to keep it in place. If that's significant, the DX > > code contact points may still have a part to play. They are the > > only movable parts in the film compartment. My current theory is > > that as they are pushed back by the film canister, they short > > a "presence" cirquit. > > > > The Z-1 has other contacts that could be used to confirm that the > > back is in fact closed. > > > > Ok, this is guesswork, but I think it's a qualified guess. If i'm > > right, it means that an eFilm would need grooves to avoid > > depressing the DX connectors to work with Z-1. It could be that > > it's still possible to read the DX code, though. > > > > Jostein > > > > > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > > From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 13:31:25 +0200 > > > > Not sure about the camera "thinking" it's empty. > > With the Z-1, you have to pull the film lip well to the right of > > the shutter window before the camera tries to wind it on. > > OTOH, I have a suspicion that this might also have something to do > > with the ISO recognition system... > > > > Now you got me curious. Got to check out a few things with the Z-1 > > when I get home from work. > > > > Jostein > > > > > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > > From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:19:06 +0100 > > > > >Actually, you are right although I do still wonder. The 'dry- > > firing' I > > >should have thought of is a good point, but will a camera 'dry- > > fire' > > >with a film canister inside the camera? Surely it would try to > > load a > > >film and when unable to do so, signal an error? This could be > > the key - > > >how does the efilm make the camera think it is empty? Also, it > > would > > >then only work with cameras that had manual ISO setting? How > > many entry > > >models does this count out (not that I am worried). Frame > > counting is > > >not really an issue when you can zap old frames and they are all > > >different sizes - only memory usage left. > > . > > > > . > > > >
