So I got a piece of wood to draw on and actually did some designing of the camera.
I can’t design stuff on paper, I need to use a ruler and a square. If the paper is taped down to the table and the table has square edges, that’s ok, but it’s easier to draw on wood for me.
Anyway, I decided to just make little square boxes to hold the film spools on either side of the film plane rather than the cartridge idea I had. This gives me a width of 6 1/2 inches, then there will be some space inside the box towards the front where 4 extra rolls of film will fit.
The pictures will be 6x6, which is 60mm or 2 3/8” square.
An interesting thing about camera design is this business about the focal length of the lens being equal to the diagonal size of the image.
The focal length of the lens I’m using is 85mm, and the diagonal of a 60mm square is exactly 85mm.
What’s also cool is that on 35mm film, the image size is 24 x 36mm, and the diagonal of that is 44mm, which is the focal length of my Signet.
So I’ve got it mostly figured out, I just need to design an aperture system, which maybe I could just have it be like 8 and 16. I would like to have all the stops, but I dunno how hard that is gonna be yet.
I’m kinda thinking of a rotating copper wheel with detents, which would be thin and not too hard to make, and that would go in between the lens and the shutter, which will be on the outside.
Coloured scanning electron micrograph (SEM) of an ant with a gear from a micromotor on its leg. Microgears are made by shining a computer-guided laser onto a chemical film. The laser solidifies the film that it moves over, leaving the gears when the liquid film is washed away.
look at him
he’s so happy about his lil gear
I hate to break it to you, but that ant is dead. You can’t take an electron micrograph of an alive ant.
I was calculating some aperture sizes for different f-numbers, and like 7/32” is f/22 and 5/16” is f/11 and so on, and I was gonna figure f/64 because that was apparently Ansel Adams’s favourite, but my smallest drill bit is 1/16”, and that’s only f/53.6
Sorry, Ansel. I don’t really need a stop smaller than f/22 anyway.
We felt very nice and snug, the more so since it was so chilly out of doors; indeed out of bed-clothes too, seeing that there was no fire in the room. The more so, I say, because truly to enjoy bodily warmth, some small part of you must be cold, for there is no quality in this world that is not what it is merely by contrast. Nothing exists in itself. If you flatter yourself that you are all over comfortable, and have been so a long time, then you cannot be said to be comfortable any more. But if the tip of your nose or the crown of your head be slightly chilled, why then, indeed, in the general consciousness you feel delightfully and unmistakably warm. For this reason a sleeping apartment should never be furnished with a fire, which is one of the luxurious discomforts of the rich. For the height of this sort of deliciousness is to have nothing but the blanket between you and your snugness and the cold of the outer air. Then there you lie like the one warm spark in the heart of an arctic crystal.
The clown in Hamlet says that if a man goes to the water and drowns himself, “it is will he nill he he goes … but if the water come to him and drown him, he drowns not himself.”
The original meaning of “will he nill he” is like “with or without his consent”. Whether he wants to or not.
The more modern idiomatic meaning of “willy-nilly”, which is the one most people today understand, is “without consideration of the consequences”, which seems to be what the clown means, but I wonder if Shakspere did that on purpose, like making the clown use an idiomatic phrase that most educated people at the time would recognise as being wrong, because the second case of the water drowning the man is properly “will he nill he”.
I wonder if he wrote it like that to annoy pedants.