Re: A great body ... too bad it is not by Pentax

[Michel Adam]

If you go with 9 perforations instead of 8, no problems. You give up some frames at the end of the roll, or the beginning if you are winding back in the cartridge. You might need a slide mount with more room for the extra perf, but for negs, the existing equipment would mostly handle it without too much fuss, I would guess. I would gladly give up a few franes per roll for this feature. Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Tsai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 9:09 PM Subject: RE: A great body ... too bad it is not by Pentax > This would have been a cool feature. Would there be sufficient space on the > negative to store the necessary information? I know the medium-formats do, > but 35mm seems awfully small... Would the associated cost for this be so > significant? > > Cheers, > > Jeff > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bolo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 12:09 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: A great body ... too bad it is not by Pentax > > > > > [snip] > > > A decent back that prints exposure info between frames. > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Visit the PUG at > http://pug.komkon.org. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Visit the PUG at http://pug.komkon.org.