No, you are missing the point, what they need to do is convince the camera that there is no film so that it 'dry-fires' and doesn't expect film advance to occur. That should be far simpler than doing what I initially thought and what you are now thinking - i.e. trying to convince it the film it thinks it has loaded has advanced successully.
> -----Original Message----- > From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 19 September 2002 14:39 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Dry firing (was sillycon film) > > > Hi, > > Rob wrote: > > "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!!" > > There may be a sensor in the cassette area of the body but it > will not be able to tell the camera that the film is > advancing... All the AF cameras I have seen automatically > try to advance film when the back is closed, even if there is > no cassette loaded. It seems to me that only DX sensors are > in the cassette area. Therefore, "silicon film" inserts for > Pentax will need some mechanical parts to simulate film presence. > These will be power consuming and prone to wear and tear. > They will also need to fit into a space designed for the film > - a very thin place, indeed. It's looking bad, to me. > > mike > >
