BTW, I love the change to the title of this thread!!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Brigham
> Sent: 19 September 2002 14:43
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Dry firing (was sillycon film)
>
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
>
