Re: One more Hulcherama question

[Andrew Davidhazy <ANDPPH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 1) Did all Hulcherama's, including those of the first hour, allow lenses
> to be changed? I just talked to someone about one with a 35mm Mamiya lens, 
> and he thought it could not be changed (and hence was surprised by my
> question about additional gear-sets for other focal lenghts).

While I am not positive of the history of the camera in terms of
interchangeability of lenses, the lens this person is refering to most
probably is a 35mm focal length lens but not intended for a 35mm Mamiya 
camera but rather for a 645.

> 2) What is the most determinating factor in the 'back-focal-distance'?

The location of the take-up and supply spools is such that it is not easily
possible (in my opinion just about impossible ... I thought of similar
applications/modifications as you are proposing and found them not to be
feasible unless you did major surgery on the camera body/drive system).

I have attached longer back focus lenses with no problem and used shorter ones
(on Canon mount) for close-up work.

> (even more so since fisheyes appear not to be a an option with these
> relatively wide slits; on authority of Dan Slater (the creator of
> the fascinating *digital* 220x360 panorama's, using 6mm Nikkors and a
> very small slit (row of pixels!))

Somebody's limitation is another person's creative opportunity. The problem
reduces to image distortion if the slit can be made infinitessimally small.
With film and largish slits there is the added problem introduced by mismatch
in image and film velocity.

> 3) Is the camera/lens combination 'balanced' enough to allow smooth
> vertical or diagonal panoramas? [the amount of subjects suitable

pretty much so in my experience.

Andy  o o  0 0 o . o  Davidhazy, Imaging and Photo Tech
       \/\/\/\/\/\/          http://www.rit.edu/~andpph
________|        |_____________________________________