P3D Re: RBT

[Peter Davis <pd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 07:00 PM 11/22/1999 -0700, you wrote:


> >>Don't get me wrong.  I'm definitely glad that RBT is doing what they
> >>do.  I'd love to see them get even more business, so they could ramp up
> >>production (and drop prices).  But I still say it had better be a precisely
> >>made piece of equipment.  I don't buy the argument that a 1mm difference in
> >>frame spacing is insignificant, especially if it means the difference
> >>between being able to use standard processing and not.
>
>
>What do you mean "Not being able to use standard processing?" Please 
>expand. My
>processing has not changed from year to year, decade to decade. The venerable
>old Realist can have differences from camera to camera... I am not sure I
>understand where the question is?

Some people buy the RBT with the intention of using commercial labs for 
processing and cutting prints, and for processing, cutting and mounting 
slides.  If the spacing of frames on the film exactly matches that of a 
roll shot through an ordinary 35mm camera, the labs will have no trouble 
with cutting and/or mounting.  However, if there's even a millimeter 
difference in the spacing, then the automated machinery most labs use will 
wind up chopping off parts of frames, mismounting, etc.

>Did you ever think that the RBT is a precise as it has to be? I have never 
>used
>the camera and I think it is indeed as precise as it has to be.

Well, I guess it boils down to "has to be" for what.

For the record, I don't own an RBT, and don't expect to have one in the 
near future.  I would love to get one, but especially if I could have 
prints and slides commercially processed with no spacing problems.  I'm not 
sure I would buy one without that capability.

-pd


--------
                                 Peter Davis
                  Funny stuff at http://www.pfdstudio.com

              Boycott spammers and other intrusive advertisers!