Polaroid 110b to 4x5 graflok conversion-any instructions available?

I told you. Stop being a PITA and this will all stop.

Great! I will expect my patents to be respected as prommised , I welcome any submmision of prior art to me or copies of it to be considered even after patent has been issued and i wish everyone the best

thank you W

We've given you all the evidence you need . Stop destroying perfectly good cameras, shut up

and leave us all alone.

By the way. Your patents aren't worth anything. <p>And what you're trying to distort is that

you know it, and you won't sue anyone to defend them because YOU would be liable for at

LEAST triple damages.<p> All in the interest of perpetuating this fraud camera of yours for

as long as you can.

You have so far and as admitted not presented any prior art to me.

as you are doing this in the so called" public domain" I invite you to stop .If you dont have the prior art to send me now. much less was the case in 2003.much less prior art to substantiate that all my claims were invalid , there is no prior art nor was there until so eatablished You cant expect anyone to believe otherwise because it does not constitute prior art unless so determined . I asked for prior art you said you didnt send it you could have. if you chose not to while saying you did give it a rest.And if you brought your case here then do as you say or you have demonstrated it was never the intention. and thank you for your advise confirming that you are still insisting I destroy the cameras but I have received a questinaire today as a followup to the original review of the camera which my client received directly from your client and evaluated himself but in the interest of all fairness i believed that a review with a better lens only would have been subjective so I had someone who makes a living and most succesful receive a questionatre with some of the things you had said about my product.

 

He has left on a trip but would gladly confirm such comments were his

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

" the lack of parallax correction can be easily compensated for"

(meaning could you utilize such camera and obtain the images you get

with a Littman after verifying the differences in parallax

performance)?

No I could not..it will be too complicated to have to think where I really have to frame

The picture...not very practical..

 

 

what is your opinion of the camera comparing it as a practical tool and

not considering presentation or appearance but strictly performance,

Not very practical compare to the littman

" Littman cameras will self destruct because they are built by someone

who doesn't have the slightest idea of what he is doing"

Anyone that says this, never used a littman

" Littman has deceived the large format community"( meaning that my

camera was better)

To my opinion there nothing that perform as well as a littman

" the only reason people believe Littman cameras are better is because

they are so expensive"

That is not true..i would love to find something as good for cheaper

I am not a millionaire.. But the littman is worth the cost..

Do you feel I am ruining the original cameras and not improving them as

this person has assured PN with the words" he is ruining them, not

improving them. "

No they are much better after littman works on them

This person has also questioned in PN whether each new version of my

camera could be better? and has dismissed it as fabrication and as you

have experienced all the stages since 2001 what is your response to

that.

I really love the new improvement littman did on the focussing range finder it is

now much more precise and so much easier to see and faster to focus..

 

--albanchrist

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I did not intend to post it as I felt the nonsense would have stopped by now and i told Alban not to post his responses to avoid further and knowing that all previous preference had been dismissed or rated as " impossible"

 

Give it a rest please.

Mr. Schwartz please on march 28th 2005 you stated that " there are rumors"

 

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, there are rumors that Mr. Litman has broken into other peoples email folders. I would take this VERY seriously. If you've had dealings with Mr. Litman, CHANGE YOUR PASSWORD FREQUENTLY.

 

He's gone beyond the realm of being a spoiled man child to being a dangerous internet thug..mar 23, 2005; 12:25 a.m.

 

Today you finally admit"Well, SOMEONE deleted emails from you and your friends from my inbox!

Guillermo,"Sunday, August 28, 2005 4:35 PM.

 

 

 

That means that it was you who started the rumor and now every time you misplace your keys you will think I stole them as you accused me of absconding your ideas and the other day said that the first time you saw such conversion was when someone walked into your job with a crude version.

 

 

 

I lied? please stop the denial and lets move on. this is very serious.

 

I can prove that i am not in any shape or for proficeint in digital tech as to do such thing but you have proven you started the rumor and we need no further

Hey,as long as this thread refuses to die, I do have one idea that might end it faster.

 

Make sure to type "Littman 45 single camera" in each of your posts.

 

If you don't know why, type "failure" into google.

 

Maybe that way we could stop this discussion. I think that's what everyone wants.

What you admitted to want is that you were out to get me.

I on the other hand do not want to get you and I hope that whatever it is that you do flourishes

thanks.have a good night

Ok, that was an overstatement. What I am out to get is peace.

 

Good night.

I have a few technical questions for you Mr Littman...... as you are so proficient in engineering you`ll have no problem answering I`m sure.

1. How do you explain your fitting of a 150mm lens to a Polaroid 110B with a cam profile designed for 127mm, the original lens fitted to these cameras? Surely this will render the rangefinder totally inaccurate?

2. How is the viewfinder able to compensate for parallax error with such a lens, given that the frame size has also been increased to 4x5?

The finder fitted to your camera shows absolutely NO signs of modification, whether it be in regard to parallax compensation, longer lens focal length or increased frame size.

3.How is the front standard able to lock effectively and stand perpendicular to the sliding bed when the locking plate has been completely ground off?

4. Why is all provision for adjusting the swing mirror`s vertical and lateral adjustment securely glued to prevent fine tuning after time or impact?

5.Why have the front standard`s face plate screws been simply broken off?

6. Why does the overall appearance of your camera replicate a Four Designs pack film converted camera? (bearing in mind, my Four Designs conversion 110B looks rather nice next to it).

7. Why is a Littman 45 approximately four times the price of a Four Designs converted pack film camera with the only addition being a Toyo-View 4x5 back?

8. Final Question...(careful, this is a trick question). Why do you continually make reference to 'prior art'? I can see no sign of art, prior or otherwise.

Answers to all the above would prove most enlightening, I`m sure.

Why are you, Mr Schwartz and Mr Jones, slowly but firmly changing the topic of your arguing

with Mr Littman from the Patent problems to the quality problems of his camera? Since few

days ago you were stating his camera was one of the best or the best conversion of all.

All of this discussion is the most inane that I have ever seen.

 

The original question was not answered, as Dean pointed out. The subject of the thread was to share in the discussion of conversion techniques for a Pola 110 model type.

 

I would like to point out hat unless the science of Physics ( not patented ) is violated, there are no such things as:

 

100% parallax compensation on a parallel plane, unless geometry is violated, one of the two images will have angular distortion. This may not amount to much, but the 100% is not satisfied.

 

The cam for focal length of 127mm cannot be used for 150mm focal length lenses ( check your Optics physics book). The equations for lens distance to focal plane are the same but include a constant which is different for different focal lengths.

 

The improved focussing technique is bogus. Focussing implies a perpendicular translation of the lens to the film plane. The way that these cameras focus is more than fine. The only improvement in focussing can be made by adding a vernier scale, but this is only for indicative purposes, not for actual focussing. This camera is not autofocus, far from it.

 

There is no "secret science" about the conversion of these Polaroid 110 series cameras to 4x5, nor for any other camera. The lens needs to project a 4x5 format image on the film plane, the infinity stops have to be adjusted and some provision of securing the film holder to the back of this camera needs to be devised. This is the Camera Obscura principle.

 

All other improvements claimed to this conversion are cosmetic.

 

The results of any camera are dependent on the quality of the lens and on the parallelism of both the lens plane to the film plane.

 

Paul, you can still make yourself a $7 plus cost of the camera Polaroid 110 conversion to 4x5. I guarantee that the results will be indentical to all others claimed. Guaranteed ! No need to go through a major expenditure nor major scientific research.

 

The most important thing to know is what Dean stated: "There are many ways of achieving this conversion".

 

The 4x5 format is not patented.

 

Best to all.<div></div>

Mr Benni is entirely correct!

All modification required are present and if you state you cant see them is because you are looking for modifications one would use a shovel or gardening tool" size does matter" in LF the differences are minute and not necessarily visible to the naked eye but have to be established by measurements and relationships to other components.

 

Such admission by you confirms what I have insisted all along, as you expect invention to be possible only if its the invention of the wheel and all else is your IP because I have come to realize that you said for years that you owned no IP but the minute you touched my camera you felt Ip was not only possible but desirable./ the best/ proud to endorse and introduce/ recommend..... you are burying yourself unnecessarily.yousaid the best was a 4 designs conversion only to present the aparent external similarity as a discredit to my patents in the same way as you presented your product versus mine as having no difference when the structural configuration is entiiiiiirely different and you stated that was not that different?

 

Are you a racist? what difference are you hoping to find before you land?

 

If the camera you were holding was a 4 designs conversion with identical measurements which it isn't in regards to any of the modifications. then that would mean that while it is such camera utilizing what such company has done to such cameras in the past and nothing else and for that format then that is prior art even though not patented and disclose in my patents.

 

But because I take the same camera and use the film cartridge as a spacer I am already not using their modification but mine, if to that I add a film back instead of a closed back then that is sufficiently different as well if then the whole thing is made into an indivisible unit and I could have used anything else as a spacer as patented you penalizing me because I used what was as you say the best way does not reflect badly on my but a compliment.

 

The cartridge I use is made by Polaroid and none else, the cartridge I use is not used as a filmholder but as a spacer and turned into an indivisible unit

 

Art is a subjective portrayal of reality , does not have to be either realistic nor factual to be valuable but Prior Art means proof / factual and verifiable documentation that something was made earlier .

 

I am not going to allow you to have me learn the entire patent act including punctuation and every precedent in history when you refuse to learn / have no clue of what prior art expected means while insisting you had it/ someone else's justified you and you didn't bother to verify it " as it doesn't exist" as a justification to start the threads to discredit my IP which you have determined is the best way but said it couldn't be anyone's IP but you say its your own.

Stop insulting yourself it is embarrassing

 

To make a long story short the company who you refer to could not turn their pack film conversion into a 4x5 by using the same film holder.and then they would be in the same boat as everyone else regarding other alternatives.

 

My camera which you are holding uses the pack film holder as a spacer but if you wanted to bury your business I have to tell you that the best way as you insist for conversion will not cost 4 times as much as the 4 designs conversion but less than your product and will be better as you stated. will allow it to remain a dual format camera but it isn't the best way. you came to the conclusion that the best way is that because you got to hold my camera and as difference has to be in inches or feet or wheels to you cant tell the difference between the 4 designs camera and my own which is huge in terms of measurements much less can you see infinitesimal differences in parts of internal components when you cant determine structural differences in a camera body. stop insulting yourself as you have admitted my current way is the best way and only reffered to as being someone elses way to raise doubts, well let me clear your doubts The best way is as you stated my way not anyone elses It is already available but just in case you did believe the best way was the 4 designs conversion and then upgrade it to 4x5 then that will be available to and I own that as well.

 

such conversion would not yield the results of a Littman 45 but at least no worse than your best unless you infringed on my patents regarding internal mods. and external mods not referring to conversion and would be much lighter portable and better balanced so you have gone to great lengths to waste everyone's time and cause them pain for nothing.

 

I can accept that you are just stubborn and we can move on or I remind you that the camera I hold which was Aggie is also a 150mm camera and that has modification present you told were not required which are noticeable visibly when they shouldn't because you didn't know how and they are incorrect but abundant .

 

It was never my intention to embarrass you and this is embarrassing to all and to PN that they have allowed a person such as yourself to do this to the LF community and their members.

 

The best way for you to save face at this point is to shut up, I was trying to help you not hurt you by asking you to stop this.

 

I am sure you have a lot of choices in life open to you and proving further that you have prevented PN members for years of having the best option by interfering and asking others to do so much in the same manner as someone Insisting to being in the possession of prior art and could have allowed all to have the choices all desire and chose to conceal it in defiance for spiteful reasons which everyone would clearly believe are not a remote possibility but profound and to then come here only on events to trash me and blame me while admitting that he is entirely responsible as to why those PN members who felt

unfairly prevented from proceeding .

 

Then this person comes here daring me with" it would be better for you and everyone" if you chose to believe me. I do believe him as does everyone that he has taken us for a long and unpleasant ride.

 

If you and this person don't believe that you have deceived and I don't have to accuse you or make a laundry list of who was deceived have admitted enough already and since it is proven by both your admissions I ask you to find some good taste. apologize to all and move on

 

I think that is what everyone wants. thank you

 

Notice to PN and the photographic community:

I will have no further confrontation from these people nor further dealings with them of any sort , they have wasted enough time for everyone but when people believe time is money and I Have Patents that they end up insisting most merited because they yield the best choice which they have interfered with It is my right and the decency of all to put an end to this abuse unjustifyable and admitedly intentional

 

Thank you and I would have liked to have met you all under different circumstances and doubt that what has occurred can easily be forgotten but I will hope that the future is the best it can be, I will try to make the best of It and I hope the rest of you are able to do the same.

Cheers W

Is that it? Are we done?

 

Did Paul ever get any help? Remember Paul?

We were done a long time ago and Mr. " the one battle" should not resort to these kinds of things. I know he has a long nose and wears glasses and sounds a lot like or wait" precisely" like someone who says someone did this to him and the other and then it turns out that someone is always himself. Mr the one battle has made 139 conversion related posts since then Wow

he joined a week after the scanning thread was closed to invite himself but if shill bidding sucks then posing as someone else to undermine patent credibility or product credibility is pathetic.

 

He should have stopped when he was ahead.

 

in any event the cam is modified and patented and not identical to a 127mm cam in ways which Mr. Jones cant see.... neither will any of you then. which is great, my cameras with a 150 work great. Parallax 110% correction is as !00% as it can be as stated in our site and known to all. the coupled parallax rangefinder camera is patented and

if a particular modification isn't present in a part then another one is. My cameras as always has known from day one are built with a combination of old and new parts and appearance may vary but current models are clearly better looking that what these people have presented but I have shown proof that as an utilitarian tool my product excels and as they hoped to present a similarity as based on appearance it backfired when they also admitted it was the best way. nobody will get my camera for what they sell theirs and I will get theirs if people keep up with this nonsense.the 4x5 conversion is patented as proved and the one battle just ended . yes Mr Seward we are done unfortunately on an unpleasant note as a result of unsavory and malicoius rigging Pn deserves better I hope that will be the case ...

And yet, despite all of this, William is still convinced that it is <i>everyone else</i>, not his precious self, who is the "embarrassement to PN" over this. A man for whom 1+2 will always equal 5, and how dare anyone for suggesting otherwise. So, it's futile arguing with the guy - he'll continue to talk around in circles to his grave. In the meantime, the rest of us can carry on the good work of discussing/implementing 4x5 conversions without him... or at least with him relegated to a kind of faint background hum, if we're all careful to ignore him in future. In the early days of slow modems and "Bulletin Boards", the screen would sometimes fill with random noise over the line; we learned to ignore it. Think of Will Littman's posts as a throw-back to those old 4800 Baud modem days.<p>

 

If there can be one good thing that has come out of these threads, it must surely be that anyone seeking such conversions (such as poor old Paul McEvoy, who started this thread!) will by now know that there are many people out there offering these conversions at a good price. A thread like this has brought them together in one spot, and now folks without the workshop or resources to tackle the conversion task for themselves know that there are <i>several</i> options out there for having it done for them. Or, that there are any number of freely available approaches to carrying out the conversion, and there are kind people willing to share that information to anyone who is interested, in a similar spirit to the "Open Source" movement in the software world. We are talking, after all, about a jerry-rigged alteration to someone else's (Polraroid's) no-longer produced product, using bits and pieces from other products. Claiming patent on such a thing is akin to claiming patent on the idea of gluing a flashlight to a miner's helmet. It's commonsense. It's common. Its unenforceable. Three things that will invalidate any patent faster than you can say "bogus".

Mr griffin

If the patent office examined the patent description and found it patentable then it is.

We know you have admitted resentment as amotive and that is about it.

The Patent Office only acts upon what they are told. They don't have time or the resources to run around the world doing the investigative work for you. The onus is upon you to ferret out all relevant information. It's pretty clear that you didn't; there is now photographic proof of that. Whether you knew that or not when you applied for the patent is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the patent is highly dubious, and unenforceable. It's a moot subject.

I tell you what is unenforceable and that is expecting you to let go of your classiest considerations .

 

The patents are not limited to what is implemented in the product

What you say is false and malicious and damaging because if it is included in the patent and disclosed in it as well then the evidence was submitted .

 

taking an existing product and creating further invention is not considered obvious and is clearly patentable that is why they have a category known as improvement to an existing product.

 

but in any event if that annoys you then remember that is only 5% of my patents, you wish to re write the way things are and doesn't surprise me when you say you will have a temper tantrum unless you get your way so any obstacle must be eliminated and that is what you are doing. but it wont fly.. curious that you were the one to have the last word on the scanning thread and the first to response when that is brought up.

 

Unfortunately then I thought you were the earl of white linens and so you appeared to be independent but now I know you admitted to have an ax to grind and have taken sides with someone from your part of the world on this matter so anything you say can be expected as

partisanship and expressed motives. thank you.

 

You are speaking of things which you have no knowledge of and Just as these people chose to discredit me to aggrandize themselves look where we are now , Ladies and Gentlemen Kai is now

THE PATENT OFFICE congratulations on your self promotion , I hope you get paid.

I want to thank Mr. Jones for his attacks on my product for years as today I got an email from a client saying that my camera appeared to be built with parts from old cameras??? I say that is obvious from the pictures in my site. yes that is obvious, what is also obvious is that the product is a combination on new and old parts.

So thank you nice way to justify why the patent respect you promised was disregarded .

 

 

 

Another email I got was a request for phone contact for a sale, I got another one yesterday.

 

So I'm telling all anyone requiring phone contact in lieu of email should abstain from contacting me. I expect my customers to trust me

 

The email "risk" comment was admitted to be started by a participant and on that note such matter has been addressed.

 

 

 

Thank you.

Mr One battle?

 

What is that? I don't even know what that means.

 

And I sencerely hope that you are not implying that I am acting on Mr Battle's behalf, or that I am not who I say I am. I thought you might be implying that, but I can't tell.

 

In any case, I thought this was over. I should have left well enough alone.

It is over. Just a slight unintelligable background murmer from a different plane/dimension :-)

you said the thread it should end by reminding people that otherwise they should make sure to cause deliberate harm so it would appear in searches but then came back with the invitation to go on. which means that what you hope will die is that which you admit that you wish to harm.

 

There is no way that a handful of admitted people with an ax to grind and hopeful competitors will have further effect on the market

when we have seen how that effect was achieved .Otherwise the market would have to be as spiteful as these few and of no interest

 

words are just words and if not then its murmur, what a well intended bunch! you should start a consumer product magazine

Well, I still don't know who Mr. Battle is.

 

I did hope it was over, and I'm not sure why my expression of relief that it appeared to be prompted such anger. I'm sorry for that.