Does anyone actually believe this dribble?

Discussion in 'Large Format' started by razzledog, Feb 18, 2006.

  1. Does anyone actually believe this dribble?: "the tech improvements of the l45s Iv over all previous models include new tech where all variables are not considered via triangulation but quadrangulation so result in a much tighter synergy and precision. The camera backs we utilize are considered to be of the highest industry standard graflock systems and allow for the interchangeability of filmholders without having to utilize wrenches to loosen 4 bolts to flip filmholders and are ergonomicaly designed as not to pose a risk by protruding bolts . We have preserved the rear red button on the original cameras for two very important reasons 1) the art deco award winning design of the Land camera Development swith was inspired by elevator& light switche design which were installed in the lobbies of New your city sky scrapers in the 1930s and 40s . It is considered as one of the preetiest camera ornamentation of the era and ranks alonside with the attention to detail of the Kodak medalist II and the Kodak Chevron. I greatly serves to brake the monotony of an otherwise empty space and besides being beautiful art and symetry it has valuable utility reasons for its implementation. 2) from an utilitarian standpoint it was designed to serve as an ergonomic thumb grip to a camera that otherwise had a weight in excess of what a gentle handgrip could provide . As the development red swith is no longer needed we have designed arround that and trimmed the protruding red plastic while preserving the thumbgrip portion of the switch. 3) another reason to presrve the switch enclosure is that it serves as a bumper preserving the fragile rangefinder enclosure from accidental damage". That`s actually 3 reasons, all of which are complete rubbish. In response to the comments about the 'RAZZLOK' requiring 'wrenches' to flip filmholders, as per usual this fellow has it completely wrong. NO WRENCHES ARE NEEDED as the back is actually spring loaded. The four thumbscrews simply allow for complete control over the tension required as well as having the ability to lock down holders in seconds. How anyone with such a lack of attention to detail, spelling, or facts, construct anything that resembles a camera is beyond me...........
  2. Um, Dean, I don't think many people pay much attention to Billy Boy's ravings. Too many words, too little meaning.

    I realized that you and he are somewhat in the same line of business, so I suppose you have to pay a little attention to him. But who else does?
  3. Dean:

    The situation is this: The swithch is someone else's trademark.

    The intent was to make the trademark a visible and tactile experience.

    My opinion:

    The switch is an atavistic appendage that resurfaced when these cameras became useful again after undergoing evolution.

    This is what beats me? Triangulation-Quadranguation-tighter synergy and precision...

    How about: Excesses in slop (tolerance) have been taken care of with a nail file. Does this sound better?
  4. Hi Dean:

    Wow & I don't believe it - Next version will perhaps be called the P.T. Barnum, Littman & Rene Mackintosh design - only the first & last names being worthy. Given that two of the three are dead I guess there won't be any litigation issues.

    I always thought the red switch was cheesy & made it look like a cheap flashlight. Never thought it was the "preetiest" (sic).

    A new soap opera "As the Stomach Churns" is inevitable after that short story.

    Guess it's time to do another "Bi-Polaroid" revision to help the mechanically disinclined to understand the concept behind your backs in comparison to other backs.

    I will buy one of your cameras someday.

    Thanks for the amusing story Dean.
  5. As a further note:

    Hilfiger et al has a trademark on the green stitching surrounding the button opening in the front pocket of their shirts - I saw the mark at the US Patent Office a few years ago & was surprised a bit but do agree at this point that it's a recognizable feature that allows one to identify with the company. As a disclaimer I own no Hilfiger shirts.

    So - did Polaroid seek trademark protection on this incredible aspect of their overall design? The red button aspect? I am not convinced & am going to guess that is was a bored engineer's method of simply making it work as simply as possible. May have even ordered the parts off the shelf from Rayovac or another flashlight company - or maybe a transistor radio company - or ...
  6. I have been advised by a colleague the word I needed was 'drivel'. In this case it`s definitely 'dribble' as I found it quite mouth watering. This gobbledegook was lifted from auction no 7591487444. You`d better check, just in case I made a mistake in the spelling.
  7. A case for 'Spring Loaded Harassment'?

    Look out things are changing by the minute.......

    "Spring loaded backs were discontinued after world war 2 and are considered obsolete as per todays industry standards.
    our system offers them as an optional accesory as a secondary system but it is widely known that the spring loaded tension must be fixed and constant and cannot be dialed by hand on 4 corners individualy at each instance unless you are a walking toque wrench."

    Looks like I`m a walking toque wrench? What a complete bunch of bananas............ So the Graflok (Horseman) back is not spring loaded, jeepers, what is it electronic, bionic, or magnetic?

    Dribble (drivel) is quickly turning to 'drabble'
  8. Dean:

    Looks like he's Toquing a bit too much these days.

    I guess if i was selling them for 3500. a pop I could afford to myself - my only concern is who owns the patents on the growing process.
  9. There goes that 'Store Clerk' reference again........ obviously this indicates some kind of obsession. How unprofessional to list your kit on our main auction site then use it as a soapbox to relegate someones else`s product. Any wonder people get annoyed with such despicable for the fourthcoming 'Patent Challenge', I can`t wait!
  10. Dean:

    Very simply - does he have any patents in Australia?

    Regardless as to the merit or patentability.

    Will make a lot of difference as to another company/person trying to dissuade you from making this so called"infringement".

    To be on the "safe side" it would be good to know what countries (if) they have filed in besides the USA & as a recourse you could simply say "I can't sell in Latvia, China - etc.

    I seriously doubt that there is extensive foreign filing as it's an incredibly expensive endeavor.

    I would suggest consulting a good patent attorney in Australia for counsel - I can give you references offline. I would enjoy seeing you be able to freely sell your cameras without the hassles you have been subjected to - this is assuming there are no Australian patents filed. Otherwise these would have to be evaluated.

    For reference - any utility patents filed in the USA would then need to have been filed within a 12 month period of time from the date of the ititial filing date for any foreign filings & design patents need to be filed within a six month period of time from the date of filing in the USA. Otherwise there is no possibilty of obtaining a patent. This is all my opinion by proxy of my knowledge in my business but in no way constitutes legal advice. Time to get counsel.

    Can't wait to see your new listings down the road - maybe have dagor77 do an alias write for you.
  11. Um, Dean, not that long ago there was a discussion of the product in question on the french LF forum. I learned a new french slang word, a noun, "parano." It was applied to Billy Boy.

    In that discussion there was a reference to an eBay listing. I looked at it. The listing had more words than any other eBay listing I've ever seen AND a portrait of Billy Boy himself taken with, yes, the product by a Famous Photographer. Very strangely framed, made me wonder how effective the parallax correction is.
  12. Okay, folks, I'm ready to put an end to this nonsense once and for all. I can't stands no
    more.<p> My patent attorney, at some expense to me, has researched all the original
    patent filing documents regarding this situation and I'm ready to have the patent re
    examined.<p>If I had the money, I'd pay for it in a 500th of a second, but I just don't.
    <p>I have a batch of new Polaroid cases, and I put one up for bids on that auction site
    explaining that the auction was to raise money for the court case, by buying a camera
    case, but I put an inappropriate link to this site in it so it was yanked.<p>What do you
    folks think of the idea ? I'd put the money in a checking account which would only be
    used for lawyers fees, and if there was any left over, I'd give it to cancer care here in Rhode
    Island. But the money in the account would all be from the sale of the camera cases
    themselves.<p>I would do all the research and deal with the attorneys. Would that work,
    legally ? I don't wan't to get into a mess.
  13. Here's another pic with a 4x5 Polaroid 110B camera in the case.
  14. Whew! What ramblings littman makes.

    Why use one word when a thousand will do? Consider the word Bullsh*t. It works.
  15. Noah:

    I understand your frustration as I also understand Dean's - My guess is that it's best to use the legal counsel for a "what if" scenario to determine the potential fallout given a judgement is not in your favor. All is not always fair so I'm simply suggesting that you be on the safe side. You may also contact me offline for references for good counsel as I suggested to Dean. I understand that you have counsel already but it does not hurt to have a second opinion.

    I personally don't feel that it's warranted to try and go through the expense of trying to have the patent "invalidated" per se unless you have been sued for infringement.

    The possible damages - given a trial would ever occur - would not be that great in my estimation based on the total volume of sales that you or Dean might realize.

    The "other" party is grandstanding & trying to undermine/scare you or anyone else that decides to "reinvent" a Polaroid camera with a 4x5 back.

    Forgive me for sounding crass but based on everything I've read that the other party puts out there in their advertising/listings/etc. appears to be a lack of an elementary education & I am guessing he would embarrass his legal counsel as well as numerous potential buyers.

    Guy can't even spell - must be really good at determining legal issues as well.

    By the way - I know "you" or should I spell it "yo" are reading this as you have decided not to "be here anymore" but explain to me why I received an email from you about 15 minutes after posting a question not too long ago with regards to a similar issue?

    Wherever you are & if you're reading this please don't send me any private emails anymore as it needs to be in the form of a certified letter from an attorney.
  16. Lee, I am ready to go.<p>The harassment, his lack of will to use an attorney, the co-
    conspiritors, if you will, (I've received harassing emails from several characters in this
    sappy story).<p>With all due respect, I know you want to help, and I love you dearly, but
    you're wrong. If he won't sue me for infringement, then the only choice I have is to try to
    have the patent overturned. He can't sue me if I fail to have it overturned, but I can sue
    him for his business practices even if I do fail to have it overturned. And if he decides to
    sue me for patent infringement, which he won't do because his patent is so weak and is
    why we are here having this conversation, the odds swing in my favor anyway. I have solid
    evidence, and my patent attorney is ready to go. .<p>The only thing I'm asking about here
    is the fund raising. I think that if someone buys even ONE case from me for $4000, that's
    entirely legal. It would be like someone paying $4000 for a Polaroid 110B!
  17. Both of my Phase One digital 4x5 scan backs work with either my 4x5 grafloc speed's; or the spring back speed graphic. These backs are way thicker than a standard 4x5 film holder.

    a few weeks ago Michael schmid confronted Jones with the issues and his responses are posted below.I will not waste any further time engaging him as you can see he dismisses every tech aspect as a figment of my imagination but those who underatand photography can make their own minds, after all if you only read that most of who support his proposals insit they couldnt care either way just consider yourself is at this point in time the tech aspects presented make any difference to you and if they dont then that is fine .

    michael schmid , feb 06, 2006; 03:53 p.m.
    recently i built myself a 4x5" camera on the basis of the polaroid 110b(like dean johnes's or l*mtan's). now i want to change the 127mm lens for a 135mm lens, for example a schneider symmar. i remember, that someone, i think it was dean johnes, posted an article about the polaroid conversion, stating that a 135mm lens also works with the rangefinder without changing the cam. can anyone confirm this? because cam modifications are beyond my possibilities. it would be nice to have a more modern lens on this camera, also i think that the angle of view will be more similiar to the frame in the viewfinder. that means, when you cnahnge the format of the camera to 4x5 from 3x4 during the conversion, the actual picture on the film is always bigger than the lines in the viewfinder. so with a slitely longer lens one might be able to compensate for this?

    thanks for your input, and apppologize for any bad english michael

    Dean Jones , feb 09, 2006; 03:56 p.m.
    You are right Michael, it was me who stated that a 135mm made little, if any difference to the rangefinder accuracy of the 110B! In theory it should, but after performing this lens/shutter replacement, I did some testing at all distances revealing the images were nice and sharp throughout. A 150mm does require a slight amount of cam grinding and a 90mm requires considerably more. You may need to remove the silver aluminium lensboard face plate to allow clearance of the later Copal 0`s moving aperture arm, but that is a minor problem, (perhaps a shim or two between the shutter and the lensboard might suffice?) A difference may arise with the infinity focus however, so some careful checking with a ground glass and loupe may be necessary. You may need to set the film plane further back, or relocate the front standard`s locking plate further forward, whichever is easiest. Despite the later lens being more advanced, I doubt you`ll see any improvement in quality over the original Rodenstock 127mm! You should be able to screw the 135mm elements directly into the original shutter, but be careful to maintain the correct distance between front and rear elements. Aperture scale will now commence from f5.6 instead of f4.7. The beauty of doing this is that the shutter button will still operate without manufacturing some kind of link from the shutter release button to the Copal`s release arm. If the Prontor hangs at speeds below a quarter sec, get it serviced,(sticky governor, they dry out after 40 years) or just use the Copal 0. Cheers.

    such postings can be found on the following thread

    Mr Wolffe

    free to go about our work undisturbed? that is quite a bad joke ,"my estimation of his lifespan" (Mr Wolffe"s wishful thinking capable of machinations so Machiavellian that nothing would suprise me)
    and then Mr Wolffe acts in any way possible as to shorten my lifespan as has been admitted by the usuals who reffer to themselves as "we"

    Nice work of yours!

    In regards to Mr Scwartz refference of harrasment I believe as do most people that this website is reserved for users only and excluded to buisneses and that the intention

    is that users can select and prefer products after evaluating them but Mr Jones and Mr Schwartz have intimidated anyone who would dare prefer my product.

    early on in this saga when these people managed to convince Michael kravit that i was a bad person and unfair Mr Scwartz was delighted to have his support but Mr kravit tried all products and had to endure much harassment from these people to the point that he quit PN entirely.

    When Michael received his camera he wrote that he wanted to write a review about it but that he would not do it in PN to avoid the usual harrasment a few months after that Michael dropped his camera and I felt that his gesture to have the courage to give my camera a chance after he was one of the people who were cohersed into attacking me the most was a great act of courage and which i felt deserved recognition. everyone knows that he went thru a lot evryone knows that he is a great guy.

    This didnt sit well with Mr Schwartz who decided to twist the facts arround as everyone knows that many have recently sold their cameras which have worked well for years and still do.

    Mr Schwartz decided tyo use Michaels misfortune as a chance to trash my product as a marketing strategy for his services and while trashing Michael kravit who no longer was of use to him

    when Mr kravit contacted schwartz to confront him with this

    this was Mr Scwartz response

    Who do you think you are? Eleanor Roosevelt?

    You took a $1000 bribe in the form of that repair to write that
    review. And you took a gratutious swipe at me and everyone
    else who does these format expansions. When you wrote: The
    Littman 45 Single is not for everyone due its high price tag.
    There are other conversions on the market that less expensive. I
    have tried two of these and found that they do not perform as
    the Littman 45 Single does.

    SO, if you don't want to be quoted, as in what you wrote on, then by all means shut up.

    If it bothers you that I've quoted you, I'm only going to do it

    I could care less of what you think of me, you seem to be
    ethically challenged.

    I'd like to run my Mercedes off the road and get it repaired under

    So please, do what you have to do, and DON'T GET IN TOUCH

    Don't quote you? Yeah, right.

    Noah Scwartz

    Thank you for using eBay!

    Mr Scwartz has not told the truth here by misrepresenting my actions and those of other members has admitted to starting rumors that ai wouldbrake into peop[les email folders, admitted to lying about submitting prior art and accused anyone who would dare preffer my camera of having erratic personality or told people who diagreed with his solicitation to pay the dues or shut up. I dont know who would want to pay dues to listen to the endless lies posted here and the" what if" scenario is indeed quite larger than a patent issue by now because patent or not this site is not intended for buisneses altogether and if a few DIY advice recipients insist they dont mind because they can use the advice that makes no difference.

    I have quit this forum and have no regrets about having done so . I have posted this because confirmation that the parallax correction issue was finally proven was important to me beyond that these people will bark and If you care to be a part of that then suit yourself.

    There is no risk to me in a partial limitation of my patent claims or if my patent is invalidated by legal means until then I certainly hope that this forum will be free of solicitation by buisneses and that is all I have to say.

    thank you

  19. I was still wondering if anyone had any thoughts on raising money for the LITMAN patent
  20. Does this fall under any patent? I do not think so...
  21. I have a case that will fit that camera!<p>$4000!
  22. I have a thought that everyone shares. I offered to adjust my patent claims at my own expense as is posted on Pn on several threads since October of 2003. neither Mr. Schwartz or anyone else responded to the offer and that is because no evidence exists and if this is prolonged as it has been the answer is clear and simple: Mr. Schwartz claims to have made conversions for 28 years and that would mean that instead of posting test shots of a few cats which he refers to as " test shots from Polaroid conversion shot by himself he would have the fruits of the labor of hundreds of photographers and since I did not start this until 2000 and had no contact with him until April of 2003 then where is it all ? that is why when I requested that he submit the evidence to me his response was" stay away because I can sure use the publicity and went on to discredit me as a means of solicitation, the way I see it is nobody was in his way before and nothing happened so no there will be no invalidation of relevance and on that note I hope those who can see thru all this finally do and for the rest good luck!
  23. I am fairly new to LF photography ( semi-pro 35mm shooter for 25 years), however having just bought my 3rd 4x5 camera and my first 5x7 I am a admittedly interested in Large Format cameras.

    Today I stumbled across this thread and it intrigued me. As a result I visited the sites in question and I checked out the US patent.

    Now I may be a new to LF, but it seems to me that Mr Littman spends a huge amount of time talking/writing/hinting/overtly mentioning about a patent that really in essence only applies to a back and finder that is affixed to a PRE-EXISTING CAMERA that somebody else designed years before him, and not enough time about what makes people buy cameras for in the first place - creation of images!

    In addition what strikes me here is the sheer amount of infantile poorly formated text that is used to justify his claim.

    Personally all I want to do is take pictures. I will buy products from companies that show me how to do that better and with greater ease. Mr Littman has shown me that I can only do that while thinking about his patent. Frankly I am very ammused at this.

    This exchange has show me ( and countless others - due to search engines) just how petty and how single minded somehow can be when they feel threatened. Sure Patents are important, but get over it really.

    All I want to do is take picutures. I will buy camera from sellers who share my vision. If I am going to spend $3500 on a camera I want to know the person that made it. I want to know their heart attitude. I think I found that out today.
  24. Thanks Lee, but I have already sought legal advice from a patent attourney some time ago. End result was that I should not be intimidated, persuaded or deviate from my endeavours, whether it be a hobby or otherwise. So amused by the claims made against me, the lawfirm didn`t charge me a cent!
    All the huff an puff is exactly that. It`s not the threats so much, but all the garbage we have to endure when just messin` around with these old cameras.
    I received an email recently from a colleague, it made me laugh......

    '...There was a nutty guy who made Polaroids to 4X5 and was going to sue me for making Pol 545i backs fit the 600SE and Mamiya Press. The guy stopped bothering me after realizing I would keep his suit in court for decades with delays etc. He claimed to have a patent that covered everything to do with 4X5'.

    Perhaps instead of funding a patent overturn, a ONE WAY SHUTTLE FLIGHT might be more suitable? (Tiles removed to be sure).

    Everything one states is either misquoted, misrepresented or misconstrued by this buffoon, therefore I would encourage everyone to disregard this PITA and just enjoy 4x5 photography doing and building whatever.

    I guess the upshot is, it`s all been good for a laugh............
  25. I guess many including Michael Briggs know that you cannot install a longer lens in a Polaroid shutter and use the ysarex scale and insist the aperture now starts at 5.6 instead of 4.7. all the numerals in between would be positioned differently it is of paramount importance and expected and vital. SKG grimes would confirm this and so would many of you. that is in what relates to exposure for the last 3 decades most equate Polaroid with exposure. so a proposal for a Polaroid camera unable to render a correct exposure is not a suggestion that someone claiming to be diligent can make.besides I know who received the camera pictured by Jones in response to Michaels question and I know that what I have stated is precisely the case.

    Months ago I referred to Mr. Jones as a store clerk he responded that he was the manager of the large format department of a camera store and took offense to my calling him a store clerk so today I made reference to store clerk because when I consulted with one here in NY on the matter he laughed.

    Then the issue of the parallax correction is exactly as Mr. Michael Schmid describes and while I understand that many of you could care less the issue is whether so many who have to read these forums have been affected by those assurances.
    then the issue of the camera cam is also false in the sense that a modification is required whether it be grinding or something else makes no difference .

    Then insisting at this point that Michael Schmid would also not be able to tell the difference between the results yielded by a 127mm Ysarex and a Modern Apo corrected lens is ridiculous as can be confirmed by the postings of many knowledgeable members on hundreds of forum threads.

    I have come to accept that Mr. Jones would dismiss all I say and that I am a buffoon but whether this is nerdy stuff to some it encompasses all that is vital in a camera of large format because if you have no desire for such specification then all would agree LF should be avoided altogether. while much can be brushed under the expectation that newbie's don't know or don't care I do because I have no choice my livelihood depends entirely on these factors and as they are and continue to be dismissed as fabrication I am justified to insist that this person does not have the knowledge required to have disputed my research for years when it is clear to any knowledgeable member that he does not know as of today, that some don't care is fine but I have a right to remind all that I am constantly being subjected to abuse as a result .Clearly that a member who is a camera user ignores something is no big deal , I myself do not know everything but I have a right to expect that if someone admittedly insitgates the entire market against me that he would be expected to know these facts before doing so.

    That is in what relate to the tech issues so any suggestion that should I describe my product more I would gain support is a premise I have no desire to pursue here because I tried that reluctantly as I believe businesses should keep their hands out of the cookie jar to avoid these type of situations.

    Many believe I would be the only one to loose out should all this be as I say and those people should realize they don't care either way and that is why they believe that.

    In what refers to the legal issues you can read that all these people insist that cost is prohibitive so go ahead, they dared me to show up with legions of lawyers and we now find out I could not even recover 4 g out of an effort which costs several times that so it is neither cowardly nor incoherent that I still have not proceeded.

    When Mr. Schwartz has assured everyone here that my product is a self destructing time bomb for years and people keep offering their Littman cameras for sale in the public domain insisting they still work perfectly after years , when Mr. Jones has called everyone who prefers my product a buffoon, and when Aggie dared say she prefers my camera he replied that she should contact him when it brakes and Mr. Schwartz cited her erratic personality. I didn't know character was a requirement to buy a camera but What he refers to as erratic personality I would say is what most expect of artists I don't believe that gender sexual orientation should be an issue after all it is my belief that at this point in time 4x5 is greatly aimed at artistic subtle differences and the endless invalidation of artistic attributes provided on this website to anyone daring approve of my camera has been pervasive. then there is the reference to my clients being pretentious etc etc. and when Mr. Wolffe intention is that I should expire so he can take over in the presence of such well heeled intentions I understand I cant compete for approval with those who offer DIY tips in exchange for votes.

    I don't expect to become popular around here any time soon but only ask that those who understand the tech issues make an effort to realize what has happened here.

    I do not would not expect any reasonable person would put themselves at risk of the usual abusive treatment which has been given to those who have defended me in the past. What I propose seems elitist when all that matters is belittled but everyone can decide on their own.

    I have been challenged for years into these discussions by such assurances, I should not have had to be in that position and glad that I do not have to be in it again as it is quite clear to those who would appreciate my work that I do not have to be subjected to this any further. If this has entertained a few then so be it.
    All best W

  26. Every person you've mentioned is someone you bribed to praise your half-an-idea of a
    camera.<p>And even THEY are getting rid of your pimped Polaroid 110B'S.<P>You left, or at least you said you did, because when someone asked where to get a Copal
    shutter repaired in New York City, you replied, "Arizona" and were offended at the mocking
    you received. So you pulled a Bette Davis and flounced off.<p>You wouldn't know a technical
    innovation if it crawled up you nose and died.
  27. I've read the whole thread, but my brain is still stuck thinking 'quadrangulation, what the...?'.

    "all variables are not considered via triangulation but quadrangulation so result in a much tighter synergy and precision"

    I want to know what has happened to all the diagonals that have been removed. Are they stored in a secure location? Anyway, just in case Dean is thinking of using pentangulation to improve on his design, I'd better warn him that he would need to get a licence for that technology from me. Pentangulation with Hybrid Adaptive Indeterminacy is 93.7% more synergistic than any quadrangulation, and I can prove it.
  28. Flatulent thread.

    Most anybody with a few proper tools and some mechanical skills can create a hybred camera.

    I am still waiting for someone to do something really innovative on the LF front and grafting a 4x5 back to a Polaroid body is hardly innovative as its been done to death.

    From the slightly plagiarized words of Lex Jenkins........

    "May this thread soon expire from asphyxiation under the weight of its own gas"
  29. Here is a better and cheaper alternative to a Littman.
  30. "I am still waiting for someone to do something really innovative on the LF front [...]"

    Do you have an idea of the features you would like, or are you just waiting to be impressed?
  31. I guess I have to remind Mr Schwartz of an email he sent Michael Kravits friend with copy to me"
    A few people have written to me about the price of the Littman 45 being too high. I really don't like to hear that. I have told them that, the Littman 45 is a high quality camera and worth EVERY CENT he charges for them and more. ,

    Look into the Littman 45 if you want the best camera you can get.

    Noah Schwartz

    the next thing is After I gave you my patent application number which you later lied saying you did not know who I was but then said that someone had discussed my product with you and you had visited my sire but 5 month later on September of 2003 you came to PN to discredit me as you threatened with the following words in an email to me"

    モyou'd better stay away from me, because I could sure use the publicity. モ

    Noah Schwartz

    I guess me and my artistic clients deserve better and I will elevate ,press the red switch and get out of this basement for good. I cant help it if peoples modus operandi requires that they gain notoriety at the expense of others threaten them with leverage and then this is want you all have to endure.

    Mr. Schwartz let me thank you for telling the truth about my camera at least once and as all can read that you threatened to do this discredit if it would serve your purpose then anyone can tell that I did not bring this upon myself and as I want no part of it I say. good day.
  32. I really thought you had left for good, silly me I should have known better. The matter of the pictures on my website depicting the standard 110B`s finder operation being fraudulent, how can that be Mr Littman?

    They are EXACT depictions of what is fact. No touch ups just plain fact. When it comes to being fraudulent, you sir, certainly lead by example. I have seen your handywork on two separate occasions having had your cameras sent from the US for repair.

    Both customers stated they would rather ship the cameras to Australia and back than deal with you.
    I must say the standard of workmanship was appalling, I would have expected better for a camera costing way in excess of its true worth.
    As for being a piece of art, From what I`ve seen, the term 'piece of crap' would be more suitable.

    Glue stuck to everything, screws broken and general untidiness and lack of attention, similar in part to your ramblings.
    You have been described to me by one New York Photographer as a pretentious, name dropping showoff, the descriptions you give your cameras certainly attest to that.

    Why has a simple converted Polaroid 110B been given such names as 'Panthere Gris and Panther Noir? What the hell is Option one and a half? All just a joke surely? If you`re serious about all this, you have a real problem.

    Have you ever wondered why so many are uniting to overthrow you?

    Do you not understand that by continually attacking, you will only face even more retaliation?
    Does your mind function in a normal manner? obviously not.
    You cannot lay claim to being an artist simply by stating that you are one. Insisting that you are what you are not is pure folly.

    For you sir, time is running out............................
  33. >>>>>>Pico diGoliardi , feb 19, 2006; 12:37 p.m.
    "I am still waiting for someone to do something really innovative on the LF front [...]"
    Do you have an idea of the features you would like, or are you just waiting to be impressed?

    Just waiting to be impressed I guess, or maybe I will jump on the milling machine and tackle it myself. Its just not my forte, and to do it right takes a large investment of $ and time.
  34. The instigation of Triangulation or Quadrangulation and the renunciation of the litigation might result in cancellation of the

    The reputation of the operation is an obligation to the population, so the facilitation of the examination and the determination of the situation remains a deterioration.

    The apparent discolouration of the medication is an indication of the alienation.
    The application of strangulation of the abomination would be a representation of the continuation of the computation.

    The exhuberation from the conformation that the exaggeration is suffering palpitation after decapitation is an inspiration.

    The final indication that the destination of the minimisation is cause for celebration and the discommunication of the fossilisation is a long awaited termination.
  35. Be carefull; Flatulence recently patented too :)
  36. Here is a simple design, done before, and now by me. Who cares? I have no problem sharing my ideas. Will is sell? Maybe, but only if it's good. Do I care if someone else makes an identical model? No. And I'll tell you why, Mr. Littman. You can't patent decency. I poke at you because you threatened me with legal action when I even mentioned 4X5 in an unrelated eBay camera auction. You had eBay pull an auction with active bids. And that cost me my rightfull earnings for the work I put into that camera. I will poke you every chance I can. You are more than a pebble in my shoe.
  37. Jason; your bitmap is 1017k ; if saved as a gif is only 19k; with no loss of info.
  38. Dean:

    Your last poem - if I might call it that - was perfect.

    Thanks for the amusement.

    I for one am happy that he's come out of his self-imposed exile from this forum. Instead of guessing what one might think we can hear it directly & I like this. So - with that said - it's like you know there is a fly on the wall listing in on all of this ...
  39. I think there`s a most important fact that Mr Littman thoroughly overlooks. His cameras are supposedly selling for $3300US....criteria being you are either elitist, artist or loaded. On the other hand my cameras sell at around $1000US if I`m lucky, criteria is simple: that you wish to try 4x5. I simply try to keep cost down, quality up. Having had two Littman L45`s in my posession a simple test using them as opposed to using mine proved the was end result was EXACTLY the same. Same lens, same original camera body vast difference in price, but unfortunately there`s no elitism attached to a RAZZLE. It`s only a hobby and I certainly don`t purport to be a 'merchant' and I prefer to keep them simple, both in name and description.
  40. Good point Dean

    Where's the red button?

    I would only be interested if you had this icon of design incorporated:)
  41. Dean, is that the Chiene Brun sans Bouton Rouge model?
  42. Price: 4x5 camera, $4000 with black foam lined case. 2/3 lighter than the Panter Noir, much more responsive camera, identical lens, no shutter release cable, rangefinder coupled and most important... ...No red switch and no patent claim on this one.
  43. I still haven't actually started, but still have plans to graft the front half of an Ansco Shur-Flash onto a 4x5 back. It will be step more primitive than the converted Polaroid, and I will have to rely on Biangulation instead of that Quatro-angulation, but it should still work okay. I plan to glue some extra synergy on top of the thing.
  44. Jason -
    Thanks for posting the plans. I have a 110a that Four Designs converted for me, but I was thinking about converting a 150 to roll film.

    Couple questions: How do you know when you've wound the film the right amount? Does your system use the exisiting pressure plate? Why not use more of the gate? You can use the whole width and get a full 6X10 image.

  45. I think a quote from Abraham Lincoln is appropriate here. After an enthusiastic governmental official left his office, Lincoln remarked to his aide: "That man is capable of cramming more words into the smallest ideas than anyone I have ever met".
  46. Drivel, dribble

    Drivel is what comes out of someone's mouth who is dribbling.

    I enjoyed most of the thread, but I confess that there was one in a series of whacko posts that I just couldn't make my way through with all the words jammed together in a spitting froth. As another poster said, when all the BS is cut out, nothing is left.

    If someone wants to make a rejoinder to the original post, could we please have a bit of coherence than in the BS.

    It was somewhat weirder than the bit Dean cited about the triangulating or the quadrilateration with a bright red button, with the dirt of the 50s carefully scrubbed off.

    The elevator to the room with the padded walls and precision personal restrains for the purpose of preventing self injury is called by pressing the vintage red button, a relic of so many trips in the past.

    I'd like to see us all free to talk about 4x5 and conversions. Apart from what Noah and Dean do, Diwan Bhathal has had some interesting stuff from his workbench -- as have some others. But just when you think the screeching noise has gone away, it's back.

    I'm personally looking for a new/old New Orleans gris-gris Camera, which might be in order for the pain. While it doesn't have a red button, it comes with an ugly little doll with strange hair and stranger clothes that you can stick a few pins into now and then and listen to it yelp, "it's mine, it's mine."

    The posting on EBay I've seen have had all the signs of someone into something truly strange, but not a real business. There is an air of unhinged desperation, revisted in this thread. Trying to make money on conversions of old cameras that turn up with worthy parts is something for the small craftsman, not a cross-shredded gibberish "manufacturer."

    Noah, much as I would like to see this bully get smacked down and this drivel ended sooner rather than later (and I would make a small contribution to your effort), it's better to just let the drivel come spewing out with the drool.

    With all due apologies to any lawyers who haven't been shot recently, there are generally three kinds of patent lawyers.

    The first type works entirely on contigency because patent litigation can be quite profitable for the lawyers when taking on a deep pockets corporation, including the ones who pay just to get rid of the suit and a few who deserve to lose. The companies get smaller for the newer law licenses, but not too small. The defendant has to have money.

    The second type specializes in taking money from penny ante "inventors" by churning out paper to flood the Patent Office which has said that does not have the resources to determine the validity of far too many of the applications. Those things done for fools drone on about the triangularity of the quintupline quadralaterialation with a blue cherry top and purpline fringes with segments made from precision worn retread Sears tires cut to exact Whitworthian measurements, not metric or inch size. Which provides constant fodder for those who find humor in reporting the continuing flood of nonsense claims that are granted by the U.S. Patent Office.

    The last type will offer sound legal advice to applicants or potential litigants. The one who doesn't have a fool for a client will have a modest bill, generally billed by the hour. He will handle potentially valuable patents with long term value but advise that managing trade secrets effectively is more valuable than most patent. He'll tell you not to waste your time suing someone who doesn't have deep pockets ... because you'll have to pay him by the hour and even well-deserved spite isn't worth the price.

    He'll also tell you not to worry about a blustering fool with a claim that's beyond shaky -- who threatens to sue everyone he sees -- and threatens to seize private property from all over the place to support his claims. Because that person won't be able to get out of a lawyer's building without bankruptcy. He'll find that things get even worse when he starts running into people who as customers don't like legal intimidation -- and who may have insurance protecting them against such litigation. A modest number of people fighting phoney subpoenaes would easily bankrupt a prosperous small company -- which wouldn't make these constant and trivializing threats anyway. The result could be some serious counter litigation with some teeth.

    But even if there were a legitimate patent one plaintiff said there is "a common pattern that infringers use to distract from their own infringement while attempting to make the plaintiff's suit as cumbersome, expensive and time-consuming as possible." Just as some keep making threats.

    If someone brings a phony infringement suit against someone, the damages in a countersuit can be huge.

    That's not a legal opinion. There's probably a real lawyer here with a sense of humor.

    Art Deco?? Art Deco has class.
  47. It took me a long time to figure it out, I guess that I am not so smart !


    When using one of these contraptions, and if in a moment of doubt, exercise the Red Switch. It is a Safety device built in. An Art-Deco ( sixties version ) safety device.
  48. I'm really rather stunned that Mr. Litman, (A.K.A. WILLIAM LITTMAN), would post the content of private emails between Michael Kravit and myself.
    What would WILLIAM LITTMAN be doing with private email correspondence between me and the reviewer of his camera?
    Meanwhile, folks, I've looked into it, and I've been trying to figure out what to do about it for years now, and the first thing to do is to have the patent re examined.
    I've given my attorney enough information, read that, 'evidence', to proceed.
    What needs to be done now is to raise the cash.
  49. Honestly Noah, I cannot believe the rubbish this fellow writes...
    As for knocking out 10 El Cheapo utility model 45`s that aren` t really parallax corrected and require a tripod to obtain sharp results is a joke. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, I mean, why would someone manufacture a camera, then set out to describe all its shortcomings? Am I missing something?

    What has been done to the rangefinder to render it so useless? I mean the thing works perfectly well as it is, especially with the original lens. Simply moving the film plane further back, then moving the lens back to suit alters nothing. The original Polar didn`t need all this gobbledegook to function then and it doesn`t now. Enlarging the original film format slightly to 4x5 certainly doesn`t require a degree in physics

    All the talk of formulas, triangulation and quadrangulation is just a ploy to suck people in and justify a higher price.

    Why is it that I get 100% results with my cameras when converted to 4x5?..... Why is it that I haven`t experienced any problems with parallax error? I have had NO problems with supposedly misaligned 'f' stops or replacement lens elements.
    It puzzles me as to the reason that a Littman rangefinder looks identical in every way to the standard one?

    After my 60 or more conversions, no one has EVER mentioned a problem with parallax strange is it, that the one who states there IS a problem, is the man who struggles with a problem?

    When I referred to this all being 'SMOKE AND MIRRORS' it was a pun regarding a rangefinders basic design, but Mr Littman as usual got it all wrong, (no sense of humour?) and decided I was being a smart ass.

    Let`s not BEGIN to discuss the fancy names all the models now have, I mean 'THE LONE STAR', complete with spurwheel, what next?
    I`m not into 'phony' snake skin and fancy names and my cameras haven`t been submitted to any 'MUSEUM OF MODERN ART'.

    They may be capable of producing a fine photograph in the right hands, but after all is said and done, they are only fashioned from reworked Polaroid cameras......PLAIN AND SIMPLE!

    Let`s just hope all the 'CARNIVALE' surrounding this subject goes the way of the wind and the OGRE calls it a day!

    If we can start a 'FREE THE 45 FROM BS' fund, I`ll gladly contribute to it.........................
  50. I found a picture of someone who was alive before who is showing a 110b camera. it is part of the 110b camera manual and it was published in 1960. it is prior art if someone wanted to claim that they once held, used owned a 110b and may constitute prior art for the front of the unmodified camera. Mr. Schwartz knows perfectly that prior art is a document which actually shows the matters at hand( modification) in a publication or other document which is prior or an actual tangible structure which can be established to have been made prior when someone can prove it. That he still misrepresents that a picture which shows nothing in regards to the matters at hand adds up to " how much freaking evidence do you need? may be libel. Everybody is stunned by the fact that this is a website destined for photographers and not businesses ambushed by businesses as their own cookie jar and When Mr. Kravit read the instigation that Mr. Schwartz wrote against me by insisting to have submitted evidence to me of prior art and then saying it was not required and had not , then saying that he was surprised and stunned that I told him I had patent applications because he did not know who I was as he wrote on Pn in October of 03 but then admitted that someone had discussed my product and showed him a magazine article about my camera. on other occasions insisted to not having had access to my product but then contradicted that as well. as a result of this instigation and admitted connivance which he summarized as" we are trying to stop him or at least keep him busy" Michael Kravit who is someone who is willing to go to bat for a just cause believed in Schwartz so much that on October 2003 went on to be the one to start a repeal fund for my patent on PN. Soon after that Michael realized what Schwartz and the others were doing and decided he was old enough as to decide on his own and look at how things turn out. You go to bat for these guys and they call you a hero but should you dare have a mind of your own they immediately trash you in public as you have been able to read. If Mr. Schwartz is stunned that his connivances backfire then perhaps he should keep his hands out of the cookie jar. I was provided with that email because Mr. Kravit obviously knew that Schwartz would again resort to misrepresenting the fact that first they proceeded to belittle the press then those who were established and it was all moved to the realm of whoever would come here as having tested it and when they saw that did not work to their advantage either they belittled PN userswho knew first hand as well. In other words If the members of Pn wish to have a forum where the truth is not available because of admitted instigation by businesses then suit yourself you have succeeded entirely. What an irony that the person who puts themselves on the line for Schwartz gets belittled for years on PN for having a preference on a camera and then used as a means to offer a repair service by saying the owner of the camera is ethically challenged because he bought several cameras and proffered one of them ?insisting I gave a free repair so that he would prefer my camera? Michael kravits camera broke in part because of the stress he was subjected to by these people, he wasted almost a year before landing what he required because Jones and others assured him that what they offered was no less than mine and at GREAT SAVINGS . he is a PN member he made an effort and gave them a chance, he supported their cause but he has the integrity to tell it like it is. if there is a hero and a jolly good fellow in this forum that is Michael Kravit. The second irony on this email story is that Schwartz came to PN to tell everyone that they should be careful because there were rumors that I would brake into peoples folders. after a year of pain and suffering and almost no business for me he admitted to have started that rumor himself because he couldn't find a few emails, and also because the defamation was made " so I would sue him". He misrepresented Mr. Kravits actions and this week when someone mentioned they had sold their camera he stated in the usual manner that" I didn't know that you were allowed to sell them" but in this thread he reminded me that Michael Kravit had just sold his camera with a comment such as " and then they dump your pimped 110bs or whatever". I see a pattern where Mr. Schwartz first info to me was to state that Marty Forsher had stolen the 35mm Polaroid back patent from him, I was stunned then I was surprised that he would refer to someone who gave him a chance in that manner and then he threatened me in lieu of submitting evidence while publicly lying that he had. When he finally started the threads on October of 03 and I saw that he misrepresented the events as to fulfill the threats of discredit while asking all to send him the business instead I was convinced and now this matter has come full circle when the pattern of defamation and lies is admittedly a modus operandi which is found entirely justifiable while expecting everyone to take his high moral posture to the bank. Then his first words to me were that the conversion was his invention and that he was upset that I would " abscond his idea" then last year he insisted that the first time he saw such conversion was when someone walked with one which was ready at a shop where he worked. so again he lied and I cant believe it is his idea and when the lies are exposed then he moves to insist it is all obvious and the most converted camera That instead he and the others have resorted to admitted defamatory instigation and sabotage at times referred to as " it would be better for you" at times refer to as retaliation" etc. These forums were started with the clear admitted intention to cause damage the first words used were " apparently well known and respected" and when threats in writing exist and ensuing admissions can be read and verified that they call me a name dropper while they knew quite well that the only name I would have needed to endorse my product was my own considering that many famous shooters rely on my expertise and my own standing as a photographer and innovator is well established in the public domain. Rest assured that Mr. Kravit is not ethically challenged as Schwartz assures. I have sufficient evidence which can be verified as posted in PN that what these people have tried to infer about me and my product and those who prefer it really applies to them. I hope someone out there believes these forums should be free of businesses using excuses and false pretenses to peddle products with the pattern of saying that those who are in their way are name droppers proceeding to make sure their name drops thru admitted instigation and defamation. should such person find himself cornered by the mob they will then ridicule his defense as just words and send him to seek prescriptions while then telling all to ignore me because the truck carrying their yard sale is outside and after all this is bad for business, he will auto destruct. Such language...... a few months ago I read That Michael Kravit had posted a comment on a different forum insisting he was using my camera and pleased with it Right after that Mr. Schwartz went on to post his eBay auction questioning Mr. Kravits character and misrepresenting the events etc. a week later I get an email from Michael Kravit telling me that he would like to sell his camera , that he no longer shoots film but now uses a digital camera and a digital back. people come and go and I thanked him for having given my camera a chance and told him I was glad it would now go to someone who would put it to good use again. How much freaking evidence do you need? he asks..... exactly! A few months ago Someone joked that Mr. Schwartz had prior art on something else and that he would get agrrrry!!!! and Mr. Schwartz volunteered what can summarize everything when he replied" I only get angry when I am told I cant do something" How about that? well we can verify what happens when he gets angry because he threatened he would and then fulfilled it admitted to the whole thing admitting to motive at each instance as if it was legal and justifiable Mr. Kravit was entirely justified in providing me with further evidence that Mr. Schwartz has betrayed his trust and the trust of the members of this forum .and is no different from Mr. Schwartz emailing me a copy of an email he sent Mr. Kravitz friend in 2003 where as you can read " he insist that if you want the best camera that money can buy then to get the Littman. What business did he have sending me that email which he sent a potential buyer. none but it was his choice and so its fine.... what logic.... Recently when someone dared speak out that in his opinion these threads do a lot of damage to PN Mr. Schwartz replied by telling the guy to " use your real name pay your dues or shut up" when I was engaged in the discussions he informed me that "he would not allow me to have the last word on threads" I have dedicated a lot of time to trying to confront the tech issues which are dismissed as of today I went on to use my time differently until the instances returned that there is no difference and if insisting otherwise will lead to retaliation yet should I stop that it would put an end to the imitation? Imitation? yes is time to elevate out of this. You can all see that after Mr. Schwartz PUBLICLY discredited Mr. Kravit he thought Mr. Kravit should keep his discontent private? you can read on that email which is consistent in tone and the use of threat of discredit as leverage just as in the email Mr. Schwartz sent me threatening that he could use the publicity. If someone using these tactics can come here and say that when you buy my product you deal with the reputation He and others have admitted to instigate against me let me say that when I give a customer good service and consideration he deserves they discredit him . I have responded because Mr. Schwartz has no right to defamate Mr. Kravit for preferring a camera as an educated choice. such evaluations are the reason for these forums to exist but as a result of these peoples ambush admitting they will have the last word by force the forums are compromised and no longer credible in what refers to these issues
  53. eccentricity would be applicable to a unrealistic expectation.

    The aperture of 5.6 on the Polaroid lens shutter Jones pictured in response to Michael Schmid question has an opening of 19.20 mm at 5.6 and the lens cells Mr Jones installed into that same prontor shutter shutter pictured as recommended as " the beauty of it" with the wrong aperture scale and ratified today that no error exists has an opening of 23.45 mm when the scale reads 5.6 when using the manufacturers scale provided by Rodenstock on an apo sironar N in a copal 0.and on a Symmar or Apo Symmar the difference is even greater. the same sort of variance will apply thruout.

    If he can find a few willing to measure matters with ambiguity and a rubber yardstick he can do the same thing with an aperture scale and everything else and the truth is nobody here gives a hoot but this is not a reflection of public perception. people expect a 4x5 camera to have basic tech standards regardless of it being a modified Polaroid or anything else. that a few cant tell makes no difference

    These are not eccentricities but standard industry expectations. this is quite sad indeed.
  54. ...this is not a reflection of public perception...
    Well, the overwhelming public perception seems to be that you're nuts, William. For what it's worth, I share that perception.
    ...this is quite sad indeed.
  55. Well Mr Littman, forget phony formulas and angulations... cold facts are that in this case the pics speak for themselves. Obviously the reason there is NO PROBLEM is easily explained by the fact that there is no problem. Consequently I suffer absolutely NO exposure discrepancy when replacing the 127mm f4.7 with the 150mm f5.6 APO Symmar. The Prontor also features a greater number of aperture leaves, giving a more favourable result. A more important consideration is an accurate shutter speed. Yet another incoherent misconception on your part. It is indeed, sad.
  56. My favourite Littman nonsense to date (quoted directly from one of his current Ebay auctions):
    "The combination of a coupled rangefinder which determines the actual position of objects in space via measurement of distance with parallax correction which determines the apparent position of objects in space via an apparatus within the camera which creates artificial lines which do not originate from points at the actual object viewed in space...."
    The above says more about where Littman is situated on the space/time continuum than almost anything else he's come up with. Loop-de-loupe!
  57. lol. thats a god one kai. im sure he could have got a "flux capacitior" in there somewhere.

    talk about a load of waffle
  58. I really appreciate the opportunity to have someone post pictures which can be measured with a caliper from the screen there is a measurement difference between the openings of f8 featured which is proportional to what the difference may be expected when one uses the wrong scale on the wrong lens. The problem exists . that it looks like a mowhill is because that is the difference expected and considered an error. What you refer to as very similar is different enough . one shutter reads 9.12 mm and the other reads 9.96 with a margin of error that is about a 1mm difference that is as different as difference needs to be. when the apo symmar lens cells were installed into the prontor shutter and images were shot in studio this yielded an error of 1/2 stop,3/4 stop and even 1 stop depending on the aperture with no way to determine a rule. I have come to understand you dismiss mowhills expecting mountains and that would make a lot of sense when discussing Monday night football and not large format photography measurements where a minute difference is considered huge. If you would have posted the image of the opening at 5.6 the difference would have been immediately noticeable with the naked eye. Ultimately there is nothing wrong with using something that has error present if one doesn't mind that is very different from someone actively encouraging the public as a business by saying no error exists based on similarities which are considered as differences by the industry. Taking into account shutter blade difference and shutter speed difference the reason people use the right scale is because nobody wants a favorable exposure, everybody expects a correct exposure. If someone did this knowingly for personal use and by choice is one thing but in business these are considered as errors and not as similarities.. For my purposes I have sufficient confirmation of dismissal of what counts in these matters which is referred to as " similar" or that someone will not be able to tell a difference such as the parallax of a 3x4 camera being marginally different to that of a 4x5. The formats could be said to be marginally different yet the difference in quality is huge and proportionately the other differences behave in the same manner Last august you amused everyone by posting pictures of 2 cams and trying to ridicule me saying they were no different so here is a scan of the 2 cams side by side and with the curvature transferred over so one can see the difference. these cams are neither similar nor not that different they are as different as they need to be. this was provided then as an attempt to insist that a customer from Ny who traveled to your( his country) gave you one of my cameras for repair insisting it had never worked when you obtained it you insisted that you could not understand how could that camera work with the cam installed to which I replied that all my 150mm customers have that cam installed and their cameras work perfectly. there is such a thing as obviousness to dispute the validity of a patent and I appreciate the admissions which prove that none of these matters were obvious to you or anyone else then or now. That is in what refers to the attempted ridicule of my actual implementation and then there is the issue of your actual implementation where the cam on Aggies camera is grinded crudely and not polished afterward which would result in an inconsistent and bumpy trajectory as has been verified an incorrect curvature and the tip of the follower mirror has been ground by the uneven surface in just a few focusing attempts.You tried to ridicule me for using Krazy glue as a setting agent and you used Crazy glue as a setting agent on Aggies cam . Should you act as a DIY entusiast making a camera for yourself or a hobbyist doing the same I would say your efforts were more than anyone would expect of you but when you publicly assume the position of dismissing these issues as similar or no different using the tone of dispute and in an abusive way and manage to rally a few people who keep saying they are still not convinced by the conversion issue but may give it a try and find that my insistences of expected precision sound unreasonable and that as a result I should be labeled as nuts, buffoon or Ogre I have to draw the line somewhere. Again the measurable tech differences between a rodenstock ysarex image quality results and a modern lens are different . how much? relatively and proportionately in the same order of magnitude as all these issues which you refer to similar or not that different. As a result when you use PN to convince people that my camera is the same as yours except for a fancy name or a phony snakeskin and after all it is otherwise a reworked Polaroid. Anyone can understand that 2 identical Linhofs with the tech differences addressed present could provide results which are noticeably different. It is accepted and expected that 2 different people can produce products of different qualities and everyone can live with that. the unusual nature of this ensuing and deliberate discredit stems from the fact that expectancies of measurement and precision as per industry standadards are insisted as if negligible when they aren't. These matters addressed repeatedly and the existing differences which can be measured and verified easily are the foundation of a camera internal function. when the very basics are addressed crudely and assured similar when they aren't we then read that my choice of working with angles as a means to refine something proven to work well and make it work better as presumptuous or insane. it isn't. a rangefinder measures distance by the variation of angle of the follower mirror when the camera is focused this is the case after all other angle are affixed. However the affixed angles can be optimized as I have already proven in a research which took me 2 years to complete. Should I decide to protect this IP I guess none here would show up in court to claim obviousness. Thanks. in the same manner when everyone shows up here making reference to my designs by name and posting addresses of where they had access to them they will also not be able to claim to have come up with them on their own a consideration which is of paramount in certain types of IP protection. But getting back to the tech issues and away from skins and camera shells I remind you that after I repaired the camera for the photographer who told you it had never worked he pulled a Russell Crowe, didn't throw a phone at me but threatened me over the phone to discredit me, a few days later I receive an email from him stating that he decided to use his glasses and after which the camera was proven to work perfectly the next thing I know is you are posting pictures of a camera showing you have no idea as to why or how and reminding all that while you were keeping me busy with what you call " retaliation I had to make the camera for this chap the best I could and not the best it could be. I had discussed that with him as he emailed to write that he was stunned that a co national of his was doing all this and the irony is that in the end he provides the camera to you and you tried to use the instance to make me appear as a poor craftsman but the paper trail shows and proves that your admitted interferences are the cause of the problem in the first place and when you get it in your hands and volunteer that you do not understand the issues you have claimed would be obvious to you then the due diligence or obviousness considerations are no longer an issue. You and everybody else ridiculed my findings throughout. but these measurements are what makes the difference and the difference that matters. it is obvious that they don't matter to you Therefore I can understand that a few DIY enthusiasts making stuff for their own will resort to gaffer taping and using stuff which technically has a percentual margin of error but in making something for sale which at this point would be aimed at dedicated amateurs or pros the industry measurement standards are either expected or expected disclosed and not dismissed as similar when the pictures show they are as different as they need to be. no more and no less. I have suffered significant losses over the last few years as a result of these false assurances. I can accept that these differences mean so little to you and the others who have disputed my research and now these matters are published in the public domain as your own admittances to that effect the insistences by others. Therefore I will no longer need to engage anyone as these issues are considered as addressed. As of last week these matters are out of my hands. unfortunate but I cannot sell a product convenience based on minute differences when these are constantly being dismissed by competitors who infer that my product"may be capable of producing a fine photograph in the right hands" I say that every person who has hands can expect an apparatus offered for sale to be consistent with industry standards regardless of whether it is based on an old Polaroid chassis and parts which are re worked to some degree or based on metal which has be newly molded If a pro holding is can produce something of greater aesthetic value I say the amateur has the right to hold an equally proficient apparatus and if he cant produce images which are as appealing he should have the chance to do so if he decides to invest the effort to become as proficient s he may be capable of. The photographer's RZ right out of the box is no different than the used one his assistant bought on ebay why? because they are identical and when it comes to a camera I purchased my first Pentax 35mm having to sell my car to do so. I did not understand how it worked nor did I care to have to know such stuff when I didn't even know how to load the film and I used to read a lot of photography magazines then looking for knowledge and did so for years and I never had the misfortune where People claiming to know hat they were talking about went on to dismiss all differences as similarities. I guess one expects 2 Minolta meters will yield the same exposure and not a similar one.and ultimately anyone working at a camera store selling things made by others can verify that from product to product the methods and operation may vary but the measurements are expected as per an universal standard otherwise they are considered as being different. Should these matters ever need to be disputed in court rest assured that the differences presented are the differences expected and not considered as similarities I have no desire to have the last word and wished these matters would have been concise as I believe the entire dispute should have been avoided entirely. the tech differences exist and clearly measurable and the legal issues are based in great part on the tech issues and interactive in many ways and what has been dismissed as not required is and what has been stated as obvious has been publicly proven otherwise when those disputing my IP and product come here post the measurable differences assuring that these are similarities. . I am sorry but perhaps one can remove excess slop from a camera body surface with a nail file and call that an improved tolerance.and if you improved the body shell to absolute perfection and had two identical bodies and one of them had a synergistic and efficient apparatus while the other had the same apparatus with minute measurable differences one camera would work perfectly and synergistically and the other one would somewhat work. it is no more complicated or any simpler than that nor does it need to be. Do the internal parts look similar as well? of course they do the differences are no bigger or smaller than what you can see in the images of the cams you claimed were identical and the images of the apertures of the shutters side by side. the cams crudely ground and the tech i issues adresesed crudely . you can not continue with this outrage. I saw a movie last night where the character plays Ray Charles driving a bus.... it was funny. I believe Mr. Magoo could use a camera if he wishes to but should he challenge others on matters of obviousness and optics and their visible differences and performance it could be a bumpy ride similar to this one.
  59. here is a view of the cams you insisted were identical but are clearly different
  60. different cams
  61. here is a picture of a cam ground as the one you installed on aggies camera and ground as you admitted.
    next to it is a cam with a smooth surface as all cams should have a smooth surface. if you grind you have to then polish otherwise the surface acts as a file and grinds the tip of the mirror as was the case in Aggies camera.but as polishing can change the curvature i opted for other methods finding that grinding is somewhat inacurate by comparison to other choices.

    Stop the rudness as it does not justify the crudeness
  62. That picture above looks like something transmitted from the Cassini space probe after it crashed landed on Titan, only your pictures have even more static and graininess. Out of curiousity, just how far out in the solar system are you, William?
  63. For somewone who seems to live for quality the images certainly do not live up to all the talk
  64. I printed the picture posted and then scanned it along with a caliper .
  65. Honestly speaking, I`d have to say that all this is utter B/S. The end result is that my cameras WORK, simple as that.
    AS for your efforts at photography, let me say they are ghastley.

    Even the pictures offered on your Ebay listings lack contrast, focus and correct framing, (perhaps your rangefinders could use some serious modification?). As for the sloping pedestal trick UGH!
    If you are the esteemed photographer you purport to be, why can`t you submit decent photos?
    Where do you find the time to watch the telly?
    More to the point where do you find the time to measure my aperture?
  66. I use a digital camera to take the pictures for eBay because I do not believe it justifies the expenditure to use 4x5 for that purpose.

    My camera is a handheld snapshot camera and I believe the expenditure on film expense is merited when used for creative purposes and not for the purposes of documenting the way it looks.

    I prefer to take pictures of people and quite good at it yet find myself having to take pictures of nerdy stuff when people dispute my research. I'm not going to spend more money and effort to document these kind of things.Where does this guy find the time to post pictures of cams which are different and make them appear identical thru tricks ,

    You are correct I don't have the time for any of this. if you say your... works despite all error shown , by method of fiddling then leave it at that instead of disputing differences which are readily verifiable and have been proven so.

    Thanks and goodbye
  67. I think he`s gone folks......................
  68. Dean,

    Gone today, here tomorrow.
  69. Bloody prophetic, Dan, bloody prophetic. Care to guess the next Powerball?

Share This Page