Talk:Film format
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to filmmaking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
The rollfilm format 3"X2" was introduced by Houghton's Limited, an English Company, and was that of their 'Ensignette No.2' camera which came onto the UK market in 1912. Kodak made their 129 film to fit it about a year later but never themselves made a camera of this format. It is believed that Kodak's response to the Houghton product was their 'Vest Pocket Kodak' and the 127 roll film it used.
The photography formats who have an article by themselves do not need more info here
More obscure formats will probably have all available info on this page...
And yes, 70mm cartridges are available from Kodak
Egil 20:01 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)
IMHO a lot of articles should be grouped. A rollfilm article describing all rollfilms formats article will be better, an article about medium format should also discuss about small film sheets and the 828 is a 35mm rollfilm.
I vote for 110, 126, 135, rollfilms, film sheets, and miniature formats articles.
Please stop inserting 645 this is not a film format. I agree for 6x4.5 not for 645. The Mamyia 645 and the Rollei 645 are misleading you.
-
- I know there is no 645 physical format per se. But nowadays the term "645 format" is used quite universally to mean 120 film in 6 x 4.5 cm. IMHO it is a very useful term, and the reader must find it listed along with the real film formats. I'm not inventing this, you know, http://www.hasselblad.com/ says this about their H System:
-
- This modular 645-format camera is a feature-packed camera with rapid auto-focus and advanced metering and exposure control.
-
- I know there is no 645 physical format per se. But nowadays the term "645 format" is used quite universally to mean 120 film in 6 x 4.5 cm. IMHO it is a very useful term, and the reader must find it listed along with the real film formats. I'm not inventing this, you know, http://www.hasselblad.com/ says this about their H System:
-
- So it is a format. BTW, the 645 format cameras get 16 exposures per film, whereas the marking on the roll is for 15. Better contorl of spacing between images. --Egil 20:36 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)
There is no 66 format but ther is a rollei SL 66 camera that is of course a 6x6.
-
- AFAIK there never has been talk of a 66 format, either.
Well that's confusing it's not good for an encyclopedia. Anyway it's clear that image format is not film format. Why not 645-format camera like 24x36 camera. This should be discussed in the article(s) but I still disgree in introducing 645 in a list of film formats where 6x6 or 6x9 are not listed.
Instant films can be a good article ? Ericd
The list of formats really needs a table. It is nice to have a good overview of formats, including basic info like type and size. Articles for popular formats should be retained, of course. Egil 07:58 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)
-
- Interresting sources :
- http://members.aol.com/Chuck02178/film.htm
- http://www.nwmangum.com/Kodak/FilmHist.html
I can produce a more complete table of formats this evening - please be patient. -- Egil 15:07 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)
I'm working on adding metric size to the table according to my calculations 6x9 cm is in in fact 57x83mm. This lead me to a question did Kodak use metric size rounded in inches or was it the contrary. Halp will be welcome. Ericd
-
- It varies. Except for the 120, that has become "metricized" through the years (it was originaly specified as 2 1/4 inches) (maybe also the 127 was introduced in inches, I am not really sure) I have tried to use the original units of measurement as far as possible. I think that is an important historic information, since the various formats were ment for different type of cameras and cameras that were known by their size as specified in inches, cm and mm as the case would be. I have s suspicion that simply converting the measurements of many of the ancient formats to an exact mm figure without researching what the exact measurement was, could be quite misleading.
- But one thing that I would think would be highly informative and wortwhile, was to have a separate table comparing the 'surviving' formats, where exact measurements can be verified. For instance in a table that shows each variant as a row (e.g. one row for 120 6x6, one for 6x4.5, one for 135 24x36, for XPan, for APS, for Minox etc), and then show exact measurements for image size in mm, and also in mm2. The area measurent could even have a column showing the relative size as compared to 24 x 36, for instance. Perhaps also a column for aspect ratio. Just a suggestion, if you would have a look at it. -- Egil 07:01 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)
"I have s suspicion that simply converting the measurements of many of the ancient formats to an exact mm figure without researching what the exact measurement was, could be quite misleading." I think so too but I have found some stange facts in trying to this : the 6x6 is 56x56 mm it should be 57x57. The 6x9 has an exact ratio of 1,5 in mm but not in inches. For production purposes Kodak may have cut films from rolls whose size was a multiple of 35mm that's why I suspect size in inches to be rounded from a real size that was metric. Sadly it seems that there's no data published on the metric size of the obsolete formats. Ericd
-
- I don't think you can assume too much here. 2 1/4" converts to 57.15 mm, that is correct. But measuring the actual gate of a 6 x 6 camera you'll find that it is is pretty much exactly 56 mm, so 56 x 56 cannot be far off as the nominal image size. The exact definition is presumably found in the ISO standard referred to in 120 film, but alas I do not have ready access to it.
- My bronica SQ-A manual states that the frame size is 55.6mm x 55.6 mm. ChrisAitken
- I also do not think that roll film was a multiple of 35. Yes, that was the case of Edison who saw a roll of 70 and decided that cutting it in two would make a convenient size. Presumably roll film is produced from reasonably large sheets that are sliced, and can presumably conveniently sliced in any width.
- I don't think you can assume too much here. 2 1/4" converts to 57.15 mm, that is correct. But measuring the actual gate of a 6 x 6 camera you'll find that it is is pretty much exactly 56 mm, so 56 x 56 cannot be far off as the nominal image size. The exact definition is presumably found in the ISO standard referred to in 120 film, but alas I do not have ready access to it.
The primary reason there are so many different negative formats in the early days was that prints were made by contact copying. If you wanted large prints, you'd better get a large camera and film. Egil Egil
I think in the absence of metric data we should keep size in inches except for the 120 and maybe formats discontinued recently. Another thing is important if you have seen negatives from old 6x9 folder you will see that +/- 4 mm doesn't mean anything: the edge of the pictures are never straight lines. With an f/6.3 lens the film doesn't really need to be flat so the real format has sense for an modern camera not for an old. Ericd 12:28 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC) The use of contact prints should be explained somewhere in the article : one format = one camera.
-
- It is, although I used the term contact copying. Perhaps "contact printing" is more commonly used, I don't know. Egil
- Sorry I missed this one.
- It is, although I used the term contact copying. Perhaps "contact printing" is more commonly used, I don't know. Egil
Good reference for instant films : http://www.rwhirled.com/landlist/landfilm.htm#R40
Contents |
[edit] 5x7
Is 5x7 slightly different in size in Europe than in the US? I heard the two were not directly interchangeable but can't recall the details.
No 5x7 is 5x7. The thing is mainland Europe tends to use metric sizes. 13x18 fits 5x7 cameras but needs a different holder. Like wise 9x12 fits 4x5 cameras when used with the right holder.
[edit] Disc film
Disc film format brought out by Kodak in the mid 80's. Cameras were very thin. Other manufactures were involved at an early stage and at launch films for the format were available from 3M and Fuji. Film was cut from sheet film and put onto a central core. The format was designed to get over the unsharpness of the previous formats such as 110 and 126. Each disc film contained 15 images, actual negative size 10mm x 17mm. First kodak films showed graininess, improvements were made to the film and labelled HR (high resolution). During printing there was back printing to state the negative number of the frame printed. The format died out in the mid nineties
[edit] Missing Formats
I think the list is missing the 50mm and Super 16mm formats.
[edit] Link issues
Hi. Is the link to photographic film missing? The first sentence of this article links to film as in movie-film. This article has both movie and still photography film formats, so should it not link to photographic film ? SNx 16:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Girolamo Savonarola 17:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
