Talk:135 film
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The 135 film and 35mm film pages should be synchronized better.
Suggestion: Let 135 focus on the cartrdige and still photograpy, 35mm focus on the cine aspect.
"The camera that introduced the format, and also proved that a format this small was suitable for professional photography was the Leica rangefinder camera" Well the original Leica didn't have a rangefinder. Ericd
- Your're right. Did you fix it? Egil
When was the DX encoding introduced ? Ericd
- First SLR to read DX was a Konica in 1985, so at least it must be 1980s Egil
Who introduced the 135 cartridge? I have read Agfa, and this makes sense since Exakta and Leica were both German. -- Egil 16:02 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)
- I'll answer this one myself: It was Kodak who introduced itm but the invention was done in Germany.
And please: Do read the entire article before adding new material. There is a facts section firstm, then a "history" section. -- Egil 18:48 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Alternate frames
Didn't Canon make a crazy camera that shot alternating frames with the film going forward, and filled in the others in reverse? The idea is that short pauses for wind would be less annoying than long pauses for rewind (or load). If I recall correctly, it was a flop because some manufacturers placed different lengths of film in cartridges (or perhaps people using bulk loaders caused the problem).
Don't know how many isolated anecdotes an encyclopedia article should contain...
- Are you sure you're not thinking about the fact that some cameras unwind the film fully and then pull it back into the spool (see the article for details)? Fourohfour 16:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cartridge vs. Cassette
The Photographer's Handbook, A Beginner's Guide To Close-Up Photography, and the manual for my Olympus XA2 all refer to 135 film as being on "cassettes", using "cartridge" to refer specifically to 110, 126, submini, and other fully enclosed formats. Therefore I have Been Bold and changed the article to use this terminology.
[edit] Removing ref to demise of APS
I've removed the sentance claiming that APS was discontinued in 2004, on the grounds that it's not supported by anything in the Advanced Photo System article, I have no trouble finding APS film proudly advertised on Fujifilm's and Kodak's web sites (and cameras on the former), and even if true it would belong in the article on APS and not here. Sharkford 03:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be surprised if 2004 was the year that APS advocates admitted the format's lack of success, but yes, it's still available. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 04:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Rulers
Regarding the change of photograph containing a ruler, on the grounds that the old one was misleading; yeah, maybe it was, but it missed one important point. In addition to taking up space and being distracting, they're just not that useful.
Why? Becase we can say that (e.g.) "the frame is 36 x 24mm" in the caption. We can mark this on the photograph if necessary, so it isn't necessary to have the ruler there. For a sense of scale, well.... better to have a ballpoint pen. A ruler with inches and the like on it only provides "scale" if you know how big an inch is, and if you do, you don't need the ruler(!)
Fourohfour 18:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 135?
Where does the number 135 come from? --Abdull 16:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bad perforation math
135 film#Characteristics says, "The film itself has the same dimensions (35 mm wide) and perforations (16 per 72 mm) (KS1870) as 35 mm movie print film..."
The math here seems wrong. The KS1870 perforation pitch is 0.1870" (meaning 0.1870" from leading edge to leading edge), and all KS perfs are 0.0780" high (dimension D). So 0.1870*15+0.0780 => 2.8830" (73.2mm). Or if you ignore the fencepost and just take 0.1870*16 => 2.9920" (76.0mm).
Where does 16/72mm come from? Jhawkinson 23:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- still negative is 36 mm, and has 8 perfs. discrepency is the space between the frames no doubt. perhaps the article should just refer to the 8 perf per frame, or perhaps perfs per foot! (64.17122) and that is close to the 8 perfs for each of 8 images per foot.cmacd 17:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Done Thanks. I've removed 72mm and specified the standard frame fits within 8 perfs. jhawkinson 01:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
