Michael Lloyd
Member
I hate asking this question... I really do. But I don't think that I've ever known the answer. Up until recently, I have never owned a MF or LF film camera. I shot 35mm all of my adult life. Two years ago I bought a 1DsMkii and dove into digital in a big way. Don't get me wrong, I love my digital gear. My daughter and I shot over 1,000 frames at a high school playoff game and I'll have them on the web by tomorrow night. No way I could do that with film. That said, I recently bought a Hasselblad 501CM and a 503CW (I've got a gorgeous Distagon 40mm f4 and 150mm f4 lens for them). When I shot the 501CM for the first time I fell in love with the it. I love the fact that you must be deliberate in your actions to take a photograph. You have to have intent. It forces the photographer to slow down. My LF camera's should be here before Thanksgiving and I am looking forward to having to have even more intent. I hope so anyway. Now to the question:
What is the method to the madness behind the numbers that we use for film size.
35mm- The negative isn't 35mm x 35mm so what makes it 35mm
120- 120 what? Certainly not pixels (j/k)
220- Same as 120
620- Do they even make 620 film anymore?
What is the method to the madness behind the numbers that we use for film size.
35mm- The negative isn't 35mm x 35mm so what makes it 35mm
120- 120 what? Certainly not pixels (j/k)
220- Same as 120
620- Do they even make 620 film anymore?
planetjoe
Just some guy, you know?
Hey, iCe - welcome aboard. Glad to see that you're cashing in on what seems to be a good time to buy MF film gear. And good choices, too.
My understanding of "120" and other such film-format designations is that they're roughly chronological (for the most part), based upon order of introduction. For example, Kodak had a "105" format at around the turn of the 19th Century, if I recall correctly. As a typical exception to this rule, "220" is simply twice the length of 120.
This, of course, makes 110 film from the mid-20th Century hard to explain, but according to Wikipedia, there was actually a chronologically-correct 110 roll film format in the early 20th Century, long before the 110 cartridge format came about.
There's also 135 film, which - you guessed it - is actually our tried and true 35 mm cassette film. In this case, my understanding is that the name is something of a coincidence, but I could be wrong. Again, according to Wikipedia (for instance), cinematic 70 mm filmstock was cut lengthwise to make the new compact stock. It's therefore exactly 35 mm across the "short" dimension, so there's the magic measurement.
Despite the fact that it captured a smaller image than its predecessors, it was probably a resounding success (in my opinion) because of the cassettes designed to hold it. Oskar Barnack and his little camera didn't hurt its popularity, either.
As for 620 film, it's exactly the same length and width as 120, but was originally wound on metal spools with different axle- and endcap-dimensions that the modern 120/220 films. Unfortunately, 620 film was discontinued in the '90s. This means, much to everyone's chagrin, that cameras designed for it (including the legions of still-useful scale-focus folders made in the 30s-50s) cannot easily fit 120 spools without minor surgery to the filmwells. 120 film may also be "respooled" onto 620 spools (I've done this, and while tedious, it has a Zen aspect not unlike B&W developing) or bought originally from places like B&H, I believe.
Enjoy - hopefully there's an answer for you somewhere in this ramble.
Cheers,
--joe.
My understanding of "120" and other such film-format designations is that they're roughly chronological (for the most part), based upon order of introduction. For example, Kodak had a "105" format at around the turn of the 19th Century, if I recall correctly. As a typical exception to this rule, "220" is simply twice the length of 120.
This, of course, makes 110 film from the mid-20th Century hard to explain, but according to Wikipedia, there was actually a chronologically-correct 110 roll film format in the early 20th Century, long before the 110 cartridge format came about.
There's also 135 film, which - you guessed it - is actually our tried and true 35 mm cassette film. In this case, my understanding is that the name is something of a coincidence, but I could be wrong. Again, according to Wikipedia (for instance), cinematic 70 mm filmstock was cut lengthwise to make the new compact stock. It's therefore exactly 35 mm across the "short" dimension, so there's the magic measurement.
Despite the fact that it captured a smaller image than its predecessors, it was probably a resounding success (in my opinion) because of the cassettes designed to hold it. Oskar Barnack and his little camera didn't hurt its popularity, either.
As for 620 film, it's exactly the same length and width as 120, but was originally wound on metal spools with different axle- and endcap-dimensions that the modern 120/220 films. Unfortunately, 620 film was discontinued in the '90s. This means, much to everyone's chagrin, that cameras designed for it (including the legions of still-useful scale-focus folders made in the 30s-50s) cannot easily fit 120 spools without minor surgery to the filmwells. 120 film may also be "respooled" onto 620 spools (I've done this, and while tedious, it has a Zen aspect not unlike B&W developing) or bought originally from places like B&H, I believe.
Enjoy - hopefully there's an answer for you somewhere in this ramble.
Cheers,
--joe.
sienarot
Well-known
You can thank Kodak for the film numbering system. Some numbers have to do with how many frames per roll, others are subsequent numbers of rolls that came before it, some are related to the image or film size:
http://www.bvipirate.com/Kodak/FilmHist.html
I'm sure the numbering would make a lot more sense if all the roll film sizes still existed so you could see the progression from what format to another.
http://www.bvipirate.com/Kodak/FilmHist.html
I'm sure the numbering would make a lot more sense if all the roll film sizes still existed so you could see the progression from what format to another.
Last edited:
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
35mm film is/was used in motion picture and it is the width with sprockets.
The image is either 24x36 or 18x24
You may still find some unperforated 35mm
The image is either 24x36 or 18x24
You may still find some unperforated 35mm
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Or 14x22 (Tessina) or 24x27 (Leica Post) or 24x32 or 24x34 (early Nikon) or 24x56 or 24x65 (panoramic)...titrisol said:
And the actual '24x36' format varies by -1/+.5mm.
It was really denominated as 35mm at all, but half of standard Kodak 2-3/4 inch film (=70mm) slit in the late 19th century for making movies....
Cheers,
R.
JonR
Well-known
Interesting question --- May I inject a slightly different question.
I have all my life worked only with ordinary 35mm film and the digital cameras (plus the odd Kodak Instamatic (?) and APS formats). However, when my dad passed away I got a lot of older nagatives in different sizes and I am now scanning negatives (individual ones) with the size of 6 times 8 centimeters..... timing is 1940-ties...
What kind of format is this and is it possible to have any guess of what camera was used. My father came from a relatively poor working class family so it must have been something relatively inexpensive !??
Jon
I have all my life worked only with ordinary 35mm film and the digital cameras (plus the odd Kodak Instamatic (?) and APS formats). However, when my dad passed away I got a lot of older nagatives in different sizes and I am now scanning negatives (individual ones) with the size of 6 times 8 centimeters..... timing is 1940-ties...
What kind of format is this and is it possible to have any guess of what camera was used. My father came from a relatively poor working class family so it must have been something relatively inexpensive !??
Jon
MartinP
Veteran
The big shock is that 35mm film is not 35mm wide. Measure it carefully and see for yourself !
It is 1 3/8" ( about 34.9mm), as it was originally specified to be half of 2 3/4" width stock by someone in the US film industry, working on the early motion-picture cameras. It is the wider film which is with us today as 70mm perforated roll size. The problem is that I can't remember where I first read this, but the film dimension supports the article I saw.
The cassette used today is also not the same as the one originally used for Leica, as that was designed to be loaded by the user and did not touch the film with a felt light-trap. That sort of design, with a few variations, is still widely available second-hand for Leica, Contax, Nikon, FSU etc.
The pre-loaded, felt light-trap cassette used for 135 was from Kodak, introduced with the Retina range of cameras and eventually proved more popular than the self-load design. Of course, the external dimensions are very similar so as to allow the use of the "new" cassette in pre-existing 35mm cameras.
There was also another 35mm cassette from Agfa, where the film went from the new cassette to a take-up cassette, in a similar way to how the 120 film spools swapped over in a rollfilm camera. I think I recall reading that there was also a 35mm unperforated roll film without a cassette, like a miniature 120 size - was that something like 535, or 835 ?
And we shouldn't try to work out why "whole-plate" became a standard size for glass-negatives . . . . ?!
EDIT: Oooops, I now see that Roger made the same comment about the film-width as I did, while I was typing and trying to find out where I had seen the information in order to give a reference (which I didn't manage to do).
It is 1 3/8" ( about 34.9mm), as it was originally specified to be half of 2 3/4" width stock by someone in the US film industry, working on the early motion-picture cameras. It is the wider film which is with us today as 70mm perforated roll size. The problem is that I can't remember where I first read this, but the film dimension supports the article I saw.
The cassette used today is also not the same as the one originally used for Leica, as that was designed to be loaded by the user and did not touch the film with a felt light-trap. That sort of design, with a few variations, is still widely available second-hand for Leica, Contax, Nikon, FSU etc.
The pre-loaded, felt light-trap cassette used for 135 was from Kodak, introduced with the Retina range of cameras and eventually proved more popular than the self-load design. Of course, the external dimensions are very similar so as to allow the use of the "new" cassette in pre-existing 35mm cameras.
There was also another 35mm cassette from Agfa, where the film went from the new cassette to a take-up cassette, in a similar way to how the 120 film spools swapped over in a rollfilm camera. I think I recall reading that there was also a 35mm unperforated roll film without a cassette, like a miniature 120 size - was that something like 535, or 835 ?
And we shouldn't try to work out why "whole-plate" became a standard size for glass-negatives . . . . ?!
EDIT: Oooops, I now see that Roger made the same comment about the film-width as I did, while I was typing and trying to find out where I had seen the information in order to give a reference (which I didn't manage to do).
Last edited:
MartinP
Veteran
JonR said:
Might that be 120/620 rollfilm cut in to individual negatives after development ? I recall my first photos being made on a Box Brownie (6 x 9cm format on 620 film) where I got back a packet of individual negatives in a glassine envelope, together with the prints. There may well have been a camera making 6 x 8 cm negatives too ?
kmack
do your job, then let go
JonR said:
MartinP may have nailed it. Most likely one of the ubiquitous Kodak Brownie camera's. Kodak made sure cameras where affordable and available in order to sell film and developing services.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
there were also several odd cut sheet sizes - 3x4 inches, etc. that would come close to the dimensions you gave.
These would be used on a wide range of both expensive and not-so expensive folding cameras. Popular because the negatives were big enough to make a useful contact print - very little extra darkroom required.
These would be used on a wide range of both expensive and not-so expensive folding cameras. Popular because the negatives were big enough to make a useful contact print - very little extra darkroom required.
Finder
Veteran
B&H Photo stocks 620 film:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/...lm/sb/ps/sq/desc/fi/all/iso/Y/mnp/0.0/mxp/0.0
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/...lm/sb/ps/sq/desc/fi/all/iso/Y/mnp/0.0/mxp/0.0
Finder
Veteran
My old university used to have the students shoot 20 rolls of film (36 exp) process and contact them and then print ten 8x10 work prints in 24 hours.
JonR
Well-known
Thanks for comments!
I know my father refered to it as a "box camera" - I should have asked him !!
Anyway - great to have all those negatives now...
/Jon
I know my father refered to it as a "box camera" - I should have asked him !!
Anyway - great to have all those negatives now...
/Jon
Michael Lloyd
Member
Well that's cool. I was just looking at my old Brownie Hawkeye. I wonder what ISO I should try in it 
I think the shutter is fixed at 1/60th of a second but I have no idea what the fixed aperture is. Small. I know that. I think it would be kind of fun to shoot a roll in it and see what happens. I've also got an old Kodak Tourist camera. It has a fixed shutter speed of 1/60th of a second and the f stop varies from 12.5 to 32. If the bellows are light tight it might be kind of fun to shoot too.
I think the shutter is fixed at 1/60th of a second but I have no idea what the fixed aperture is. Small. I know that. I think it would be kind of fun to shoot a roll in it and see what happens. I've also got an old Kodak Tourist camera. It has a fixed shutter speed of 1/60th of a second and the f stop varies from 12.5 to 32. If the bellows are light tight it might be kind of fun to shoot too.Finder said:
Michael Lloyd
Member
WOW... that was a lot of work... but I'll bet it was more fun than letting a photoshop action run on a batch of images.
Finder said:
Finder
Veteran
iCe said:
I was a lot of work. Probably more to do with sadistic tendencies in the faculty. Academic hazing as it were.