Another who decided...

[giellaleafapmu]

Reading the thread about 36 expositions film another similar question come to mind.

Who decided that double frame 24x36mm was good despite the fact that paper comes in a ratio of 4x5? Having 24x30 not only would give more pictures from a roll but would also give the possibility of printing without cutting a part of the picture or a part of the sheet of paper.

I know some old Nikon were like that but why did not last?

GLF

 

[Roger Hicks]

This time it really WAS Barnack, though he wasn't the first commercially: that was probably the Simplex 1914), switchable between 18x24 and 24x36. Many early 35mm cameras were single-frame but the Leica was the first commercially successful one.

As you say, 24x36 is a double 18x24mm movie frame. Any longer would be too long and thin. Reputedly Barnack really liked the shape. Like you, I'd have preferred 24x32 or 24x34, but once everything is designed for 24x36 you don't want to see what an automatic slide cutter can do to your Kodachromes...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Once Kodachrome hit the market the 24x36mm frame was locked in place by Kodak. The people wanted color!

Other defining influences might be the maximum useable angular coverage of the 50mm lenses of the day, and the movie industry's use of the 50mm focal length as a "standard" lens even though the movie frame was 18x24, and got even smaller whern sound came along because space was needed for the sound track.

 

[Sparrow]

I always thought it was a shame they didn’t settle on 1:1.412 it would have made the paper sizes so much easier

 

[ZeissFan]

I would have preferred 1:1.411 ... (tongue firmly in cheek) because then we'd have all of the '411' that we could ever want.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Once Kodachrome hit the market the 24x36mm frame was locked in place by Kodak. The people wanted color!

Yes, but hardly anyone ever tried, even before Kodachrome. Above the 24x24 square and 24x27 'post' formats, the only people who tried were well over a decade after Kodachrome (when you might think they were completely doomed, for the reason you give): Nikon (1948), Wrayflex (1950) and Opema 35 for 24x32 and Nikon from October 1949 to May 1951 with the 24x34 of the M.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

I would have preferred 1:1.411 ... (tongue firmly in cheek) because then we'd have all of the '411' that we could ever want.

Ah … that's a American for 192 isn’t it?

 

[sevo]

Who said that paper comes in a 4x5 ratio? Originally, paper formats were derived from medieval sheet formats predating the invention of the moveable type. These sheet sizes (Folio etc.) were a odd series in itself, whose origins may well be as far back as the size of an average Assyrian brick, Greek goat or the daily writing a Egyptian scribe could handle, and which were further complicated by the varying definitions of the foot.

The 4x5 series rationalized one of these sheet sizes, in a photo specific way not compatible to the DIN, Imperial and US paper formats also introduced at about the same time. To make matters worse, there also was a incompatible photographic "plate" size standard derived from printing press formats of the 18th century, odd both by inch and centimetre. And the continental Europeans had yet another, metric, 18x24cm derived series - the 2x3 side ratio of 24x36 probably stems from the 1/8 sheet of that row, 6x9cm, which was the most common roll film and small plate format in Germany at the time of the Leica invention.

 

[mfunnell]

I'd always assumed, without thinking (except that 135 is "repurposed" movie film), that the 35mm still format was due to "horizontal" film transport as opposed to "vertical" transport for movie cameras, while maintaining a "landscape" form-factor. And I'd assumed that doubled everything (area exposed, gap between frames etc.) was in fact doubled simply to make sure the sprokets etc. for film advance all worked easily.

But you know what they say about where "assume" comes from...

...Mike

 

[bmattock]

The "Golden Rectangle":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rectangle

HCB and the Golden Rectangle:

http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/golden_rectangle.html
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/golden_rectangle_2.html

 

[Sparrow]

Who said that paper comes in a 4x5 ratio? Originally, paper formats were derived from medieval sheet formats predating the invention of the moveable type. These sheet sizes (Folio etc.) were a odd series in itself, whose origins may well be as far back as the size of an average Assyrian brick, Greek goat or the daily writing a Egyptian scribe could handle, and which were further complicated by the varying definitions of the foot.

The 4x5 series rationalized one of these sheet sizes, in a photo specific way not compatible to the DIN, Imperial and US paper formats also introduced at about the same time. To make matters worse, there also was a incompatible photographic "plate" size standard derived from printing press formats of the 18th century, odd both by inch and centimetre. And the continental Europeans had yet another, metric, 18x24cm derived series - the 2x3 side ratio of 24x36 probably stems from the 1/8 sheet of that row, 6x9cm, which was the most common roll film and small plate format in Germany at the time of the Leica invention.

Well, some places were adopting the A and B size papers as early as the 1920’s so there was opportunity to rationalise everything at that point, before it got too entrenched

 

[Sparrow]

The "Golden Rectangle":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rectangle

HCB and the Golden Rectangle:

http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/golden_rectangle.html
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/golden_rectangle_2.html

but that would be 24x38.8 not 2:3 (24x36) Phi is 1.618ish

PS no doubt the Greeks would have been happier with a whole number