If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Different Formats for Different Countries -- Variable Density B&W Film
"David Nebenzahl" wrote "Metric sizes" are film sizes normally stated in, well, metric measures, like 6x9 and 9x12 (both in centimeters), as opposed to "inch"-sized films, like 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, etc. So, counterintuitively, 9x12 film is smaller than 4x5 film. Except metric film sizes aren't exactly what they say they are. The frame size of a 120 film tends to be not 6cm wide but about 5.8 cm, with 120 film being about 62mm across. The other variations likwise are a bit smaller than the nominal size. It allows a bit of masking in the film holder of the enlarger, but nevertheless is not as precise as metricists might like you to believe. I could claim that the pinhole camera I'm currently bashing from a Kodak Brownie 2A is a "6x12" because it works by winding through alternate frame numbers down the middle of the film (where the 6x6 numbers go) but the actual image size is 54 x 108mm, being the old Kodak 116 film gate with a strip of brass soldered each side to provide edge support for the slightly smaller 120 film. It'll be printed using a 5 x 4 imperial enlarger (DeVere 54) with a black card mask over the neg glasses to minimise Callier flare from the edges. Of course 9 x 12 is smaller than 4 x 5! Those of us used to dealing in metric know that 4 x 5 is 10 x 12.5cm - are at least it should be: if that's the sheet film size then image size will be smaller because of the little edge-retains in the film holder. Someone on a forum - possibly not this one - confused me recently by saying that "full plate" was 8 x 6 inches and all else was a division of that. Sounds like the confusion over book binding classifications based on a broadsheet being 15" x 20" except when it wasn't. I thought "full plate" was 10 x 8 inches, as the original master size for photos and respected to this day in paper sizes. Am I wrong? Tony Clarke |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Different Formats for Different Countries -- Variable DensityB&W Film
Tony Clarke wrote:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote "Metric sizes" are film sizes normally stated in, well, metric measures, like 6x9 and 9x12 (both in centimeters), as opposed to "inch"-sized films, like 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, etc. So, counterintuitively, 9x12 film is smaller than 4x5 film. Except metric film sizes aren't exactly what they say they are. The frame size of a 120 film tends to be not 6cm wide but about 5.8 cm, with 120 film being about 62mm across. That not quite correct. With 120 film, the film is actualy 60mm wide and the paper backing is 62mm wide. The other variations likwise are a bit smaller than the nominal size. It allows a bit of masking in the film holder of the enlarger, but nevertheless is not as precise as metricists might like you to believe. With 120 film, most cameras have film rails that are about 1mm wide. This results in a negative where the exposed Area is about 58mm tall. I could claim that the pinhole camera I'm currently bashing from a Kodak Brownie 2A is a "6x12" because it works by winding through alternate frame numbers down the middle of the film (where the 6x6 numbers go) but the actual image size is 54 x 108mm, being the old Kodak 116 film gate with a strip of brass soldered each side to provide edge support for the slightly smaller 120 film. It'll be printed using a 5 x 4 imperial enlarger (DeVere 54) with a black card mask over the neg glasses to minimise Callier flare from the edges. Of course 9 x 12 is smaller than 4 x 5! Those of us used to dealing in metric know that 4 x 5 is 10 x 12.5cm - are at least it should be: if that's the sheet film size then image size will be smaller because of the little edge-retains in the film holder. Sometimes the conversion from Imperial measures to Metric isn't very exact. 1 inch equals 25.4mm, so 4 inches actualy equals 100.16mm 4"x5" is actualy 100.16mm x 126mm (10.02cm x 12.6cm). The film rails probably take up about 2mm on each edge. This makes the actual negative about 96.16mm x 122mm (96.2cm x 12.2cm) on a sheet of 4x5 film. Someone on a forum - possibly not this one - confused me recently by saying that "full plate" was 8 x 6 inches and all else was a division of that. Sounds like the confusion over book binding classifications based on a broadsheet being 15" x 20" except when it wasn't. I thought "full plate" was 10 x 8 inches, as the original master size for photos and respected to this day in paper sizes. Am I wrong? Tony Clarke I think that would depend on which county you were asking for a "full plate" in. From memory, the UK usualy has smaller sizes and continental Europeam countries tends to have longer or taller formats (depending on which country). In Australia, we seem to have tended to go with the USA on film sizes and photographic paper. Here a "full" plate would be 8x10 inches. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Different Formats for Different Countries -- Variable Density B&W Film
"Tony Clarke" wrote
[someone said] "full plate" was 8 x 6 inches and all else was a division of that ... broadsheet being 15" x 20", "full plate" was 10 x 8 inches I tried to figure this all out many times and gave up many times. As near as I can tell photographic paper sizes have nothing to do with common ordinary paper sizes, which in the US a 8.5 x 11" - American 8.5 x 14" - American legal 9 x 12" - Architectural, some artists' pads A4 - DIN standard[s] - And see this for a mess'o'stanards: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html None of which evenly divide or multiply into 4x6, 8x10/4x5, 5x7 or 11x14. Which leads me to think that photographic sheet film and paper sizes are drawn from standard sizes of: o Pre-blanked sheet metal: Daguerreotypes & Tintypes o Window panes: Glass negatives All of which come in different standard sizes ... and then there is metric. except when it [they aren't]. Which seems to be the general case. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Different Formats for Different Countries -- Variable DensityB&W Film
Tony Clarke wrote (in part):
Someone on a forum - possibly not this one - confused me recently by saying that "full plate" was 8 x 6 inches and all else was a division of that. Sounds like the confusion over book binding classifications based on a broadsheet being 15" x 20" except when it wasn't. I thought "full plate" was 10 x 8 inches, as the original master size for photos and respected to this day in paper sizes. Am I wrong? I do not know if there is any such thing as "full plate" in photography. Back in Daguerreotype days, the images were made on a sensitized sheet of copper plated on one side with silver and then sensitized by the user. These plates had standard sizes: Full Plate: 6½ by 8½ inches Half Plate: 4¼ by 5½ inches Quarter Plate: 3¼ by 4¼ inches Sixth Plate: 2¾ by 3¼ inches (a.k.a. "medium plate") Ninth Plate: 2 by 2½ inches Sixteenth Plate: 1 3/8 by 1 5/8 inches Now ordinary printing paper, in USA, came from the size of the frame commonly used for making paper by hand that turned out 17 by 22 inch sheets after the deckle edge was trimmed off. This was about the largest they could make sheets for a long time. These where cut in half both ways making 8½ by 11 sheets as standard for printing (and later, typewriting). -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 18:05:01 up 3 days, 19:32, 3 users, load average: 4.39, 4.20, 4.12 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Different Formats for Different Countries -- Variable Density B&W Film
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:02:46 -0400, odonoghue wrote:
Metric and non-metric sheet film formats are physically different sizes. I heard that was just a UL.... could it REALLY be true? Sheet film holders for 4x5" will not take 9x12cm sheets (they fall out) and 9x12 holders won't accept 4x5" sheets. j wrote: Radium wrote: Hi: Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that the films were formatted differently in different countries? No, but there is sometimes confusion regarding certain sheet films which were given in metric sizes. You can still get those oddball sizes from J&C. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Different Formats for Different Countries -- Variable Density B&W Film
Radium wrote: Hi: Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that the films were formatted differently in different countries? No. When magnetic videotapes were the norm, USA and Canada used NTSC, France and Russia used SECAM, and the rest of the world used PAL. Thanks, Radium |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Different Formats for Different Countries -- Variable DensityB&W Film
Jean-David Beyer spake thus:
Now ordinary printing paper, in USA, came from the size of the frame commonly used for making paper by hand that turned out 17 by 22 inch sheets after the deckle edge was trimmed off. This was about the largest they could make sheets for a long time. These where cut in half both ways making 8½ by 11 sheets as standard for printing (and later, typewriting). OK, so where did that Yurpeen standard, A4, come from? -- Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge. - Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Different Formats for Different Countries -- Variable DensityB&W Film
marika spake thus:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:02:46 -0400, odonoghue wrote: Metric and non-metric sheet film formats are physically different sizes. I heard that was just a UL.... could it REALLY be true? No, not an urban legend: 9x12 cm and 4x5 in. are actually different sizes, believe it or not. Work it out for yourself. -- Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge. - Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Different Formats for Different Countries -- Variable Density B&W Film
UC wrote:
Radium wrote: Hi: Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that the films were formatted differently in different countries? No. Well, except for the soundtrack being in different languages for different countries... from a distributor's standpoint that's the same thing. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Different Formats for Different Countries -- Variable DensityB&W Film
David Nebenzahl wrote:
Jean-David Beyer spake thus: Now ordinary printing paper, in USA, came from the size of the frame commonly used for making paper by hand that turned out 17 by 22 inch sheets after the deckle edge was trimmed off. This was about the largest they could make sheets for a long time. These where cut in half both ways making 8½ by 11 sheets as standard for printing (and later, typewriting). OK, so where did that Yurpeen standard, A4, come from? One of the first hits on Google: http://www.paulschou.com/a4/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Variable Density B&W Greyscale Film for monoaural audio | Radium | Film & Labs | 0 | October 9th 06 04:47 AM |
Film Cameras Forever! | Jeremy | 35mm Photo Equipment | 32 | March 31st 06 02:54 AM |
Loading film onto reel problems | Ron Purdue | In The Darkroom | 24 | February 7th 05 04:09 PM |
Insane new TSA rule for film inspection | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 94 | June 23rd 04 05:17 AM |