Talk:120 film

Reason for the name?

Who gave 120 film the name "120" and why?

Kodak did, and the number was arbitrary: they started with 101, and it was the 20th film size they'd introduced. Shalom S. 01:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only curious: Is there a citation or reference anywhere for this? And published information about "100" through "119"? I'm still looking through my library of photographic technology and history books. Walter Dufresne (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

120 and 220

What is the difference between 120 and 220, exactly?

How many exposures?

220 is 120 without paper tape this allow to double the lenght of the film but the camera must have a frame counter and must be absoltely light-proof, this is not the case of most the folders that have a hole with a red filter to see the numbers on the paper tape.

User:Ericd

Hasselblad and Rolleiflex

User:Ericd removed the following passage:

- The cameras that introduced the medium format to the professional photographer, and established the 120 as the medium format of choice, was the Hasselblad and the Rolleiflex.

My comment is: On the grounds that it is inexact? Why? I could perhaps agree wrt. the Rollei, but the Hassy surely set a standard that should be mentioned... Also, there should be a link from 120 to some cameras that use it, I think...

Egil 11:53 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

At second lecture this not really inexact, the Rolleiflex, the Hassy and the best 35mm (Leica, Contax and Nikon rangefinders) replaced the 4"x5" like the Speed Graphic for many professional use, but professional 120 like the zeiss Super Ikonta existed before.

Your text was also misleading the reader because the 120/620 originally an amateur format as common as the 35mm today see folding camera. IMHO we should take some text from folding camera to explain the decline of the 120 as an amateur format and his rise as professionnal format and mix it with your text and rework that all.

User:Ericd

Agreed, that seems like a very good idea. Can you do it? Egil 20:19 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

Yes but not now it's getting late.

Ericd 20:56 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

80.202.80.14 you may be right but I have never seen bobbin in that context. Try a search on Google. Have a look at this page for instance. A photographer will speak of rollfilm and spool (take-up spool and giving spool).

User:Ericd

Probably a US vz. UK issue, then? I still think bobbin is more exact. Perhaps something akin to GRP vz. fibreglass? --Egil 20:19 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

620

When was the 620 discontinued ? Ericd 19:29 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

How would I know? --Egil 20:19 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

Jeez, brownies used 620 film, which is why they're called "Brownie 620" cameras. Someone wanna change that?

Brownies were made from 1901 onwards. 620 film was made from 1930s or so. Not *ALL* Brownies take 620. I have a Brownie No. 2 Model E that specifically says "Use Film No. 120". It would not work with 620 film spools as the turning "key" is too large for 620 spools (see the photos I've posted to the article on the differences between 120 and 620 spools) Caradea 18:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exakta

Exakta still produce camera ? Ericd

New table

I just moved a lot of frame size information into a table, which is easier to see at a glance. I added columns for the aspect ratio and nominal frame size, but it's mostly guess work. Since the nominal height of the frame is actually 56mm, I went from there trying to work everything out. The only problem is 6x12, which I figured was a 1:2 panoramic format. Well 2x56mm = 112mm, which is closer to 11cm. So, should it really be called 6x11, or is it actually closer to 12cm long? Everything else works out pretty well. Imroy 18:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linhof's web site says 2:1 for the 612 camera. Six exposures on 120. Probably the frame of film is a bit smaller because of blank space between exposures (but I don't see actual dimensions on the web site). Linhof Fg2 20:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After some experimentations with old folders I have reached the conclusion than more or less 2mm is not very important in on 120 film. Be aware that that it 120 film is a "de facto" standard that started before any official international, European or US standard. However, I think its possible to find some ISO standard for the 120 film that will give the "real" size of the picture, however it's "a posteriori", IMO. Ericd 19:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exact length?

I did some searching for ISO 732 in an attempt to get an official figure on the length of 120 and 220 films. But not even a few P2P networks turned up anything. So the only route appears to be handing over 74 Swiss Francs to ISO just to get a few numbers. And even then it can't be easily cited here on Wikipaedia - no link can be supplied for other people to see so who's to say the numbers are correct?

So I pulled out some of my own film - a roll of Konica Minolta Centuria Pro 400 in 220 that I accidentally dropped and unrolled a few years ago, and a roll of Ilford FP4+ in 120 that a repairer recently used in testing the frame spacing of my Pentacon Six. The 220 was about 159 cm long, and the 120 about 81 cm (measurement doesn't include the piece(s) of tape attaching the film to the paper). Much longer than the 72/144 cm figures given in the article!

Doing some searching now I turned up this page. It says you need "30 inches" (76.2 cm) to get eight exposures of the "original" 6x9 format, and then says most manufacturers use 32-33 inches (81.3-83.8 cm). That matches my measurement. I'll be adding this as a reference unless I can find a better one. --Imroy (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that the film tends to go a little past the usual end. For cameras that don't use the red window, there might be some uncertainty. Also, when you load it into the reel, for reels that spool from the inside out, a few cm of film isn't usable. (I have one that has a sharp hook in the center to hold the film. You don't want that though an actual image.) It would be interesting to see what the ISO says. Gah4 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I bought the spec specifically because I could otherwise not find any official numbers online, and found many variations of the width of 120 film, everything from 59mm to 62mm was reported as "nominal". I updated the page to give the official spec numbers, as well as to leave commonly seen sizes. Not sure how to give a citation to ISO 732 though since it's not easily accessible without purchase. 2601:285:C000:22C1:255A:7A43:BA27:654C (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As well as I understand it, there is no problem with pay references. (As long as you have read it.) Gah4 (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the width in millimeters?

This Wikipedia article is very strange. The most important fact about 120 film -- the width of the film -- is mentioned only near the end of the article in a section about non-120 films. Furthermore, the width of 120 film in millimeters -- which is the standard way of measuring film -- is not mentioned at all. Instead, the width is awkwardly described as 2.466 inches. Realute (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are starting a film factory, or processing equipment factory, it isn't very important. All you need to know is that the film you buy is right, and the development tanks are designed for that width. Gah4 (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look under 120 film#Frame sizes. - Denimadept (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why Denimadept is telling me to look under "Frame sizes". Maybe it is because Denimadept does not understand the difference between frame size and film width. In any case, everything I wrote in my original post remains true -- unfortunately. Realute (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody wants to learn how to properly write a Wikipedia article about film, take a look at this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film

Notice that the most important fact about 135 film -- the width of the film -- is mentioned in the article's first sentence. And that fact is provided in both millimeters and (parenthetically) inches. Realute (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just figured that was the relevant bit. - Denimadept (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see the actual width of the film mentioned anywhere - I might deduce the nominal width is 6cm, but nowhere is it actually explicitly stated, and the nominal width may not be the actual width. As the previous poster said, surely this is THE most important attribute of the film? 89.168.82.45 (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When 120 film started, metric units were rare in the US. Exactly why 35mm is metric, I don't know. But for roll film, the width of the spool and the backing paper are more important than the width of the film. The film is usually slightly narrower than the paper, such that the paper makes a tight seal against the spool. Gah4 (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The older size 116/616 roll film was exactly 70 mm. Dicklyon (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is the well known story that Edison, when asked about the size of a movie film frame, said "About an inch by three quarters". That would be about 18mm by 25mm, close to the size of a 35mm movie film frame today, and half frame for still 35mm. But that doesn't all explain the source for the film width. Possibly it originated in English units, and was later rounded to a nice metric size. I suspect it isn't an accident that 70mm is twice 35mm, but again, it might have been a later rounding. Gah4 (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that 35_mm_film#Early_history says that Edison made his film 1.375in, which comes out to 34.925mm. I suspect that 35mm is within the tolerance. The early roll film widths were likely in inches, and later converted to convenient metric units. Gah4 (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decimals were rarely used with imperial measurements. The size was most likely specified as 13⁄8 inches (which as noted is so close to 35 mm as makes no difference). I cannot find any source for a tolerance for 35 mm film but I have just measured several 35 mm films (negative and print) and the actual size varies more than 0.075 mm, but most are actually narrower than 35 mm with an average of 34.927 mm. This might suggest (but not prove) that the size is specified in imperial measure but named from its nominal metric size. When 35 mm film was first developed(!), metric measurements were still very new in Europe and probably relatively unheard of in the US. 86.164.61.122 (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Today, it is not unusual to see decimal values given for binary fractions. (Where the denominator is a power of 2.) A 3/8 inch drill bit is not uncommonly specified as 0.375in. But things might have been different in Edison's day. US rulers are commonly divided into 1/16 inch units, but only numbered every inch. (The gradations have different lengths, making it easier to read of halves, quarters, and eighths.) One might even read or write 0.375 and pronounce it as three eighths. It might be easier typographically to specify in decimal fractions. I suspect that, as noted above, film tends to be narrower instead of wider. Too wide, and it will bind against the spool edge, and pathways through the camera or processing system. In the case of 120, the paper is slightly wider than the spool width such that it makes a tighter seal, and the film slightly narrower. Often just a little light leaks through, exposing outside the image frame, but not inside. Gah4 (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not common at all. Most imperial drill bits (ignoring the letter and number sizes) and even spanners are marked in fractional amounts. That does not mean that no decimal marked imperial bits or spanners exist, it's just uncommon. Googling "3/8 inch drill bits" returns many hits for - well - 3/8 inch drill bits. Googling "0.375 inch drill bits" returns hits to mostly 3/8 inch drill bits and even those showing 0.375 drill bits lead to sites where the bits are sized in fractions . Same for spanners. 86.164.61.122 (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There must be something between not unusual and common. From drill bit sizes, it is usual to have a big chart with fraction and decimal values when one needs to convert, though it also says that most memorize them after not so long. Gah4 (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the very article that you cite. "In the U.S., fractional inch … drill bit sizes are in common use" and "Fractional inch drill bit sizes are still in common use … ." and "Drill bit sizes are written as irreducible fractions" etc. etc. Although the article has a decimal/fraction equivalent table, nowhere does it state that imperial drills are labelled in decimal sizes. Any engineering drawing should specify the drill size to use without having to refer to a table to find the correct size (that's how cock ups are made). 86.164.61.122 (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been ignoring your mention of Imperial units, assuming that you meant United_States_customary_units, but maybe not. As you find from that page, the US never used Imperial units. I do remember from when I was young, that gasoline stations in Canada used Imperial gallons, which are 5/4 the size of the US gallon. I don't know any other Imperial units. If a distinction needs to be made, US units are commonly called English units, even if that makes little sense historically or currently. In some cases, SAE units, especially for car parts. (For many years now, US car companies produce cars with both SAE and metric parts.) Some US units have changed slightly over the time scale of photography and film sizes. Gah4 (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the US does use imperial units. It may not use many, but it does use a few. The inch, foot and yard are all imperial units in spite of what the US may designate them. The US and the rest of the world agreed the size of the yard in 1958 (0.9144 metres exactly) although the UK and US were both using a very slightly shorter yard before that (defined as the length of a 'standard yard' bronze bar of which the US received one of 39 copies in 1855). The original standard bar was measured in 1895 in metres and the yard became defined in law as 36⁄39.370113 metres in 1897 although it was still the length of the standard bar. The difference was a little less than 1 part per million.

Most other US customary units are not imperial, such as the (US) gallon, the fluid ounce etc. etc. The US gallon is not 4⁄5 of an imperial gallon. The US gallon is 16 fluid ounces and the imperial gallon is 20 fluid ounces. However, the US fluid ounce, being a US customary unit is not the same as the imperial fluid ounce. 1 US gallon = 1.20949926 imperial gallons (to 10 sig figs). 1 US fluid ounce = 1.040842731 imperial fluid ounces even though the US does use the imperial avoirdupois pound and hence ounce. The US uses the imperial troy pound and ounce as well. 86.164.61.122 (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The one I remember from so many years ago was the Canadian Imperial gallon, which might be different from any other Imperial gallon. (For those not counting, Canada went metric many years ago by now.) For those near the US-CA border, it is interesting to note that the duty-free rules for liquor allow 1L into the non-metric US, and 40oz (I am not sure by now which oz) into metric Canada. US liquor is commonly sold in 750ml bottles, but they make special 1L bottle for duty-free shops. I don't know about the 40oz bottles for CA. Gah4 (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A little further digging turns up a paper published by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) dated 1970 giving the dimensions of 35mm (motion picture) film (amongst other things). All the dimensions are in relatively convenient imperial units (inches though decimal not fractional) with metric conversions to five decimal places. The width of the film is given as 1.375 inches, the distance between the centres of the perforations is 1.11 inches and the pitch of the perforations is 0.1875" which is 3⁄16 of an inch (which would be correct as there are 16 frames per (imperial) foot of film). Unfortunately, no tolerances are given. As far as I am concerned, that is adequate evidence that 35mm is a nominal description of an inherently imperial sized film.

Note that: the size of the perforations is not given because there are three types, one for camera film (BH perforation) and a different shape for projection (KS perforation). The third (CS perforation) was used for early Cinemascope film but required different sprockets in the projector (which could run KS perf but with poor horizontal and vertical registration). 86.164.61.122 (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just found the tolerance on a different page of the SMPTE spec. All dimensions are +/- 0.2%. I also found the dimensions in the 35 mm movie film article, where it claims that it is quoting a 1965 SPMTE specification. In fact it is not, it is quoting an army specification largely about cameras. The SMPTE dimensions are given in an appendix, but not 1965 ones as claimed. The latest given is 1938, but this is for positive film not camera film. 86.164.61.122 (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frame numbering

"the four standard image formats (6×4.5, 6×6, 6×7, and 6×9; see below) are printed on the backing paper." All that I have seen, and I have a backing paper roll sitting here right now, are numbered for 8, 12, and 16 frames. There are two or three sets of numbers for each. Gah4 (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For 6x9cm, the numbers are 1 to 8, for 6x6 it's 1 to 12, for 6x4.5cm, it's 1 through 16. Is that what you're asking? Cameras for each size put the red window over the appropriate line of numbers. - Denimadept (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For 6x7 it is 10 frames/roll, but there aren't numbers on the paper for that. The article indicates that there are. Such cameras position the film without a red window. But I really wanted to know if some actually did, and I hadn't noticed. Gah4 (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

smallest

6×4.5 is the smallest and least expensive roll-film frame size; equipment to take photos in this size is also the lightest. Seems like 127 and 828 are smaller roll film formats, with smaller image size, but both are pretty much discontinued. But since the whole idea of medium format is larger image area, why the interest in smallest? (Kodak seems not to consider 35mm as a roll film format, where roll films have the paper backing.) Gah4 (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]