Difference between revisions of "Talk:116 film"
(on frame size) |
John Kratz (talk | contribs) (→Stock size: new section) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
It's imaginable that the centimetre sizes are accurate and that the inch sizes are a conventional translation. But I find this unlikely, as Kodak probably worked in inches. | It's imaginable that the centimetre sizes are accurate and that the inch sizes are a conventional translation. But I find this unlikely, as Kodak probably worked in inches. | ||
| − | Another possibility is that back when these cameras were made different manufacturers had different ideas of how to use the film, so one should instead say that for example Kodak cameras produced X × Y inches (close to a×b millimetres); while | + | Another possibility is that back when these cameras were made different manufacturers had different ideas of how to use the film, so one should instead say that for example Kodak cameras produced X × Y inches (close to a×b millimetres); while Voigtländer cameras produced d×e millimetres (which, if anyone is interested, is close to V × W inches). Yes, that wouldn't be hard to imagine: after all, I believe that the negative size for Barnack Leicas is larger than 24×36 in at least one dimension, and I know I have a "66" camera whose negatives are bigger than 56×56mm. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 05:09, 19 June 2006 (EDT) |
| + | |||
| + | :Thanks for the conversion, I was too lazy to do it. | ||
| + | :What you say about different makes making different exposure chambers is not unlikely if the difference was tiny (maybe one millimeter or even two). It is hard to imagine a larger difference because the paper backing was the same for everyone, based on a Kodak standard: any big difference (between 56mm and 6cm for ex.) would have resulted in overlap problems. What I'm saying is only valid for the red window era, of course. After the advent of auto-stop advance, any maker could do what pleased him. --[[User:Rebollo fr|Rebollo fr]] 05:35, 19 June 2006 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Stock size == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Point of confusion: | ||
| + | |||
| + | The article says, "The film stock is 70mm wide"...<br> | ||
| + | but the 2nd link says, "Using 70mm film in a camera designed for 616 or 116".<br> | ||
| + | See what I mean?<br>--[[User:John Kratz|John Kratz]] 07:39, 5 October 2011 (PDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 14:39, 5 October 2011
Frame size
116 is a roll film introduced by Eastman Kodak in 1899 for 2½×4¼ inch negatives (the nominal size in centimeter is 6.5×11 cm)
Rebollo fr asks: Is it an exact conversion? Or is it optimistic, as for 6x9?
If the inch description is accurate (and not itself a simplification), then the dimensions would be about 6.35 x 10.8 cm.
It's imaginable that the centimetre sizes are accurate and that the inch sizes are a conventional translation. But I find this unlikely, as Kodak probably worked in inches.
Another possibility is that back when these cameras were made different manufacturers had different ideas of how to use the film, so one should instead say that for example Kodak cameras produced X × Y inches (close to a×b millimetres); while Voigtländer cameras produced d×e millimetres (which, if anyone is interested, is close to V × W inches). Yes, that wouldn't be hard to imagine: after all, I believe that the negative size for Barnack Leicas is larger than 24×36 in at least one dimension, and I know I have a "66" camera whose negatives are bigger than 56×56mm. -- Hoary 05:09, 19 June 2006 (EDT)
- Thanks for the conversion, I was too lazy to do it.
- What you say about different makes making different exposure chambers is not unlikely if the difference was tiny (maybe one millimeter or even two). It is hard to imagine a larger difference because the paper backing was the same for everyone, based on a Kodak standard: any big difference (between 56mm and 6cm for ex.) would have resulted in overlap problems. What I'm saying is only valid for the red window era, of course. After the advent of auto-stop advance, any maker could do what pleased him. --Rebollo fr 05:35, 19 June 2006 (EDT)
Stock size
Point of confusion:
The article says, "The film stock is 70mm wide"...
but the 2nd link says, "Using 70mm film in a camera designed for 616 or 116".
See what I mean?
--John Kratz 07:39, 5 October 2011 (PDT)
