|This is the discussion page for 828 film.
We read: Problems of the early 35mm films should be avoided with this film sort. Sorry, I don't understand. -- Hoary 02:27, 15 August 2006 (EDT)
- 828 was intended to avoid some of the problems of the early perforated 35mm films. The smaller diameter spool and lack of need for a sprocket allowed for much smaller camera designs.
What problems? How do we know this?
What reason do we have to believe this rather than for example that 828 was Eastman Kodak's way of selling more film to people who didn't want to burn through 36 exposures before sending off their film, and who in any case were used to the spool switching of 120 and 127 and would find 828 reassuringly familiar?
(NB that last idea was straight off the top of my head.) -- Hoary 08:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)