Talk:Film format

message: Good reference for instant films :
http://www.rwhirled.com/landlist/landfilm.htm#R40 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericd (talk • contribs) 02:30, 6 February 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Instant films

message: The rollfilm format 3"X2" was introduced by Houghton's Limited, an English Company, and was that of their 'Ensignette No.2' camera which came onto the UK market in 1912. Kodak made their 129 film to fit it about a year later but never themselves made a camera of this format. It is believed that Kodak's response to the Houghton product was their 'Vest Pocket Kodak' and the 127 roll film it used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.207.177 (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction re Kodak 129 roll film

message: Is 5x7 slightly different in size in Europe than in the US? I heard the two were not directly interchangeable but can't recall the details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.204.109.180 (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No 5x7 is 5x7. The thing is mainland Europe tends to use metric sizes. 13x18 fits 5x7 cameras but needs a different holder. Like wise 9x12 fits 4x5 cameras when used with the right holder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.200.32 (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that in general it would be very useful for European readers to add a column with metric sizes. In continental Europe we refer to the same formats by their metric measures, such a table would greatly help localization of this page and reference for European readers. Antaldaniel (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  5x7 

message: Disc film format brought out by Kodak in the mid 80's.  Cameras were very thin. Other manufactures were involved at an early stage and at launch films for the format were available from 3M and Fuji. Film was cut from sheet film and put onto a central core.  The format was designed to get over the unsharpness of the previous formats such as 110 and 126.  Each disc film contained 15 images, actual negative size 10mm x 17mm. First kodak films showed graininess,  improvements were made to the film and labelled HR (high resolution).  During printing there was back printing to state the negative number of the frame printed.  The format died out in the mid nineties — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.24.71 (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disc film 

message: Hi. Is the link to photographic film missing? The first sentence of this article links to film as in movie-film. This article has both movie and still photography film formats, so should it not link to photographic film ? SNx 16:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Girolamo Savonarola 17:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link issues 

message: Regarding the still photography multiple image section- what is the source of this information?
I ask because I found two lists,  and , that seem to have some discrepancies between them. (e.g.  103 format has slightly different dimensions). I could have tried to include both in the table, but it makes more sense to figure out which is reliable anyway- assuming that they are independent sources and that one is not just a modified version of the other. Fourohfour 12:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources of information 

message: Minox film is sold as "9.5mm film", but no one really knows why, since the actual film has always measured from 9.2 to 9.3mm in width (general consensus among Minox user groups is that it was just a convenient marketing number). In fact, 9.5mm wide film will jam Minox cameras. I updated the list to reflect that 9.5mm is the width of the film in name only. I also added that it has been available in 50-exposure rolls in the past. Perhaps this should be in the notes section? 134.117.174.204 (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minox film 

message: I can't see any reason why the table should say that the 126 film format is discontinued since 1995 when it really isn't. The footnote can easily be missed.
Concerning 110 film it seems like the last manufacturer, Kodak, ended producing them recently. I'd change it in the article, but i don't know if an answer from their support agency (though it's published on their site) is enough as a reference?
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=7269&pq-locale=en_US&hidefocus=true  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Videokatt (talk • contribs) 21:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  110 and 126 Film 

message: The table I added to this page giving the spool lengths is found in various locations around the net, but all seem to derive from the same source. These list 125 as being 3.992" between the flanges; however, I located a camera using this film size, created a film spool to this dimension, and found that it's too long. Not having an original spool to measure, I measured the film path instead, and it came out to pretty close to 3.912, which is as wide as 103 film. Now I'm wondering if that original source had a typo and it was 3.912 all along. I'm going to leave it as is for now (original research and all that), but should I put a footnote that it's possibly inaccurate? Shalom S. (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  125 film 

message: Kodak realized the problem of unknown frame size in designing 126 and later 110. In those, they pre-expose the frame boundaries. Other than those, the camera can generate any image size that fits on the film and doesn't overlap with the appropriate film advance. This does complicate life for printers. Otherwise, as far as "film format" it should only cover what is needed to produce the product as sold. Gah4 (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Unknown frame size

message: Which you could sort them by that! As at the moment it is a bit wonky, as they are measuring it by the length of each side using all kinds of different measurements. Plus of course what one side is, is not quite as helpful as the total area. --103.14.140.76 (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're looking for can be found at Image sensor format#Table of sensor formats and sizes. They also have all common film formats there. --2003:71:4E33:E528:30F1:CC93:C64D:C3F7 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sort by area size of the sensor (or rather film used).  

message: It would be useful to know the width of the film roll in the case of roll film.  In addition, it is not clear to me whether "image size" refers to the size of the actual image, or the dimensions <width of roll> x <distance advanced to next frame>, and if it is, then it's not clear which is which dimension.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.13.67 (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  image sizes 

message: The table states that there were 12 exposures worth of film in one Rapid canister. While technically true when the camera exposes 36x24mm images, I personally have never seen one that does - which admittedly doesn't mean there were none. On the other hand I have in my possession two cameras (an Agfa Isomat Rapid and an Agfa Iso-Rapid IF) that use more or less the same transport mechanism and both expose 16 frames of 24x24mm. Also, all the Rapid cameras I have come across so far at flea markets or online auction platform expose 24x24mm frames. (Links to the manuals of the cameras I own: https://www.butkus.org/chinon/agfa/agfa_isomat_rapid/agfa_isomat_rapid.htm and https://www.butkus.org/chinon/agfa/agfa_isorapid_i/agfa_isorapid_i.htm - that's the I, not the IF, but close enough.) 2003:F7:BF16:1B00:219:66FF:FE81:471 (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rapid System and Image Format