Talk:135 film

message: Didn't Canon make a crazy camera that shot alternating frames with the film going forward, and filled in the others in reverse? The idea is that short pauses for wind would be less annoying than long pauses for rewind (or load). If I recall correctly, it was a flop because some manufacturers placed different lengths of film in cartridges (or perhaps people using bulk loaders caused the problem). 
Don't know how many isolated anecdotes an encyclopedia article should contain...
: Are you sure you're not thinking about the fact that some cameras unwind the film fully and then pull it back into the spool (see the article for details)? Fourohfour 16:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate frames 

message: I've removed the sentance claiming that APS was discontinued in 2004, on the grounds that it's not supported by anything in the Advanced Photo System article, I have no trouble finding APS film proudly advertised on Fujifilm's and Kodak's web sites (and cameras on the former), and even if true it would belong in the article on APS and not here. Sharkford 03:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be surprised if 2004 was the year that APS advocates admitted the format's lack of success, but yes, it's still available. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 04:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing ref to demise of APS 

message: Regarding the change of photograph containing a ruler, on the grounds that the old one was misleading; yeah, maybe it was, but it missed one important point. In addition to taking up space and being distracting, they're just not that useful.
Why? Becase we can say that (e.g.) "the frame is 36 x 24mm" in the caption. We can mark this on the photograph if necessary, so it isn't necessary to have the ruler there. For a sense of scale, well.... better to have a ballpoint pen. A ruler with inches and the like on it only provides "scale" if you know how big an inch is, and if you do, you don't need the ruler(!)
Fourohfour 18:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rulers 

message: Where does the number 135 come from? --Abdull 16:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe there is a 1 too much. If it is a mistyping we should remove the 1 and write 35. --134.155.99.41 15:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, 135 is the standard code number given to 35mm film perforated for still photographic (rather than movie) use, and packaged in the familiar canister. Not all 35mm film comes in this form. Fourohfour 18:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  135? 

message: 135 film#Characteristics says, "The film itself has the same dimensions (35 mm wide) and perforations (16 per 72 mm) (KS1870) as 35 mm movie print film..."
The math here seems wrong. The KS1870 perforation pitch is 0.1870" (meaning 0.1870" from leading edge to leading edge), and all KS perfs are 0.0780" high (dimension D). So 0.1870*15+0.0780 => 2.8830" (73.2mm). Or if you ignore the fencepost and just take 0.1870*16 => 2.9920" (76.0mm).
Where does 16/72mm come from? Jhawkinson 23:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: still negative is 36 mm, and has 8 perfs.  discrepency is the space between the frames no doubt.  perhaps the article should just refer to the 8 perf per frame, or perhaps perfs per foot!  (64.17122) and that is close to the 8 perfs for each of 8 images per foot.cmacd 17:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I've removed 72mm and specified the standard frame fits within 8 perfs. jhawkinson 01:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad perforation math 

message: This article states twice that the film is 35mm wide and the image area is 36mm wide. now, last time i checked, 36mm was 1mm longer than 35mm. so either the film size has changed, the image size has changed, or 135 refers to some other measurement. anyone? Zmbe 21:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is rotated 90 degrees on the film. So 36mm "image width" is really 36mm of length when you're thinking of 35mm as the width. jhawkinson 03:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The long axis of the frame is orientated along the film. Seen this way, the frame is 24 mm high while the film is 35 mm high. --Imroy (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Bad Math - Missing 1 mm

message: Infused with much ad inserts + too much on digital. How many manufacturers making film? -maxrspct ping me  11:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs work

message: Is there some simple way of converting 35mm cameras to take digital images? Drutt (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it is still available, but I saw a digital adaptor unit exhibited at a camera show around 5 or 6 years ago that would fit into most 35mm cameras.  It looked rather like a standard 35mm cassette with a projecting 'tongue'.  The tongue was the sensor and the cassette part contained the electronics and battery.  IIRC, the unit would store a number of images in its memory before they had to be downloaded.  I can't find any reference to it now, so I assume it's no longer available.  One organisation did produce a website for such a product as an April Fool prank (See here), but I'm not sure that they were aware that someone beat them to the punch. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Digital conversion

message: In the photo caption for the Nikon F it is stated that the F was the _first_ system camera.  While it might have been the first system camera to achieve a mass market, it was introduced in 1959 at which time Leica had had a system camera in production for more than 20 years.  The Zeiss Contax I system was also in production in the 1930s, with production interrupted by WWII and the Soviet capture of the Zeiss works.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.12.74 (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: First system camera

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://en.leica-camera.com/news/news/1/6378.html
** In 135 film on 2011-05-23 02:56:17, 404 Not Found
** In 135 film on 2011-06-01 14:49:07, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Sentences should not start with digits (see WP:NUMNOTES), so many of the sentences need to be rewritten.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 08:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  start of sentence 

message: Can someone help me understand the difference between 135 film and 35 mm format? The two articles seem to cover roughly the same ground. Rublov (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference from 35 mm format? 

message: Regarding what Rublov asked, my understanding is that these pages are essentially the same. 
With that in mind, I propose merging 35 mm format into 135 film. They cover much of the same ground, being two separate articles for the exact same subject. 35 mm format is also not a long enough article to cause issues with length if merged into 135 film. I would recommend merging in this direction because most other article discussing film formats are named after their ISO standard (120 film, 127 film) or product name Advanced Photo System rather than their common name. Goshawksonlyfly (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal