Talk:120 film

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reason for the name? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  620 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  New table 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Exact length? 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Frame numbering 

message: 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)
thread_title:  smallest