35 mm film type

[tomasese]

I'm hoping someone can give me aclue about this fulm. It's 35mm but a bit different. I'm scanning old negatives and this doesn't scan like regular 35mm film. It says Kodak safety film on the bottom.

 

[Focomatter]

828 aka Bantam

 

[brbo]

126

 

[BrianShaw]

828 was unperforated.

126 was perforated with registration holes on one side, as depicted.

 

[Focomatter]

828 film - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

is supposedly a Bantam frame - it has one hole but the frame is rectangular whereas 126 was square. The above example looks more square but borders hard to see as it is rather dark.

 

[BrianShaw]

I stand corrected. Thank you.

But tracing that Wikipedia fact back to the source doesn’t seem to provide factual support… unless I’m skipping over something.

828 film respooling, Kodak 828 film, Kodak Bantam

This article might provide further insight

828 film - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

camera-wiki.org

 

[John Salim]

Those are definitely 126 'Instamatic' colour negatives.
All 126 films have pre-exposed square frames ( 28mm x 28mm images ).

John S

 

[brbo]

It’s 126. Look at the shape of perforations.

 

[xkaes]

828 -- 28x40mm. 126 is 26.5x26x5mm -- square

 

[MattKing]

The film stock is the same width as 135 (aka "35mm") film - essentially 35mm wide.
But the format is 126 - like this.

 

[xkaes]

Here's the film "corrected". Definitely square -- so 126 it is.

 

[cmacd123]

yes, 126, and since it was a 20 exposure roll, (frame 20 shows just before the Twin Check exposure.) from earlier than the Mid 1970 era, which may make it C-22 rather than C-41 with a stonger mask. from the pictures, the shots look Over exposed which may be part of the scanning issue.

I belive that 828 DID have one perforation a shot, But the format was rectangular, and the rolls were only 8 exposures.

 

[Brendan Quirk]

I am looking at 828 I shot in 1971 (Verichrome Pan). Rectangular, clear frame, one squarish perforation per frame.

 

[Ten301]

Those are 126 Kodacolor negatives. I certainly saw plenty of them in the 60s and 70s.

 

[foc]

Yes, they are C22 process 126 negatives.

 

[John Salim]

Yes, they are C22 process 126 negatives.

View attachment 358772

I'd say they're C-41. The mask doesn't look red enough to be C-22.

John S

 

[foc]

I'd say they're C-41. The mask doesn't look red enough to be C-22.

John S

Look at the original image posted (at the top of the thread). IMO they are C22.