4 x 5 movie film

[Art LeBrun]

i have a contact print of two 4 x 5 b&w movie film frames with the code
AC 43 52342 in one of 3 perforations.

Can anyone identify the film and what camera(s) might have used it?
Image date is 1961.

 

[DBP]

What are the actual dimensions?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

You should send a PM to the user "Photo Engineer", he used to work on the photographic part of rocket launches.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

There's aerial rollfilm that comes in that size, and "AC" might stand for "aerial camera," I suppose. Is there something like a Hulcher high speed camera that shoots it? Those don't look like perforations, because there is an image inside the "holes." I'm guessing that's just the pattern of the film gate.

 

[Art LeBrun]

What are the actual dimensions?

As measured on the 8 x 10 contact sheet the frame dimensions are 4 x 5
with the "perforation pattern" inside the 5 inch side.

 

[removed account4]

hi art

is the film 1 single sheet with 2 images,
or single sheets and images?

my very uneducated guess is that it was aerial camera
that shot a long roll of 6" aerial film which was later trimmed
to the rebate marks ...

what a great piece of history you have!

john

 

[AgX]

As it is hard to tell from that scene what the frequency of those images is, it does not neccessarily mean it is a motion picture in the more common sense.

The camera camera could be a still camera, a simplified version of a 5" film mapping camera or just a simple aerial camera, but whith enhanced exposure frequency.

What is puzzling though is the images lack time information. Well, one could do some synchronisation and afterwards look up the time via a frame number list. But a time signal directly accessible from the image would be more practical.

But I'm sure PE could give us all details.


Edit:
I just realized that there is not even frame counter, just the same code for all images.

 

[Art LeBrun]

hi art

is the film 1 single sheet with 2 images,
or single sheets and images?

my very uneducated guess is that it was aerial camera
that shot a long roll of 6" aerial film which was later trimmed
to the rebate marks ...

what a great piece of history you have!

john

Hi John,

I have only the contact sheet. No captions or markings on back side.
I can't see the Titan s/n so I am not yet sure which launch it was. I did
crop out the exposed black of the print on my scan.

 

[Art LeBrun]

Thanks to all who have responded to date. I believe I do know Photo
Engineer from several years ago at Graflex.Org. He was and is a great source.
I have seen several reels of 5-in film before...transparency stock.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Hunting around a bit, Hulcher 70mm cameras that can shoot 6x6 or 6x7 were used photographing for rocket launches. They could be enlargements from 70mm using something like a Saunders Proofing Easel, which makes it easy to print four 4x5's on an 8x10" sheet. I use one to print batches of post cards.

 

[Art LeBrun]

Hunting around a bit, Hulcher 70mm cameras that can shoot 6x6 or 6x7 were used photographing for rocket launches. They could be enlargements from 70mm using something like a Saunders Proofing Easel, which makes it easy to print four 4x5's on an 8x10" sheet. I use one to print batches of post cards.

David,

Thanks for the additional info on 70mm. I have printed many cut frames
of 70mm which are usually 2-in wide (not including the double perforated
edges) and cut to 5 inches long. Very sharp and the freeze action between
frames is stunning especially for rocket ignition sequences. The photo paper
cannot reproduce the tones in the b&w negative - can't recall the color neg
tones relationship for printing.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Art;

We used both 5x7 and larger aerial cameras for what looked like (to the eye) to be motion picture footage.

This looks very similar to that, even to the general edge markings. I would guess that this came from either a 5x7 aerial camera running full speed, or if they had one, a 4x5 workalike.

Ron - from years ago.... But not on graflex.org - from the work on "Go for Launch"

 

[Art LeBrun]

Art;

We used both 5x7 and larger aerial cameras for what looked like (to the eye) to be motion picture footage.

This looks very similar to that, even to the general edge markings. I would guess that this came from either a 5x7 aerial camera running full speed, or if they had one, a 4x5 workalike.

Ron - from years ago.... But not on graflex.org - from the work on "Go for Launch"

Hi Ron,

Nice to make contact again! I use the term movie (motion picture) film for lack of any other nomenclature in my brain. I assume 4x5 as that is the measured dimensions on my "contact" print 1:1. I am still trying to learn more about the films and cameras that made many images I own possible.
My US Army photo lab used to contact print 9-in aerial recon film so I am
aware of that size. Thanks for the reply. PS my recollection is I met you
on graflex.org and then we did additional discussions on the book.

Art

 

[Photo Engineer]

Art, it was via a post on Photo Net actually. Been a long time.

The image you have is 5" aerial film with the normal 5x7 changed due to a mask to get 4x5 by rotating the image 90 degrees. This gives a small increase in the number of frams per roll and a small frame rate increase.

PE

 

[keithwms]

Looks kinda like what you get with a K20 or similar aerial recon camera. I have one and it can shoot 5" roll film. Has a vacuum back with a pattern similar to what I see on those shots- three rounded rectangular openings to one side.

 

[keithwms]

Here is a blackberry shot of the 4x5" film back in my k20...

 

[Art LeBrun]

Looks kinda like what you get with a K20 or similar aerial recon camera. I have one and it can shoot 5" roll film. Has a vacuum back with a pattern similar to what I see on those shots- three rounded rectangular openings to one side.

Keith,

Can you determine what transports the film? Rollers and if so what material?
Thanks.....

 

[Art LeBrun]

Art, it was via a post on Photo Net actually. Been a long time.

The image you have is 5" aerial film with the normal 5x7 changed due to a mask to get 4x5 by rotating the image 90 degrees. This gives a small increase in the number of frams per roll and a small frame rate increase.

PE

Thanks, Ron. My recollection must have slipped! Masking was probably
needed but a waste of film area. I wonder if the lens was replaced for the
smaller format......

Art

 

[keithwms]

Yep it's just plain rollers. The film doesn't have to be perfed, although what I have is double perfed. You can cock and advance at a rate of about 1 frame per sec. The lens on my k20 is a kodak anastigmat 161mm f/4.5. The vac back mechanism is quite impressive, it holds the film very flat and there is no need of an external vacuum line.

Mind you, the frame doesn't quite match what you are showing, so I'd say it's similar but not identical. What is strange in your contact print is that the three rounded rectangles are not of equal dimension, so that would seem to support Ron's comment about a ~5x7 or such, shooting two side-by-side 4x5 frames with some kind of mask.

Anyway on my k20 back, the exposed film area is quite exactly 4x5", so the actual roll film was a bit larger than that.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

For those that can to the crossed-eye stereo viewing trick, try it on this photo. The foreground, the clouds, and the light post all line up, but then the rocket is all funky since it is moving from frame to frame.

 

[Art LeBrun]

I have one earlier missile launch photo list that used a K-25 so could that be a candidate for my image ?

 

[keithwms]

Sure.

 

[ic-racer]

Using the 'stereo image' trick like they did on the analysis of the Oswald photos, it seem that the viewpoint was the same for both images. At least at the scanned resolution there was less than a pixel variation (if any).

This is a 50% overlay of the two sides of the image. I don't detect any parallax, but a 300dpi scan may bee needed to say for certain. The frame marks on the right match up perfectly BTW. They have just been cut off partially on the right-hand image.

This would confirm PE's post that this is 5" film run horizontal in rapid sequence.