6x4.5 users: what do you like about the format?

[abruzzi]

Ok now, a half-frame 120 camera?

I thought 6x4.5 was half frame 120–i.e. half of a 6x9 frame?

This is an OT question, but what was the first frame size on 120? I was kind of under the impression it was 6x9, with the early 6x9 box cameras, and it would also make sense that Leitz would use the same aspect on 35mm film.

 

[Donald Qualls]

What we now see as 120 was originally at least three different films on the same spool. There was 117, 6x6 with 6 frames and 120 with 8 frames of 6x9 (and 620 was originally designed, with its skinner spool, to have 6 frames of 6x9, but that plan changed before it came to market). As late as 1948, Zeiss was still making the Super Ikonta B, a 6x6 folder with a mechanical frame counter, with a single red window (for starting the counter) on the 6x9 track, I believe because 117 and 118/124 were hard to get in Germany and they couldn't count on all 120 having the 6x6 framing track. Somewhere along that path, 6x4.5 folders had two windows on the 6x9 track; you'd wind to the first, then the same frame number to the second (this was very common on 6x9 folders with removable half frame masks). Eventually, 6x4.5 got its own framing track (again, not all at once) and later 6x4.5 folders got a window on the16 frame track.

As far as I know, there was never a 120-spool film with only 6x4.5 frame track; that format was always treated as "half frame" with double windows until the 16-frame track was added to 120 backing.

 

[Auer]

 

[Helge]

Great, found another person to put on my ignore list here.

Thanks,

Jeremy

Happy to oblige.

 

[Helge]

What we now see as 120 was originally at least three different films on the same spool. There was 117, 6x6 with 6 frames and 120 with 8 frames of 6x9 (and 620 was originally designed, with its skinner spool, to have 6 frames of 6x9, but that plan changed before it came to market). As late as 1948, Zeiss was still making the Super Ikonta B, a 6x6 folder with a mechanical frame counter, with a single red window (for starting the counter) on the 6x9 track, I believe because 117 and 118/124 were hard to get in Germany and they couldn't count on all 120 having the 6x6 framing track. Somewhere along that path, 6x4.5 folders had two windows on the 6x9 track; you'd wind to the first, then the same frame number to the second (this was very common on 6x9 folders with removable half frame masks). Eventually, 6x4.5 got its own framing track (again, not all at once) and later 6x4.5 folders got a window on the16 frame track.

As far as I know, there was never a 120-spool film with only 6x4.5 frame track; that format was always treated as "half frame" with double windows until the 16-frame track was added to 120 backing.

Yeah, it's funny how the original format for 35mm sprocket film is 24x18 and which was doubled by Barnack (with a detour to Robot 24x24).
While 120 was decimated from the 6x9 to first 66 and then 645.
Seems like human circumstances, engineering and physical laws are working towards an optimal goal or bracket of sensor size and camera size.

 

[Cholentpot]

I thought 6x4.5 was half frame 120–i.e. half of a 6x9 frame?

This is an OT question, but what was the first frame size on 120? I was kind of under the impression it was 6x9, with the early 6x9 box cameras, and it would also make sense that Leitz would use the same aspect on 35mm film.

Half-frame of 6x6 I guess. I'm used to 6x6 being the native 120 format.

 

[Helge]

Half-frame of 6x6 I guess. I'm used to 6x6 being the native 120 format.

120 started out as an almost exclusively contact printed format (like most photography in the first century of the medium).
The size is about the smallest tolerable as a real honest to goodness image before we are into photos for mice.

It’s interesting, but pure speculation to compare to the tradition dating back to the late eighteenth century of miniatures, among them silhouettes done in a camera obscura and traced with a pencil and cut out with pen knife.

The 120 formats are mirrored (copied rather, probably) pretty well in Fuji’s Instax sizes, where the actual image is only a smidgen larger than the old 120 standard sizes.

135 was always meant to be enlarged. Hence the name often associated with it in the early decades of the format: Miniature.

 

[Cholentpot]

120 started out as an almost exclusively contact printed format (like most photography in the first century of the medium).
The size is about the smallest tolerable as a real honest to goodness image before we are into photos for mice.

It’s interesting, but pure speculation to compare to the tradition dating back to the late eighteenth century of miniatures, among them silhouettes done in a camera obscura and traced with a pencil and cut out with pen knife.

The 120 formats are mirrored (copied rather, probably) pretty well in Fuji’s Instax sizes, where the actual image is only a smidgen larger than the old 120 standard sizes.

135 was always meant to be enlarged. Hence the name often associated with it in the early decades of the format: Miniature.

All that withstanding as the format matured it was used as 6x6 for the vast amount of applications. 6x6 was/is far and away the most popular aspect for 120.

 

[Helge]

All that withstanding as the format matured it was used as 6x6 for the vast amount of applications. 6x6 was/is far and away the most popular aspect for 120.

Not so sure about "far and away". It probably barely edges out 6x9 which continued long after straight boxes went out.

 

[Down Under]

If that's your main goal, you should look for a Bencini Koroll 24. Shoots half-frame on the 6x6 track, with a roughly 3x6 vertical mask. Twenty-four on a roll of 120. Pretty common triplet lens (f/8 IIRC), but it seems a valid format, too.

Or the Rolleicord Vb. F&H (the manufacturers of this wonderful 120 roll film gem) made a 24 exposure kit with two variables, both horizontal so one has no need to turn the camera sideways for landscapes. With this kit, you can make 24 35mm-size exposures or 24 24 28x40 images, this I believe was the 828 format, the latter useful for scenes when a slightly panoramic effect is wanted - that is, if you can cope with the tiny images produced on 120 film. Small as they are, they are made from the center of the Schneider Xenar lens, so if you are careful with holding the camera and exposing, prints to 8x10" can be made, not the sharpest but definitely with surprisingly good definition and pleasing mid-tones. The Xenar is a greatly underrated lens.

The 16 and 24 exposure kits for this camera often turn up on Ebay are are (usually) not too expensive. I bought mine for about A$60-$70 each and the 16 kit is permanently on my Vb. An added plus is by carefully aligning the films while loading, I get 17 images from a roll, which in this expensive for everything day and age is nothing to sneeze at.

There is also a 35mm Rolleikin available to convert the 'cord into a MF-sized 'miniature' camera, but this is getting away from the original topic, so I'll stop here.

 

[takilmaboxer]

One thing I love about my 6X4.5 folders is, that it's easy to make stereo images. The two negatives are about the same distance apart as my eyes, so in a contact sheet, I can see the stereo image.

 

[Helge]

Or the Rolleicord Vb. F&H (the manufacturers of this wonderful 120 roll film gem) made a 24 exposure kit with two variables, both horizontal so one has no need to turn the camera sideways for landscapes. With this kit, you can make 24 35mm-size exposures or 24 24 28x40 images, this I believe was the 828 format, the latter useful for scenes when a slightly panoramic effect is wanted - that is, if you can cope with the tiny images produced on 120 film. Small as they are, they are made from the center of the Schneider Xenar lens, so if you are careful with holding the camera and exposing, prints to 8x10" can be made, not the sharpest but definitely with surprisingly good definition and pleasing mid-tones. The Xenar is a greatly underrated lens.

The 16 and 24 exposure kits for this camera often turn up on Ebay are are (usually) not too expensive. I bought mine for about A$60-$70 each and the 16 kit is permanently on my Vb. An added plus is by carefully aligning the films while loading, I get 17 images from a roll, which in this expensive for everything day and age is nothing to sneeze at.

There is also a 35mm Rolleikin available to convert the 'cord into a MF-sized 'miniature' camera, but this is getting away from the original topic, so I'll stop here.

Again with non full width mask? What gives?Some sort of slide standard? At least give me the full width to crop from.

 

[Dan Daniel]

The 16 and 24 exposure kits for this camera often turn up on Ebay are are (usually) not too expensive. I bought mine for about A$60-$70 each and the 16 kit is permanently on my Vb. here.

Just wanted to add that when purchasing a 16 exposure kit for a Rolleicord Va or Vb, be certain that it has all the parts. Frame counter with '16' written on it, insert for inside the camera (6x4.5 only, with notches for the square location), and mask for the focus screen. AND the mask for the sports finder. Using the ports finder, it's pretty simple (but slow) to shoot portrait orientation- focus, pop open the finder and frame, shoot.

 

[MattKing]

Again with non full width mask? What gives?Some sort of slide standard? At least give me the full width to crop from.

Exactly. 828 slides give wonderful, large slides that fit in a 2"x2" slide mounts - same as for 135 film.
From 50 years ago, on 828 Kodachrome. I'm the little guy in the brown jacket:

 

[Down Under]

Again with non full width mask? What gives? Some sort of slide standard? At least give me the full width to crop from.

Alas for you, poor man, not on the Rolleicord Vb. The Rolleiflex T may be your baby as the 645 (actually 455, a German foible) insert looks to be almost the entire width of the film, with only a thin 'margins'.

Whether you use the T or the Vb, they are good for landscapes as the format width is horizontal, not vertical. Another plus for the Rolleis.

Out of curiosity, what did you mean by "slide standard?"

 

[Helge]

Exactly. 828 slides give wonderful, large slides that fit in a 2"x2" slide mounts - same as for 135 film.
From 50 years ago, on 828 Kodachrome. I'm the little guy in the brown jacket:
View attachment 285706

Great photo. KC really loved those browns.

 

[Helge]

Alas for you, poor man, not on the Rolleicord Vb. The Rolleiflex T may be your baby as the 645 (actually 455, a German foible) insert looks to be almost the entire width of the film, with only a thin 'margins'.

Whether you use the T or the Vb, they are good for landscapes as the format width is horizontal, not vertical. Another plus for the Rolleis.

Out of curiosity, what did you mean by "slide standard?"

A slide standard is a chrome/dias film (gate) size that has commercial masks/frames made for it.
I have a T. Never used it. Pretty irritating linkage system.

 

[braxus]

Its an interesting point to mention that 645 is basically the half frame version of 6x9. 645 also has a similar frame size to 127 film thats shot in rectangle (not square) format. Both image sizes are pretty darn close to each other between 645 and 127 rectangle. My mom shot on 127 in both square and rectangle formats, and the larger size was almost identical to 645. So its no wonder 120 film became the standard medium format film. It has so many options for frame sizes, especially today.

 

[Donald Qualls]

120 started out as an almost exclusively contact printed format (like most photography in the first century of the medium).
The size is about the smallest tolerable as a real honest to goodness image before we are into photos for mice.

I beg to differ -- I've had a lot of printer smaller than the 2x3(ish) inch size of contact prints from full frame 120, and they're quite viewable. I've got a Baby Brownie here that came with (most of) the original box, which has an illustration frame on one side blazoned with "Baby Brownie makes a picture <----- THIS SIZE -----> on Kodak films Verichrome 127 V127 or 127, SS127, F127." And 1 3/4 x 2 1/4, it's virtually the same size as 645, and I've seen contact prints from this format -- very viewable (just not something you're put on a wall and expect everyone in the room to appreciate).

Exactly. 828 slides give wonderful, large slides that fit in a 2"x2" slide mounts - same as for 135 film.

True, and half frame or square 127 gives nice slides as well, which still fit in a 2x2 mount. The half frame is quite similar size to 828, while 4x4 worked so well some 120 cameras were designed around it (original Diana, for instance, gave 16 frames of 4x4 on 120).

 

[grat]

I shoot 6x8. The GX680iii which is a phenominal camera that is about the least portable thing before large format. I was interested in architectural and landscape when I got it, and there it shines.

Gotta say-- My Chamonix is way more portable than my GX680.

 

[Moose22]

Gotta say-- My Chamonix is way more portable than my GX680.

I haul mine around in a wagon. Saw some fishermen with a foldable wagon at one of my walking/picturetaking trails and though it looked a lot easier than carrying the beast.

 

[gone]

Brubeck and his quartet had a penchant for odd time signatures - Take Five with its 5⁄ 4 or Blue Rondo A La Turk with a 9⁄ 8 time signature are examples.

Speaking of time signatures, The New Orleans area had a lot of musical things happening on the back beat, known locally as the second line. Often the drummer would be playing one time, the guitar another, etc. A trumpet playing friend from N.Y. once listened to a Meters album and said: "You know, this is simple music, but in a very complicated way".

 

[Down Under]

A slide standard is a chrome/dias film (gate) size that has commercial masks/frames made for it.
I have a T. Never used it. Pretty irritating linkage system.

Thanks - that's what I thought it could mean. Obviously, not in the Vb's case, nor the T, as the 16 exposure dimensions are closer to 4.5x5. I shot many rolls of Ektachrome and Fujichrome with my Ts in my day, and always found it easy to mount these in conventional mounts (I used paper ones) as they were mostly smaller than the actual image anyway. I stopped using E6 in all my cameras about 15 years ago so am no longer ofay with what is available in slide mounts today, that is if anything still is. Maybe used from Ebay.

You say you found the T's linkage system "irritating"?? Confusion here again. My experience with the Ts (I own two) differs - to me they are fare easier to use than the so-called legendary automatic loading system on the earlier and pro Rollei TLRs. I quickly worked out how to load my films more, shall we say, "creatively" and squeeze an extra exposure out of every roll of 120 film. 17 on 120 is nothing to sneeze at!!

You should give your T another chance, especially with a 16 kit. It's an excellent camera and it was marketed to amateurs, so used Rollei Ts being sold today are unlikely to have been beaten to death in studios. My two are late 1960s models and came from their original owner. I doubt he put more than maybe 1-2-3 rolls of film through each one every year. I use them far more than this, now entirely for B&W. I'm sure they will outlast me.

 

[narsuitus]

I have three medium format film cameras that are capable of producing 645, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 size images on 120 film. Even though I really like the 4:3 aspect ratio of the 645 image, I rarely use it because I prefer the larger size of the other images.

 

[Helge]

Thanks - that's what I thought it could mean. Obviously, not in the Vb's case, nor the T, as the 16 exposure dimensions are closer to 4.5x5. I shot many rolls of Ektachrome and Fujichrome with my Ts in my day, and always found it easy to mount these in conventional mounts (I used paper ones) as they were mostly smaller than the actual image anyway. I stopped using E6 in all my cameras about 15 years ago so am no longer ofay with what is available in slide mounts today, that is if anything still is. Maybe used from Ebay.

You say you found the T's linkage system "irritating"?? Confusion here again. My experience with the Ts (I own two) differs - to me they are fare easier to use than the so-called legendary automatic loading system on the earlier and pro Rollei TLRs. I quickly worked out how to load my films more, shall we say, "creatively" and squeeze an extra exposure out of every roll of 120 film. 17 on 120 is nothing to sneeze at!!

You should give your T another chance, especially with a 16 kit. It's an excellent camera and it was marketed to amateurs, so used Rollei Ts being sold today are unlikely to have been beaten to death in studios. My two are late 1960s models and came from their original owner. I doubt he put more than maybe 1-2-3 rolls of film through each one every year. I use them far more than this, now entirely for B&W. I'm sure they will outlast me.

I took a look at my T today.

It turns out that it is actually equipped with the 55x40 internal mask and sports finder mask.
Only thing really missing, is the internal finder screen-mask for the above format.
Is it possible to DIY one of those?
I remember some Bakelite like slivers coming with the camera. But they are in some random box now and I don't remember if they where whole either.

The rest of the camera is in quite good condition, but the focus screen is in terrible condition. It's plastic and actually quite bright in the unscratched patches, but has some weird warping going on in the center.
It is an original part though, as evidenced by a tiny F&H Rollei logo.
Someone tried to scratch guide lines for the 55x40 format in it, but did it in the wrong direction. X0S
Anyone know the part name/number and/or suitable/better replacements?

What's more, the screen doesn't quite seem to allow projection of focus to infinity.
I could imagine that the whole mask idea would move the screen up by the thickness of the mask, regardless of the mask used. Is a "dummy" or raising mask needed to get it the half a millimeter or so up?

What's most surprising to me though, is that the meter is actually working. And perfectly too!
It turns out I just didn't understand the principle the last time I tried it.
More precisely how to set the ISO.
The ISO and EV readout is on one and the same dial, only with different readout windows.
You zero the meter pointer while at the same time setting the correct ISO in that window. Then the system "uses" that as a reference point.
Is this correct?
Terribly, or not at all explained in the manual.
Very un-Rollei like.

How does the camera space the 16 frames? It would seem that it should be able to squeeze at least another frame onto the roll.
It get that the measurements are probably a result of wanting to accommodate 4x4 slide users (the other option in the kit). Then just giving them some more horizontal space to work with. But it should still be possible to get an extra frame on there? Perhaps a mechanical reason?

Was 55x40 slides ever made or do you have to make your own masks for 645 slides?