actual negative dimensions

[alanrockwood]

What are the actual dimensions of 6x4.5 negatives?

I also wonder what the actual dimensions are for 6x6 format and 4x5 format.

Thanks.

Alan

 

[sandholm]

I can agree that its a big confusing,

6x4.5 is 6 cm times 4.5 cm,
6x6 is 6 cm times 6 cm (aka the Hasselblad format)
4x5 is in inches, so 10x13 cm

some more info about the different formats
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format

 

[hidesert]

The exposed area of my Rolleiflex TLR's negatives measures 56mm x 56mm.

 

[keithwms]

645 does not mean that the image sizes on the film are actually 6 cm by 4.5 cm. The aspect ratio is consistent and the actual image sizes are close, but they are always a few mm shorter than the stated format size, on both sides of the image area. And there is also some minor variation in actual image size from brand to brand. For example, on my mamiya 645, the corners are clipped a bit so that the usable, rectangular image area is quite a few mm short of 6x4.5 cm. I have used other 645s that have no edge clipping.

 

[brianmquinn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_film

 

[lxdude]

On medium format, actual is smaller than nominal.

For example, Bronica gives 645 as 42.5 X 55.1, 6X6 as 55.6 X 55.6, and 6X7 as 55.6 X 69.0

 

[removed account4]

4x5 film is NOT 4"x5" ...
that was the size of the PLATE when
dry plates were sold.
when sheet film began to be sold
little metal septums were sold
to convert plate holders to sheet film holders.
film was about 1/16 smaller than the plate to fit in the holder ...

when plates stopped being popular, and film became king
it was still sold the same size... and photographers didn't have
to dump all the old film/plate holders to buy new different sized ones ...

this goes for other sheet film sizes too.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I can agree that its a big confusing,

6x4.5 is 6 cm times 4.5 cm,
6x6 is 6 cm times 6 cm (aka the Hasselblad format)
4x5 is in inches, so 10x13 cm

some more info about the different formats
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format

The Hasselblad 6x6 is actually 56 mm by 56 mm.

Steve

 

[2F/2F]

The exact size depends on the camera, though 56 mm in width seems fairly common. I never really had much of a reason to know, so I have never measured. Why do you want to know?

 

[Ian C]

Image Rectangle Dimensions

There is always some confusion in the actual dimensions of the image rectangle. Obviously a 2 ¼”-wide film can’t have a 2 ¼ “x 2 ¼” image due to the necessity of the film width overlapping the film aperture—the “window” in the camera or film holder. The film aperture can vary slightly from maker to maker.

The Wikipedia page is useful, but doesn’t really give the actual dimensions of the image rectangle. Actual sizes vary due to variations in the dimensions of the film aperture chosen by each maker. Usually they’re about:

56mm x 42mm (nominally 6cm x 4.5 cm)

56mm x 56mm (nominally 6cm x 6cm)

56mm x 69.5mm (nominally 6cm x 7cm)

This link provides more comments, particularly on the variations in the length of the 6 x 7cm format:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/format.htm

Mamiya always specified the dimension of the image rectangle for its MF cameras in its advertising literature. It specifies 56mm x 69.5mm for its 6 x 7 cm cameras. I believe that 56mm is the dimension across the width of 120 and 220 films for all Mamiya MF cameras.

A similar situation exists for sheet film holders. Further, they produce a wider image where the hold-down rails are cut out for film loading.

The most accurate way to determine the dimension is to simply measure the film aperture of your camera or film holder.

 

[Sirius Glass]

...
The most accurate way to determine the dimension is to simply measure the film aperture of your camera or film holder.

What and loose an opportunity to post on APUG!

Steve

 

[sandholm]

well, it come down to what you define as "negatives" area, for me the negative is the film size, then you have an exposed area on the negative, but that come down the the camera and system...

same same but different

 

[Dan Daniel]

The manual for a Bronica ETR 645 camera has the following info:

FRAME SIZE: 42.5mm x 55.1mm

They state the ratio as 1:1.29, not the 1:1.33 a true 4.5:6 would be.

 

[Ray Rapkerg]

I measured my negs to see what the actual image sizes really are:

35mm (Leica M3): 36mm x 24mm

Medium format 6x4.5 (Pentax 645nII): 56mm x 41mm (2.66x the area of 35mm)

Medium format 6x6 (Rolleiflex 6008af): 56mm x 56mm (3.63x the area of 35mm)

Medium format 6x8 (Fujifilm GX680III): 76mm x 55mm (4.84x the area of 35mm)

Large format 5"x4" (Fidelity film holder): 120mm x 96mm (13.33x the area of 35mm)

Large format 10"x8" (Fidelity film holder): 246mm x 195mm (55.52x the area of 35mm)

 

[Tony-S]

Wow, zombie thread...

 

[macfred]

Wow, zombie thread...

Raised from the dead ...

 

[ic-racer]

What are the actual dimensions of 6x4.5 negatives?

I also wonder what the actual dimensions are for 6x6 format and 4x5 format.

Thanks.

Alan

Best way to find out is to measure the image dimensions of your negatives. Each camera, film holder and film back will be slightly different.

 

[moto-uno]

And if you want to be surprised , try a Fujica Gl690 , the actual neg barely makes it to 82mm , Oh well I'm over it . Peter

 

[Ray Rapkerg]

We can see that on 120 film, the neg is between 55mm and 56mm wide across the film (depending on camera brand). Most are close to 56mm, i.e. 4mm less than the official size. In terms of length along the film, all my cameras are 4mm less than the official size. For instance my 6x4.5 is 41mm, and my 6x6 is 56mm. So a simple rule of thumb for 120 formats is deduct 4mm from both dimensions. (Except for some rare ones such as moto-uno's Fujica which is 8mm less along the length.)

 

[Dan Fromm]

So a simple rule of thumb for 120 formats is deduct 4mm from both dimensions.

Another failed induction.

6x9, anyone? 6x9 (some badged 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 or 2x3 or 23) roll holders' gate lengths range from 78 - 84 mm. 6x12 anyone? All 6x12 roll holders but Linhof's are 56 x 112. Linhof's is 6 x 120.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Linhof Super Rollex, 56mm x 72mm, "Ideal Format".

 

[PittP]

Linhof Super Rollex, 56mm x 72mm, "Ideal Format".

If I recall right, same for fuji 680.
The 6x7 format of Mamiya and Plaubel is 56 x 69 to 56 x 70 - so insignificantly smaller than 6x8.
It also means that 6x8 transparencies can go in 6x7 frames, the loss on the sides should normally be insignificant to the picture.

 

[Barry Kirsten]

Yet another rusurrection of this thread,,, I can't believe the variation in 'standard' sizes. I'm just checking my 6x9 negs to see if I have a suitable mask for my enlarger. I do have a mask amongst my Durst bits and pieces, but I find its for 21/4x 31/4 cut film, which is OK because I use this film sometimes, but it's too small for 6x9 negs without losing image area. I find my old 6x9s done with a Super Rollex back on a Linhof I used to have measure 88x58 mm, whereas my Horseman 6x9 negs are actually 83x56 in negative area. Good job I checked. I'll make a mask for the larger size and make it do for all my 6x9 printing.

 

[Jim Jones]

To add to the confusion, wide angle lenses produce slightly larger image dimensions in most cameras.

 

[paul ron]

Arista EDU 4x5
4x5 film in inches is actually 4 13/16" x 3 7/8" (100mm x125mm)

the image area on my Wista is 3 3/4" x 4 14/16" (119mm x 95mm)