Actual sheet film sizes

[laser]

I saw a posting that was asking for the sizes of film. I offer the actual sizes of sheet film that Kodak manufactured in 2004. Aim is the goal. Min/Max are the tolerances accepted. In practice there are action limits that are closer to the aim than the minimum and maximum limits. So that actual production will not approach the min/max measurements. This is tighter than ISO standards specifications .

SIZE MIN AIM MAX
width length width length width length width length
Inch sizes 2.25 x 3.25 2.188 x 3.188 2.203 x 3.203 2.219 x 3.219
3.25 x 4.25 3.172 x 4.172 3.188 x 4.188 3.203 x 4.203
4 x 5 3.906 x 4.906 3.922 x 4.922 3.936 x 4.936

5 x 7 4.906 x 6.906 4.938 x 6.938 4.969 x 6.969
8 x 10 7.906 x 9.922 7.938 x 9.953 7.969 x 9.984

Bob
www.makingKODAKfilm.com

 

[laser]

I carefully inserted spaces so this would be easy to read. When I posted APUG removed all my careful spacing. It should be: 4x5 has a minimum size of" 3.906"x4.906" . The aim is 3.922 x 4.922, and a max of 3.936x 4.936

 

[AgX]

You are not the first to realize this happening. Though you are late on this...
Thank you nonetheless. I read it the way you intended.

 

[Nodda Duma]

laser, create and populate a table with the post editor, it’ll clean up the formatting. Make sure to populate each cell, even putting a , or . in blank cells

 

[David Lyga]

I carefully inserted spaces so this would be easy to read. When I posted APUG removed all my careful spacing. It should be: 4x5 has a minimum size of" 3.906"x4.906" . The aim is 3.922 x 4.922, and a max of 3.936x 4.936

I wonder whether your spacing would have been preserved if you had attached an Excel worksheet with this information (or whether Excel could have even been used as an attachment on Photrio?) - David Lyga

 

[Ian Grant]

The plate sizes were exact, give or take similar tolerances, the cut film sizes slightly smaller to fit the film sheath adapters that fitted the plate holders.

Ian

 

[Nodda Duma]

Sheet film sizes are standardized in ISO 1012 : 1998. Kodak held to tighter tolerances because they could, but Kodak sizes fell within the specifications of the standard (itself based on the earlier standards that Kodak in large part wrote).

Standard plate sizes are no longer exact, according to ISO 14548 Rev 1998. The plate sizes in that standard covered the needs of holography, astrophotographic plates, etc. They don't really cover the classic dry plate sizes. So.... the ISO committee will be releasing a newly-amended ISO 14548. The new version will include an annex covering the dry plate sizes that I am producing and a general tolerance scheme for dry plate dimensions... written in large part by yours truly. So now we'll have something to point to for dry plate sizing instead of digging through 100+ year-old sources.

 

[Ian Grant]

Sheet film sizes are standardized in ISO 1012 : 1998. Kodak held to tighter tolerances because they could, but Kodak sizes fell within the specifications of the standard (itself based on the earlier standards that Kodak in large part wrote).

Actually sheet film sizes were standardises after WWII in ASA/BS standards and also DIN standards. At the same time Plate and Film holder outside dimensions were standardised. Also Film Speeds were brought into line with ASA/BS standards and aligned with the DIN standard, so German films tested to the DIN standard could be marked with the ASA/BS and vice versa.

I have the complete list of the Photographic British Standards (BS) in a BJP Almanac in my darkroom, these match the ASA and where relevant DIN standards. This really came about after WWII because there hadn't been standard plate and film holders sizes/fit in Germany and in the UK book form holders needed to be matched to individual cameras and we had similar issues with metal plate/film holders. If I check the BJPA I'll find the International conference that rationalised the standards.

Ian

 

[AgX]

So.... the ISO committee will be releasing a newly-amended ISO 14548. The new version will include an annex covering the dry plate sizes that I am producing and a general tolerance scheme for dry plate dimensions... written in large part by yours truly. So now we'll have something to point to for dry plate sizing instead of digging through 100+ year-old sources.

What...???
ISO is going to release a revised standard concerning analog photography?



(That is something to shout out and not to mention casually.)

 

[Nodda Duma]

I’ll make an announcement when it’s official.

 

[Bill Burk]

So cool! We all can brag that we know someone who's contributing updates to ISO committee for standard updates for analog photography in 2019

 

[Ian Grant]

Sheet film sizes are standardized in ISO 1012 : 1998. Kodak held to tighter tolerances because they could, but Kodak sizes fell within the specifications of the standard (itself based on the earlier standards that Kodak in large part wrote).

Thepost WWII BS standards date to 1947 for plate sizes although thickness differes between US and British plates and that relates to Eastman Kodak compared to Kodak Ltd as well as other UK manufacturers.

Ilford still make plates

Ian

 

[BrianShaw]

Thepost WWII BS standards date to 1947 for plate sizes although thickness differes between US and British plates and that relates to Eastman Kodak compared to Kodak Ltd as well as other UK manufacturers.

Ilford still make plates

Ian

In that case, I’ll hold my tongue. As a Standardation manager I couldn’t fathom the value in updating a standard for an archaic technology... other than to resolve a historical omission.

 

[silveror0]

If there's any interest, I can provide sheet film dimensions for 4x5 and 5x7 that I had requested from Ilford in October 2014. A screenshot of my record in Excel is attached, showing their response. The values apply to all their sheet emulsions.

 

[Nodda Duma]

In that case, I’ll hold my tongue. As a Standardation manager I couldn’t fathom the value in updating a standard for an archaic technology... other than to resolve a historical omission.

Brian, the issue is that I’m making a ton of plates and putting them out into the world (10,000 last year alone). There’s a real potential problem that, as interest grows, someone might manufacture a holder - wet or dry plate - that they won’t fit. The plate dimensional standard needed to be updated to address a current need ...the sizes in the 1998 standard did not correlate in any way to the sizes people are buying for consumer photography. As a standardation manager you should appreciate nipping that in the bud before it became a problem. Avoiding that type of problem is exactly what standards are written for. It certainly wasn’t an update to resolve a historical omission, I made that clear above. If that were the only reason, it would have been a useless waste of time and effort.

The US committee recently voted in the addition, so they appreciated the value added. I expect the international committee will vote it in without issue when it comes up.

 

[Ian Grant]

It's the older standards that matter most as people are using older plate (or film) holders. Of course some sizes like Half plate and Whole plate were never US sizes anyway but were in the relevant British Standards. Also what about sizes like 12"x10" and 15"x12" which were common here in the UK - I have a 12"x10" camera and have asked Ilford/Harman via this forum why no Direct Positive paper is available this size. They never replied.

Ian

 

[Nodda Duma]

Not necessarily true, Ian.

It's the older standards that matter most as people are using older plate (or film) holders. Of course some sizes like Half plate and Whole plate were never US sizes anyway but were in the relevant British Standards. Also what about sizes like 12"x10" and 15"x12" which were common here in the UK - I have a 12"x10" camera and have asked Ilford/Harman via this forum why no Direct Positive paper is available this size. They never replied.

Ian

Not sure if you’re reading what I posted or just skimming thru, but properly sizing plates isn’t a theoretical exercise from my perspective. One lesson learned early on: People using old holders for dry plates is not a valid assumption. Many folks use new wet plate holders like those available from chamonix, which are cut undersized. 4x5 is a great example...A 4” x 5” plate will not fit in the new wet plate holders being manufactured today. So for 4x5 I had to select dimensions (and do a lot of testing) to work in both old and new holders. So the 4x5 plates are actually 99.5 x 126 +0 / -0.5mm

I have a table of dimensions of the most common plates that I send out listed on my website. They have all been similarly verified to work in every historical and new holder that I know of. The dimensions were carefully selected and so far no returns due to fit issues.

Again, all practical experience and not theoretical. So no, the older standards are not valid. They are obsolete and only useful as a starting point.

 

[Ian Grant]

My point Jason is there's already ISO standards and Ilford and Agfa still adhere to them for their glass plates. I have Agfa 7x5 plates that are used for scientific purposes. So you want a standard changed because one new(er) manufacturer of wet plate holders doesn't manufacture to the correct standards ?

It sounds more like you want the plate sizes to be the same as sheet film. My interest is from a restorers (and users) point of view where I'm using original glass plate holders and there can be issues with plate thickness not just the length and width. A second issue is newer plate holders made to the slightly smaller size wouldn't be able to take film sheath adapters.

ian

 

[Nodda Duma]

Ian, you should actually read the standard, because some of your assumptions about what is in there are incorrect. For example, “standard” plate dimensions such as 4x5 have been officially undersized for decades.

There’s only one current standard covering plate dimensions. Read ISO 14548 : 1998 and you will come to the same conclusion I did that it is inadequate for current plate uses.

I won’t discuss it further, since you’re starting to argue just to argue (i.e. your “one manufacturer” comment), and this thread is about sheet film sizes anyways.

 

[BrianShaw]

Would you be amenable to participating in a separate thread, if one is started? I have similar questions. Seeking clarity on glass plate usage, and standardization with no intention of demeaning your profoundly excellent revival of them.

 

[Ian Grant]

Many folks use new wet plate holders like those available from chamonix, which are cut undersized. 4x5 is a great example...A 4” x 5” plate will not fit in the new wet plate holders being manufactured today. So for 4x5 I had to select dimensions (and do a lot of testing) to work in both old and new holders. So the 4x5 plates are actually 99.5 x 126 +0 / -0.5mm

There's also corresponding standards for Plate and Film holders which would indicate the plate holders manufactured today don't meet those standards. This wouldn't be the first time Chamonix made an error, there was a register issue with the first cameras they sold with a fresnel screen which they quickly remedied once the mistake was realised.

I can think of two companies who made similar errors in recent years, J&C had Chinese sheet film cut to the nominal plate sizes and it wouldn't fit most DDS film holders, Ilford/Harman initially cut their first trial batch of their Direct Positive paper to the regular paper sizes (same as Plates) and quickly realised it didn't fit film holders.

I'm not disagreeing with you rather pointing out there is the other side of the equation, the plate and film holder standards which new manufacturers should adhere to.

Ian

 

[BrianShaw]

... so... that’s what I was thinking...also.

 

[Ian Grant]

I'd add that in recent years there were issues with Whole plate holder sizes not in the ANSI/ASA standards. however they were in the British Standards but no-one thought to check. The issues were register and film holder external and internal dimensions.

Ian