Bell & Howell perforations on still film

[MultiFormat Shooter]

I have a roll of Kodak Panatomic-X, that expired in May of 1958. I decided to open it (and will try shooting it) because the box was damaged. However, the inner wrapper was still factory-sealed; it's not a re-used film cassette. The "weird" part, at least to me, is that the perforations are Bell & Howell, rather than Kodak Standard. Was this common, back then?

 

[xkaes]

The BH perforation was used well before and well after 1958. A motion-picture standard for many.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_perforations

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Panatomic-X, or a variation on it, was a motion picture film stock at one time.

What does it say on the box and on the cartridge?

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

What does it say on the box and on the cartridge?

The cartridge says 36 Exposures
Kodak
Panatomic-X
Extra Fine Grain
Safety Film
FX 135

I threw the box out, since it was damaged, but it said something to effect of "for all 35 mm cameras."

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

All sounds pretty standard. I think the movie film version had a different ASA, but then plain-ole Panatomic had a progression of speeds during its lifetime.

 

[cmacd123]

I have noted B&H perfs on various Still rolls from time to time. I recall a friend gave me a long out of date roll of Kodak Tri-x from 1956 that even had the "Eastman Safety film" edge print, along with still frame numbers. And also some Ansco Chrome factory packed that way.

Good catch.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Thanks, everyone! @cmacd123, I will see if it has the "Eastman Safety Film" markings, assuming it turns-out.

 

[mshchem]

I have a roll of Kodak Panatomic-X, that expired in May of 1958. I decided to open it (and will try shooting it) because the box was damaged. However, the inner wrapper was still factory-sealed; it's not a re-used film cassette. The "weird" part, at least to me, is that the perforations are Bell & Howell, rather than Kodak Standard. Was this common, back then? View attachment 370794

That cassette may be reusable? The end cap would be removable. I remember the nice long leader.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

That cassette may be reusable? The end cap would be removable. I remember the nice long leader.

I just checked it, and the end-caps appear to be firmly crimped in-place.

 

[mshchem]

I just checked it, and the end-caps appear to be firmly crimped in-place.

Rats!

 

[PolyFilmLabs]

Will a 35mm still camera not take it? Id assume it would?

 

[MattKing]

I wonder if there was any movie film Panatonic X packaged for copy work or some other more industrial application?

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I wonder if there was any movie film Panatonic X packaged for copy work or some other more industrial application?

That's what I was wondering - and it is the reason I asked about what was written on the packaging.

But, from the writing on the cassette it seems to be bog-standard FX-135. I wonder if Kodak perfed more movie stock than they needed and got rid of it by packaging it as 35mm film.

 

[MattKing]

That's what I was wondering - and it is the reason I asked about what was written on the packaging.

But, from the writing on the cassette it seems to be bog-standard FX-135. I wonder if Kodak perfed more movie stock than they needed and got rid of it by packaging it as 35mm film.

The perforating and packaging/finishing lines were and are all connected, and they were/are different for motion picture film. Ineach case the slitter and perforator and edge printer feeds into the packaging line.
Perhaps it was designed for something like a library record storage system.
The sort of "vertical orientation" connection of the various finishing machines is why the 100 foot bulk loads are relatively so expensive with Kodak film - they can't use the standard machines to make and package it, but instead have to use some legacy equipment that is much more manual and labour intensive.
It would be interesting to find out if there is still-film edge printing on it.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Will a 35mm still camera not take it? Id assume it would?

It will; I shot this roll, earlier today. I just found it odd that a film sold by Kodak, for still cameras (as opposed to the various movie films re-spooled by third parties, currently on the market), would have Bell & Howell perforations, rather Kodak Standard ones.

 

[Mr Bill]

I just found it odd that a film sold by Kodak, for still cameras (as opposed to the various movie films re-spooled by third parties, currently on the market), would have Bell & Howell perforations, rather Kodak Standard ones

FWIW I just looked at some old family negatives, in 35mm. The first 2 sets I picked up had BH perfs. One roll says "PLUS X FILM" and the other "PANATOMIC X FILM." I'd guess them to be from the mid to late 1950s.

Another roll, est late 1950s, has KS perfs. It says "KODAK PLUS X PAN FILM."

FWIW the outfit where I worked for quite a few years also used BH perfs on long roll 35mm film in custom built portrait cameras. This was on Kodak professional color neg portrait films, including VPSII and VPSIII, ordered under a Kodak SO number specific for us.

Knowing the people on the camera design team I'm sure there was some reason for the selection of BH perfs, but I have no idea what it was.

 

[lamerko]

Rats!

 

[Kino]

It will; I shot this roll, earlier today. I just found it odd that a film sold by Kodak, for still cameras (as opposed to the various movie films re-spooled by third parties, currently on the market), would have Bell & Howell perforations, rather Kodak Standard ones.

Since it was a Cine film, why have two perforation variations and needless additional costs?

The original Barnack Leica's certainly were not using KS perforated film...

The full history of film perforations has yet to be written, but there are a lot of surprises in there that are little known.

Russia retooled their entire Cine industry in the 1940's around KS perforations based on a recommendation by an international standards organization (memory is failing me now) to convert all film stocks to one perforation type. (I seem to recall this happened in 1938/1939 in a conference in Eastern Europe - I know I have notes on it somewhere, but finding them...)

So while Russia jumped on the stick and performed this monumental task, everyone else in the World told the organization to go fly a kite and remained wedded to the B&H perforation scheme. The staggering cost of refitting every bit of cinema gear made since the 1900's to the 1940's was hardly worth it to simply standardize film perforations for production purposes.

That's why you find both unmodified Russian cameras, such as the 35mm Kinor, designed to shoot KS perforated film stock AND modified same type cameras that have been re-fitted to shoot B&H perforations.

The reasons behind still film being perforated BH vs KS can range from dual use (cine, still) and maybe something prosaic as "the KS perforating machines were being rebuilt and we needed to make a shipment, so we ran them on the BH machines".

Who knows?

Edit: Even Wikipedia mentions the KS/BH split, but lacks a citation:

Film perforations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

FWIW I just looked at some old family negatives, in 35mm....

Since it was a Cine film, why have two perforation variations and needless additional costs?...

Thanks, both of you! Those are good points, that I obviously didn't realize. Interesting that @Mr Bill's company specifically wanted B&H perforations, for their set-up.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks, both of you! Those are good points, that I obviously didn't realize. Interesting that @Mr Bill's company specifically wanted B&H perforations, for their set-up.

The machine that Kodak uses now to make the 100 foot bulk rolls is a single left-over from the many that were used when they had a huge business supplying film for those long roll portrait cameras. When the volume for those was high, the production line was fast, efficient and cheap to run.
Not any more.

 

[cmacd123]

FWIW I just looked at some old family negatives, in 35mm. The first 2 sets I picked up had BH perfs. One roll says "PLUS X FILM" and the other "PANATOMIC X FILM." I'd guess them to be from the mid to late 1950s.

Another roll, est late 1950s, has KS perfs. It says "KODAK PLUS X PAN FILM."

the first two might just be NITRATE, if they don't say "safety film"
one thing with the B&H perfs is that they are not as "tall" as the KS perfs. their is a duvrey Howel Perf that is the same Tallness of a B&H but looks like a KS.
and when CinemaScope came out their were half width perfs (CS Perfs) to make room for a magnetic soundtrack, and as Twentieth Century fox was behind CinemaScope the projection folks referred to "Fox Holes"

 

[cmacd123]

Speaking of Nitrate....
when motion Picture prints are made the negative and the print film both go around a cylinder, with Sprockets to hold the two in alignment. the light sines from Inside the cylinder to expose the print film.

for this to work, the Negative has to have the perfs a fraction (Tiny Fraction) closer together. In the Nitrate times this was not a problem as the Nitrate film would shrink during processing. when acetate started to be used, it shrank LESS. so you will find that Negative film is perforated as BH 1866 while positive print film (and still camera film) is perforated at KS1870. the 4 ten thousands of an inch accomidates the printing cylinder.

the difference is unlikely to be noticeable on any still camera, BUT is another reason why a Movie camera needs the BH1866 film.

 

[Mr Bill]

the first two might just be NITRATE, if they don't say "safety film"

All 3 (the mid to late 1950s images) say "KODAK SAFETY FILM." I just didn't mention this as it was identical text between all three.

Thanks for the interesting info on motion picture films. I've never had any involvement with same, but something I've wondered about: how is the side-to-side motion of the film controlled in the printer (for critical work)?

In "still" work we generally let the film wander from side to side within guides that are set to the maximum permissible film width. Which is mostly good enough.

 

[Kino]

All 3 (the mid to late 1950s images) say "KODAK SAFETY FILM." I just didn't mention this as it was identical text between all three.

Thanks for the interesting info on motion picture films. I've never had any involvement with same, but something I've wondered about: how is the side-to-side motion of the film controlled in the printer (for critical work)?

In "still" work we generally let the film wander from side to side within guides that are set to the maximum permissible film width. Which is mostly good enough.

On a continuous contact printer, the printer sprocket teeth are full-fitting across the width of the drive sprocket; typically only on one side of the element being printed. On a camera/optical printer, there are full-fitting registration pin located below the gate on Mitchell 35mm cameras and above the gate on BH 2709 variants.

As Charles states, the pitch difference between stocks allow the film to lay flat on the printer sprocket without buckling. Try wrapping two layers of the same pitch film around a cylinder and see what I mean. There is only .0004 inches difference (.1866 to .1870) between short-pitch and long pitch stocks, but it makes a huge difference in contact printing.

The shape of the drive sprocket tooth is also very critical; it has to allow both elements to strip-off the tooth at a controlled, even rate to avoid slipping between elements.

It's a complex system...

Here's a great book to read (PDF) on the subject.

Principles of cinematography : a handbook of motion picture technology : Wheeler, Leslie W., 1939- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

archive.org

 

[Mr Bill]

Thanks Kino! After a brief look into the book I'm finding a lot of details that I never realized I was interested in!

I would imagine that relatively few of the various printer types were ever made, and am a bit saddened that once they are gone this sort of thing will likely never be made again.