Delta 3200 in NON perforated 35mm? What's it for?

[John Shriver]

Yes, there were various long-roll "school portrait" cameras that used 35mm, 46mm, and 70mm unperforated film. The 70mm ones went down one side of the film, then things were flipped around and they went back along the other side. That's why Kodak Portra 160NC used to be available in all three of those sizes.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Keith Cameras made those long roll school portrait cameras. I think they are still around as part of the Photomark brand with Norman and Speedotron (they were part of Photo-Control for a while, with Norman and a few others).

But a high-speed film makes more sense for surveillance/traffic cameras. School portraits are pretty much always made with strobes, so there's no particular need for a high speed film.

 

[Mr Bill]

The 70mm ones went down one side of the film, then things were flipped around and they went back along the other side.

Hi John, I've worked quite a lot with long-roll portrait cameras and never heard of such a thing. I wonder if you've misunderstood the term "split-70." This was not actually split down the middle; rather, the frames were shot sideways on the film. So a split-70 frame was ~70mm TALL, whereas a full-70 frame was ~70mm WIDE.

The main long-roll portrait cameras for sale in the US were Photo Control's Camerz line, and Beattie-Coleman's Portronic line (I never heard of Keith Camera, so couldn't say). Both were available in full-70, and probably any other version you wanted. On top of that, there's been plenty of custom-made equipment specific to certain companies, but much of this is virtually unknown outside of those companies.

Back on the main topic, I have no idea who would use non-perf Delta 3200, except perhaps, as David suggests, someone with a surveillance system. It seems most likely that it would be some sort of legacy system that isn't worth upgrading. On the other hand, if it's a single customer, there's not much point in B&H listing the product; the actual customer would already have all the ordering info. So who can say, aside from B&H and the customer?

 

[AgX]

Hi John, I've worked quite a lot with long-roll portrait cameras and never heard of such a thing. I wonder if you've misunderstood the term "split-70." This was not actually split down the middle; rather, the frames were shot sideways on the film. So a split-70 frame was ~70mm TALL, whereas a full-70 frame was ~70mm WIDE.

A full-frame that was 70mm wide would still be 70mm high...

Or am I slow on the uptake again?

 

[Dr Croubie]

A full-frame that was 70mm wide would still be 70mm high...

Or am I slow on the uptake again?

I think what he means is that the 70mm was not split in half lengthways (ie top/bottom strips 35mm by 15'), it was shot across the film, so the 70mm of the film with 35mm wide frames running the 15' length

 

[Mr Bill]

Hi AgX. They always made the frames rectangular, in roughly 8x10 format. With the full-70 frame, the long dimension runs along the length of the film. So the full-70 ends up with the frame height being about 10/8 of the (nominal 70mm) film width. When you consider that the edges of the film are not exposed (they ride on guides), the frame sizes end up being similar (just a bit larger) to those of certain 120 roll-film cameras. A full-70 correlates roughly to 6x7 (or 6x9) cm, and the split-70 correlates to 6x4.5 cm). (Dr Croubie originally mentioned these sizes, but looks like he edited them out.)

I don't know if I'm being clear, it would probably be better to show a sketch showing how the frames fit on the film.

ps: these cameras took 100 ft rolls.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Ah, so I was right the first time?
after I re-read the earlier posts, I thought whoever had mis-interpreted the term 'split 70' had thought it was using the 70mm split down the middle making two lengths of 35, sort of like how a 4-track or 8-track works on various tracks forwards or backwards.

But yeah, what I had originally written was about 70mm cine normally using 70mm wide by 30-40mm high frames (akin to 645), compared to imax using 90-100mm or so wide frames by 70mm tall (like a 6x9)

 

[Mr Bill]

Ah, so I was right the first time?

Yep, or at least very close. I don't know if there were "official" frame dimensions, like in cine, but I don't think they varied too much. The US has had de facto standard print sizes for years, so the long-roll frame sizes tend to match up with these.