How does 120mm film work ??

[Cholentpot]

Semantics are wonderful .
I totally agree that "35mm" is the common, every day, "Kleenex" reference, although I might point out that nowadays if you ask most store clerks for "film", you will get the same blank stare.
The point I was trying to make is that the actual designation for the film, packaged in a way that it can actually go into our still cameras and be used by them, is "135".
There are lots of types of 35mm film that are unusable in our cameras, although some of them can be made usable by packaging them appropriately into 135 packaging.
The 35mm film for motion picture cameras is one type of 35mm film. It has its own type of sprocket holes. You would use it in something like an Arriflex camera - common I guess in the motion picture world, but certainly not every-day. Unless you modify it in some way - cut it into appropriate lengths and load it into appropriate cassettes - you cannot use it in most common still cameras.
The 35mm film for motion picture projectors is another type of 35mm film. It has another type of sprockets. It too requires modification for use in "35mm" still cameras.
A third type of 35mm film is used in 126 cameras. That film has a really different type of sprockets, as well as backing paper and a 126 type of cartridge. There is no practical way of modifying this 35mm film for use in "35mm" still cameras.
The most common type of 35mm film for most of us here is one that has an emulsion suitable for still photography, the same sprocket holes as the motion projection stock, and a cassette that is suitable for cameras that take 135 film.
The "135" describes the combination of film size, sprockets and cassette - not just the film itself.
Historically, there were other styles of cassettes and packaging for 35mm film that allowed it to be used in what we would now describe as "non-standard" cameras. From Wikipedia: "The designations 235 and 435 refer to 35 mm film in daylight-loading spools, that could be loaded into Leica or Contax style reusable cassettes without need of a darkroom. The 335 was a daylight loading spool for the 24 × 23 mm stereo format."
I only have Kodak boxes to refer to, but while reference on them to 135 film, all but one of my individual film boxes have no reference to 35mm film. That exception is a roll of 1987 Kodachrome where, in addition to all the "135" references, there is a "35mm" adjacent to the DX symbol. In contrast, the bulk film rolls have no reference on them to "135" - it is "35mm x 100 feet" on them.
I've browsed through some Kodak datasheets. The individual rolls are referred to as 135, while the bulk rolls are referred to as 35mm.
I have a fair number of camera manuals within reach. Some refer to film as 35mm, some refer to both 135 and 35mm, many just say film and 24mm x 36mm.
It is similar to the 120 vs. 620 comparison. The film is identical but other factors (in this case the spools differences) determine the suitability for use in a camera.
I point out all this detail because while we have a lot of historical reference and context, that isn't the case for people who are new to film. Someone new might assume that all "35mm" film is suitable for use in something like a Canon AE-1, and end up buying an old 400 foot roll of "35mm" motion picture projection stock off of eBay thinking that it is perfect for their needs.

I use 35mm MP stock in all of my cameras on a very regular basis. The sprockets give zero problems, and if you can deal with the REMJET that's a post process issue.

 

[MattKing]

I use 35mm MP stock in all of my cameras on a very regular basis. The sprockets give zero problems, and if you can deal with the REMJET that's a post process issue.

I assume you are referring to the motion picture film designed for camera work, not projection. In that case, I agree - while there is a difference in the sprocket size that helps you differentiate between the motion picture camera stock and the motion picture projection stock, the sprocket difference between either isn't material with respect to still camera use. It may be if one was to attempt to use film with the projection sprockets in high speed motion picture cameras.
But for general purpose work, you wouldn't want to use the projection stock in a still camera, and in all cases you need to cut and package it into 135 style packaging in order to use it in "35mm" still cameras.
At least with respect to normal usage. I don't know whether film packaged for use in a 250 exposure bulk back camera would be appropriately referred to as 135 film - I expect not.

 

[Leigh B]

I would say that Leigh (and myself) was just schooled.

I disagree.

Matt's long rant is not applicable to buying film from a photography store.

You could make a similar argument that "film" has many different meanings, only one of them being photographic.

- Leigh

 

[MattKing]

Leigh:
I'm surprised you feel that it was a rant.
I'll agree that the "shorthand" designation of "35mm" works fine in a photography store.
But if you are someone whose level of knowledge results in them referring to "120" film as "120mm" film, there are lots of places in the world where it is handy to know what it actually says on the rolls and the packages.
A non-Kodak example:

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hardly a rant.

 

[swchris]

Still, I think "135" comes from from the Kodak numbering, and in fact, it's a 35mm film. Fuji et al. probably took this designation over, but when the first Leica came out, I strongly believe, that there was no "135" film available.

 

[John Koehrer]

Still, I think "135" comes from from the Kodak numbering, and in fact, it's a 35mm film. Fuji et al. probably took this designation over, but when the first Leica came out, I strongly believe, that there was no "135" film available.

True^ Kodak didn't come up with their 135 designation for 35mm film until 1934, but the size was available from
the late 1890's.

 

[MattKing]

1934 was actually the year when Kodak came up with the package of 35mm film and the cassette that we use today - all called "135". The advantage of that cassette was that it was designed to work in the existing Leica, Contax and the camera then introduced by Kodak, the Retina. Prior to then, there were cassettes that were only compatible with certain cameras.

 

[swchris]

Prior to then, there were cassettes that were only compatible with certain cameras.

Yes. As I understand one had to bulk-load the cassettes which were compatible only with the manufacturer's camera. With the first Kodak Retina the current cassette was introduced.

 

[pbromaghin]

The OP just joined in April and here we go, off on a big stupid argument over things completely unrelated to his question.

I would say that yes, PanF is probably the best first rolls to use and shoot outside in good light with whichever apertures work for the sunny 16 rule.

 

[mweintraub]

While that may be how the box is labeled, here in the US it's called 35mm.

If you ask a store clerk for "135 film" you'll get a blank stare.

And I challenge you to find a "135" camera. There are/were plenty of 35mm cameras.

- Leigh

Sure.

http://collectiblend.com/Cameras/Mamiya/Mamiya-135.html

 

[Bud Hamblen]

The video was good and led me on to other interesting ones,does anyone know what ASA/ISO the original film was ? I would like to stick to what the camera was designed for as a starting point.

Verichrome Pan, which I used in a 620 Brownie about 50 years ago, was about 80. The lens was about f/16 and four inches, and the shutter speed was about 1/25 or 1/50. Maybe. The picture was 2-1/4" by 3-1/4".
Also, 35mm film is 1-3/8" wide.

 

[LAG]

... Point and shoot, it's a box with a hole and a spring loaded cover over the hole. Really, this camera is as uncomplicated as it gets. Don't over think it. Get what 120 film is available, load up, shoot and that's it. Don't expect spectacular results from a camera that's older than your great grandfather and built out of cardboard and wood.

That could be a perfect post for the Joke Thread. Thanks for the laughs!

The OP just joined in April and here we go, off on a big stupid argument over things completely unrelated to his question.

Nicely stated! (argument about semantics ... and look at the Thread Title, funny eh?)

 

[Cholentpot]

That could be a perfect post for the Joke Thread. Thanks for the laughs!



Nicely stated! (argument about semantics ... and look at the Thread Title, funny eh?)

Well I was being serious with some humor. The community tends to overthink things, Kodak set out to banish this and did a good job. The made a format that works with a box and a hole. Digital weeded out the casuals and we're back to where we started before Kodak showed up, pretentious and overthinking.

Load the darn tootin' camera and shoot. No-one besides for some nerds and geeks online care if the film is 120mm or Medium format, 35mm, 135, .45APC or 3/8ths. The only other community that is like this is the firearms community. I don't care if it's a magazine or clip, bullet or round. Does it work? Yep! Can I make it shoot where I point? Yep. Does it go click or bang? Great! I'll sort the terminology out down the road, someone's stealing my car...

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

So now the arguments over your saying it 135mm not 35mm




Joke joke

 

[TheRook]

I remember when I bought my first 120 format camera, I was quite worried that loading film into the camera correctly would be a very tricky, difficult process. What I soon discovered was that it wasn't really that difficult at all. In fact, nearly as easy as loading film into the typical 35mm SLR.

 

[Steve Smith]

While that may be how the box is labeled, here in the US it's called 35mm.

If you ask a store clerk for "135 film" you'll get a blank stare.

And I challenge you to find a "135" camera. There are/were plenty of 35mm cameras.

- Leigh

I think 135 was Kodak's designation for the film in easy to use cassettes. The film already existed as a movie film though and I assume this was always referred to as 35mm.


Steve.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I remember when I bought my first 120 format camera, I was quite worried that loading film into the camera correctly would be a very tricky, difficult process. What I soon discovered was that it wasn't really that difficult at all. In fact, nearly as easy as loading film into the typical 35mm SLR.

Generally one loads a Hasselblad at most one time. The same can be said of other cameras.