How wide is 70mm film really?

[AgX]

But regarding perfs, probably the majority of 70mm still camera film was NOT perforated. I say this from my experience: in the US, at least, the great majority of school and other mass market portraits were once shot on specialized long-roll portrait cameras.

I do not know of specialized long-roll portrait cameras here in Europe. As you indicated, markets were different.

 

[Europan]

120 rollfilm has the nominal width of 2 27/64 inch.

70mm film is cut to 69,95 mm ± 0,05. 65mm film ist cut to 64,97 mm ± 0,05. ISO 3023

 

[Helinophoto]

Just a question: Is there any particular reason why you need backing-paper with these Vision3 70mm films?

I mean, both my Hasselblad and Mamiya backs are normally pre-set against an arrow and then winded on from there.
Anything stopping us from just loading a random length roll, with no backing paper (in the dark, naturally), close the back and wind on until shot number 1 is ready?
I suppose this will work on any camera, not dependent on the numbers on the backing-paper or systems that sense the start of the film, like the Rolleiflex Automat?

Then you can also unload the backs in the dark and put them on the reel, into the tank and bob's your uncle......no?

Would make life easier concerning using these 70mm films.

 

[AgX]

I suppose this will work on any camera, not dependent on the numbers on the backing-paper or systems that sense the start of the film, like the Rolleiflex Automat?

Actually that would work on any type 120 camera with closed red-window, once one has established the necessary turns of the transport knob for a frame.

 

[trendland]

I am right.

Yes - AgX you are right - at this time

with regards

 

[flavio81]

Yep, on the width of the film.

But regarding perfs, probably the majority of 70mm still camera film was NOT perforated. I say this from my experience: in the US, at least, the great majority of school and other mass market portraits were once shot on specialized long-roll portrait cameras. The "long rolls" were typically 100-ft, and there were several standard widths, including 70mm. At the outfit where I worked, we once used to process miles of 70mm film every day. And yes, it measured 70mm wide (within the ANSI tolerance), and it was not perforated.

I think this sort of thing was largely unknown in the general professional photography world, probably because it was never marketed in that direction. But certainly huge quantities of such films were used. I don't know about the specs on motion picture films.

On the other hand, the 70mm camera backs for the Hasselblad 6x6 cameras and for the Mamiya RB and RZ 6x7 cameras, expect perforated 70mm film.

And I had thought that the norm, for still cameras, was perforated 70mm film...

 

[trendland]

This thread highlights the problem with defining a film size by a particular measurement. This is most likely the reason that many film sizes were assigned arbitrary numeric codes.
Film (actually image) formats - it makes sense to describe them using dimensions.

I have it now - on reflection you stated
here due to formats. Thanks - unless it has in fact lasted longer to find the needle in the haystack.

It is 116 film. Never heard about before.
But that's no matter to me.

It comes from eastman kodak first 1899
and is discontinued since 1984.
Identical with 70mm.

with regards

 

[trendland]

On the other hand, the 70mm camera backs for the Hasselblad 6x6 cameras and for the Mamiya RB and RZ 6x7 cameras, expect perforated 70mm film.

And I had thought that the norm, for still cameras, was perforated 70mm film...

You got it flavio 81- it is "usable" there might be lots of older cameras wich have
used 70mm film unperforated as Mr. BILL
stated before.
These older still cameras will also eat 70mm Motion Picturr Film if they are hungry .
They don' care about perfora ted films.

And due to modern film back one can
they work with 70mm film and the perforation should be the same - or
in case of "hasselblad long film magazin"
with little different perforation it has to be
try out. Not 190% sure about.

with regards

 

[trendland]

Yep, on the width of the film.

But regarding perfs, probably the majority of 70mm still camera film was NOT perforated. I say this from my experience: in the US, at least, the great majority of school and other mass market portraits were once shot on specialized long-roll portrait cameras. The "long rolls" were typically 100-ft, and there were several standard widths, including 70mm. At the outfit where I worked, we once used to process miles of 70mm film every day. And yes, it measured 70mm wide (within the ANSI tolerance), and it was not perforated.

I think this sort of thing was largely unknown in the general professional photography world, probably because it was never marketed in that direction. But certainly huge quantities of such films were used. I don't know about the specs on motion picture films.

Thanks a lot for this info Mr. Bill it is very
helpful.

with rrgards

 

[AgX]

70mm cine print film and 70mm still film are not interchangable.
Due to the tracks and, more important, due to the perforation location.

A exception is Instax 70mm film. Here the perforations should match the ones of 70mm still film.

 

[AgX]

Anyway, in all this measurements discussion we should not overlook that all cine 70mm films are print films.
Thus they are as well in speed, gradation as spectral sensitivtiy and other aspects different from still camera film, and not useful as a standard substitute.

 

[trendland]

120 rollfilm has the nominal width of 2 27/64 inch.

70mm film is cut to 69,95 mm ± 0,05. 65mm film ist cut to 64,97 mm ± 0,05. ISO 3023

Bad news for some of us - because
120 medium film rolls are a very bit smaler. 60 mm for the film (with tolerances) 62mm for the backing paper
(with tolerances) an less than 1 mm +
as tolerance of the roll.
I would doubt if you can widen/stretch
a 120 plastic roll as far.

But never mind - sure the rolls can be
modified.

Thanks for that info Europan.



with regards

 

[Bud Hamblen]

I know this sounds like a stupid question, since it's supposed to be 70mm wide... but 120 film is supposed to be 60mm wide, and all the stuff I have measures more like 61-62mm. Anyone have any 70mm film in their hands, along with a good measuring instrument? I've looked high and low with google and can't find a spec on this, other than some ISO specs that cost a million dollars to download. I was hoping for a Kodak tech pub somewhere, but I can't come up with one, probably because that kind of thing was settled so long ago and everyone (except me) just knows the answer by now.

Thanks,
Duncan

The international standard for film dimensions is ISO 1012. If someone is near a big library they could look it up. People supposedly respool 70mm film on 616 spools to use in old cameras. The picture size of a 616 camera is 2-1/2" x 4-1/4" while a 620 camera usually made a 2-1/4" x 3-1/4" picture on 620 film (same size film as 120) so the bigger film is about 1/4" larger than 120 film.

 

[trendland]

The international standard for film dimensions is ISO 1012. If someone is near a big library they could look it up. People supposedly respool 70mm film on 616 spools to use in old cameras. The picture size of a 616 camera is 2-1/2" x 4-1/4" while a 620 camera usually made a 2-1/4" x 3-1/4" picture on 620 film (same size film as 120) so the bigger film is about 1/4" larger than 120 film.

Yes thank you - you mentioned it - there are no secrets concerning old standards.

Just before find some infos never guess
that 616 format existed.

It is discontinued since 1984 I would also thing in the last years (before 1984)
it was not often in use.

And thinking to the 60th or lets better say in the early 70 I was very familiar
with my 35mm rapid format.

My first camera often in use

So I was wondering about 616 - from 1899 thats remarcable.


with regards

 

[Europan]

Bad news for some of us because
120 medium film rolls are a very bit smaler.

Hi, trendland, if you assume only two per mille film shrinkage, you are at 61,39 mm. The 120 film format was defined with cellulose nitrate base and that used to shrink two to three per mille upon processing hands down. After a few years a film would have shrunk another two per mille, so one would have measured 61,2 mm corresponding to five per mille. When triacetate was introduced, a plastic that shrinks considerably less, the cutting width was altered to something slightly wider than 61 mm. Manufacturers naturally exploited the tolerance given. The problem is not the film but the backing paper. They said to themselves: the paper can bend away from the film in the camera gate and at the same time help pressing the film’s edges against it. Observe the fit between aperture/gate and pressure plate!

 

[removed account4]

Yep, on the width of the film.

But regarding perfs, probably the majority of 70mm still camera film was NOT perforated. I say this from my experience: in the US, at least, the great majority of school and other mass market portraits were once shot on specialized long-roll portrait cameras. The "long rolls" were typically 100-ft, and there were several standard widths, including 70mm. At the outfit where I worked, we once used to process miles of 70mm film every day. And yes, it measured 70mm wide (within the ANSI tolerance), and it was not perforated.

I think this sort of thing was largely unknown in the general professional photography world, probably because it was never marketed in that direction. But certainly huge quantities of such films were used. I don't know about the specs on motion picture films.

as late as the early 2000s lifetouch portrait studio used to use un-perf'd 70mm film just as you described .
when the roll was used up ( once a week? once a week and 1/2? ) we used to tape it and can it and mail it to the lab
in the midwest.

 

[trendland]

Hi, trendland, if you assume only two per mille film shrinkage, you are at 61,39 mm. The 120 film format was defined with cellulose nitrate base and that used to shrink two to three per mille upon processing hands down. After a few years a film would have shrunk another two per mille, so one would have measured 61,2 mm corresponding to five per mille. When triacetate was introduced, a plastic that shrinks considerably less, the cutting width was altered to something slightly wider than 61 mm. Manufacturers naturally exploited the tolerance given. The problem is not the film but the backing paper. They said to themselves: the paper can bend away from the film in the camera gate and at the same time help pressing the film’s edges against it. Observe the fit between aperture/gate and pressure plate!

I remember just as you mentioned celloulose nitrat based films - as I had an internchip/practical training for 3 weeks in a filmlab in the 80th they had to restorate old archive films on flammable nitrat base.
These nitro-Film material somewhere from the 30th -40th was so far damaged as the restoration lasted to long.
They were involved since years with a work wich will never come to an end.
The only way to rescue the better archive rolls was to copy on modern films wich much hope they would not shred while copy process.

with regards

 

[John Salim]

Ignoring the emulsion, the mechanical differences between 70mm motion picture and 70mm stills film is the position of the perforations.

70mm stills film has perfs at the same distance from the edge as 35mm ( type II perfs ) whereas motion picture film has perfs further in ( type I ) to accommodate not only four stripes of magnetic soundtrack, but also to mate with 65mm camera and intermediate film for contact printing.
( 65mm film perfs are type II ).

Happily, I occasionally use 70mm film ( for duplicating ),
John S

 

[AgX]

70mm cine print film could be used (technically) on 70mm cameras that do not employ a sprocket wheel.

 

[k.hendrik]

thanks: after reading all this this is my Q:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)