if "format" wars between Japan and the US in the late 40's had had ended differently

E. von Hoegh · Mar 22, 2012

wblynch said:
The whole beginning with 35mm stills was camera makers "cheating" by using motion picture film. I think Leica started it all(?) It sure wasn't the film makers' idea.

So sprockets make sense. It couldn't have happened without them.

The first 35mm cameras were used to test exposures before wasting a reel of motion picture film. Not many light meters available in the early 20s.

E. von Hoegh · Mar 22, 2012

David Lyga said:
First, the last thing I intended was to either offend or downplay that sorry period after Pearl Harbor. In fact, my subliminal intention was to actually mitigate any lingering hatred towards the Japanese by 'allowing' them to have been 'correct' in this latter 'war'. If the military types out there are yet offended I, again, apologize, but, at the same time, uphold my initial legitimacy with my carefully chosen wording. I am not at fault here.

We all fight 'wars': with wives, significant others, friends, customer service, government, etc. "War" does not have to be construed as unmentionable unless such censoring has a specific agenda in order to shut up certain mindsets. For example, when the USA murdered hundreds of thousands, (if not millions!), in Vietnam (Johnson, Nixon), Latin America (Reagan), Irag (Bush W), and, yes, Afghanistan (Bush W, Obama) all for 'freedom of mankind' hyperbole and support of the military industrial complex (which Dwight Eisenhower was prescient and intelligent and fair enough to loudly declaim), when it was REALLY for filling the pockets of some 'connected fortunates' (like Dick Cheney) with filthy lucre ... we THEN rarely cry fowl. We pick and choose whom to hate (as with professional sports) and oftentimes that choice is predicated upon selfish interests and blatant, collective ego aggrandizement geared solely to promote the grandeur of military might and fright. We are lost as a society if we do not have an enemy to loudly hate. That dire need to hate is our collective downfall folks.

No I do not fit into your standard patriotic mold and if that defines me as treacherous rather than the open-minded and trenchantly fair and upright person I think myself to be, then so be it: MODERATOR: then further purge my prose of such outspoken, perfidious, prolixic parody. You have already (safely) satisfied many of my detractors by changing my thread's title.

But, instilled with guilt I shall not be, no matter how much you patriots try to allow no dissent to manifest on your collective watch. The Red White and Blue means something to me other than conquest. Pacification means something to me other than superior fire power. And the noble concept of 'unification' seems to be washed down the river in the process of meting out further hate in our so called political process misnamed democracy. - David Lyga

Jesus. Get a clue.

Dinesh · Mar 22, 2012

David Lyga said:
First, the last thing I intended was to either offend or downplay that sorry period after Pearl Harbor. In fact, my subliminal intention was to actually mitigate any lingering hatred towards the Japanese by 'allowing' them to have been 'correct' in this latter 'war'. If the military types out there are yet offended I, again, apologize, but, at the same time, uphold my initial legitimacy with my carefully chosen wording. I am not at fault here.

We all fight 'wars': with wives, significant others, friends, customer service, government, etc. "War" does not have to be construed as unmentionable unless such censoring has a specific agenda in order to shut up certain mindsets. For example, when the USA murdered hundreds of thousands, (if not millions!), in Vietnam (Johnson, Nixon), Latin America (Reagan), Irag (Bush W), and, yes, Afghanistan (Bush W, Obama) all for 'freedom of mankind' hyperbole and support of the military industrial complex (which Dwight Eisenhower was prescient and intelligent and fair enough to loudly declaim), when it was REALLY for filling the pockets of some 'connected fortunates' (like Dick Cheney) with filthy lucre ... we THEN rarely cry fowl. We pick and choose whom to hate (as with professional sports) and oftentimes that choice is predicated upon selfish interests and blatant, collective ego aggrandizement geared solely to promote the grandeur of military might and fright. We are lost as a society if we do not have an enemy to loudly hate. That dire need to hate is our collective downfall folks.

No I do not fit into your standard patriotic mold and if that defines me as treacherous rather than the open-minded and trenchantly fair and upright person I think myself to be, then so be it: MODERATOR: then further purge my prose of such outspoken, perfidious, prolixic parody. You have already (safely) satisfied many of my detractors by changing my thread's title.

But, instilled with guilt I shall not be, no matter how much you patriots try to allow no dissent to manifest on your collective watch. The Red White and Blue means something to me other than conquest. Pacification means something to me other than superior fire power. And the noble concept of 'unification' seems to be washed down the river in the process of meting out further hate in our so called political process misnamed democracy. - David Lyga

Dude, you've lost it.

Paul Howell · Mar 22, 2012

David Lyga said:
First, the last thing I intended was to either offend or downplay that sorry period after Pearl Harbor. In fact, my subliminal intention was to actually mitigate any lingering hatred towards the Japanese by 'allowing' them to have been 'correct' in this latter 'war'. If the military types out there are yet offended I, again, apologize, but, at the same time, uphold my initial legitimacy with my carefully chosen wording. I am not at fault here.

We all fight 'wars': with wives, significant others, friends, customer service, government, etc. "War" does not have to be construed as unmentionable unless such censoring has a specific agenda in order to shut up certain mindsets. For example, when the USA murdered hundreds of thousands, (if not millions!), in Vietnam (Johnson, Nixon), Latin America (Reagan), Irag (Bush W), and, yes, Afghanistan (Bush W, Obama) all for 'freedom of mankind' hyperbole and support of the military industrial complex (which Dwight Eisenhower was prescient and intelligent and fair enough to loudly declaim), when it was REALLY for filling the pockets of some 'connected fortunates' (like Dick Cheney) with filthy lucre ... we THEN rarely cry fowl. We pick and choose whom to hate (as with professional sports) and oftentimes that choice is predicated upon selfish interests and blatant, collective ego aggrandizement geared solely to promote the grandeur of military might and fright. We are lost as a society if we do not have an enemy to loudly hate. That dire need to hate is our collective downfall folks.

No I do not fit into your standard patriotic mold and if that defines me as treacherous rather than the open-minded and trenchantly fair and upright person I think myself to be, then so be it: MODERATOR: then further purge my prose of such outspoken, perfidious, prolixic parody. You have already (safely) satisfied many of my detractors by changing my thread's title.

But, instilled with guilt I shall not be, no matter how much you patriots try to allow no dissent to manifest on your collective watch. The Red White and Blue means something to me other than conquest. Pacification means something to me other than superior fire power. And the noble concept of 'unification' seems to be washed down the river in the process of meting out further hate in our so called political process misnamed democracy. - David Lyga

War is a "State of open armed conflict often prolonged between nation states." We do not fight wars with wifes, customer service, or with other nations concering a film format. As a veteran of an armed conflict between nations states (justified or not) I did take offense. To quote General Sherman "War is Hell" a film format that you not like is not hell. What you have done is diminish your agurment aginst American foreign policy by attaching it to a little know and inconsequntial business decision.

Jim Jones · Mar 22, 2012

I've only been using 35mm film for 60 years, but do have some experience with older equipment. The 24x36 format may not be ideal, but is perhaps the best compromise. Most of my 20,000 Kodachromes were shot in landscape orientation to be projected. A 1:1.5 ratio serves well for this. Alternating between landscape and portrait orientation in a single slide show was distracting. Square images feel less pleasant.

The sprocket holes provided accurate and reliable film advance, and were necessary in the design of some cameras where movement of the film cocked the shutter. Nikon's use of 24x32 and 24x24 frames was a short-lived attempt to apply logic contrary to well-established convention. Nikon wasn't alone in bucking the trend. American photographers desperate for new cameras before post-war production caught up with demand also bought the cleverly designed and solidly constructed Mercury II half-frame cameras, but the full frame Argus C3 at a similar price became much more popular.

georg16nik · Mar 22, 2012

Why most of You boys and girls jumped on David like that?
Probably a few of You are too touch sensitive but there was nothing unapropriate with the original title or his posts.

georg16nik · Mar 22, 2012

PDH said:
War is a "State of open armed conflict often prolonged between nation states."

OR, War is when 2 or more side agree that they don't have a slightest clue about what life is all about.

Paul Howell · Mar 22, 2012

georg16nik said:
OR, War is when 2 or more side agree that they don't have a slightest clue about what life is all about.

Usually spoken by those who have never in war and dont know what what war is all about.

David Lyga · Mar 22, 2012

You see, georg16nik, after WWII Germany was brought to its senses and forced to go through a couple of generations of introspection and apology. In its schools this was taught and taught infinitum. As a result, (as you well know, living in Germany,) the German people (and Japanese) are, today, some of the best emotionally developed and fairest people on earth. And their governments and foreign policies and outlooks about the world readily prove this.

On the other hand, the USA was always the "God Blessed one" who could do no wrong because we were, after all, spokesmen for almightly GOD (whoever that is). As a result we have developed a national, impenetrable hubris and 'right' to hegemony that is thwarted by nothing because, you see, dear German georg, we are perpetually 'the very best' ("GOD" says so!!!). Our national politics is structured around this power play and each and every confiict supported by out revered 'right wing' is founded in either this hubris or naked money.

Stay German, dear georg, and you will fare better that those who seek justification for a misguided 'pre-eminence' that is really a weakness for incapacity for compromise and fairness. Ask the Native Americans who died defending their land. And if the yeah MODERATOR has to deflect these truths in the name of patriotism (she will not call it that!) so be it. I have said my say. - David Lyga

georg16nik · Mar 22, 2012

Hi David,
All the best to You and all the boys and girls here on APUG!
Back on the formats, I have modified one of my Leicas to 1.6:1 its good to have variety sometimes.
The spacing between the frame is also, easily adjustable on the Barnack Leicas.
btw: the early idea about the Leica was to be a light meter, then as a concept it was proposed to Zeiss by Barnack, while he was working for them, before join with Leitz

SuzanneR · Mar 22, 2012

David Lyga said:
First, the last thing I intended was to either offend or downplay that sorry period after Pearl Harbor. In fact, my subliminal intention was to actually mitigate any lingering hatred towards the Japanese by 'allowing' them to have been 'correct' in this latter 'war'. If the military types out there are yet offended I, again, apologize, but, at the same time, uphold my initial legitimacy with my carefully chosen wording. I am not at fault here.

We all fight 'wars': with wives, significant others, friends, customer service, government, etc. "War" does not have to be construed as unmentionable unless such censoring has a specific agenda in order to shut up certain mindsets. For example, when the USA murdered hundreds of thousands, (if not millions!), in Vietnam (Johnson, Nixon), Latin America (Reagan), Irag (Bush W), and, yes, Afghanistan (Bush W, Obama) all for 'freedom of mankind' hyperbole and support of the military industrial complex (which Dwight Eisenhower was prescient and intelligent and fair enough to loudly declaim), when it was REALLY for filling the pockets of some 'connected fortunates' (like Dick Cheney) with filthy lucre ... we THEN rarely cry fowl. We pick and choose whom to hate (as with professional sports) and oftentimes that choice is predicated upon selfish interests and blatant, collective ego aggrandizement geared solely to promote the grandeur of military might and fright. We are lost as a society if we do not have an enemy to loudly hate. That dire need to hate is our collective downfall folks.

No I do not fit into your standard patriotic mold and if that defines me as treacherous rather than the open-minded and trenchantly fair and upright person I think myself to be, then so be it: MODERATOR: then further purge my prose of such outspoken, perfidious, prolixic parody. You have already (safely) satisfied many of my detractors by changing my thread's title.

But, instilled with guilt I shall not be, no matter how much you patriots try to allow no dissent to manifest on your collective watch. The Red White and Blue means something to me other than conquest. Pacification means something to me other than superior fire power. And the noble concept of 'unification' seems to be washed down the river in the process of meting out further hate in our so called political process misnamed democracy. - David Lyga

I edited the thread title so that those who are interested in formats can find it, since it did not seem to be about WWII, and not for some patriotic reason. I did not edit your prose because I did not want to alter it's meaning. If you want to talk politics, subscribe APUG, and engage in threads in the soap box where such talk belongs, and is far less frequently moderated. I harbor no ill will toward the Japanese or the Germans, both have made fine cameras and films.

Dinesh · Mar 22, 2012

SuzanneR said:
... I harbor no ill will toward the Japanese or the Germans,..

What about those %&#$*&%$#&&^$ Canadians?

SuzanneR · Mar 22, 2012

Dinesh said:
What about those %&#$*&%$#&&^$ Canadians?

And them, too

After all, the Leica I have was built there!! And it's a fine camera!!

dnjl · Mar 22, 2012

Thumb war, anyone?

I think it would have been interesting to have more format choices in 35mm. Why didn't anyone ever make a decent square format 35mm camera? Or am I just being ignorant?

Chan Tran · Mar 22, 2012

I don't think Kodak cared whatever format it was as long as they could sell a lot of film.

clayne · Mar 22, 2012

waltereegho said:
Thumb war, anyone?

I think it would have been interesting to have more format choices in 35mm. Why didn't anyone ever make a decent square format 35mm camera? Or am I just being ignorant?

I'd think there'd be quite a few mechanical bodies that could be converted to square format if one had access to machining.

Someonenameddavid · Mar 22, 2012

waltereegho said:
Thumb war, anyone?

I think it would have been interesting to have more format choices in 35mm. Why didn't anyone ever make a decent square format 35mm camera? Or am I just being ignorant?

And there you have the Robot Royal with Schneider lenses and 5 fps built in motor drives built to exacting specifications. Not a huge seller. Not as sexy as the Leicas or Canons or contaxes or Nikons

Leigh Youdale · Mar 22, 2012

This whole thread is pointless and irrelevant.
I've just updated my "Ignore" list.

georg16nik · Mar 22, 2012

waltereegho said:
..I think it would have been interesting to have more format choices in 35mm. Why didn't anyone ever make a decent square format 35mm camera?..

Zeiss, Agfa, Otto Berning & Co., Koike Seiki K.K. and a few other made 24x24, some even did 24x25

thuggins · Mar 23, 2012

Colin Corneau said:
What a bizarre thing to post, given the actual war that claimed untold lives and caused untold misery.

You may want to re-think how you phrase things, in future.

I hestitate to wade into a discussion that has engendered such nonsense as the comment above. But for those who cannot be bothered to check actual history, this issue was a real conflict that ended up being resolved by the US Army. The 32x24 aspect ratio was the Japanese standard for 35mm. It yields the 4:3's ratio that folks claim is more aesthetically pleasing, based on the dimensions of most prints and enlargements. Olympus' first 35mm camera, the Cat's Paw, used this ratio. The US occupying forces put a stop to it by ordering that only cameras using 36x24 could be exported. I am not aware that Kodak had any part in this, although it certainly uses more film. An easier explanation is the 36x24 was the "American" standard and we were in a position to tell the Japanese what they could and could not do.

On a related topic, Kodak did actively kill the next attempt at the 4:3's ratio. When Olympus (and others) introduced the tremendously popular "half frame" (actually single frame) cameras in the 50's and 60's, Kodak refused to make half frame mounts. And from personal experience I can vouch that their processing equipment was never set up to handle half frames. If it weren't for Kodak, we'd all be getting 76 exposures on a single roll of film. (I will admit, that as my eyes get older, the larger frame is a welcome relief.)

Ian Grant · Mar 24, 2012

waltereegho said:
Thumb war, anyone?

I think it would have been interesting to have more format choices in 35mm. Why didn't anyone ever make a decent square format 35mm camera? Or am I just being ignorant?

They did, Agfa had their own easy load system using standard perforated 35mm film in "Rapid" cassettes launched in the 1960's and this was a square format. It was an improvement on Agfa's earler 1930's Karat system. It was taken up by Fuji and a few other companies as well.

There were also Robot cameras that shot 24x24mm

Ian

John Austin · Mar 24, 2012

Leigh Youdale said:
This whole thread is pointless and irrelevant.
I've just updated my "Ignore" list.

Hmmm, While I generally feel techi' threads a bit tedious, Leigh's comment is unfair as this thread seems to deal with history - There is a lot of "home made" history in this thread, but it is harmless enough and if anyone thinks it pointless and irrelevant they can ignore it politely

David Lyga · Mar 24, 2012

Thank you all and, yes, even for my serious detractors (who have attained a 'credibility of sorts' with the pressured moderator). My original title was, and remains in my mind, wholly innocent and appropriate. The considerable and positive private feedback I have received seems to confirm this assessment.

We all come from different backgrounds and, hence, diverse mindsets which might, thus, seem true and accurate to us. Some see a need to deflect any threats to such personal thinking, whereas others are sufficiently confident to allow diversity to 'round out' their potentially dangerous, unilateral perceptions and cultivations for added dimensionality. (Ports of Call, with their forced diversity, have always been more open in this regard, like San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia, and New York.)

Here, the bottom line becomes attaining a resolute feeling of personal security and credibility: some see 'hunkering down' as best while others see an openness and mental dynamism as deserving to be prudently judged the best personal mental investment one can make. I ask no one to choose for my sake but only to be true to yourselves. You are the ones who have to live with such decisions, and in peace. - David Lyga

pen s · Mar 24, 2012

I am one who prefers the 3:4 aspect ratio, thus my love of 35mm half frame. That said I've settled on printing the my full frame negs to 6X9 inch on 8X10 paper and try to compose with that end in mind. My half frame negs are printed to 6X8 inchs on 8X10 paper, a 1.33X enlargement factor over full frame.

John Austin · Mar 24, 2012

WAR, which in my neg' log camera column means Wide Angle Rollei

"War", I wrote, then cancelled, a comment about the changing use of language, but gave up - For example, its use in "War on Drugs" and "War on Want" - I gave up as this site has too many fixed minded camera collectors and too few active photographers, by which I mean people engaged in the production of high quality prints in portfolios for exhibition and publication

In support of which I point out the number of discussions on cameras compared to discussions, opinions or reviews of current photographic practice and images

Click the pic to watch the flic

John
I was going to ask the Great High Moderator if I could change my call sign again from GOM to John Austin, but with some of the drivel on this and other threads GOM is right

if "format" wars between Japan and the US in the late 40's had had ended differently

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency