There was a war between Japan and the US (or perhaps, more appropriately, Eastman Kodak) in the late forties and, unfortunately, Kodak won. This was a 'format war' with Japan taking the side that the 35mm perspective should be less than 1:1.5. In fact, an early Nikon RF was actually 24mm X 32mm, formatwise.
Kodak wanted the wider format for its emerging slide projection market. We had the superior fire power and what we said became reality. I think that better peace would have been achieved if Japan had won that one. Why?
Let's face it: the overwhelming number of published pictures we see are presented in a less aggressive perspective. And, as a bonus, if the 32mm width had become 'law', the so-called marginal lenses would have almost all been good. The real problem with 'bad' 35mm lenses is their performance in the far corners of the frame. By lessening this need to 'reach' to the 36mm width, the lens's 'sweet spot' would have been better utilized.
Of course, the half frame (24mm x 18mm) is also highly useful and, as a bonus, economical in this era of high film prices. Allowing the full frame potential (24mm x 36mm) but also retaining the half frame ability (through double stroke advancing on every camera!!!) would have been too much fantasy to hope for. (It would have slowed down early sports photographers too much, you say?) But it would have presented possibilities that could have changed much frustration in 35mm photography, (as well as, possibly, creating new ones for some). The present perspective I find too extreme.
Going forward, why not revamp (in retrospect) the whole mess by wishing for a manufacturing dichotomy between movie film and still film to have emerged. Anyone out there realize just how much wasted film those large sprocket holes use up? With 'still' you do not need such force against tearing as you do with movie projection.) Is it really unproductive wishful thinking to have hoped for a film that would run through 35mm cameras yielding a large 32mm X 40mm format, and, in the process, challenging medium format in the 'resolution game'? (NOTA BENE: I say 32mm because you need a bit of film to 'ride the rails' so the film stays flat in the film aperture.) That would, indeed, have been a large image to think about. And using a 'mere' 35mm film to boot. The film advancing could have been made precise by employing a single sprocket hole BETWEEN frames (like the Pathe folks with their 9.5mm movie film). In this way the 'small' medium format (4.5cm x 6cm) might not really have had reason to exist. - David Lyga
Kodak wanted the wider format for its emerging slide projection market. We had the superior fire power and what we said became reality. I think that better peace would have been achieved if Japan had won that one. Why?
Let's face it: the overwhelming number of published pictures we see are presented in a less aggressive perspective. And, as a bonus, if the 32mm width had become 'law', the so-called marginal lenses would have almost all been good. The real problem with 'bad' 35mm lenses is their performance in the far corners of the frame. By lessening this need to 'reach' to the 36mm width, the lens's 'sweet spot' would have been better utilized.
Of course, the half frame (24mm x 18mm) is also highly useful and, as a bonus, economical in this era of high film prices. Allowing the full frame potential (24mm x 36mm) but also retaining the half frame ability (through double stroke advancing on every camera!!!) would have been too much fantasy to hope for. (It would have slowed down early sports photographers too much, you say?) But it would have presented possibilities that could have changed much frustration in 35mm photography, (as well as, possibly, creating new ones for some). The present perspective I find too extreme.
Going forward, why not revamp (in retrospect) the whole mess by wishing for a manufacturing dichotomy between movie film and still film to have emerged. Anyone out there realize just how much wasted film those large sprocket holes use up? With 'still' you do not need such force against tearing as you do with movie projection.) Is it really unproductive wishful thinking to have hoped for a film that would run through 35mm cameras yielding a large 32mm X 40mm format, and, in the process, challenging medium format in the 'resolution game'? (NOTA BENE: I say 32mm because you need a bit of film to 'ride the rails' so the film stays flat in the film aperture.) That would, indeed, have been a large image to think about. And using a 'mere' 35mm film to boot. The film advancing could have been made precise by employing a single sprocket hole BETWEEN frames (like the Pathe folks with their 9.5mm movie film). In this way the 'small' medium format (4.5cm x 6cm) might not really have had reason to exist. - David Lyga
Last edited by a moderator:
