Length of 220 Film

[mtjade2007]

I have been working on a project to shoot pano on my Pemtax 67ll with 46mm films. The progress has been slow. I have 46mm 100 ft long rolls of film cold stored. I am working on building a loader for rolling the film into 220 spool at the moment. I ran into something strange regarding the length of 220 films.

I need to cut my 46mm long roll film at the exact length of 220. I measured a developed 220 film and found its length being 165 cm or 65 inch. However, I found this web site that says the length of 220 film is 144 cm:
https://thedarkroom.com/film-formats/220-film/

I also found this web page that says 165 cm and 65 inch:
http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HT/HT220.aspx

I tend to believe this web page is correct. I wonder why there is such a difference between the two web pages. Anyone has more definitive knowledge about this? Any comment will be appreciated.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The figure of 144 cm probably comes from multiplying 24 frames by 6 cm frame width (on 6x6) -- and fails to take into account the 2-3 mm between frames plus extra film at head and foot to allow for loading tolerance and damage from the tape. I recall 220 being almost the same length as 135-36, minus the leader trim (in other words, in the condition you'd load into tank), which I recall as being about five feet -- 60+ inches (= 150+ cm).

I'd got with the 165 cm figure.

 

[BrianShaw]

It would be well worth your while to buy a copy of the ISO standard to get the most correct first-hand specificaiton.

https://global.ihs.com/doc_detail.cfm?document_name=ISO 732&item_s_key=00042365

 

[BrianShaw]

... or look at this "preview", which includes the 220 dimensions on page 4. Although this is the legacy version (1991) the latest version was a "review and revalidate" so the dimensions would not have changed.

https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/4980/3872311b772d4336a80de0ec18b072f4/ISO-732-1991.pdf

It validates what Donald wrote - 165cm.

 

[mtjade2007]

The figure of 144 cm probably comes from multiplying 24 frames by 6 cm frame width (on 6x6) -- and fails to take into account the 2-3 mm between frames plus extra film at head and foot to allow for loading tolerance and damage from the tape. I'd got with the 165 cm figure.

That makes perfect sense. The correct length should be 165 cm. Thanks a lot.

 

[mtjade2007]

... or look at this "preview", which includes the 220 dimensions on page 4. Although this is the legacy version (1991) the latest version was a "review and revalidate" so the dimensions would not have changed.

https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/4980/3872311b772d4336a80de0ec18b072f4/ISO-732-1991.pdf

It validates what Donald wrote - 165cm.

That's great. Thanks for going that far to find it for me.