Sheet film 6.5x9 cm actual dimensions

[Deleted member 88956]

If anyone out there could tell me actual dimensions of sheet film 6.5 x 9 cm. Asking for external dimensions, not the exposed area.

I only have sealed boxes and am good 3-4 months before I can even shoot it, yet in the mean time I intend to make holders for SP-445 so I'm ready to process as soon as I shoot first few sheets.

Thanks.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

After much appreciated help from Adox directly, I can post answer to my onw question, in case anybody is looking for same.

Nominal sheet size: 6.5 x 9
Actual sheet size is 6.35 x 8.85

 

[Donald Qualls]

So 1.5mm allowed for two thicknesses of film sheath. that matches my 9x12 experience, and the film dimensions of 4x5 (inch). Film sheaths (originated around 1900) must have been well standardized quite early.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I'm often amazed at quality and accuracy of ancient mathematics and physics, especially given computing power available over last few decades.

Devil is always in the detail not in flashy presentations.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Don't forget, a roomful of people with one abacus each can substitute for a spreadsheet, if you need it badly enough...

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Don't forget, a roomful of people with one abacus each can substitute for a spreadsheet, if you need it badly enough...

 

[grat]

Computers haven't redefined math. They've simply made it faster. Most of the calculations in building and launching the Apollo Saturn V rockets was done with slide-rules. The whole point of the massively complicated, hardwired, and very limited computers on Apollo was to keep the astronauts from needing to be mathematicians and pilots.

Even the Greeks could precisely cut gears using hand tools (see "antikythera mechanism"). The industrial revolution, again, simply made it faster.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Computers haven't redefined math. They've simply made it faster. Most of the calculations in building and launching the Apollo Saturn V rockets was done with slide-rules. The whole point of the massively complicated, hardwired, and very limited computers on Apollo was to keep the astronauts from needing to be mathematicians and pilots.

Even the Greeks could precisely cut gears using hand tools (see "antikythera mechanism"). The industrial revolution, again, simply made it faster.

Was not my point. Having seen some ancient manuscripts with thousands of pages of nothing but calculations, it remains amazing to me the track keeping required to keep it going, and arrive after months or years of poking at it, with results that continue to stand centuries later.

Computers by making recalculations a snap by comparison, it is an entirely different working mentality of proving anything these days. Thousands of mistakes can be made and fixed in a matter of hours.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Uh, odd conversation about mathematics aside, those numbers are directly out of the ISO standard for sheet film sizes.

Careful, though, the standard sizing is not a *single* number, but rather a range of dimensions for L x W. In other words, a nominal dimension with associated acceptable tolerance (*both* are important).

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Uh, odd conversation about mathematics aside, those numbers are directly out of the ISO standard for sheet film sizes.

Careful, though, the standard sizing is not a *single* number, but rather a range of dimensions for L x W. In other words, a nominal dimension with associated acceptable tolerance (*both* are important).

I hope you have seen my earlier post: information is from Adox's production line, not ISO standard, which should match anyways. Sure there are tolerances in ISO listed, but I'm gonna trust Adox how they set up their meat slicer for this sheet. After all they are the only ones making 6.5x9 available out of stock, so I'm not so concerned how Ilford cuts it, when they feel like it is about time to do so.

 

[wiltw]

Don't forget, a roomful of people with one abacus each can substitute for a spreadsheet, if you need it badly enough...

I recall my first business trip to Japan in 1981. It was remarkable to me how, in the land of the inexpensive electronic calculator, that place was SO filled with businesses operating with simple abacus where you paid your bill even in the big city.
The restrooms so often had electronically operated toilets and sinks, but the cashier used an abacus. Remarkable as well was how very quickly the abacus provided the result...it rivaled the 4-function calculator!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Exactly. With a skilled operator, an abacus can beat a mechanical calculator like a Comptometer, and keep up with an electronic four-banger. And as late as the 1970s, when I was learning to use a slide rule because I couldn't afford one of those newfangled microchip things, Japanese schools were still teaching abacus.

 

[wiltw]

We speak of 90 x 120mm dimension of sheet film, but actual measurement of Kodak sheet film is 99mm x 124.3mm, while the image area is 93mm x 120mm when shot in a Lisco film holder.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

We speak of 90 x 120mm dimension of sheet film, but actual measurement of Kodak sheet film is 99mm x 124.3mm, while the image area is 93mm x 120mm when shot in a Lisco film holder.

These measurements are for 4x5" not 9x12 cm.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

You might check your SP-445 holders to see how much play there is in the groove in addition to the dimension of the film, so you can incorporate the same amount of extra space in your 6.5x9 holders. It’s probably about 1.5mm. In my experience from the Nikor tank, which is adjustible, if the slot is too tight, it will be hard to load.

 

[wiltw]

These measurements are for 4x5" not 9x12 cm.

Since you are in the metric part of the world, can you measure and post outside dimensions of 9x12 film, and the image area?

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Since you are in the metric part of the world, can you measure and post outside dimensions of 9x12 film, and the image area?

That I cannot do as I do not have one processed, I'm only getting into metric sizes due to some acquired film in same. But what you showed is 4x5 inch sheet actual dimensions, give or take, but smaller than nominal. 9x12 is 100% less than 9x12 and also around 2-3 mm narrower each side.

 

[Nodda Duma]

I hope you have seen my earlier post: information is from Adox's production line, not ISO standard, which should match anyways. Sure there are tolerances in ISO listed, but I'm gonna trust Adox how they set up their meat slicer for this sheet. After all they are the only ones making 6.5x9 available out of stock, so I'm not so concerned how Ilford cuts it, when they feel like it is about time to do so.

Even Adox will have a tolerance on their nominal dimensions. Things aren’t made by magic...they’re made on real machinery and will have an associated tolerance. With all due respect to Adox, they only provided the nominal dimension that they cut to.

To your original question: 6x9 is defined by the ISO standard, and all the available film out there will land within the dimensions specified therein.

Adox is not the only one making 6.5x9 format stuff. For my “6.5x9” aka 6th plate dry plates, the dimensions are 63mm x 88mm +/- 0.5 mm. You can also check in with Ilford on what size they cut their sheets to.

 

[Nodda Duma]

You might check your SP-445 holders to see how much play there is in the groove in addition to the dimension of the film, so you can incorporate the same amount of extra space in your 6.5x9 holders. It’s probably about 1.5mm. In my experience from the Nikor tank, which is adjustible, if the slot is too tight, it will be hard to load.

SP-445 doesn't have quite that much play. They accommodate about 0.9 mm thick stuff (give or take). For 1.5mm thick substrates, you’d need their dry plate adapter.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Even Adox will have a tolerance on their nominal dimensions. Things aren’t made by magic...they’re made on real machinery and will have an associated tolerance. With all due respect to Adox, they only provided the nominal dimension that they cut to.

To your original question: 6x9 is defined by the ISO standard, and all the available film out there will land within the specified amount.

Adox is not tge inly one making 6.5x9 format stuff. For my “6.5x9” aka 6th plate dry plates, the dimensions are 63mm x 88mm +/- 0.5 mm

What Adox gave me is what they cut film to. I'm not going to argue that, it is pointless. Nominal size is 6.5 x 9, actual is always different, so things fit in a holder or developing tank slots etc.

And when I said Adox is the only one, I was clearly referring to film made available to public, and just so happened Adox is indeed the only one I know of who's currently slitting fresh film to this size.

 

[Nodda Duma]

For you, obviously, Adox is the only one, and if that’s all you shoot then certainly print your adapters to fit their film. But on the finer point of the discussion..and for anyone who may come across this thread in several years’ time looking for dimensional info on 6.5x9 film (or plates), it’s important to consider the bigger picture. That’s the only point I wanted to make.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

SP-445 doesn't have quite that much play. They accommodate about 0.9 mm thick stuff (give or take). For 1.5mm thick substrates, you’d need their dry plate adapter.

Sorry if that wasn't clear. I mean the width of the sheet, not the thickness.