SOLVED! - Another mystery b&w film format: 2-3/4" (70 mm)

[syncrasy]

Again, sorting family negatives... I found another format I can't identify. (The dimensions don't match any of the sizes listed in the Wiki film format article.) The roll width is exactly 2-3/4" (70 mm). The image is about 2-1/2" (62 mm) in that dimension. The other image dimension is about 1-3/4" (44 mm). (I believe that's the actual frame width, ie., the image has not been trimmed.) It's a studio portrait circa 1962 or 1963, so likely a professional/commercial film, but I think it predates 220 format (1965-). Any ideas?

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Might be 127 film on the ~44mm dimension ('legal' width is 46mm). ~44x66mm would be a standard image size.

The image is hard to see, but if there are discolored patches along one of the short edges of the negative this may be pack film. That was 4.5x6cm (1 3/4 x 2 1/4) in the smallest size, though.

 

[syncrasy]

The image is hard to see, but if there are discolored patches along one of the short edges of the negative this may be pack film. That was 4.5x6cm in the smallest size, though.

The discolored patches in my image are not part of the negative; they're pieces of tape I use to hold the negative flat on my lightbox.

 

[Don_ih]

Is it possibly 70mm film that's been exposed, using a 70mm back in a RB67 or similar, with a 45mm mask? So, like 6x4.5 but 7x4.5? If it's a sheet, it's a weird one.

 

[reddesert]

70mm and studio portrait says long-roll studio camera to me, using 70mm film. http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Long-roll_camera

 

[Renato Tonelli]

70mm and studio portrait says long-roll studio camera to me, using 70mm film. http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Long-roll_camera

That was pretty common; studios used this format for portraits of students' yearbook pictures etc. When I worked at a professional la, they had a high-speed machine to make roll contacts that would then be cut down by hand.

 

[syncrasy]

Mystery solved! 70mm film. Thanks, everyone.