Standard film sizes - Why?

Where do film sizes come from?

Meaning, why do we have 8x10 film, 4x5 film, 5x7, 120mm, 35mm? Or, how did these "standard sizes" become the standards?

While there were once several sizes of cine film, the industry finally settled on 35mm. Oskar Barnack determined the size for 35mm still film negatives when he designed what was to become the first Leica where the size was set equal to two film frames. The camera was initially designed to test new batches of cine film as to speed, contrast etc. Remember this was before accurate light meters were available.

Sheet film sizes are obvious, but roll film sizes or designation, (IIRC) were set at Kodak as the sequencial number of the size developed for production. When you see film numbers such as 116/616 or 120/620, the size starting with 6 designates Kodaks smaller diameter spool versus the standard size spool. 35mm film is actually 135 film, and I see alot of people mistakenly identify 120 as 120mm film.

Rick A said:

Sheet film sizes are obvious

Click to expand...

I must be missing something. Why did everyone decide on 8x10 instead of 8x8, or a Golden Rectangle of 8x13? 4x5 is 1/4 of 8x10, I get that, but 5x7?

And where did 8x10 come from anyway? Back in the day there was whole plate (and half-plate and quarter-plate), which was based on a size standard for the manufacture of glass if I'm not mistaken. How did they get from whole plate (6-1/2" x 8-1/2") to 8x10? Yes, I know, add 1.5" to each dimension, but that's not a very satisfying answer...

I dont know it is related but I watched at tv about A4, A3 sizes and their history and reason. If I am not wrong when you match 2 A4 to A3 , the proportions are the same. When you match more A4 together , they make a 1 square meter paper.

TV guy explained that the obscure size and proportions of paper sizes by this way.

May be when you match two 8x10 film , result is the same proportions .

Reason is geometry , math , proportions , may be.

And the other thing , may be required tooling of machine parts , best optimization to vibration or coating quality , availability of base plastic are among the reasons.

Umut

Framers did it so we would have to buy custom frames for everything lol (not a real answer).


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

ParkerSmithPhoto said:

I must be missing something. Why did everyone decide on 8x10 instead of 8x8, or a Golden Rectangle of 8x13? 4x5 is 1/4 of 8x10, I get that, but 5x7?

Click to expand...

There's a chicken-vs-egg problem here for historical explanation. There was a blizzard of sheet film sizes available during the early part of the 20th century, but most of them went away. Did manufacturers stop making them because people stopped buying them (and if so, why did they)? Or did manufacturers make decisions about rationalizing their product lines for other reasons (and if so, what were they)? Or, more likely, was it a mix of both?

Sounds like a PhD dissertation's worth of historical research to sort this out.

Me, I wish the formats that survived in common use were 3.25x4.25, 6.5x8.5 and 7x11. Instead, we got 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10. But nobody reached into the future to ask me.

Google "film formats" or "film sizes". There's a bunch of stuff out there on the history and chronology of film formats. Even with all that data, it may not answer your question, however. Settling on certain sizes, whether sheet or roll film, was probably arbitrary in large part.

I wish it were all in metric sizes personally...


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Stansards are used everywhere. The film formats, or glass plate film formats were most often 9x12 cm ( easily to see with your eye, an an harmonic relation: 3x 4). The 4x5" is near to hat but the harmonic relation is 4x5. This is, I think the basis, and has still most lenses available. The others are related, but still harmonic. the other formats, like the 120 film is not known to me. The 35 mm film is again harmonic , 2x3.

Jed

StoneNYC said:

I wish it were all in metric sizes personally...


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Commie bastard! (not a real answer).

It could be questioned why we use rectangle and square frames at all. The picture produced by a lens is circular with fall off towards the edges. It is only our obsession with Euclidian geometry that makes us frame images the way we do.

Michael R 1974 said:

The circle is part of Euclidean geometry.

Click to expand...

OK, just the angle bit.

brianmquinn said:

Commie bastard! (not a real answer).

Click to expand...

The metric system was invented by communists? This is new to me LOL

6x7mm is REALLY close to 4x5 inches, John would argue this, but whatever the theoretical exposed area, on both of my 6x7 120 cameras the exposed area is almost perfectly 4x5 ratio.

Michael R 1974 said:

The circle is part of Euclidean geometry.

Click to expand...

Hehe


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format

there seems to have been several things going on
some of the sizes were based on whole plate sizes and some of them were based on manufactured plate sizes ..
the sheet film sizes it seems were linked to dry plate / glass plate sizes
so when manufacturers were making glass plates camera makers began to standardize
on sizes ...
and sheet film, is smaller than paper and plates because there were a zillion plate holders out there still in use
and people who started using sheet film just bought a little metal sheath that slid into the plate holder and converted it
to film ... when plates went by the wayside, there was no point in making new holders &c since everyone ( manufacturers, users &c ) had grown
accustomed to the sheets beeing 1/16th" smaller than plates ...
bigger than 8x10 seems to have standardized in both english and metric, but because there was never a mass-market business for ULF sizes
they were just varied and sort of based on 8x10 and 11x14 ( guessing )
... 7x11, 11x14 ( half ) and 5x7 is around-1/4 a 11x14
... 8x20 ( pano double 8x10 )16x20 ( quad 8x10 )
... 12x20, 20x24 and their metric cousins ...

... too many others to list and guess about seeing



whenever kodak made a "new" box camera that took roll film, they created a new roll film format
so the film was proprietary and users had to buy the film from them ...
probably the current roll film formats are just based on the old sheet film sizes that are similar,
or PAPER sizes used for enlarging on ...
and 6x6 cm, was probably just .. random like everything else seems to be

" 3x7/8 x 5 7/16 looks like a good format, lets make it and see if it sells ... "

StoneNYC said:

I wish it were all in metric sizes personally...


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Metric Schmetric. Phooey.

Tom1956 said:

Metric Schmetric. Phooey.

Click to expand...

US exceptionalism?:munch:

I prefer my measurements to arbitrary and difficult to remember. YMMV

MattKing said:

US exceptionalism?:munch:

Click to expand...

If it weren't for American innovation, the world would still be walking and using outhouses. We use the measurement of the King's foot here, and the rest of the world can adopt OUR system or continued being fouled-up. Forty four year later and I believe all the flags on the moon are American. A lot of crashed un-manned hardware up there from other places.

I must admit that when printing I like to print whole plate size at 8.5" X 6.5".

jnanian said:

... 8x20 ( pano double 8x10 )16x20 ( quad 8x10 )


" 3x7/8 x 5 7/16 looks like a good format, lets make it and see if it sells ... "

Click to expand...

Then how come other pano is 10x20 or 10x30?

Tom1956 said:

Metric Schmetric. Phooey.

Click to expand...

Ummm.... What.... He said (down arrow)

Klainmeister said:

I prefer my measurements to arbitrary and difficult to remember. YMMV

Click to expand...

^^^^yea^^^^ US sizes are just reductions, but that's another thread about base systems, base 10 is just WAY easier for "problem solver" minds where "memorizer minds" thing US is easy because its wrote to them...

I am NOT a memorizer ...


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Sometimes the size of things has an odd reason. The IBM punch card owes its size to the size of the US dollar bill at the time. The card actually predates the computer in this respect having been designed for a mechanical counting machine designed for the 1890 US census. Holders already existed for dollar bills so it was an easy size choice. So I doubt that the choice of 8x10 was a capricious one. The 4x5 format follows logically from the 8x10 format. It may be as simple as 8x10 being the size for glass panes.

Tom1956 said:

If it weren't for American innovation, the world would still be walking and using outhouses.

Click to expand...

We didn't invent the bicycle or the toilet.

Tom1956 said:

If it weren't for American innovation, the world would still be walking and using outhouses. We use the measurement of the King's foot here, and the rest of the world can adopt OUR system or continued being fouled-up. Forty four year later and I believe all the flags on the moon are American. A lot of crashed un-manned hardware up there from other places.

Click to expand...

You tell em Tom.... The metric system is just down right Un-American.