Why do they call it 135?

[EASmithV]

I've never quite understood where the 1 in 135 came from. Can someone clarify? It's always bugged me.

 

[sandermarijn]

One of those questions I've already been afraid to ask. Thanks for sticking your neck out for all of us in the same position.

My guess is that there is nothing to it, that it's just a convention. Of course it would be more satisfying if there were some technical explanation.

 

[MattKing]

It was just the number assigned to the film format by Kodak when they first designated that format by number.

Some of those film format numbers have a slight connection with the size, while others don't (e.g. 120 and 620 - same film, different spool).

Some of those film format numbers were assigned consecutively, while others aren't.

Some film format numbers were used, then went out of production, and then the number was re-used for another format later.

Here is a Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format

 

[Peter de Groot]

It is the name Kodak invented for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film

Google is your best friend in this case

 

[jorj]

My understanding is that it's somewhat arbitrary. In the early 1900s, someone (or someones) decided to standardize the naming of film, and started naming the types of film at 100 (or, perhaps, 101). Since all of the designations started with a "1", the name "135" was born.

Now, that doesn't explain names like "220", which one could readily assume is just "120 is one roll; 220 is two" - or 645, which is 6 x 4.5. Aah, standards; good thing we have a million of 'em.

 

[sandermarijn]

Is there any logic behind this? 135 is a 1 in front of the film's width. 120 is a 1 in front of (?). Hm, probably no logic at all.

 

[MattKing]

Is there any logic behind this? 135 is a 1 in front of the film's width. 120 is a 1 in front of (?). Hm, probably no logic at all.

No consistent logic. Some formats have some though (e.g. 126 is 26mm x 26mm).

 

[railwayman3]

Up to, maybe, the early 1960's there were 36 exp 35mm refills available (presumably mainly for the Leica and Contax reloadable cassettes), with the designations 635 and 935.
Not sure which-was-which without checking, but one was for daylight reloading (with a paper leader) and one for darkroom.

 

[Pumalite]

Maybe is a meter of film with 36 frames in it

 

[benjiboy]

My understanding is that it's somewhat arbitrary. In the early 1900s, someone (or someones) decided to standardize the naming of film, and started naming the types of film at 100 (or, perhaps, 101). Since all of the designations started with a "1", the name "135" was born.

Now, that doesn't explain names like "220", which one could readily assume is just "120 is one roll; 220 is two" - or 645, which is 6 x 4.5. Aah, standards; good thing we have a million of 'em.

My understanding agrees with yours that they started numbering film types with 100, however 645 is 16 on 120 film not a film designation the image size is 6X4.5 centimetres, and 220 is twice 120, or 24 on 120.

 

[Danielle]

3.6cm long = 135mm

I thought that was it. right?


EDIT: Wait, its 24x36 isn't it. So my logic is deniable. Sorry. LOL

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've never quite understood where the 1 in 135 came from. Can someone clarify? It's always bugged me.

according to wikepedia:135 film. The film is 35 mm (1.4 in) wide. Each image is 36×24 mm in the most common "full-frame" format (sometimes called "double-frame" for its relationship to the "single frame" 35 mm movie format).

 

[Steve Smith]

3.6cm long = 135mm

3.6cm = 36mm.


Steve.

 

[BobD]

In 1916, a very small box camera named the No. 00 Cartridge Premo camera was introduced using a No.35 roll film. This was numbered differently as it was not the same as the Eastman Non-Curling film supplied in the other roll film sizes but was apparently made from unperforated 35mm motion-picture film. In 1934 when 35mm film in cartridges were introduced with the Kodak Retina camera, number 135 was assigned to this product. This film size could also be used in the Contax and Leica cameras. Daylight-loading spools of film for these two cameras were also offered, and were numbered 235 and 435. In July 1952, a special length of film for 20 pairs of pictures made with 35mm stereo cameras was introduced and designated as 335.

http://www.nwmangum.com/Kodak/FilmHist.html

 

[BrianShaw]

3.6cm = 36mm.

Maybe where you live it is, but apparently not in Australia. Maybe that's why I ordered a pint of beer in Sidney one day and it was only half full.

EDIT. Oh, sorry Steve. I misread your statement. I thought you were being literal, but then I found out you were being funny.

 

[Danielle]

Humour going wrong I see. Why am I still scratching my head then!

You'd better hope I can calculate - Im also a nurse.

Im just happy calling that format 35mm and 120 being well... '120'. Maybe the format grew 1mm somewhere. *oh wow... the innuendo's*

 

[BrianShaw]

Laughing with you, not at you.

 

[zsas]

http://www.nwmangum.com/Kodak/FilmHist.html

Wonderful read! Ty

 

[John Austin]

Kodak and logic in the same sentence is an oxymoron

 

[michaelbsc]

No consistent logic. Some formats have some though (e.g. 126 is 26mm x 26mm).

+1

 

[Aristophanes]

Perhaps the 1 is not so arbitrary. Maybe it's 1mm thickness?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

No. The thickness is about eight thousandths of an inch. It's just a catalog number, perhaps they needed a 3-digit designation for all the rollfilm sizes.

 

[mrred]

I just think it is the result of some bazaar drinking game. How many unrelated products go by the name Ektar? Maybe they were compelled to accept a list of product names generated by the subjects of the CIA's lsd experiments...... It all makes sense now....

 

[ROL]

I just think it is the result of some bazaar drinking game.

Oh fine. Now just try to make it into the U.S. with that admission of your Middle Eastern inclinations.

 

[lxdude]

^^