Aspect ratio question about film sizes compared to widescreen aspect ratio of 2.35:1

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by mark, Nov 23, 2004.

  1. mark

    mark Member

    Messages:
    5,270
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Is the title specific enough.

    What film size is closest to the wide screen 2.35:1 aspect ratio? It is definately longer than 5x7 and less than 5x12 by just a little bit. 7x17 is just too long. Is 5x12 the closest I'll get?
     
  2. Tom Duffy

    Tom Duffy Member

    Messages:
    963
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Location:
    New Jersey
    how about 6x12 cm in roll film? That way you can shoot in color.
     
  3. mark

    mark Member

    Messages:
    5,270
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    That is 2:1 very close.

    The price of 6x12 backs are totally out of my range. Hell, right now breathing is out of my range.
     
  4. Roger Krueger

    Roger Krueger Member

    Messages:
    148
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, C
    Shooter:
    Med. Format RF
    Hassleblad/Fuji XPan is 2.70
     
  5. jimgalli

    jimgalli Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,571
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Tonopah Neva
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    On my slide rule, 5X12 comes the closest. 7X17 is next. A window mat will get the job done.
     
  6. blansky

    blansky Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,974
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Location:
    Wine country, N. Cal.
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    If it ain't close to the "golden mean" then it's blasphemy.

    Immersing yourself in the devils formats like that will come back to haunt you.

    There are a lot of people in the red states and they just may come and pay your ass a visit. Play it safe and stick with 8x10 and 16x20.


    You've been warned,



    Michael
     
  7. tomishakishi2

    tomishakishi2 Member

    Messages:
    40
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    crop 5x4 to 5 x 2andabit. strangely 5x4 on the cheap would probably be the cheapest route...if you want to retain decent neg area.

    I dont think there is an off the shelf colution apart from 6x12 which you say is too costly...even the rollfilm holders cost a fortune (never figured out why they are nearly 2x cost of 6x9 holders, even when essentially the same construction, just different gears and bigger hole!). Maybe the hole cutting machine is very expensive to run and is controlled by a chap on £250,000 a day and the blades wear out faster?

    Tom

    Tom
     
  8. Eric Jones

    Eric Jones Member

    Messages:
    124
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Sweet! The next film I shoot is going to be in the 8x10 format.
     
  9. ReallyBigCameras

    ReallyBigCameras Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    539
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Well, if it's 2.35:1 you want 5x12 comes closest at 2.40:1. Shen-Hao is now offering a new 5x12 field camera and film holders are available from S&S.

    I personally shoot 6x12cm (nominally 2.00:1, but can be as much as 2.14:1 depending on which back you use). and 4x10 (2.50:1). Since I shoot color, these are both more practical than 5x12 for my needs.

    Kerry
     
  10. ReallyBigCameras

    ReallyBigCameras Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    539
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Not all 6x12 roll film holders cost a fortune. The Chinese DAYI 6x12 roll film back (sold under the Shen-Hao name) is $395 new. I have one that I use on a stripped down Crown Graphic ($175 on eBay). It's no Linhof, nor even a Horseman, but it works. The actual image area is 56 x 117mm (2.09:1).

    There is another, even less expensive Chinese made 6x12 that regularly sells on eBay for less than $250. I have no experience with this back, so can't comment on the quality.

    Kerry