Why do they call it 135?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras and Accessories' started by EASmithV, Dec 29, 2011.

  1. EASmithV

    EASmithV Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2008
    Location:
    Maryland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I've never quite understood where the 1 in 135 came from. Can someone clarify? It's always bugged me.
     
  2. sandermarijn

    sandermarijn Member

    Messages:
    769
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Location:
    Leiden, Neth
    Shooter:
    35mm
    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.
     
  3. MattKing

    MattKing Subscriber

    Messages:
    17,038
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Delta, BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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
     
  4. Peter de Groot

    Peter de Groot Member

    Messages:
    481
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    Maastricht
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  5. jorj

    jorj Member

    Messages:
    43
    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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. :wink:
     
  6. sandermarijn

    sandermarijn Member

    Messages:
    769
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Location:
    Leiden, Neth
    Shooter:
    35mm
    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.
     
  7. MattKing

    MattKing Subscriber

    Messages:
    17,038
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Delta, BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    No consistent logic. Some formats have some though (e.g. 126 is 26mm x 26mm).
     
  8. railwayman3

    railwayman3 Member

    Messages:
    2,040
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Shooter:
    35mm
    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.
     
  9. Pumalite

    Pumalite Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,078
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    Location:
    Here & Now
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Maybe is a meter of film with 36 frames in it
     
  10. benjiboy

    benjiboy Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,604
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Location:
    U.K.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 29, 2011
  11. Danielle

    Danielle Member

    Messages:
    71
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Location:
    Melbourne, A
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    3.6cm long = 135mm

    I thought that was it. right?


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

    RalphLambrecht Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,252
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Location:
    Florida
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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).
     
  13. Steve Smith

    Steve Smith Member

    Messages:
    9,092
    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Location:
    Ryde, Isle o
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    3.6cm = 36mm.


    Steve.
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. BobD

    BobD Member

    Messages:
    444
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Location:
    California,
    Shooter:
    35mm
    http://www.nwmangum.com/Kodak/FilmHist.html
     
  16. BrianShaw

    BrianShaw Member

    Messages:
    6,710
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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. :laugh:
     
  17. Danielle

    Danielle Member

    Messages:
    71
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Location:
    Melbourne, A
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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*
     
  18. BrianShaw

    BrianShaw Member

    Messages:
    6,710
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Laughing with you, not at you. :smile:
     
  19. zsas

    zsas Member

    Messages:
    1,961
    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
  20. John Austin

    John Austin Member

    Messages:
    521
    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Location:
    Southern For
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Kodak and logic in the same sentence is an oxymoron
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 29, 2011
  21. michaelbsc

    michaelbsc Member

    Messages:
    2,106
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Location:
    South Caroli
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    +1
     
  22. Aristophanes

    Aristophanes Member

    Messages:
    505
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Perhaps the 1 is not so arbitrary. Maybe it's 1mm thickness?
     
  23. E. von Hoegh

    E. von Hoegh Member

    Messages:
    3,925
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Location:
    Adirondacks
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.
     
  24. mrred

    mrred Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,128
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Montreal, Ca
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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....
     
  25. ROL

    ROL Member

    Messages:
    792
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Location:
    California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Oh fine. Now just try to make it into the U.S. with that admission of your Middle Eastern inclinations. :D
     
  26. lxdude

    lxdude Member

    Messages:
    6,942
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Location:
    Redlands, So
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    ^:laugh::laugh:^