Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,285   Posts: 1,535,079   Online: 1134
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11
    IloveTLRs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    999
    Images
    2
    According to here and here, Kodachrome was available in 127. Not straight from the horses mouth, but ...
    Those who know, shoot film

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by IloveTLRs View Post
    According to here and here, Kodachrome was available in 127. Not straight from the horses mouth, but ...
    I think those links may include mis-prints. In the first "VP-127" is the Kodak code for Verichrome Pan. Ektachrome was certainly in 127...my late father had a "Baby Rolleiflex" for a while, but I've no 127 Kodachrome transparencies from his collection in that size, and I know he liked Kodachrome for most of his 35mm work.

  3. #13
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,002
    seems like Kodak did not stop selling 127 size film until sometime in the mid to late 1990's. I remember Ektachrome and even Kodacolor were quite commonly available in 127 size in the 1960's and 1970's and it seems like they were still available for those who went looking well into the 1980's.

  4. #14
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,271
    Images
    60
    I know that it was certainly available in 828, because my father used to shoot it in his Bantam RF.

    I would be surprised if it wasn't available in 127.

    Matt

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Horsham, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    751
    It was available in 828 because it was 35mm wide. From the mid 50s to the mid 80s, there was no Kodachrome wider than 35mm.

  6. #16
    Brac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by IloveTLRs View Post
    According to here and here, Kodachrome was available in 127. Not straight from the horses mouth, but ...
    I think the authors of those quotes were incorrect in their memories. When Kodachrome came out it was available in 35mm cassettes and 828 roll-film, which as someone else has pointed out are both the same width. In the early forties it was available in sheet film for a few years. Later at various times it came out in 126, 110 & last of all, for a few years, in 120. I have never seen it 127, nor seen it listed in an old Kodak catalogue in that size, or ever come across any reliable reference to it being available in that size. Ektachrome was however available in 127 and I still have a couple of rolls in the freezer.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Brac View Post
    I think the authors of those quotes were incorrect in their memories. When Kodachrome came out it was available in 35mm cassettes and 828 roll-film, which as someone else has pointed out are both the same width. In the early forties it was available in sheet film for a few years. Later at various times it came out in 126, 110 & last of all, for a few years, in 120. I have never seen it 127, nor seen it listed in an old Kodak catalogue in that size, or ever come across any reliable reference to it being available in that size. Ektachrome was however available in 127 and I still have a couple of rolls in the freezer.
    I think this is confirmed by the point that (after sheet film had been phased out in favour of Ektachrome), the remaining films were of a width that could be processed in one size of continuous machine...i.e. 126 and 828 are 35mm wide, and 110 is 16mm, as in 16mm or double-8 cine.

    120 seemed to be a bit of an afterthought in later years perhaps to try to capture or re-capture some of the professional market, maybe when a lot had swapped to the later entrance of Fuji?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin