Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,920   Posts: 1,556,524   Online: 1373
      
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33
  1. #1
    EASmithV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,877
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    123

    Why do they call it 135?

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

    "The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera."— Dorothea Lange
    http://www.flickr.com/easmithv/
    RIP Kodachrome

  2. #2
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    770
    Images
    11
    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. #3
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,581
    Images
    60
    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
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Maastricht
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    444
    Images
    5
    It is the name Kodak invented for it:

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

    Google is your best friend in this case :-)
    Reality is whatever stays when you stop believing in it.
    allthingsanalogue.weebly.com
    darkroomninja.blogspot.com

  5. #5
    jorj's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    43
    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.

  6. #6
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    770
    Images
    11
    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. #7
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,581
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by sandermarijn View Post
    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).
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,565
    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. #9
    Pumalite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Here & Now
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,078
    Maybe is a meter of film with 36 frames in it
    " A loving and caring heart is the beginning of all knowledge " ~ Thomas Carlyle ~

  10. #10
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,911
    Quote Originally Posted by jorj View Post
    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.
    Last edited by benjiboy; 12-29-2011 at 05:59 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Ben

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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