 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / December 2003Why did 70mm fail?
I would like to know why 70mm failed (I have a follow up question a few lines down.) Why did it fail? The only thing I miss from 35mm was the easy loading cartridges. It looks like 70mm was slightly larger with the benefit of those cartridges. So why did it fail? Since I suspect the answer might lie somewhere with the number of cameras using a film creating a profitable market for film manufacture, I would like to know as a follow up question this. What amount of film sales is accounted for by legacy (no longer in production) cameras? Could it be that a critical mass of 70mm users was never reached?! --- Scotty Official "newjack" of the MF usenet newsgroup. > I would like to know why 70mm failed (I have a follow up question a > few lines down.) Failed? It's still being made and sold. > Why did it fail? The only thing I miss from 35mm was the easy loading > cartridges. It looks like 70mm was slightly larger with the benefit > of those cartridges. So why did it fail? Well easy loading isn't that much of an issue to begin with IMHO. If your MF camera uses swapable backs with a helper to do the loading then it's even less of an issue. OTOH 1 roll of 70mm is something like 50+ frames depending on format. That sort of rules out some users. Then you had those 70mm backs that used 100feet of film. > Since I suspect the answer might lie somewhere with the number of > cameras using a film creating a profitable market for film Didn't all the pro MF cameras have backs to use 70mm film? Plus some LF format backs that use it. Plus aerial cameras. > manufacture, I would like to know as a follow up question this. What > amount of film sales is accounted for by legacy (no longer in > production) cameras? Could it be that a critical mass of 70mm users > was never reached?! I'd think the real reason was the number of people that benefited from the long roll wasn't enough to justify the often high cost for 70mm backs. Nick I say bring it back with APS encoding. Now that's something that'll beat digital! > I would like to know why 70mm failed (I have a follow up question a > few lines down.) > [...] IMHO it failed because of the highly limited applications. Aerial photographers were spared the grief of frequent reloading and possibly some rare remoted automatic recon work benefitted, but for the rest of us, there were no compelling benefits. The film was very expensive to process, bulky as heck to handle, and finally the shorter rolls suited the variety of things photographed - enough frames to shoot then change to another kind of film. 220 film was/is handy and just about long enough a lot of long-roll stuff, and even it is becoming rare and the last time I checked, 220 was more than twice as expensive as 120. > > I would like to know why 70mm failed (I have a follow up question a > > few lines down.) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > long-roll stuff, and even it is becoming rare and the last time I checked, > 220 was more than twice as expensive as 120. And if you shot 70mm slides and wanted to mount them in standard 6x6 or 645 cm slide mounts so you could project them in 6x6 projectors then you have to cut 2 rows of sprocket holes off or they were 2 big to fit in the mounts. Gepe 67 slide mounts do hold 70mm film with the sprocket holes as well as 120/220 but these mounts do not fit 6x6 tray fed projectors.  SignatureTo reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. >I would like to know why 70mm failed (I have a follow up question a >few lines down.) Kodak sells more 70mm by sq ft then any other still flim combined. Which is 6% of total film production. The make up is about this per year. Motion picture film 85% 700 million ft Still 10% with 6% 70mm Medical Xrays 3% Industrial Glass Plates and so on 2% Larry That statistic should answer the question about blass plates still being made and sold. Regards, Marv >>I would like to know why 70mm failed (I have a follow up question a >>few lines down.) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Larry Interesting statistics, Larry, thanks! But who is using so much 70mm film? Military users? Imax theatres and other 70mm projectors? The big users locally are a few wedding types ;-) Are these figures worldwide, or just the USA for kodak? (source?) I am assuming this is square feet of film, not linear feet? If only 4% of kodak's film production is still films for amateur and pro photographer use, including I assume color print, slides, B&W, specialty films, then film is a MUCH more endangered species than I thought! ;-( thanks for sharing this info! regards bobm Signature*********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* > Interesting statistics, Larry, thanks! > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > regards bobm Probably one of the largest customers for 70mm film - NASA for shuttle photography with their Hasselblads and 6008 camera systems. They had us approach Rollei for the Space Station to have them design a special camera using 70mm film. Rollei declined to do so at their own expense, NASA would not share the R&D and Hasselblad was chosen as some Astronauts had actually cut their fingers in space while trying to insert the darkslide on the Rollei 70mm backs. They did not have that problem with the Hasselblad backs. SignatureTo reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. Hi Bob S., thanks for the note re: shuttle and NASA film use and cameras, very interesting, I just read Gene Cernan's Last Man on the Moon last week, and he has a note in there about _both_ of their NASA Hasselblad cameras on Apollo 10 jamming at the same time during some photo event, so it isn't only me ;-) But my amazement continues, since we are talking about 6% of total kodak film production in 70mm filmstocks, and all of the still photography being just 4% !!! WOW! So somebody is using 1.5 times as much 70mm still film as _ALL_ of us amateurs and pros and consumers shooting still film, right? Based on the 85% of motion picture film usage is 700 million (square?) feet, somebody is shooting 50 million (square) feet of 70mm still film, while the entire amateur/pro still film using community only uses 33 million (square) feet of filmstocks, if I interpret these figures right? I could see a lot of secret military or intelligence use of 70mm filmstocks in the past with aerial recon., maybe even 50 million sq. feet worth, but with the switch to satellite digital it wouldn't seem to be such a factor anymore? I can see NASA using a lot of 70mm film, but doubt they are using a lot on the shuttle itself, given millions upon millions of rolls would be needed (maybe ground ops?)? Again, I am just amazed, and wondering what major user group for 70mm film I am missing - and equally amazed at how small a part of film production goes to our amateur and pro still film use (4%) - maybe film is dying ;-)? regards bobm Signature*********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* > Hi Bob S., > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > regards bobm A lot of the film shot by NASA came out of green boxes. SignatureTo reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. >> Hi Bob S., >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >A lot of the film shot by NASA came out of green boxes. Ralph Nader would be pleased! :-) THOM > Based on the 85% of motion picture film usage is 700 million (square?) > feet, somebody is shooting 50 million (square) feet of 70mm still film, > while the entire amateur/pro still film using community only uses 33 > million (square) feet of filmstocks, if I interpret these figures right? Not shooting if I understand the movie process right. The way I understand it 70mm films are shot on something like 60[or slightly more]mm film. The print is then put on 70mm. The difference being the sound track. How many prints are made per movie? Nick thanks, that makes good sense; I had interpreted the motion picture 85% stats to include both 35mm and 70mm motion picture film, both for the original master film and subsequent prints. While 70mm is not as popular or as many projectors as 35mm film, there are still a lot of them out there, and with lots of films released with 70mm prints, it could well add up to 50 million feet of film use as Larry's stat's suggested. I just had a hard time seeing who would use ~50 million sq. ft of 70mm _still_ film, when all of us amateurs and pros are only using 33 million sq ft of still films and only 4% of kodak's production of film, vs 6% for 70mm. Esp. given the military and space uses would seem to be modest given digital sensor satellites etc. regards bobm Signature*********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* > Hi Bob S., > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > regards bobm Even though the Government uses digital for certain applications like imaging from the Hubble telescope, I spoke to a guy from the Goddard space center a while back and he stated that alot of the most important imagery is transfered to C41 negative material for later reference. SignatureLF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank Was that number 6% of total or 6% of the 10% for still photography? > Hi Bob S., > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * > ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* IIRC from Larry's post on Kodak production: 6% of total film production was 70mm 4% of total film " was still film (amateur/pro 35mm 120 etc.) 85% was motion picture film (including print stock) (700 million[sq.]feet) 3% was medical (xray) 2% misc so I was surprised as 70mm was 50% more than all the still film use totals and that still film was only a tiny 4% of all film produced (still 30+ million sq. feet) regards bobm Signature*********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* >IIRC from Larry's post on Kodak production: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >regards bobm Hi - So if Kodak is reading the market correctly - 85% of sales are for motion picture film, including stock - than given the fact that digital from the word go will be increasingly important for the "film" world due to economics (especially for distribution via wide-band: all you need are thick pipes between the theaters, and given the spare bandwidth available, aka dark fiber, this is gonna be cheap) and ease of editing (and this is a truly amazing improvement), then if Kodak **wasn't** getting out of the film production business, Kodak's shareholders could nail Kodak's management for lack of due diligence. John ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I've seen things you newbies wouldn't believe. Attack-morons aflame off the shoulder of rec.arts.sf.written. I watched Cancel posts glitter in the ether near the waikato.ac.nz gateway. All those moments will be lost in time - like beers in the rain. Time to unsubscribe... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi John, Good point ;-) Yes, I am not worried about film completely disappearing, but the potential impact of theatres going digital could be enormous. To date, despite efforts by Spielberg et. al., the costs of upgrading all those theatres remains enormous, and the theatres don't have any incentive to spend megabucks - each - to save the studios megabucks on film prints. But the impact of direct projection on film volumes is going to be BIG! Right now the quality of direct digital recording and of digital projection are both somewhat less than most directors find desirable, and the costs are high. But you are right, when that equation changes shortly film production for motion pictures is going to be in big trouble at Kodak On the other hand, as another poster has noted, the profits are in the consumer imaging non-digital end of the business, both with films and papers and minilabs (well, they are if you don't have a client go bankrupt, like Wolf/Ritz consolidation last year ;-) But all of this is factored into the price of Kodak shares by analysts and the market. That's why they are down ~70% from peaks. But kodak is now trying to reassure film users that Kodak is not dropping film development etc., despite the impressions left by their dorky press release(s). This restatement was most recently seen from their Kodak UK press releases (re: 85 billion images/yr worldwide on film etc.). But the earlier releases from the top brass made it clear to me that they didn't have any long-term commitment to film R&D and regarded it as a sunset cash cow to be milked for profits in the digital realm. At the same time, a number of others have noted that Kodak is only 6th or worse in the Dslr and high end digital photography game, and so likely to be one of the washouts in any industry shakeout in which only the top 2 or 3 players are likely to survive. This is why folks like Icahn and other well known raiders are eyeing Kodak as a possible takeover and breakup target. If that happens, I want to buy some stock in the kodak film spinoff ;-) regards and happy holidays - bobm Signature*********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* >Yes, I am not worried about film completely disappearing, Remember on feature eats up miles and miles of film. About 1 to 2 million feet for production. Then 10,000 foot copies for distribution to 3000 theaters for a total of 30,000,000 ft. Now figure about 30 features a year and you see lots of 35mm film is being used just for motion picture. This is not the first time Kodak has had problems. Kodak never really recovered from the loss of 8mm to video. Kodak stock sold for $85 in 1970. That same stock now is worth about $50 figuring in a stock split sometime in the 80's. So an investment of $85,000 in stock in the early 70's now brings you $50,000 today. Now take Merck. An investment of $85,000 in Merck would be worth 5.5 million today even with the bear market. Larry >Hi Bob S., > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Apollo 10 jamming at the same time during some photo event, so it isn't >only me ;-) when I was in Nam (I was a photographer) the Mamiya C's and Bronica SLR's never let me down while the Hassies were constantly in the shop. Perhaps that's why they left them on the moon? THOM >But my amazement continues, since we are talking about 6% of total kodak >film production in 70mm filmstocks, and all of the still photography being [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >regards bobm > Based on the 85% of motion picture film usage is 700 million (square?) > feet, somebody is shooting 50 million (square) feet of 70mm still film, > while the entire amateur/pro still film using community only uses 33 > million (square) feet of filmstocks, if I interpret these figures right? Wait a minute, assuming 24 exp 35mm rolls are about a third of a square foot (0.38 sq.ft. or so), that amounts to less than 100 million rolls of such film sold a year. Does that match up with other sales stats? good point, I suspect the units should be [square] meters and not feet:? the photo techniques estimate was 177 million cameras in USA shooting 17 billion photos, Jerry O'Neill, APS..., Photo Techniques, March/April 1998, p.49, which would be ~750 million rolls/year if all shot with film or a digital mix?; obviously kodak's share is not 100% of USA market etc. the whole consumer imaging (including digital) is only $3.34 billion+ in USA 1998 10-k, which includes chemistry and papers and all that with film $$ and $3.82 Billion outside the USA. If the unit was not [square] feet but square meters, we would have a billion+ rolls of film from kodak for the world, split ~50:50, would seem to fit the other stats I know better. the worldwide estimate in a recent Kodak UK blurb (on kodak not abandoning film) was 85 billion photos worldwide currently (again, all film makers, and not clear if that includes 20% or so digital photos or??) again, it isn't the total size, but the dollars and the low % breakdown for still film that concerns me, at 4% or so. I have seen that motion picture film was something like 70%+ in other estimates, and medical xray was larger too, but with xrays going digital today, the 3% value is not impossible either. The 70mm film use at 6% may include a lot of military users per some posters too. But as another poster has noted, that 4% may have the highest markups in this cash cow biz. ;-) However, we face a likelihood of digital projection taking over in theatres (if somebody can be found to pay for it?), which would kill off that 70-85% of film used in making thousands of prints for each big movie. IF that happens, it could well be the "death of film", killing off volumes and raising costs on the remaining users substantially? my $.02 estimated ;-) bobm Signature*********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* >> Interesting statistics, Larry, thanks! >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >insert the darkslide on the Rollei 70mm backs. They did not have that >problem with the Hasselblad backs. The Russians had no problems with their 120 roll Kievs in space it seems. THOM Hi Thom OUCH!!! ;-) Now that's rubbing it in! I am not sure what we can conclude about the basic cameras (other than great optics and meeting requirements) from their use, in modified form, on the NASA programs (and Russian efforts) ;-) Still, I am glad I am not the only one having the infrequent glitch or two grins bobm Signature*********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* > >> Interesting statistics, Larry, thanks! > >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > THOM Plus, in a pinch a Kiev makes a very servicable hammer while suffering no loss of image quality! Dual use tools are valuable in space! Sherman http://www.dunnamphoto.com P.S. I actually own, use and even _enjoy_ a Kiev 88cm. >But who is using so much 70mm film? School pictures. Just about every school student is photographed every year. Takes up alot of film. Larry > >But who is using so much 70mm film? > > School pictures. Just about every school student is photographed every year. > Takes up alot of film. my experience in the school pix biz is that they use 46mm, or unperforated 35mm film for the undergrads, and the seniors get the 70mm, many hi volume shooters like the church directory folks, the shopping mall photos used to use 70mm. > Interesting statistics, Larry, thanks! > > But who is using so much 70mm film? Military users? Imax theatres and > other 70mm projectors? The big users locally are a few wedding types ;-) Police? Thinking about all those automated cameras along the roads... -- Lassi I don't know if it was part of the 6%, but aerial photography remains a big consumer of 70mm film. Several military cameras use it, although many are being replaced by digital systems. The motion picture industry also still uses a large amount. > Interesting statistics, Larry, thanks! > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > regards bobm yes, lots of misc. users, but even so, it seems hard, except for 70mm movie prints and film, to come up with 70mm users who outweigh the total of film use by consumers, amateurs and pros in all still photo uses by 50% (6% 70mm vs 4% still films). Most of the military etc. stuff has now gone to satellites and digital, and 6% suggests about 50 million sq. feet of 70mm film, which is a LOT ;-) the other points are that we don't see many 70mm cameras, required if police etc. are shooting a lot of this film. Only a few sources of aerial film, can it really be a big factor against thousands of consumer film sellers? So I can only see the volume in 70mm prints of films, with some extra uses for aerial etc. added in at margins. the key stat is the lack of volume in _ALL_ still films used by consumers and pros alike, making it a much more marginal part of their film business than I thought ;-( regards bobm Signature*********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* Small proportion or not, I'm sure their profit margin on the still photo users outweighs all of the "bulk" film buyers. > yes, lots of misc. users, but even so, it seems hard, except for 70mm > movie prints and film, to come up with 70mm users who outweigh the total [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * > ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* >I don't know if it was part of the 6%, but aerial photography remains a big >consumer of 70mm film. Several military cameras use it, although many are >being replaced by digital systems. The motion picture industry also still >uses a large amount. Mostly unperferated stuff. Australia's RF-111's use 5" and 70mm film and the US "Red Haze" system uses unperforated 70mm. I know because I've processed and printed miles of it. THOM >> Interesting statistics, Larry, thanks! >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> regards bobm >Interesting statistics, Larry, thanks! > >But who is using so much 70mm film? Military users? Imax theatres and >other 70mm projectors? The big users locally are a few wedding types ;-) I the military I used the 70mm Combat Graphic which looked like a huge Contax! I loved it with the 6x9 format. I use 70mm alot when I need to. The Keith back for my RB-67 saves me tons of time on trips and is cheaper per shot than 120/220. I also have the Keith back for 90mm roll film and that saves tons of bulk and weight over 4x5" cut film holders and is cheaper per shot. Many of the 6x6 SLR cameras had backs for the 15' rolls. THOM >Are these figures worldwide, or just the USA for kodak? (source?) I am >assuming this is square feet of film, not linear feet? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >regards bobm > I would like to know why 70mm failed (I have a follow up question a > few lines down.) It didn't. It's still in production, just not in use for "general" still photography. Most of 70mm is used for motion picture productions. "Filmed in 70mm..." Sound familiar? > Why did it fail? The only thing I miss from 35mm was the easy loading > cartridges. It looks like 70mm was slightly larger with the benefit > of those cartridges. So why did it fail? The main reason it fell out of favor for still photography was finding a lab that could process it. Most pro labs that catered to the professional photographer don't have the machines needed to process 33 meters (or more) of film at once. You need a cine processor designed to process motion picture film, since 70mm was really designed for the motion picture industry. (FWIW, so was 35mm. A still camera was designed that could use.) That's why both have spocket holes to enable motion picture cameras to smoothly and accurately advance film through it, while maintaing constant frame registration. Of course, you could process it yourself. Hasselblad even made the SS reels and tanks, and the special reel loader to do it. The other thing was you had to load your own unlike 35mm where you could buy it preloaded at most any photo store. > Since I suspect the answer might lie somewhere with the number of > cameras using a film creating a profitable market for film > manufacture, I would like to know as a follow up question this. What > amount of film sales is accounted for by legacy (no longer in > production) cameras? Could it be that a critical mass of 70mm users > was never reached?! No. It had nothing to do with profitability of the film. It is profitable. The motion picture industry shoots miles of it every year. It had to do with profitability of the still cameras that could use it. Just not enough people were willing to put up with the inconvienences of 70mm to take advantage of its benefits. SignatureStefan Patric NoLife Polymath Group tootek2@yahoo.com > The other thing was you had to load your own No there were 70mm films sold in pre-loaded cassettes. SignatureTo reply no_ HPMarketing Corp. >> The other thing was you had to load your own > > No there were 70mm films sold in pre-loaded cassettes. I never found any suppliers. How long ago was this? And what films? If you can remember... SignatureStefan Patric NoLife Polymath Group tootek2@yahoo.com > "Filmed in 70mm..." Sound familiar? Actually 65mm or about as wide as 120/620 film. The release prints are 70mm. Larry > designed that could use.) That's why both have spocket holes to enable > motion picture cameras to smoothly and accurately advance film through > it, while maintaing constant frame registration. Not all 70mm film comes with holes. > The other thing was you had to load your own unlike 35mm where you could > buy it preloaded at most any photo store. I thought 70mm preloaded was sold. The used canisters I have looked like they started life preloaded with Kodak film. Nick >> designed that could use.) That's why both have spocket holes to >> enable motion picture cameras to smoothly and accurately advance film >> through it, while maintaing constant frame registration. > > Not all 70mm film comes with holes. The film for general still photography did. The cameras that took the unsprocketed film were specialty types, and not used by the average amateur or pro photographer. I think the long roll "school" portrait cameras used the unsprocketed film. Hulcher? Was that the manufacturer? >> The other thing was you had to load your own unlike 35mm where you >> could buy it preloaded at most any photo store. > > I thought 70mm preloaded was sold. The used canisters I have looked > like > they started life preloaded with Kodak film. I was informed that you could buy preloaded 70mm, but I was never able to find a supplier, when I was considering 70mm for some of my jobs. Instead, it was easier just to buy 3 220 film backs and shoot 220, which my local lab could easily process. They couldn't do 70mm. SignatureStefan Patric NoLife Polymath Group tootek2@yahoo.com > The film for general still photography did. The cameras that took the > unsprocketed film were specialty types, and not used by the average > amateur or pro photographer. I think the long roll "school" portrait > cameras used the unsprocketed film. Hulcher? Was that the > manufacturer? I know the graflax 70mm back didn't need sprockets. > I was informed that you could buy preloaded 70mm, but I was never able > to find a supplier, when I was considering 70mm for some of my jobs. > Instead, it was easier just to buy 3 220 film backs and shoot 220, > which my local lab could easily process. They couldn't do 70mm. Some old stuff some times shows up on Ebay. Even with the high prices it sells for it's cheaper then buying a new canister. Nick As we speak, eBay lists several "buys" in fresh 70mm film. Regards, Marv >>The film for general still photography did. The cameras that took the >>unsprocketed film were specialty types, and not used by the average [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Nick While we're on the subject of sprocket-free 70mm film, did they ever make 116 backs for Graflex and MF cameras? I believe I read on an earlier thread that 116 film is making a comeback. Isn't it funny, while the celebration of digital's triumph over film rages on, old film formats like 127 and 116 are making a comeback? > > The film for general still photography did. The cameras that took the > > unsprocketed film were specialty types, and not used by the average [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Nick It's not really funny, it shows that that digital has a "faddish" quality about it. I have a two mp digital, and I went from there to medium. I did it because we are entering a time when digital can compete with 35mm. I think it is more accurate to say that digital is knocking 35mm off it's high horse. What is funny is that when APS came out the 35mm rejected it because it was too small and did not have enough resolution. Yet those same 35mm people are buying expensive digital cameras that accept their old lenses, and pointing them at a chip smaller than the old 110 miniture format, getting less resolution than film, and than bragging that they pay no more for developing as they upgrade every year and wait for microsoft to stop supporting photographic cd-rom. THAT is funny ;-) (want mode off, --- Scotty) >While we're on the subject of sprocket-free 70mm film, did they ever make 116 >backs for Graflex and MF cameras? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> >> Nick Don't know about 116, but I have a couple of backs that take 122 film (5 x 3 1/2 negative) for the "Compact Graflex". Haven't seen 122 film around much recently. Regards, Marv Regards, > While we're on the subject of sprocket-free 70mm film, did they ever make 116 > backs for Graflex and MF cameras? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> >> Nick > While we're on the subject of sprocket-free 70mm film, did they ever make 116 > backs for Graflex and MF cameras? > I believe I read on an earlier thread that 116 film is making a comeback. > Isn't it funny, while the celebration of digital's triumph over film rages on, > old film formats like 127 and 116 are making a comeback? I blame it on the internet. 10+ years ago if you had an old camera that you couldn't find film for it got tossed. Either into a drawer or the trash. Today you ask on the net [web,usenet] and find out that some place you never knew existed sells exacxtly what you need. Nick This is my guess: 1. 70mm is not just one format. If I remember right, there are maybe two or three different 70mm formats according to the way of the perforate. (something like single perforated, double perforarted, etc.). They are not compatible. 2. 70mm only comes in long rolls. There are at least two length: 15-feet and 100-feet. In my opinion, 15 feet ( 72 exps) is too long for single session assignment (say for family portraitures) but too short for multiple session assignment (say for school shorts). Also, for darkroom processing, 15 feet is an awkward length for most setups, unlike 5-feet or 10 feet would be much more freindly. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.