Talk:135 film

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of photography.

Misc

The 135 film and 35mm film pages should be synchronized better.

Suggestion: Let 135 focus on the cartrdige and still photograpy, 35mm focus on the cine aspect.

We should move what is related to still photography in 35mm film here and link still photography uses to 135 film.

Ericd

"The camera that introduced the format, and also proved that a format this small was suitable for professional photography was the Leica rangefinder camera" Well the original Leica didn't have a rangefinder. Ericd

Your're right. Did you fix it? Egil

DX

When was the DX encoding introduced ? Ericd

First SLR to read DX was a Konica in 1985, so at least it must be 1980s Egil

Who introduced the 135 cartridge? I have read Agfa, and this makes sense since Exakta and Leica were both German. -- Egil 16:02 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

I'll answer this one myself: It was Kodak who introduced itm but the invention was done in Germany.

And please: Do read the entire article before adding new material. There is a facts section firstm, then a "history" section. -- Egil 18:48 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

Alternate frames

Didn't Canon make a crazy camera that shot alternating frames with the film going forward, and filled in the others in reverse? The idea is that short pauses for wind would be less annoying than long pauses for rewind (or load). If I recall correctly, it was a flop because some manufacturers placed different lengths of film in cartridges (or perhaps people using bulk loaders caused the problem).

Don't know how many isolated anecdotes an encyclopedia article should contain...

Are you sure you're not thinking about the fact that some cameras unwind the film fully and then pull it back into the spool (see the article for details)? Fourohfour 16:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I'm responding ten years later, but I remember this thing. IIRC it was a pro model targeted at wedding photographers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.124.2 (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cartridge vs. Cassette

The Photographer's Handbook, A Beginner's Guide To Close-Up Photography, and the manual for my Olympus XA2 all refer to 135 film as being on "cassettes", using "cartridge" to refer specifically to 110, 126, submini, and other fully enclosed formats. Therefore I have Been Bold and changed the article to use this terminology.

Removing ref to demise of APS

I've removed the sentance claiming that APS was discontinued in 2004, on the grounds that it's not supported by anything in the Advanced Photo System article, I have no trouble finding APS film proudly advertised on Fujifilm's and Kodak's web sites (and cameras on the former), and even if true it would belong in the article on APS and not here. Sharkford 03:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised if 2004 was the year that APS advocates admitted the format's lack of success, but yes, it's still available. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 04:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rulers

Regarding the change of photograph containing a ruler, on the grounds that the old one was misleading; yeah, maybe it was, but it missed one important point. In addition to taking up space and being distracting, they're just not that useful.

Why? Becase we can say that (e.g.) "the frame is 36 x 24mm" in the caption. We can mark this on the photograph if necessary, so it isn't necessary to have the ruler there. For a sense of scale, well.... better to have a ballpoint pen. A ruler with inches and the like on it only provides "scale" if you know how big an inch is, and if you do, you don't need the ruler(!)

Fourohfour 18:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

135?

Where does the number 135 come from? --Abdull 16:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is a 1 too much. If it is a mistyping we should remove the 1 and write 35. --134.155.99.41 15:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, 135 is the standard code number given to 35mm film perforated for still photographic (rather than movie) use, and packaged in the familiar canister. Not all 35mm film comes in this form. Fourohfour 18:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1 comes from the list of films that Kodak created. So the first model was 101, then 102, 103 etc Francisco Jose Lopes (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad perforation math

135 film#Characteristics says, "The film itself has the same dimensions (35 mm wide) and perforations (16 per 72 mm) (KS1870) as 35 mm movie print film..."

The math here seems wrong. The KS1870 perforation pitch is 0.1870" (meaning 0.1870" from leading edge to leading edge), and all KS perfs are 0.0780" high (dimension D). So 0.1870*15+0.0780 => 2.8830" (73.2mm). Or if you ignore the fencepost and just take 0.1870*16 => 2.9920" (76.0mm).

Where does 16/72mm come from? Jhawkinson 23:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

still negative is 36 mm, and has 8 perfs. discrepency is the space between the frames no doubt. perhaps the article should just refer to the 8 perf per frame, or perhaps perfs per foot! (64.17122) and that is close to the 8 perfs for each of 8 images per foot.cmacd 17:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks. I've removed 72mm and specified the standard frame fits within 8 perfs. jhawkinson 01:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Bad Math - Missing 1 mm

This article states twice that the film is 35mm wide and the image area is 36mm wide. now, last time i checked, 36mm was 1mm longer than 35mm. so either the film size has changed, the image size has changed, or 135 refers to some other measurement. anyone? Zmbe 21:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image is rotated 90 degrees on the film. So 36mm "image width" is really 36mm of length when you're thinking of 35mm as the width. jhawkinson 03:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the answer, why is called 35mm when in fact the film is 36mm? chrysmun 16:35, 05 Oct 2013 (UTC)

The long axis of the frame is orientated along the film. Seen this way, the frame is 24 mm high while the film is 35 mm high. --Imroy (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

perf-to-perf length, language

Saying "The perforation-to-perforation length" is a bit confusing, since, to me, it implies the length from the left edge of the first perforation to the right edge of the last perforation, i.e. discounting the space between perforations for those outer two boundary perfs. pitch*8 gives you half of the perforation pitch on either side of the frame. (This is a difference of 0.077" or 1.96 => 2 mm.) jhawkinson 16:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. See my attempt to clear this up. Frankly I think I may have made it worse. There is a fencepost error, where the center-to-center dimension of 9 physical perfs is roughly 38 mm. But we count the beginning perf as the zeroth. Let's work together to make this clear. I can scan a neg and add an illustration ?? Caltrop 19:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the duplicated opening sentence (it was exactly the same as the section above). I added a GFDL illustration and changed the frame size para as follows.

The standard image format is 24 × 36 mm. The film advances 8 perforations, or 38 mm for each frame. This allows for a 1 mm left and right border between frames. Each camera model has a different location for the sprocket which advances the film. Therefore each camera model's frame will vary in position relative to the perforations.

Caltrop 21:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think this is an improvement. It's not a question of zero-count versus one-count. Please don't link to external sites when the same information is in Wikipedia. I think that Film perforations does a decent job, but if you think it needs more detail on KS-1870 perfs, please Be Bold (I did just now add a clarification that it applies to still film). I removed the link and moved the KS-1870 stuff into Characteristics, because I don't think the casual reader needs it presented in the lede. I think your illustration is fine, but I do have a question: Shouldn't the 38mm area be from the midpoint between two perfs until the midpoint between two other perfs? That's how it is in MP. But I'm not really a still film standards guy, just MP. I don't seem to have a copy of ISO1007. Anyone? jhawkinson 22:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be too whiny, but it's a bit jarring to go back and forth between metric and english units. Also, while the pulldown (pullacross?) might be specified at 1.4960", it's not as if cameras necessarily manage that to 5 decimals. jhawkinson 00:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the film is sold in 35mm by 100Ft rolls, it is difficult not to mix the units. Photographers have been working with this situation for years. Suggest that metric units be put in brakets after the Inch-foot-Pound values where needed. Just outright conversion would cloud the industry conventionscmacd 13:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Wiki-break time for me on this article. Cheers Caltrop 02:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs work

Infused with much ad inserts + too much on digital. How many manufacturers making film? -maxrspct ping me 11:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Olympus Pen cameras where the smaller frame size allowed a very compact pocket sized camera" this sentence is put after a mention of half frame cameras and directly after 24mm x 24mm format photography however due to the structure of the paragraph it seems misleading and at worst could suggest a 3rd frame format and at best is ambiguous between half frame and 24mm x 24mm photography. Slight restructure or better linking could solve this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.136.40 (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital conversion

Is there some simple way of converting 35mm cameras to take digital images? Drutt (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it is still available, but I saw a digital adaptor unit exhibited at a camera show around 5 or 6 years ago that would fit into most 35mm cameras. It looked rather like a standard 35mm cassette with a projecting 'tongue'. The tongue was the sensor and the cassette part contained the electronics and battery. IIRC, the unit would store a number of images in its memory before they had to be downloaded. I can't find any reference to it now, so I assume it's no longer available. One organisation did produce a website for such a product as an April Fool prank (See here), but I'm not sure that they were aware that someone beat them to the punch. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First system camera

In the photo caption for the Nikon F it is stated that the F was the _first_ system camera. While it might have been the first system camera to achieve a mass market, it was introduced in 1959 at which time Leica had had a system camera in production for more than 20 years. The Zeiss Contax I system was also in production in the 1930s, with production interrupted by WWII and the Soviet capture of the Zeiss works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.12.74 (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://en.leica-camera.com/news/news/1/6378.html
- In 135 film on 2011-05-23 02:56:17, 404 Not Found
- In 135 film on 2011-06-01 14:49:07, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

start of sentence

Sentences should not start with digits (see WP:NUMNOTES), so many of the sentences need to be rewritten. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 08:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Difference from 35 mm format?

Can someone help me understand the difference between 135 film and 35 mm format? The two articles seem to cover roughly the same ground. Rublov (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion is a consensus that 35mm format should be merged into 135 film. Goshawksonlyfly (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding what Rublov asked, my understanding is that these pages are essentially the same.

With that in mind, I propose merging 35 mm format into 135 film. They cover much of the same ground, being two separate articles for the exact same subject. 35 mm format is also not a long enough article to cause issues with length if merged into 135 film. I would recommend merging in this direction because most other article discussing film formats are named after their ISO standard (120 film, 127 film) or product name Advanced Photo System rather than their common name. Goshawksonlyfly (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support unless someone can explain the difference between the two articles. Rublov (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support These are so similar that they are practically identical. Merge. Qono (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.