sevo
Fokutorendaburando
If so, that must have been an early incarnation on Acetate. The HP5 72 I used had a almost unbreakable Polyester base - thin, but so tough that labs hated it for jamming their cutters. My F3 once or twice jammed with HP5 72 inside, for reasons I never figured out - but the film was not broken...
Sevo
Roger Hicks
Mentor
As far as I am aware, the Ur-Leica (darkroom loading) took 50 exposures and 37-38 was the most you could get into a Leica film cassette (apparently they originally tried for 40), and this was 'rounded down' to 3 dozen as an easy-to-remember number. Three cassettes were sold with each camera.
In the 1930s the standard shorter load was half this, i.e. 18, but this was increased for marketing purposes to 20 just before WW2: the extra cost was trivial, the perceived extra value, much greater. The 12-exposure 'weekender' appeared in the 1960s, which opened the way for extending 20 to 24 in the 70s, though 20 hung on for a long time. I have also seen 24+3 (Agfa) and 36+2 (Foma) but never 8.
I had never heard of Ilford 72-exposure breaking: as Sevo notes, it was coated on polyester base, as were traffic films. SFX started out as (from memory) SP815 and SP816 (speed camera films), one on acetate, one on polyester.
Cheers,
R.
In the 1930s the standard shorter load was half this, i.e. 18, but this was increased for marketing purposes to 20 just before WW2: the extra cost was trivial, the perceived extra value, much greater. The 12-exposure 'weekender' appeared in the 1960s, which opened the way for extending 20 to 24 in the 70s, though 20 hung on for a long time. I have also seen 24+3 (Agfa) and 36+2 (Foma) but never 8.
I had never heard of Ilford 72-exposure breaking: as Sevo notes, it was coated on polyester base, as were traffic films. SFX started out as (from memory) SP815 and SP816 (speed camera films), one on acetate, one on polyester.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Mark Wood
Well-known
That sounds like it could possibly be 828 roll film for the Kodak Bantam cameras. That was sold in 8 exposure lengths, 40 mm wide I think. (Quite an impressive format with Kodachrome too!)
David Hughes
David Hughes
Well, I don't know but remember that it was bought as off-cuts and loaded by hand.
When I did this years ago I'd measure it roughly in the dark and then graduated to a loader with a counter but - here it comes - how about it being a meter or film and a meter and a half of film? Then standardised to 2 and 3 dozen frames. Today the things usually measure about 63 inches for 36 exposures.
Regards, David
PS Of course 63" divided by 1½" (frame length) is 42 - which is worrying. ;-)
When I did this years ago I'd measure it roughly in the dark and then graduated to a loader with a counter but - here it comes - how about it being a meter or film and a meter and a half of film? Then standardised to 2 and 3 dozen frames. Today the things usually measure about 63 inches for 36 exposures.
Regards, David
PS Of course 63" divided by 1½" (frame length) is 42 - which is worrying. ;-)
Mackinaw
Think Different
You're forgetting the two or three millimeter of space between each frame. Over five feet of film, they add up.
Jim B.
Now I know where to look. If I go to my Retina Guide I bet this is the info that I find.
Gary E
Well-known
I recall reading this somewhere too. Remember a "foot" of measurement was decided by the size of the then current King's foot. Sometimes it is as simple as simple can get.
Sparrow
Mentor
I recall reading this somewhere too. Remember a "foot" of measurement was decided by the size of the then current King's foot. Sometimes it is as simple as simple can get.
Now I got from somewhere that the “foot” was used in Roman military manuals, but I would have thought we, humans, would have measured in feet from the day we started counting to two.
I always assumed the change to 12, 24 and 36 was so they all divided by both 4 and 6, so they could be cut to fit whichever neg carrier you had
Dralowid
Michael
...and Zeiss marketed their own rolls of film/refills for the Contax I. 40 exposures (I think). There is a red do on the counter and if the camera were to hand I could confirm
Michael
Michael
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Because people like dozens of stuff.
36 is easy do divide by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18, 36-
and also by 4.5
36 is easy do divide by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18, 36-
and also by 4.5
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
36 exposure rolls are just a little bit too long for my Nikor stainless steel reels, especially since I tend to shoot the first (#0) frame instead of using it as leader. They could make a 33 exposure roll and I wouldn't complain. So a 72 exposure roll would not work for me!
Al Kaplan
Mentor
Those "single use" film cameras contain a 24 exposure roll but give you 27 exposures because no film is fogged while loading. The camera contains the roll of film, but not in a cassette. Each time you advance the film you wind more of it into the cassette, and the film is numbered backwards when it's in the cassette, with #1 closest to the spool.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Michael,
That was for a sort of 35mm/220 cross, with paper leader and trailer.
Cheers,
R.
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
You'll have to wait for the next Dan Brown book to learn the real reason.
Sparrow
Mentor
In the dark recess of my memory I find this bit of trivia; a cubit is about 5’6” the height of a man, but don’t quote me or complain if you can’t get two of everything on
Last edited:
Al Kaplan
Mentor
Some companies sold "Daylight Refills", a spool of 35mm film with a black paper "leader" so you could reload an empty cassette without going in a darkroom. The film itself, under the paper, had a pre cut leader.
Kodak marketed 27.5 foot rolls of bulk film consisting of five 5.5 foot lengths of film with a leader on one end, a skinny "tail" on the other to fit into the slot on Leica and other brands of cassette spools. The way the leader and tail were connected by a narrow piece made it easy to tear apart in the dark. The cassettes of the era like Ilford and Agfa were really designed for multiple use, much sturdier than the Kodak snap caps.
Kodak marketed 27.5 foot rolls of bulk film consisting of five 5.5 foot lengths of film with a leader on one end, a skinny "tail" on the other to fit into the slot on Leica and other brands of cassette spools. The way the leader and tail were connected by a narrow piece made it easy to tear apart in the dark. The cassettes of the era like Ilford and Agfa were really designed for multiple use, much sturdier than the Kodak snap caps.
HansDerHase
Established
Maybe David is not so much worried by the fact that he loses 42 - 36 = 6 frames, but by the fact that there is that 42 again...
.. and 6 = 4+2. That is even more worrying.
Ronald M
Mentor
The accountants. 20 became 24 The few 12`s were discontinued.
It is a plot to get you to buy more film and prints. Then came digital !
It is a plot to get you to buy more film and prints. Then came digital !
Ronald M
Mentor
The accountants. 20 became 24 The few 12`s were discontinued.
It is a plot to get you to buy more film and prints. Then came digital !
I resolved the problem 40 years ago by spooling my own. You can also buy 36 and cut off the exposed portion and retape the leader if you want to save 4 frames.
Giving up all my secrets. I also have a stick calibrated in exposures to cut off the right amount. Use it in your darkroom naturally.
It is a plot to get you to buy more film and prints. Then came digital !
I resolved the problem 40 years ago by spooling my own. You can also buy 36 and cut off the exposed portion and retape the leader if you want to save 4 frames.
Giving up all my secrets. I also have a stick calibrated in exposures to cut off the right amount. Use it in your darkroom naturally.
David Hughes
David Hughes
That's probably what it was. I used to buy in bulk and cut of a length of film that was the length of the bench in the darkroom and used to use the length of the bath when improvising... The point was to keep it simple as miles of film in the dark and the wrappings etc were a pita at times.
Regards, David