Talk:Film format

Whether to add more info here or in separate articles
The photography formats who have an article by themselves do not need more info here

More obscure formats will probably have all available info on this page...

And yes, 70mm cartridges are available from Kodak

Egil 20:01 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)


 * IMHO a lot of articles should be grouped. A rollfilm article describing all rollfilms formats article will be better, an article about medium format should also discuss about small film sheets and the 828 is a 35mm rollfilm.
 * I vote for 110, 126, 135, rollfilms, film sheets, and miniature formats articles.
 * Please stop inserting 645 this is not a film format. I agree for 6x4.5 not for 645. The Mamyia 645 and the Rollei 645 are misleading you. There is no 66 format but ther is a rollei SL 66 camera that is of course a 6x6.
 * Ericd — Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 27 January 2003 (UTC)
 * I know there is no 645 physical format per se. But nowadays the term "645 format" is used quite universally to mean 120 film in 6 x 4.5 cm. IMHO it is a very useful term, and the reader must find it listed along with the real film formats. I'm not inventing this, you know, http://www.hasselblad.com/ says this about their H System:
 * This modular 645-format camera is a feature-packed camera with rapid auto-focus and advanced metering and exposure control. 
 * So it is a format. BTW, the 645 format cameras get 16 exposures per film, whereas the marking on the roll is for 15. Better contorl of spacing between images.
 * AFAIK there never has been talk of a 66 format, either. --Egil 20:36 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)
 * Well that's confusing it's not good for an encyclopedia. Anyway it's clear that image format is not film format. Why not 645-format camera like 24x36 camera. This should be discussed in the article(s) but I still disgree in introducing 645 in a list of film formats where 6x6 or 6x9 are not listed.
 * Ericd — Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 27 January 2003 (UTC)

Instant films can be a good article ? Ericd — Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 27 January 2003 (UTC)

Table of formats
The list of formats really needs a table. It is nice to have a good overview of formats, including basic info like type and size. Articles for popular formats should be retained, of course. Egil 07:58 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)
 * Interresting sources :
 * http://members.aol.com/Chuck02178/film.htm
 * http://www.nwmangum.com/Kodak/FilmHist.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericd (talk • contribs) 13:50, 28 January 2003 (UTC)
 * I can produce a more complete table of formats this evening - please be patient. -- Egil 15:07 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)
 * I'm working on adding metric size to the table according to my calculations 6x9 cm is in in fact 57x83mm. This lead me to a question did Kodak use metric size rounded in inches or was it the contrary. Halp will be welcome. Ericd — Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 30 January 2003 (UTC)
 * It varies. Except for the 120, that has become "metricized" through the years (it was originaly specified as 2 1/4 inches) (maybe also the 127 was introduced in inches, I am not really sure) I have tried to use the original units of measurement as far as possible. I think that is an important historic information, since the various formats were ment for different type of cameras and cameras that were known by their size as specified in inches, cm and mm as the case would be. I have s suspicion that simply converting the measurements of many of the ancient formats to an exact mm figure without researching what the exact measurement was, could be quite misleading.
 * But one thing that I would think would be highly informative and wortwhile, was to have a separate table comparing the 'surviving' formats, where exact measurements can be verified. For instance in a table that shows each variant as a row (e.g. one row for 120 6x6, one for 6x4.5, one for 135 24x36, for XPan, for APS, for Minox etc), and then show exact measurements for image size in mm, and also in mm2. The area measurent could even have a column showing the relative size as compared to 24 x 36, for instance. Perhaps also a column for aspect ratio. Just a suggestion, if you would have a look at it. -- Egil 07:01 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

"I have s suspicion that simply converting the measurements of many of the ancient formats to an exact mm figure without researching what the exact measurement was, could be quite misleading." I think so too but I have found some stange facts in trying to this : the 6x6 is 56x56 mm it should be 57x57. The 6x9 has an exact ratio of 1,5 in mm but not in inches. For production purposes Kodak may have cut films from rolls whose size was a multiple of 35mm that's why I suspect size in inches to be rounded from a real size that was metric. Sadly it seems that there's no data published on the metric size of the obsolete formats. Ericd — Preceding undated comment added 08:58, 31 January 2003 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can assume too much here. 2 1/4" converts to 57.15 mm, that is correct. But measuring the actual gate of a 6 x 6 camera you'll find that it is is pretty much exactly 56 mm, so 56 x 56 cannot be far off as the nominal image size. The exact definition is presumably found in the ISO standard referred to in 120 film, but alas I do not have ready access to it.
 * My bronica SQ-A manual states that the frame size is 55.6mm x 55.6 mm. ChrisAitken
 * I also do not think that roll film was a multiple of 35. Yes, that was the case of Edison who saw a roll of 70 and decided that cutting it in two would make a convenient size. Presumably roll film is produced from reasonably large sheets that are sliced, and can presumably conveniently sliced in any width.
 * The primary reason there are so many different negative formats in the early days was that prints were made by contact copying. If you wanted large prints, you'd better get a large camera and film. Egil Egil — Preceding undated comment added 09:43, 31 January 2003 (UTC)
 * I think in the absence of metric data we should keep size in inches except for the 120 and maybe formats discontinued recently.
 * Another thing is important if you have seen negatives from old 6x9 folder you will see that +/- 4 mm doesn't mean anything: the edge of the pictures are never straight lines. With an f/6.3 lens the film doesn't really need to be flat so the real format has sense for an modern camera not for an old.
 * The use of contact prints should be explained somewhere in the article : one format = one camera.
 * Ericd 12:28 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)
 * It is, although I used the term contact copying. Perhaps "contact printing" is more commonly used, I don't know. Egil — Preceding undated comment added 13:20, 31 January 2003 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed this one. — Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 31 January 2003 (UTC)

Instant films
Good reference for instant films : http://www.rwhirled.com/landlist/landfilm.htm#R40 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericd (talk • contribs) 02:30, 6 February 2003 (UTC)

Correction re Kodak 129 roll film
The rollfilm format 3"X2" was introduced by Houghton's Limited, an English Company, and was that of their 'Ensignette No.2' camera which came onto the UK market in 1912. Kodak made their 129 film to fit it about a year later but never themselves made a camera of this format. It is believed that Kodak's response to the Houghton product was their 'Vest Pocket Kodak' and the 127 roll film it used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.207.177 (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2003 (UTC)

5x7
Is 5x7 slightly different in size in Europe than in the US? I heard the two were not directly interchangeable but can't recall the details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.204.109.180 (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2004 (UTC)


 * No 5x7 is 5x7. The thing is mainland Europe tends to use metric sizes. 13x18 fits 5x7 cameras but needs a different holder. Like wise 9x12 fits 4x5 cameras when used with the right holder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.200.32 (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that in general it would be very useful for European readers to add a column with metric sizes. In continental Europe we refer to the same formats by their metric measures, such a table would greatly help localization of this page and reference for European readers. Antaldaniel (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Disc film
Disc film format brought out by Kodak in the mid 80's. Cameras were very thin. Other manufactures were involved at an early stage and at launch films for the format were available from 3M and Fuji. Film was cut from sheet film and put onto a central core. The format was designed to get over the unsharpness of the previous formats such as 110 and 126. Each disc film contained 15 images, actual negative size 10mm x 17mm. First kodak films showed graininess, improvements were made to the film and labelled HR (high resolution). During printing there was back printing to state the negative number of the frame printed. The format died out in the mid nineties — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.24.71 (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Missing Formats
I think the list is missing the 50mm and Super 16mm formats.

Link issues
Hi. Is the link to photographic film missing? The first sentence of this article links to film as in movie-film. This article has both movie and still photography film formats, so should it not link to photographic film ? SNx 16:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Girolamo Savonarola 17:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources of information
Regarding the still photography multiple image section- what is the source of this information?

I ask because I found two lists, and, that seem to have some discrepancies between them. (e.g. 103 format has slightly different dimensions). I could have tried to include both in the table, but it makes more sense to figure out which is reliable anyway- assuming that they are independent sources and that one is not just a modified version of the other. Fourohfour 12:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Minox film
Minox film is sold as "9.5mm film", but no one really knows why, since the actual film has always measured from 9.2 to 9.3mm in width (general consensus among Minox user groups is that it was just a convenient marketing number). In fact, 9.5mm wide film will jam Minox cameras. I updated the list to reflect that 9.5mm is the width of the film in name only. I also added that it has been available in 50-exposure rolls in the past. Perhaps this should be in the notes section? 134.117.174.204 (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

110 and 126 Film
I can't see any reason why the table should say that the 126 film format is discontinued since 1995 when it really isn't. The footnote can easily be missed.

Concerning 110 film it seems like the last manufacturer, Kodak, ended producing them recently. I'd change it in the article, but i don't know if an answer from their support agency (though it's published on their site) is enough as a reference?

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=7269&pq-locale=en_US&hidefocus=true —Preceding unsigned comment added by Videokatt (talk • contribs) 21:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The last manufacturer of 126 cartridges was Ferrania. They stopped making them in 2010 and they are no longer available. Shalom S. (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What about the Fukatsu 110 film, both color and black and white? Rolls I have are use by December 2018, though I don't know when they were made, or who made them. Gah4 (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

125 film
The table I added to this page giving the spool lengths is found in various locations around the net, but all seem to derive from the same source. These list 125 as being 3.992" between the flanges; however, I located a camera using this film size, created a film spool to this dimension, and found that it's too long. Not having an original spool to measure, I measured the film path instead, and it came out to pretty close to 3.912, which is as wide as 103 film. Now I'm wondering if that original source had a typo and it was 3.912 all along. I'm going to leave it as is for now (original research and all that), but should I put a footnote that it's possibly inaccurate? Shalom S. (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Unknown frame size
Kodak realized the problem of unknown frame size in designing 126 and later 110. In those, they pre-expose the frame boundaries. Other than those, the camera can generate any image size that fits on the film and doesn't overlap with the appropriate film advance. This does complicate life for printers. Otherwise, as far as "film format" it should only cover what is needed to produce the product as sold. Gah4 (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sort by area size of the sensor (or rather film used).
Which you could sort them by that! As at the moment it is a bit wonky, as they are measuring it by the length of each side using all kinds of different measurements. Plus of course what one side is, is not quite as helpful as the total area. --103.14.140.76 (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What you're looking for can be found at Image sensor format. They also have all common film formats there. --2003:71:4E33:E528:30F1:CC93:C64D:C3F7 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

image sizes
It would be useful to know the width of the film roll in the case of roll film. In addition, it is not clear to me whether "image size" refers to the size of the actual image, or the dimensions x , and if it is, then it's not clear which is which dimension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.13.67 (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Rapid System and Image Format
The table states that there were 12 exposures worth of film in one Rapid canister. While technically true when the camera exposes 36x24mm images, I personally have never seen one that does - which admittedly doesn't mean there were none. On the other hand I have in my possession two cameras (an Agfa Isomat Rapid and an Agfa Iso-Rapid IF) that use more or less the same transport mechanism and both expose 16 frames of 24x24mm. Also, all the Rapid cameras I have come across so far at flea markets or online auction platform expose 24x24mm frames. (Links to the manuals of the cameras I own: https://www.butkus.org/chinon/agfa/agfa_isomat_rapid/agfa_isomat_rapid.htm and https://www.butkus.org/chinon/agfa/agfa_isorapid_i/agfa_isorapid_i.htm - that's the I, not the IF, but close enough.) 2003:F7:BF16:1B00:219:66FF:FE81:471 (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)