Is 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 considered to be the same as 6x9?

[DLee]

Thanks,

dennis

[Oren Grad]

Usage is not always consistent. However, these days it's common for 2 1/4 x 3 1/4" to be used to refer to cut sheet film in that size or to view cameras designed to accept film holders in that size, while 6x9 cm is most frequently used to refer to 120 roll film exposed in roll film cameras or in view camera roll film holders to produce an image size of approximately 56x84 mm (there are many small variations in exact image area among different cameras and roll holders).

Many cameras - for example, the Horseman press cameras (VH, VH-R and earlier models) - accept both 6x9 cm rollholders and 2 1/4 x 3 1/4" cut sheet film holders.

[Dan Fromm]

Short answer, 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 and 6x9 refer to the same size negative. Usually, except when they don't.

2.25" x 3.25", loosely called 2x3, translates to 57.2 mm x 82.6 mm, rounded to three digits. It is a sheet film size. 6 x 9 cm is a poor metric approximation to 57 x 82.

As far as I know all nominal 6x9 roll holders and roll film cameras take 120 film, which is 60 mm high. Most produce negatives approximately 57 mm x 82 mm. There are exceptions. A few, e.g., Graflex RH-8 and late Graphic 23 holders with pin rollers, shoot 57 x 78. And some European roll film cameras and a few roll holders too shoot 57 x "longer than 82" mm.

120 film seems to be an EKCo invention and so is 2x3. #1 Folding Pocket Kodaks shoot 2x3 on 120 film.

There is a European cut film format 6.5 x 9 cm that is larger than 2x3. It is approximately 2.5" x 3.5". But and however, see http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/6...tual-size.html

We're all a little sloppy, some are sloppier than others. Really sloppy folks say 6.5 x 9 when they mean 6x9 (= 2x3 = 2.25" x 3.25").

As Oren said, usage is inconsistent. There's no legislating usage.

[DLee]

Thanks, very informative. I had forgotten about the 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 film holders and I have run across some 6.5 x 9 finder masks for the Linhof universal finder.

The reason for my question, which I should have stated at the beginning, is for finding a mask for my Universal finder.

I have one of the older Linhof roll film backs; Rollex 6x9, and would like to get a mask to match it on the Technika Universal Sucher. I think I may have found a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 labeled mask that will fit… but I'm wondering if I should hold out for a 6x9 labeled mask that might be a little more accurate?

The whole rangefinder thing is ambiguous… but being closer to 'reality' can't be such a bad thing. I'm just doing testing now with my Linhof Technika III v. 5 and hope to put the roll film back to good use with the rangefinder and viewfinder combo. I haven't processed a roll of film from the back yet so I'm not sure on advance/spacing etc. - but I'm knocking on wood and hoping for the best.

My Rollex 6x9 actually measures 63mm x 87mm or 2 1/2 x 3 3/8(+) inches. So in reality a 6x9 mask would be closer… I'm just wondering if there's actually a difference between the 6x9 and 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 masks for the Universal Finder… I guess this really should have been my question: Is there a difference between these two masks in dimensions?

Dennis

[Oren Grad]

I doubt there's a difference, but I've very far from a Technika expert. Bob Salomon is the one to ask about all things Technika. He works for the US distributor for Linhof and has a wealth of knowledge about Linhof products present and past. He may see this thread, but you could also start a fresh thread - or perhaps the moderators can rename this one - to call attention to your Linhof finder question in the thread title.

[toyotadesigner]

6x9 is the gross size of 120mm film images. Depending on the roll film back you'll get anything between 53mm and 57mm height and 78mm and 87mm width.

6.5x9 is a sheet film format.

For the format mask you are looking for: don't bean count the ratio and size, just use it as an approximation. Even the markings on some ground glasses for Arca Swiss 6x9 are not too precise and differ up to several millimeters in width and height. I used a felt tip pen to draw the correct markings onto my gg screens.

Take into consideration that the image circle of a lens is smaller at large aperture openings, that's why image circle comparisons are always measured with the standard aperture of f=22. That means the the light fall off at f=5.6 can be visible in the corners, while at f=22 you'll get a very even exposure. For this reason it might be a good idea to compose a scene with a bit 'flesh' to the edges if shooting wide open.

[DLee]

Take into consideration that the image circle of a lens is smaller at large aperture openings, that's why image circle comparisons are always measured with the standard aperture of f=22. That means the the light fall off at f=5.6 can be visible in the corners, while at f=22 you'll get a very even exposure. For this reason it might be a good idea to compose a scene with a bit 'flesh' to the edges if shooting wide open.

I've done a lot of Leica shooting so I'm familiar with the 'intuitive' framing… but I hadn't thought of lens coverage.

I'm on a 4x5 Technika III v. 5 so hopefully the 6x9 will have plenty coverage wide open. I will need to remember this for 4x5 though. I guess this will all become clear with some accurate note taking and picture making. Shooting wide open; one or two stops down, has been my intention so I'm very appreciative for this reminder.

What a process this Large Format stuff is. Love it!

Thanks to all.

Dennis

[David Lobato]

I have proof that Kodak once thought they were the same. I have a 6X9 Kodak Medalist which uses 620 film, or 120 film re-spooled onto 620 reels. My camera also came with the Kodak ground glass "Accessory Back" "For Kodak Medalist", along with three Kodak 2 1/4 X 3 1/4 sheet film holders and two German made sheet film holders.

[Dan Fromm]

David, are you sure that Kodak ever called the Medalist a 6x9 camera? The instruction manual (see http://www.butkus.org/chinon/kodak/k...edalist_ii.htm) says that it shoots "a picture as large as 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 inches." The format 6x9 isn't mentioned in the manual.

I've never seen anything from Kodak (Rochester) that mentions 6x9, its all 2x3.

Kodak AG sold the Regent as a 6x9 camera. I have no idea how long the Regent's gate is, but 6 cm high is impossible because it used 620 film. 620 film differs from 120 in having a spool with a thinner axle, slightly smaller flanges and a different recess for the wind key.

Kodak France sold a variety of French-made versions of the US-made Tourist ("negative size 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 inches") as 6x9 cameras.

I don't know whether loose lips still sink ships, but they really confuse people who can't accept the idea that an entity can have two names whose meanings, read literally, are different. 56 mm x 82 mm is smaller than 6 cm x 9 cm but the film formats 2 1/4" x 3 1/4" and 6 cm x 9 cm are identical nearly all the time nearly everywhere.

[smithdoor]

If you where back in 40's it was inches today we use both 2 1/4 = 5.715cm and round off it is 6cm The film stock is 6.096cm or 2.4 inches
This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/126_fil...mat%29#126roll


120 roll film 1901 Present 2¼" × 3¼"
6 cm × 7 cm
2¼" × 2¼"
2¼" × 1⅝" 8
10
12-13
15-16 2.4 inch (60.96 mm) stock, unperforated, paper-backed

Dave