Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45

Thread: Actual image sizes - what size images you really get with various sizes of film

  1. #11
    Jac@stafford.net's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Winona, Minnesota
    Posts
    4,079

    Re: Actual image sizes - what size images you really get with various sizes of film

    Quote Originally Posted by xkaes View Post
    Even if sheet film were the size it says it is -- which it isn't -- the final size of the image will vary depending on how much of the film is covered by the edges of the film holder -- which also varies.
    Do you mean manufacturers do not follow ANSII standards?

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    511

    Re: Actual image sizes - what size images you really get with various sizes of film

    Quote Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net View Post
    Would you like that in inches and fractions or a decimal, Sir?
    Inches and fractions is fine. If decimals is easier that will do.

    Still wish Detroit would give us engines like a 350, 409, 289 and the like instead of 2.4, 3.8 and such.
    I tend to procrastinate on stuff. One of these days I'll do something about it.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Sheridan, Colorado
    Posts
    874

    Re: Actual image sizes - what size images you really get with various sizes of film

    Quote Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net View Post
    Do you mean manufacturers do not follow ANSII standards?
    I have no idea what standards manufacturers use, but when I measure my various 4x5" films they are about 1/8" smaller on each dimension -- and the image size is smaller still, of course.

    But, then, my 2x4" lumber isn't even close to that!!! And how about the sizes of bricks? You want to talk about truth in advertising?

  4. #14
    Jac@stafford.net's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Winona, Minnesota
    Posts
    4,079

    Re: Actual image sizes - what size images you really get with various sizes of film

    Quote Originally Posted by xkaes View Post
    I have no idea what standards manufacturers use, but when I measure my various 4x5" films they are about 1/8" smaller on each dimension -- and the image size is smaller still, of course.

    But, then, my 2x4" lumber isn't even close to that!!! And how about the sizes of bricks? You want to talk about truth in advertising?
    Building stock dimensions changed a long time ago. We simply have to accept it, but I sense what you mean.

    I lived on a agricultural research farm built in 1929 where they milled all the wood for their buildings on-site from the forest surrounding. The wood was not close to any standard, instead it was dimensioned to exactly what the contractor demanded. The outcome was stunning, and when it was taken down the timber went for insane $$$.

    We can get back to the film holder dimensions, but in modern times they do follow ASCII standards - except for our outlier friends in ultra-large format.

    EDIT: Not ASCII! ANSI. My error. Thanks to xkaes for pointing it out.
    Last edited by Jac@stafford.net; 10-Oct-2017 at 07:27.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Sheridan, Colorado
    Posts
    874

    Re: Actual image sizes - what size images you really get with various sizes of film

    Quote Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net View Post
    but in modern times they do follow ASCII standards

    You must be referring to, for example, how the film speed of Tri-X DOUBLED in one day. The film hadn't changed, but the way they measured the film speed did.

  6. #16
    Jac@stafford.net's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Winona, Minnesota
    Posts
    4,079

    Re: Actual image sizes - what size images you really get with various sizes of film

    Quote Originally Posted by xkaes View Post
    You must be referring to, for example, how the film speed of Tri-X DOUBLED in one day. The film hadn't changed, but the way they measured the film speed did.
    No. I wrote about film holder sizes.

    So tell us how "the fim speed of Tri-X DOUBLED in one day"
    What day?

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Sheridan, Colorado
    Posts
    874

    Re: Actual image sizes - what size images you really get with various sizes of film

    Quote Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net View Post
    No. I wrote about film holder sizes.
    You were writing about ASCII photographic standards. While there are ISO and other standards for film speed (which have changed over time), I am ignorant of any industry standards for film holders.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    SooooCal/LA USA
    Posts
    1,001

    Re: Actual image sizes - what size images you really get with various sizes of film

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie View Post
    Now can you go back and go inches to inches rather than inches to metric? Some of us are metrically challenged.
    EZ... Grab a calculator, and to convert inches (decimal) to mm, multiply inches times 25.4... To convert mm to inches, divide mm by 25.4...

    Steve K

  9. #19
    Jac@stafford.net's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Winona, Minnesota
    Posts
    4,079

    Re: Actual image sizes - what size images you really get with various sizes of film

    Quote Originally Posted by xkaes View Post
    You were writing about ASCII photographic standards. While there are ISO and other standards for film speed (which have changed over time), I am ignorant of any industry standards for film holders.
    ANSI standards for film holders. Sorry for the brain phart. I do not know if it is still being published.
    EDIT: No longer published by ANSI. Government document. Not copyrighted.

    Regarding your statement about Tri-X speed being doubled, it might be true.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed The ASA standard underwent a major revision in 1960 with ASA PH2.5-1960, when the method to determine film speed was refined and previously applied safety factors against under-exposure were abandoned, effectively doubling the nominal speed of many black-and-white negative films. For example, an Ilford HP3 that had been rated at 200 ASA before 1960 was labeled 400 ASA afterwards without any change to the emulsion. Similar changes were applied to the DIN system with DIN 4512:1961-10 and the BS system with BS 1380:1963 in the following years.
    Thanks for your patience

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Sheridan, Colorado
    Posts
    874

    Re: Actual image sizes - what size images you really get with various sizes of film

    When I get through a day without a brain phart -- or two -- I will know I'm in trouble!

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	alzheimers.JPG 
Views:	17 
Size:	26.5 KB 
ID:	170689

Similar Threads

  1. Question about film sizes
    By patois in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 8-Dec-2010, 16:50
  2. Plate sizes to standard sizes
    By Archphoto in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 23-Apr-2009, 14:06
  3. Actual image size on 7x11, 7x17, and other ULF negatives?
    By Steve Goldstein in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 22-Apr-2008, 04:14
  4. Stored Image Sizes
    By eric black in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 15-Nov-2007, 07:16
  5. Image sizes
    By Ray Dunn in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 16-Dec-1999, 18:14

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •