If, back in the 1920s, you could have been the decider of the 35mm format ...

[David Lyga]

... what would you have chosen?

An ideal aspect ratio for film that is 35mm wide forces me to answer this question on two tiers, one supposing that the two huge sets of 'movie' sprocket holes are to be retained and the other supposing that only one, thin set of sprocket holes would be adequate for still frame 35mm.

Assuming that the double, huge sprocket holes were to be retained, I would have opted for a 24 X 32mm format. This decision is predicated upon the desire for the SAME lenses having been made throughout the 35mm history of still cameras. WHY? Because, then, what is colloquially known as the lens's "sweet spot" would have been employed because, technically, each lens would have been made, at least theoretically, to cover a 36 X 36 format. Using ONLY this central "sweet spot" would have forever obviated the occasional (more so in yesteryear than today) soft edges from intruding into a small part of the image. With this tiny truncation of the image real estate, there would have been virtually NO LOSS in image quality and, to add affirmation to its legitimacy, the 18 X 24 half frame has already confirmed its inherent aspect ratio's validity.

Now, if prudent minds had overreached their existential mindset and opted, instead, for creating a film dedicated to STILL photography by using only ONE run of SMALLER sprocket holes, things might be much different. As good as it is, still 35mm photography has always had medium format quality biting at its butt, despite having the advantage of depth of field over medium format, (due to the need for less focal length). But you might be able to imagine how a 30 X 40mm format might have mitigated this 'ouch'! Using one set of truncated sprocket holes would have allowed this enhanced format to exist, still with the same 35mm wide film strip. Of course, lens manufacturers would have had a yet more challenging time, especially in the pre-computer age, but it still could have been done. Yes, there would be an improvement with image quality, as 1200 square mm is quite a bit larger than the 768 square mm from the 24 X 32 format. However, the "sweet spot" advantage would be missing with the larger format. Still, there would have been at least a little bit less competition from, say, 4.5 X 6. Comments? - David Lyga

 

[ic-racer]

Perhaps 126 could have come first and been the standard.

 

[David Lyga]

Perhaps 126 could have come first and been the standard.
View attachment 256250
View attachment 256251

NO, this suffered from an inherently less stable, less rigid, film plane. And, the need for a cartridge precluded loading as much as one wanted. - David Lyga

 

[Donald Qualls]

The second format you propose, for single perfed film, is virtually the one Kodak used for 828 film (in their Bantam line of cameras, and in a few cameras by other manufacturers). That frame was 28x40, almost the same as half frame 127 but lengthwise on the film instead of crosswise (to allow a more compact camera). Same way full frame 127, 4x6 cm, is almost the same as half frame B2 (120) but reoriented to allow narrower film and a smaller camera.

The reason we got the double perfs we still have is because 35mm still cameras (starting several years before the 1932 Barnack that became the LEItz CAmera) were built to use 35mm movie film -- hence same sprocket hole size and spacing. The cameras were built for the film, not vice versa. The earliest 35mm still cameras looked a lot like miniature movie cameras, with vertical transport (in most cases) and the same 18x24mm frame that was then the standard for movies. Barnack's innovation wasn't in using the 35mm film, it was in using "double frame" to put more image area on the same film movies had been using for three decades by that time (and I don't think his was the first "double frame" 35mm camera, either, it was just the first really compact one that used daylight loading cassettes).

Once Zeiss brought out their Contax to compete with the Leica, and other manufacturers started jumping on the band wagon, the format was sealed. Kodak made their Bantam cameras, paper-backed 35 mm film with a single perf per frame (used to stop advance in most Bantam camera models, allowing users to wind on without looking at the camera) -- but those never exceeded 12 frames per roll (even though you can easily get 16 on the spool, even with backing paper, and a minor advance in film counting could have allowed no-backing film to get 30 frames on a roll without problems). Years later, they did the same thing again with 126, but with a shorter, square frame and drop-in loading. None of those would ever hold a candle to the number of professionals using various cameras built to use 35mm cine-perf film as follow-ons and competitors to the Leica. And the Leica has the frame it does precisely because of that original 18x24, 4-perf frame, and the decision to use two of those together to get better image quality in the same size camera.

 

[MattKing]

I too would have liked to see standardization on a 24mm x 32mm frame.
Same aspect ratio as 110 and micro 4/3 .
And 6x4.5 as you mentioned.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would have preferred square, 24x26, 24x28, 24x30 or 24x32. I often have to waste the edges of the frame for the best composition when I print.

 

[David Lyga]

The second format you propose, for single perfed film, is virtually the one Kodak used for 828 film (in their Bantam line of cameras, and in a few cameras by other manufacturers). That frame was 28x40, almost the same as half frame 127 but lengthwise on the film instead of crosswise (to allow a more compact camera). Same way full frame 127, 4x6 cm, is almost the same as half frame B2 (120) but reoriented to allow narrower film and a smaller camera.

The reason we got the double perfs we still have is because 35mm still cameras (starting several years before the 1932 Barnack that became the LEItz CAmera) were built to use 35mm movie film -- hence same sprocket hole size and spacing. The cameras were built for the film, not vice versa. The earliest 35mm still cameras looked a lot like miniature movie cameras, with vertical transport (in most cases) and the same 18x24mm frame that was then the standard for movies. Barnack's innovation wasn't in using the 35mm film, it was in using "double frame" to put more image area on the same film movies had been using for three decades by that time (and I don't think his was the first "double frame" 35mm camera, either, it was just the first really compact one that used daylight loading cassettes).

Once Zeiss brought out their Contax to compete with the Leica, and other manufacturers started jumping on the band wagon, the format was sealed. Kodak made their Bantam cameras, paper-backed 35 mm film with a single perf per frame (used to stop advance in most Bantam camera models, allowing users to wind on without looking at the camera) -- but those never exceeded 12 frames per roll (even though you can easily get 16 on the spool, even with backing paper, and a minor advance in film counting could have allowed no-backing film to get 30 frames on a roll without problems). Years later, they did the same thing again with 126, but with a shorter, square frame and drop-in loading. None of those would ever hold a candle to the number of professionals using various cameras built to use 35mm cine-perf film as follow-ons and competitors to the Leica. And the Leica has the frame it does precisely because of that original 18x24, 4-perf frame, and the decision to use two of those together to get better image quality in the same size camera.

Yes, your point is highly relevant and the fact that 35mm even by that time was embedded into the manufacturing field seemed to be a dictator of sorts for camera designers, even one as innovative as Oskar Barnack. However, that period STILL allowed an opportunity for this relatively slight format modification to be upheld. We remember how embedded the fine line of Canon FD lenses was and how Canon swiftly and without apology changed their whole mount system! They DID succeed, despite the anger and woes from almost everyone. But they did SUCCEED in the 'new' marketplace. I really think that Leitz could have, as well, but this is easy to say in 2020, one hundred years after the fact. At that time, even Leitz did not know what would come of this 'toy'. - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

I would have preferred square, 24x26, 24x28, 24x30 or 24x32. I often have to waste the edges of the frame for the best composition when I print.

You know something? I really don't know whether you are correct or incorrect. I started at 16 (1966) with a Minolta Autocord Cds and loved it and did not see the square as 'square'. But, photo paper sizes and people's aspect desires intervened. There is much positive to say for the square, but I still do not know whether that positiveness trumps the real world of something different from this square. - David Lyga

 

[ic-racer]

Not sure I follow the ori

NO, this suffered from an inherently less stable, less rigid, film plane. And, the need for a cartridge precluded loading as much as one wanted. - David Lyga

Not sure I follow the original post, then. Don't see how a 35mm Cine lens from the 1920s would really have anything called "Sweet Spot" compared to 35mm film lens that followed. Do you know of resolution tests of those lenses that show this?

 

[AgX]

The reason we got the double perfs we still have is because 35mm still cameras (starting several years before the 1932 Barnack that became the LEItz CAmera) were built to use 35mm movie film -- hence same sprocket hole size and spacing. The cameras were built for the film, not vice versa

But Barnack should have known that perforating was only a minor step in fim manufacture. And already rather small volumes could have been made with any kind of perforaration, at least at same film advance. Added cost woukd have been only for tool-making, tool changing and logistics.

Barnack then seemingly either considered his camera a nich product to be fed with off the shelf film. Or as a prototype, on which later a respective image size- and film-adapting was missed

 

[David Lyga]

Not sure I follow the ori

Not sure I follow the original post, then. Don't see how a 35mm Cine lens from the 1920s would really have anything called "Sweet Spot" compared to 35mm film lens that followed. Do you know of resolution tests of those lenses that show this?

The "sweet spot" is the more central portion of a lens's theoretical coverage area Every lens has one but only on the cheapest ones is it obvious. We have all experienced the deficiency in edge resolution (and vignetting) with badly designed element formulae. - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

But Barnack should have known that perforating was only a minor step in fim manufacture. And already rather small volumes could have been made with any kind of perforaration, at least at same film advance. Added cost woukd have been only for tool-making, tool changing and logistics.

Barnack then seemingly either considered his camera a nich product to be fed with off the shelf film. Or as a prototype, on which later a respective image size- and film-adapting was missed

Precisely!

The window of opportunity was still open in Leica's nascent stage. The whole potential was ahead of them. But, as AgX rightly said, back a century ago, did BARNACK KNOW that the Leica was NOT a niche product? It seems crazy to us NOW, but back then, it really WAS a toy.

There are a confluence of factors here. Yes a genuine opportunity was missed but I am not about to place blame on anyone. Thinking was far different because the potentials were indefinite. How possibly, could 35mm film be anything with any positive reputation, given the inferior emulsions. 35mm film standardization dictated the beginning and 35mm cameras ended up forcing qualitative differences in film manufacture. - David Lyga

 

[guangong]

As for frame format, it’s not just two cinema frames stuck together. The shape of the 35mm format was not randomly selected, but based upon the painters principle of the Golden Mean. There have been other frame shapes such as those introduced by Robot and early Nikon rangefinder cameras. Some APUG members will be able to list more attempts at different frame shapes by other 35mm camera makers. All failed at the market place because not only is the 35mm frame the most pleasing, but also allows some wiggle room for other frame shapes.
Nevertheless, being what were then called 35mm miniature cameras, film quality then did not allow the same flexibility for choosing the desired final frame shape from a more square like format as, say, a Rolleiflex or Super Ikonta B or larger cameras.
As for sprocket holes. As mentioned above, they are needed on both sides to insure film stability at the gate. 16mm movie film can get away with sprockets only on one side because width of film is much smaller. Smaller gauge Minox film needs no sprockets.
We sometimes forget, especially with high end equipment, that we are dealing with precision instruments.

 

[AgX]

As for sprocket holes. As mentioned above, they are needed on both sides to insure film stability at the gate.

Rollfilm has no sprockers either, nor has much wider aerial film (even in cameras without suction back).

Anyway, I do not see how sprocket holes could insure film stability at the gate. What well might be an issue is pulling load spread over two holes. However the dynamic load on cine film is larger than on still film. Remains with still film the pulling force at the end of film.

 

[removed account4]

The shape of the 35mm format was not randomly selected, but based upon the painters principle of the Golden Mean

I think if one does the math they will also realize it is also a boiled down distillation of "the whole plate", unlike 4x5, 8x10 16x20 which was based on what glaziers supplied 35mm frame size has it's roots in the origins of photography, which as we know had something to do with the world of painting ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format

 

[cmacd123]

the stated purpose of the Leica was as a tool to take test shots on sample of Motion picture film. The format was very well established.

if we were Blue sky mining, how about using CS perfs. (AKA Fox Holes) saves about a half a millimeter on each side! (since the rebate is also larger.)

the 35mm still camera system is a _System_ that has developed over the years. if you want a a bigger image - look at 70mm

 

[BradS]

The shape of the 35mm format was .... based upon the painters principle of the Golden Mean.

If it is, it is not at all apparent to me.

Looking at the illustration on the right of Wikipedia page describing the golden rectangle.
The 35mm frame is nominally 36x24 so, a=24 and b=12.
and, (a+b) / a = 36/24 = 3/2 and a/b = 24/12 = 2
3/2 ≠ 2 ≠ 1.6180339887...

Have I misunderstood something?

 

[markjwyatt]

127 square frame (roll film) was the best. We used to call the transparencies "super slides" because they fit into 35mm projectors and were quite amazing.

 

[BradS]

Barnack then seemingly either considered his camera a nich product to be fed with off the shelf film.

I was under the impression that the initial intent Of his invention was to simplify testing if movie film. So it makes sense to want the new device to use the exact film stock that was to be tested and not some specially produced film.

 

[BradS]

I am happy with the existing 24x36 format. I wouldn’t change it...but I’m not sure I would have been insightful enough to choose it. John’s suggestion that it was (somewhat loosely?) based on existing full plate size makes a lotta sense to me.

 

[guangong]

127 square frame (roll film) was the best. We used to call the transparencies "super slides" because they fit into 35mm projectors and were quite amazing.

Creating dynamic composition is very difficult within a square frame, as is a circle.

 

[markjwyatt]

These guys may disagree: https://photography.tutsplus.com/ar...ng-beautiful-square-format-images--photo-6615

I used 6x6 TLRs, and generally saw a rectangular composition, but Hasselblad pushed the square format.

If you ever saw a 35mm slide show where a 127 super-slide was thrown in after a 35mm landscape slide, the effect can be quite dynamic. 127 really fills the screen.

 

[koraks]

24x43mm would have been nice. 16:9 aspect ratio. But nobody was into that back in the 1920s!

 

[Helge]

No sprocket holes and square format.

People often forget what a fiddly PoS the early 35mm cameras where (not just the Barnacks). No cassette and no convenient way to store your film.
Only the Retina really fixed that and made the format and idea mainstream.

It would have been trivial to pull out the film before sprocket punch and sell it.
The square format uses the lens to its fullest and negates any need for turning the camera.

So:
35x35mm and no sprocket holes.

Perfs/sprocket holes are just a stupid pointless waste of space.

You’d need a mechanical counter not based on perorations, but that would also be trivial to implement.
With 1920s mainstream mechanical technology there’d probably be more slack between frames, but you’d still end up with more frames with a bigger image area per foot of film.

 

[AgX]

I was under the impression that the initial intent Of his invention was to simplify testing if movie film. So it makes sense to want the new device to use the exact film stock that was to be tested and not some specially produced film.

But turning a film-test camera into a generic camera is a major step and necessitates contemplating. Of course the Leica as we know it might have have actually been a haphazard project.