20D: ROLLING INTO SPRING!

Richard Polhill wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 4, 7:21 pm, Richard Polhill
wrote:
As is repeatedly pointed out: 35mm is *not* a format: it is a roll
film width.

And as I asked before, but you avoided:

Please name the format of those cameras that use 35mm film. You say
the format *isn't* "35mm"...

So, what *is* it?


It was once called "small format". They were "miniature cameras" when
they first started to arrive.

Why do you feel a format has to have a name? The newsgroup is 35mm and
for those of you too young to have encountered roll films, 35mm is a
size of sprocketed roll film, equal to half 70mm roll film. It has
nothing whatsoever to do with a format except that the widest the format
can be is about 28mm between the sprockets.

As somebody who seems to require these frame sizes to be named, what
other named formats do you know that are named? If you think "medium"
then try again: 60x70mm? 60x45mm? 60x60mm? 60x90mm? Which is it? There
are half plate and quarter plate in the large format world. APS has
three named formats: APS-H, APS-C and APS-P. The only other named frame
I can think of is "four thirds". Can you think of any more?

The most common photography format turned out to be 24x36mm, but there
is nothing about this newsgroup that relates it to that frame size. I
know that the digerati no longer understand that there is such a thing
as film size, but that is what the "35mm" in the name refers to.

As an OT aside, 35mm originated in cinematography where they use a
format based on 4 sprockets at 22x16mm (named, for your benefit,
"academy format") and variants thereof. There are, of course, other 35mm
cinematography formats but the 4-sprocket system is preferred as they
work on more projectors and cameras with just a change of masking, frame
and lens.

*DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL*
*DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL*
*DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL*
*DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL*
*DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL*
*DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL*
*DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL*
*DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL*
*DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL*

Lionel wrote:

Richard Polhill wrote:

wrote:

On Apr 4, 7:21 pm, Richard Polhill
wrote:

As is repeatedly pointed out: 35mm is *not* a format: it is a roll
film width.


And as I asked before, but you avoided:


Please name the format of those cameras that use 35mm film. You say
the format *isn't* "35mm"...


So, what *is* it?



It was once called "small format". They were "miniature cameras" when
they first started to arrive.

Why do you feel a format has to have a name? The newsgroup is 35mm and
for those of you too young to have encountered roll films, 35mm is a
size of sprocketed roll film, equal to half 70mm roll film. It has
nothing whatsoever to do with a format except that the widest the
format can be is about 28mm between the sprockets.

As somebody who seems to require these frame sizes to be named, what
other named formats do you know that are named? If you think "medium"
then try again: 60x70mm? 60x45mm? 60x60mm? 60x90mm? Which is it? There
are half plate and quarter plate in the large format world. APS has
three named formats: APS-H, APS-C and APS-P. The only other named
frame I can think of is "four thirds". Can you think of any more?

The most common photography format turned out to be 24x36mm, but there
is nothing about this newsgroup that relates it to that frame size. I
know that the digerati no longer understand that there is such a thing
as film size, but that is what the "35mm" in the name refers to.

As an OT aside, 35mm originated in cinematography where they use a
format based on 4 sprockets at 22x16mm (named, for your benefit,
"academy format") and variants thereof. There are, of course, other
35mm cinematography formats but the 4-sprocket system is preferred as
they work on more projectors and cameras with just a change of
masking, frame and lens.


*DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL*
*DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL*
*DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL*
*DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL*
*DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL*
*DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL*
*DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL*
*DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL*
*DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL* *DROOL*

Isn't that intelligent bit of gear.

On Apr 10, 7:00 pm, Richard Polhill
wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 4, 7:21 pm, Richard Polhill
wrote:
As is repeatedly pointed out: 35mm is *not* a format: it is a roll film width.
And as I asked before, but you avoided:
Please name the format of those cameras that use 35mm film. You say
the format *isn't* "35mm"...
So, what *is* it?

It was once called "small format". They were "miniature cameras" when they
first started to arrive.

Why do you feel a format has to have a name?
Well, for a start, *you* used format names many many times in this
post alone. Take away those names and it would be a little
confusing. And aren't *you* trying to restrict the posting topics to
a 'sort' of equipment? How the heck else are you going to do it,
unless you use some sort of categorisation (ie a 'format' by any other
name)?

The newsgroup is 35mm and for
those of you too young to have encountered roll films, 35mm is a size of
sprocketed roll film, equal to half 70mm roll film. It has nothing whatsoever
to do with a format except that the widest the format can be is about 28mm
between the sprockets.

It has *everything* to do with a format, as it is *commonly used* to
denote all cameras that use 35mm size film/sensors. An eminently
sensible use, except to you obviously.

As somebody who seems to require these frame sizes to be named, what other
named formats do you know that are named? If you think "medium" then try
again: 60x70mm? 60x45mm? 60x60mm? 60x90mm? Which is it?
Yes, just as 35mm film had those little caeras that took half-size
images. Thanks for reinforcing my point - "Medium Format" has become
the commonly used name for cameras that use those sizes. Just as
"35mm" has come to be the name for the 'smaller' cameras. Yes, very
sensible, I agree.

(By the way, do you really refer to them by those names - we use 6x7,
6x6, etc, or maybe 120, 220, etc in these here parts - yes, I use
film..)

There are half plate
and quarter plate in the large format world. APS has three named formats:
APS-H, APS-C and APS-P. The only other named frame I can think of is "four
thirds". Can you think of any more?

So we have Large Format, Medium Format, 35mm, APS, 4/3, ... yes, all
reasonably sensibly named *formats*. There are others, but what's
your point - you seem to be repeating MINE.

The most common photography format turned out to be 24x36mm, but there is
nothing about this newsgroup that relates it to that frame size. I know that
the digerati no longer understand that there is such a thing as film size, but
that is what the "35mm" in the name refers to.

So you say that 35mm doesn't relate to 36x24mm film frames, but that's
why it means film...??? Uhuh.

That insulting, generalised "digerati" comment is EXACTLY the problem
here. Listen to yourself.

I, as do most film users I suspect (note I don't use insulting terms
to refer to them, you *hypocrite*), understand that 35mm is a film
size, and is also used to denote a format of camera - a format which
has no other name, as you admit yourself...

As an OT aside, 35mm originated in cinematography where they use a format
based on 4 sprockets at 22x16mm (named, for your benefit, "academy format")
and variants thereof. There are, of course, other 35mm cinematography formats
but the 4-sprocket system is preferred as they work on more projectors and
cameras with just a change of masking, frame and lens.

And when it came into use as a still film, it was denoted as "135" -
you missed that bit somewhere... Is this fgroup about film cameras,
not still, then?

So thanks for the lengthy, largely unnecessary reply.

So in essence, you say that 35mm cameras are more correctly called
'small format' or 'miniature'. Anyone here - you included, heard that
terminology recently? *Ever*?

My point remains. 35mm is a film size, yes, whoopee. It is also the
universally accepted name of the *FORMAT*. Just because something is
referred to as a 35mm camera, does not, I repeat NOT, mean the camera
must take film. It's a simple matter of common usage. So that
particular argument holds zero H2O.

And a final quote, from no less than Leica..

"With just a few simple procedures you can switch over to genuine
Leica quality digital photography: the LEICA DIGITAL MODULE R is
easily fitted in place of the standard camera back..... quality levels
commonly seen only in large-format digital studio photography
attainable for the first time with a 35 mm-based system"


Seems even *they* think it is a "format"... (O;

wrote:

Why do you feel a format has to have a name?

Well, for a start, *you* used format names many many times in this
post alone. Take away those names and it would be a little
confusing. And aren't *you* trying to restrict the posting topics to
a 'sort' of equipment? How the heck else are you going to do it,
unless you use some sort of categorisation (ie a 'format' by any other
name)?

Who cares? I mean, really, there are plenty of digital equipment groups to
discuss dSLRs and their associated bits n bobs. Why not leave this group to
those who want to discuss 35mm film equipment as its name suggests?

It has *everything* to do with a format, as it is *commonly used* to
denote all cameras that use 35mm size film/sensors. An eminently
sensible use, except to you obviously.

It depends on what one means by "format", come to think of it. I'm not getting
into and argument about that.

Yes, just as 35mm film had those little caeras that took half-size
images. Thanks for reinforcing my point - "Medium Format" has become
the commonly used name for cameras that use those sizes. Just as
"35mm" has come to be the name for the 'smaller' cameras. Yes, very
sensible, I agree.

Yes, half-frame cameras took 35mm film and so were 35mm cameras. Different
format though. DSLRs do not take 35mm film and so are not 35mm cameras.
They're digital cameras.


(By the way, do you really refer to them by those names - we use 6x7,
6x6, etc, or maybe 120, 220, etc in these here parts - yes, I use
film..)

Ah no, not really. I'd say "medium format" generally or 6x7, 6x4.5 etc. for
specific frame sizes.

So we have Large Format, Medium Format, 35mm, APS, 4/3, ... yes, all
reasonably sensibly named *formats*. There are others, but what's
your point - you seem to be repeating MINE.

Why are the digital SLR users so very vocal in their insistence that their
cameras are 35mm? What is so bloody great about 35mm that they have to argue
that it applies to their cameras when the only similarity is the size and
weight of the machinery?

Why here and not rec.photo.equipment.aps? More importantly, why not
rec.photo.digital.*?

There you could go and blather about RAW vs JPG and Photoshop CS2 techniques,
memory cards and white balance until blue in the face (use an 81B filter).

The problem is where does one otherwise go to discuss 35mm film cameras?
Perhaps we need new groups, but then as new groups were created for digital
users why don't they go and use them?

rec.photo.film+labs is a bit bogged down with various emulsions and getting
them processed. Now rec.photo.equipment.35mm is bogged down with digital-only
related subjects and people showcasing their digital work (it's an equipment
group, guys, what's wrong with rec.photo.technique?)

The most common photography format turned out to be 24x36mm, but there is
nothing about this newsgroup that relates it to that frame size. I know that
the digerati no longer understand that there is such a thing as film size, but
that is what the "35mm" in the name refers to.

So you say that 35mm doesn't relate to 36x24mm film frames, but that's
why it means film...??? Uhuh.

No, 35mm is a GAUGE of FILM, so can only be relevant for cameras that use 35mm
film.

That insulting, generalised "digerati" comment is EXACTLY the problem
here. Listen to yourself.

Is "digerati" insulting? I had know knowledge of that. What's insulting about
"digerati" then? I used it as shorthand for "those who eschew analogue
recording media in favour of digital".

Perhaps I wanted to find a better way of saying "no longer understand". Gauges
of film are out of scope for digital users; it has no meaning.


I, as do most film users I suspect (note I don't use insulting terms
to refer to them, you *hypocrite*), understand that 35mm is a film
size, and is also used to denote a format of camera - a format which
has no other name, as you admit yourself...

Filmati? ;-)


And when it came into use as a still film, it was denoted as "135" -
you missed that bit somewhere... Is this fgroup about film cameras,
not still, then?

No it wasn't. 135 is one type (the most common) of packaging for 35mm film
whereby it is enclosed in a metal or plastic cartridge. You can get 35mm
cameras that do not use 135 cartridges, such as old Contaxes.

So thanks for the lengthy, largely unnecessary reply.

So in essence, you say that 35mm cameras are more correctly called
'small format' or 'miniature'. Anyone here - you included, heard that
terminology recently? *Ever*?

No not really. I only answered your question.

My point remains. 35mm is a film size, yes, whoopee. It is also the
universally accepted name of the *FORMAT*. Just because something is
referred to as a 35mm camera, does not, I repeat NOT, mean the camera
must take film. It's a simple matter of common usage. So that
particular argument holds zero H2O.

The question still remains, what is wrong with the digital newsgroups? Why
clog up this 35mm equipment newsgroup?


And a final quote, from no less than Leica..

*quake*

"With just a few simple procedures you can switch over to genuine
Leica quality digital photography: the LEICA DIGITAL MODULE R is
easily fitted in place of the standard camera back..... quality levels
commonly seen only in large-format digital studio photography
attainable for the first time with a 35 mm-based system"


Seems even *they* think it is a "format"... (O;

That camera is a 35mm film camera. With a bolt-on digital back.


Yeah yeah, I'm bored with this now: OK you're right. Happy?

Now wipe your chin.

William Graham wrote:
"Tony Polson" wrote in message
news
Richard Polhill wrote:


Mr.T wrote:


And as I said, FF DSLR's also have 35mm sensors anyway.

Perhaps you'd better go away and find out what "35mm" *means* before you
comment.


It's hopeless, Richard.

You would think these people had never had the benefit of any formal
education at all.


One of my problems with all this is the fact that I have to
read/answer/dismiss over 100 emails a day, which takes up a significant
proportion of my free time. So, I can't afford to join any more news groups.
Fortunately, I still shoot film, so most of my questions/comments are
applicable to this group. However, I do use digital equipment such as
scanners and printers, so occasionally I cross the line with a digital
question or comment. If, for example, I had a question about my film
scanner, It would be a lot of trouble for me to join the digital group, ask
my question, and then have to monitor that group for several days in order
to get my answers before leaving the group....So, I just throw it out to
this group, and hope for the best, even though it is off-topic. The quality
of the personnel here is better than the other groups anyway, so any
question I might have is better given to this group than any other, in my
opinion.....IOW, I trust the answers I might get from here better than some
other group, even if they are specialists on digital equipment.......

In fact the digital photo groups should know nothing about scanners g.
I would stay in the DSLR group only but there's lots of talk in here
relevant to me & most of the threads I start are relevant in here. I
like using old MF lenses on my DSLR. If it's a question about raw
converters, I'll post to the DSLR group. I did have to dump the digital
photo group, the volume is way too high and the quality not that great
for the effort. I also follow plain old alt.photography too which gets a
few interesting discussions & not an overwhelming volume.