Different Formats for Different Countries -- Variable Density B&W Film

Hi:

Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that
the films were formatted differently in different countries?

When magnetic videotapes were the norm, USA and Canada used NTSC,
France and Russia used SECAM, and the rest of the world used PAL.


Thanks,

Radium

Radium wrote:
Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that
the films were formatted differently in different countries?

AFAIK no.

When magnetic videotapes were the norm, USA and Canada used NTSC,
France and Russia used SECAM, and the rest of the world used PAL.

Actually the videotape systems accomodated the TV systems of the countries.
It wasn't quite so simple, the (former) Soviet Union and the
Warsaw pact countries use SECAM broadcast using PAL type signals. Some
Arab countries used it to, hence the name ME-SECAM on mnay VCRs.

The UK, South Africa and Austrailia use the same system for transmission,
which is different than the other PAL countries.

It still exists in DVDs. While they are YUV encoded digital video, the frame
rates are 24/1001, (NTSC film), 24 (PAL film), 25 (PAL) and 30/1001 (NTSC)
frames per second. This has nothing to do with zones and depending upon
the player, they convert it as needed to match the TV system.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

Radium wrote:

Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that
the films were formatted differently in different countries?

No.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Radium wrote:
Hi:

Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that
the films were formatted differently in different countries?

No, but there is sometimes confusion regarding certain sheet films which
were given in metric sizes. You can still get those oddball sizes from J&C.

Radium spake thus:

Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that
the films were formatted differently in different countries?

When magnetic videotapes were the norm, USA and Canada used NTSC,
France and Russia used SECAM, and the rest of the world used PAL.

Just wanted to apologize for accusing you of being someone else here
(Michael Scarpitti aka "UC"/Uranium Committee). You're clearly not him.


--
Save the Planet
Kill Yourself

- motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)

j wrote:
Radium wrote:
Hi:

Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that
the films were formatted differently in different countries?

No, but there is sometimes confusion regarding certain sheet films which
were given in metric sizes. You can still get those oddball sizes from J&C.

By "metric size", are you referring to the size of the film or are you
referring to the type of measurement used to measure the film?

David Nebenzahl wrote:
Just wanted to apologize for accusing you of being someone else here
(Michael Scarpitti aka "UC"/Uranium Committee). You're clearly not him.

No problem.

David Nebenzahl wrote:
Just wanted to apologize for accusing you of being someone else here
(Michael Scarpitti aka "UC"/Uranium Committee). You're clearly not him.

No problem.

Radium spake thus:

j wrote:

Radium wrote:

Hi:

Is it true that in the days of B&W film and optical track audio, that
the films were formatted differently in different countries?

No, but there is sometimes confusion regarding certain sheet films which
were given in metric sizes. You can still get those oddball sizes from J&C.

By "metric size", are you referring to the size of the film or are you
referring to the type of measurement used to measure the film?

"Metric sizes" are film sizes normally stated in, well, metric measures,
like 6x9 and 9x12 (both in centimeters), as opposed to "inch"-sized
films, like 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, etc. So, counterintuitively, 9x12 film is
smaller than 4x5 film.



--
Save the Planet
Kill Yourself

- motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)

"David Nebenzahl" wrote

"Metric sizes" are film sizes normally stated in, well, metric measures,
like 6x9 and 9x12 (both in centimeters), as opposed to "inch"-sized
films, like 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, etc. So, counterintuitively, 9x12 film is
smaller than 4x5 film.

Except metric film sizes aren't exactly what they say they are. The
frame size of a 120 film tends to be not 6cm wide but about 5.8 cm, with 120
film being about 62mm across. The other variations likwise are a bit smaller
than the nominal size. It allows a bit of masking in the film holder of the
enlarger, but nevertheless is not as precise as metricists might like you to
believe. I could claim that the pinhole camera I'm currently bashing from a
Kodak Brownie 2A is a "6x12" because it works by winding through alternate
frame numbers down the middle of the film (where the 6x6 numbers go) but the
actual image size is 54 x 108mm, being the old Kodak 116 film gate with a
strip of brass soldered each side to provide edge support for the slightly
smaller 120 film. It'll be printed using a 5 x 4 imperial enlarger (DeVere
54) with a black card mask over the neg glasses to minimise Callier flare
from the edges.

Of course 9 x 12 is smaller than 4 x 5! Those of us used to dealing in
metric know that 4 x 5 is 10 x 12.5cm - are at least it should be: if that's
the sheet film size then image size will be smaller because of the little
edge-retains in the film holder.

Someone on a forum - possibly not this one - confused me recently by
saying that "full plate" was 8 x 6 inches and all else was a division of
that. Sounds like the confusion over book binding classifications based on a
broadsheet being 15" x 20" except when it wasn't. I thought "full plate" was
10 x 8 inches, as the original master size for photos and respected to this
day in paper sizes. Am I wrong?

Tony Clarke