6x9 actual size

Hi

 

just measured my film mask (gate?) and found that its 88mm on my Bessa RF. I thought it might be actually smaller

than it is, as the 'mask' for my 6x9 scanners film holder is a bit narrower again (by about 5mm)

 

so I wondered what might be common out there in different cameras that are 6x9

My Mamiya Press 23 gives a neg size of 57 x 84 mm.

I believe that my Bessa (late pre -1 model) had 90mm negatives. They were larger than the 23c carrier which is 82mm. My old Rado 120 holder for 9x12 measures 83mm. Seems like my Graphic 23 roll holders are close to that. They definitely work with the 23c carrier. Bessa was the odd one out and needs to be cropped to use the 23c carriers. Need to build a special carrier for it, file standard carrier open or use a 4x5 glass carrier if you want full frame.

Chuck,

There are two different 2.25 X 3.25 negative holders for the 23C. I have one for sheet film which has an opening 50 X 75mm, and the locating pins allow for a film width of 57mm. 120 roll film is 61mm wide, so, if using this holder for roll film it would have to be modified.

 

However, I also have a Beseler negative holder for 2X3 roll film. The opening on this holder is 56 X 81mm to accommodate the image size of "6X9", and the locating pins are separated by 63mm to allow the 61mm width of 120 film.

 

Chris,

I have two folding cameras. The Rolfix image area is 56X84mm. The Wirgin image area is 56X83mm. In both cases the length would be cropped a few millimeters in the 23C holder I have with 81mm length opening.

My old Adox Sport folder measures 87 mm, while my newer Fuji GL690 is 83 mm.

Common size for 6x9 is 56X84 medium format seems to round a lot. 6 usually refers to 56mm instead of 60 It is just an easier designation. It always shows the approximate aspect ratio though. 6x9 is 2:3 or some people refer to it for some silly reason as 1:1.5 but that makes no sense to me. They do it with 35mm as well. 35mm isn't actually 35mm it is really 36x24 but 35mm sounded like a nice rounder number.

 

So your mask is actually fairly generous in the realm of 6x9 film.

35mm refers to the width of the film and not the long side of the 24mm X 36mm format. Earlier this year I had a 6X7 negative carrier made from a 6X6 carrier. I had to measure my 6X7 negatives carefully because each manufacturer has a slightly different image size. If you aren't going to use a glass carrier then you need some room on the edges for the carrier to hold the negative flat. My two 6X7 cameras are both Bronica GS-1s. I'm sure that if I had a Mamiya RB67 or a Pentax 6X7 the image area would be slightly different.

Jack

 

the folder looks rather like my grandmothers, hers is a Beier 6x9 with a funny shutter. I think there may have been some body swapping going on back then.

 

Christopher

 

yes, I do think the film area is rather generous. I'm working out how to make the best of it. I notice that its quite a sharp image maker for its vintage.

 

 

I've been using it as a "dipping my feet" method for considering a roll film back for my 4x5 camera and perhaps even a camera such as a GW / GSW / or other wider format. Previously I've been 'masking' my 4x5 sheets to 2x5 and liking the 'aspect ratio' for some shots.

 

I'd been reading numbers like 82mm and 84mm for some other cameras and wondered if mine was unusually generous.

 

I think its important to consider as I usually loose some of that width from edge issues (like reflections from the edge of the film mask or negative carriers) My 4x5 masked is good to the edge.

 

Thanks for the info!

 

:-)

Just checked a neg from my Voigtlander Bessa 1: image size is 56x89mm over all, but that include unexposed

corners. Excluding those, I'm down to 56x87mm - which is close to 2:3, 1:1.55 to be exact.

 

I've found that my scanner tends to assume a narrower picture. Doesn't matter much though. With eight pics per

film, resizing the crop is not a big hassle.

<p>Nearly every medium format frame-size description makes sense, if you substitute 14mm for every 15mm, i.e. 1.4cm for every 1.5cm.</p>

<p>Thus, nominal 645 = 6cm x 4.5 cm = (4 * 1.5cm) x (3 * 1.5 cm) -> substitute ->  (4 * 1.4cm) x (3 * 1.4 cm) = 5.6cm x 4.2cm = 56mm x 42mm - almost exactly what a "645" camera or back gives you.<br>

6x6 becomes 56mm x 56mm in the same way - nearly all 6x6 cameras have this size (Hassies are a tiny bit smaller at 55x55mm, I believe).<br>

6x8 becomes 56mm x 75mm - the size of the Mamiya RB 6x8 backs is 56 x 76 mm, ditto the Fuji GX680.<br>

6x9 becomes 56mm x 84mm - precisely the size of my Mamiya Press/Universal 6x9 backs, and many others.</p>

<p>The one exception to all this is 6x7 - the 7cm is usually larger than the 65.5mm that the "formula" predicts: 69mm, 69.5mm or 70mm [72mm in Linhofs]. This distinction probably arose because otherwise the 6x7 frame would be too stubby, and not enough of a departure from the 6x6 square to make much aesthetic difference or as much savings on cropping when printing.<br>

 </p>