Super size 35mm pondering

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by trooper, Apr 2, 2003.

  1. Was there ever an effort to use sprocket-less 35mm film stock to
    expand the exposable area of the film? It seems you could squeeze
    perhaps a 30mm X 45mm frame and devise some simple clip system to
    attach the film ala roll film on the take-up spool with the
    appropriate leader shape/design. I realize that this isn't going to
    happen at the dawn of the digital age but I don't recall reading or
    seeing anything in this regard from the past. I had an 828 many years
    back and that seemed to work nicely but didn't really take advantage
    of the extra area much. Were there any attempts at this?
  2. The original Instamatic 126 also used 35mm width film. I don't recall any serious efforts for "Super 35" by either film or camera makers. 70mm cameras and magazines have been available for years but were never popular either. An image area of perhaps 32x40mm on 35mm stock would be better than working off a 24x30mm area (8x10 format) but not all that much better compared to formats on 120 film. There's a lot of enertia involved with a new format introduction. You're not just talking cameras, but entire new series of lenses, processing and printing equipment, enlargers, slide projectors ~ it gets really expensive. Now with digital on scene, you're right, it ain't gonna happen! Were you really happy with those 8 exposure 828 rolls?
  3. There are/were plenty of 127 cameras that create a 30x45 mm
    image. I have a couple of cute little folders - very pocketable and
    a bit bigger than 35 mm. I doubt anyone could see the point of
    another, smaller width roll film for the same size image.
  4. Craig,

    The camera that sprung to my mind was the long roll cameras such as the Minneapolis make "Camerz". They were/are used by school and other high volume portrait photogs.

    They usually ran a lens that would cover 4x5 and used 70mm film backs.

    A 35mm long roll back was available that took a 55mm long shot.

    They could run sprocketted 35 and unsprocketed often in a 100 foot long film roll.

    I can't find much more than the above though on negative coverage.
  5. Actually...just found this... - check the film magazines section.
  6. 828 Bantam size.
  7. When Super 8mm movie cameras and film came out, I remember reading about a "Super 35mm" with a slender sprocket hole along one edge, and a larger neg area, but it never got off the ground. The commitment to regular 35mm was just too universal, much like the internal combustion piston engine in cars. Now, with digital coming up so fast, the point seems moot.
  8. Camerz is still around, and they still make 46mm cameras:
  9. Both Rollei and Yashica produced 127 film twin lens reflexes that produced 'super-35' square format negs and slides.

    I seem to recall reading somewhere about sprocketless 35mm film and a camera developed to use it but it's an obscure memory and I can't pin it down.
  10. What you're talking about was actually done w/16mm film, it was called 'Super 16mm', many starving filmakers made their movies with 16mm gear, a few tried 'Super 16mm' with the intent of transfering onto 35mm after everything was edited together.

    This was an effort to get around the paying several hundred for each 1000' roll of 35mm movie film which at sound sync ran at 90'a minute giving you around ten minutes of film time, the advantage of using 16mm was that a 400' roll gave you that same ten minutes at a lower cost.

    Ingmar Bergman's cinematographer photographed several of his films in 16mm.

Share This Page