Which film format is this?

[carl_neilson]

<p>The main straight after the race, featuring the famous pagoda. The main straight is obviously still all paved with bricks at this time, apart from the edge where the actual pitstops happened...</p><div></div>

[cliffmanley]

<p>Carl you have some very interesting shots there. The one that has car 35 is Mack Hellings that finished 5th. The shot that you said is really getting close looks like car #3 which finished 1st place Mauri Rose.</p>

<p>But the most interesting one is in the fire engine shot. That six wheel car is the only 6 wheel car that ever raced in the Indy 500. here is the dope on it. It fin9ished 12th by Billy DeVore. It is probably a pretty rare photo.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Pat Clancy Special<br />This curious machine appeared at Indy in 1948, sporting no less than six wheels. The four wheels at the back were driven by two axles connected by a universal joint, making the Pat Clancy Special a four-wheel drive car. Powered by a Meyer-Drake engine and driven by Billy DeVore the car was still running at the end and was classified 12th. It remains the only six-wheeled car to complete the Indianapolis 500.</p>

</blockquote>

[cliffmanley]

<p>I just re-read that and it is the only six wheel car to <strong>complete</strong> the 500, so there might have been others. But still a rare shot I bet, of it running.</p>

[carl_neilson]

<p>Thanks a heap for all the info Cliff. I have to admit that I posted these photos immediately after scanning the negs and I still haven't done any research on the cars and drivers that appear. I will though.</p>

<p>That's really interesting about the 6-wheel indycar. I didn't even know it existed until today. I knew about the 6-wheel F1 Tyrell in the 70s with twin front wheels, and a Williams F1 prototype in the early 80s with twin rear wheels that never made it to a race start, but I was really surprised that this Indycar beat the F1 examples by decades.</p>

<p>I have attached a full sized crop of what you thought was the number 3 winning car, but unfortunately it appears that it's actually number 63. Nevertheless I'm keen to play detective in the near future and try and identify as many of the drivers in these photos as I can.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Carl</p><div></div>

[carl_neilson]

<p>Another one of the pics was a shot of the 6-wheeler...</p><div></div>

[carl_neilson]

<p>And here's a 100% crop...</p><div></div>

[cliffmanley]

<p>You know anybody can write something on an envelope, but seeing that car confirms that it was indeed the 1948 Indy 500 race where these little 127 negatives were taken. Really fascinating! Thanks so much Carl for posting them.</p>

[carl_neilson]

<p>You're welcome Cliff. I'm happy to have found someone who shares the interest. I've been doing a lot of casual browsing of historic Indy stuff this afternoon because these scans got me hungry to find out a lot more. Check this out on Youtube...<br /><a href="

/>It's someone's father's old 16mm home movies of this event, in colour even. It has much of the same feel as my photos. I could look at this stuff all day :-)</p>

<p>The six-wheeler still exists, by the way. I found quite a lot of recent photos of it online in car shows or museum displays.</p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>Hey, do you think that in 62 years from now, someone will be able to find a Simms chip or memory stick and print out any pictures from it? In fact the memory cards are so bad you need to re-format them all the time to keep them from getting corrupt. There really is nothing so permanent as film and good old silver prints.</p>

[carl_neilson]

<p>Yes, too true! Barring house fires or other natural disasters the negatives I shoot will long outlive me. Mind you, you still have to look after them well and take good care of them. Some of these '48 Indy strips had been folded at some point, mid frame. The folds are fragile, with some of them even splitting in that spot. That damage can never be undone.</p>

[wblynch]

<p>My parents were born and raised in Indianapolis and attended each 500 race after the war until they left in 1953 for California. My Pop certainly would have been there in 1948.<br>

He told me how the locals would attend qualifying, practices and the race itself in the infield. Evidently, they allowed spectators in for only a couple of dollars per car load. In those days, it was the only way they could afford to go.</p>

<p> </p>

[cj8281]

<p>Some of the 127 cameras could shoot two different formats. I have an old Minolta that has a mask that you can install and then it takes 4x3, with the mask removed 4x6.5. The camera that took the photos that you have are interesting as they are all in the landscape format. All of the TLRs in 127 that I am familiar with shoot 4x4 so to get the landscape format, the camera had to be shot vertically. Cool shots by the way.</p>

[carl_neilson]

<p>Thanks for the new responses.</p>

<p>Bill, little snippets of info like yours are great to read. It fleshes out the "event" rather than just the race itself. Especially when it comes to very old race meetings such as this one all too often it's just the statistics that you hear about. Even documentaries about those years show next to nothing about what it was like to be part of the atmosphere of the event.</p>

<p>Clay, it does seem odd to think of having to shoot "vertically" to get a landscape format on the film, but this camera is not alone in that. I own a '30s Zeiss Super Ikonta which takes 120 film and shoots 6x4.5 frames (all the time - no mask or anything to convert the format), and it is the same - to get a "landscape" shot I have to shoot vertically. In practice it was a very strange experience at first. I wonder if this "Indy" camera was a camera that could shoot both 4x4 and the smaller format shown here via a mask?</p>

[cj8281]

<p>All of the cameras that I have seen that have the mask shoot the smaller size as half the larger size so I don't think that it would be 4x3 and 4x4 but 4x3 and 4x6.5. I have a mask for a 120/620 camera that is to convert a 6x9 to a 6x4.5. Almost all of the cameras that had a mask for changing sizes have 2 red windows for the different sizes, the only exception that I can think of is the Reflecta and it has 3 red windows on the back but I do not have a mask for it or know if it was made with one. I shall have to play around with it and see what can be done with it.</p>

[cliffmanley]

I think the spacing on the three red windows is for square format before the film was marked with a center marking. You use the odd frame numbers in red window 1 and 3 and the even frame numbers in red window 2. This gave you a square format on standard film. The way they are spaced would not work for other formats

[cj8281]

<p>I know if you use the odd numbers in 1 and 3 and the even in 2 then you only get 8 pictures on the roll with 6x6 format.</p>

[cliffmanley]

How do you figure that? Why not 12?

[cliffmanley]

<p>1st red window-----------Frame #1,3,5,7 = 4 shots<br>

3rd red window-----------Frame #1,3,5,7 = + 4 shots<br>

2nd red window-----------Frame #2,4,6,8= + 4 shots<br>

Total = 12 shots per roll<br>

At least that's how we do math where I went to school.</p>

[cj8281]

<p>When I first got this camera I had never seen a numbering system like it. When I shot its only roll it appeared to me that the frames would over lap if I followed the scheme as it was laid out on the back. So when I shot it I had the number one in the lower window and then I advanced it to number 2 and centered it in the center window, I went through the whole roll like this and I ended up with 8 frames. When I pulled the film out, I found that the film holder was way off and it shredded the paper. I have pulled it apart and have been trying to figure out where it is supposed to sit so the paper rolls smoothly through the camera. It has been apart for the last 4 years waiting for it's turn on the mill. The shutter definitely needs gone through as 1 through 10 sound the same and 25 is slower than 1 through 10. </p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>Yes Clay, that numbering system is strange and really quite rare. There weren't many cameras made like that and most people have never seen one. Almost as soon as those cameras came out, the film changed and included the square format markings in the center. You see the first Rolleiflex that came out for square format was for 117 film, which is a half roll of 120 made for the brownie. But it had a center marking of 6 shots. Rollei convinced the film makers to mark the 120 film with the center markings for their cameras. The camera makers that came out with the three window backs then changed them to a center window. This all happened in about 6 months so these three window models of various makers were not even made a full year in most cases. So they are fairly rare. I have a Balda 6x6 that has 4 windows so it could be used with either the 117 or the 120 film. I think it is the most unusual one out there with 4 windows. The original Minolta-Six had three windows too. Also for a very short time before going to one window in the center.</p>

[bernard_sypniewski1]

<p>I'm new to this forum and I'm not sure exactly where to ask this question so, please, bear with me. I just acquired an Ising Puck which uses 127 film and takes 3x4 formatted pictures. The Puck has two red windows on the back. From having used old medium format cameras in the past, I am familiar with red windows. However, I understand that the frame numbers for 3x4 format on 127 film do not line up sequentially and that some use of both red windows needs to be done. Can anyone explain to me how to make sure that I am using the correct frame numbers in the correct window? I appreciate any help you can give.</p>

[cj8281]

<p>Generally you would make a new post and ask your question. With 2 windows, you stop each number in each window. The number 1 in the window that is closest to the supply spool, then wind it til it is in the next window. You should get 16 4x3 images. <br>

You might look and see if the camera has a removable mask installed. Open the back, is the area pretty big with only a small section that has a rectangular hole in it? If so, can you feel inside and does it feel bigger on the other side? If this is the case, it might be a mask installed. </p>